Top photographers condemn digital age

I've been using Photoshop for years but now my eyes are so f**ked that I
can't look at a a computer screen for more than 10 minutes at a time before
I get agonising migraines. My eyesight is very important to me and I
physically cannot spend prolonged periods in front of a computer screen
anymore.

Oh well.




"The Wogster" wrote in message
. ..
Donald Qualls wrote:
The Wogster wrote:


Fact is, nobody knows how long it takes nature to break down the
molecules in polyester or acetate. It may be 100 years it may be
100,000,000 the key is that it does start to break down at some point,
and that point is so far an unknown. They thought plastic buttons
from the 1900's would last forever too, until museums had to replace
them because the buttons were deteriorating, and affecting the
garments they were attached to.


If the buttons were "plastic" from the 1900s, they're celluloid, the
same unstable stuff that ate so many of the early Hollywood films as it
decomposed in storage. Completely different from acetate and polyester.

Yes, I agree, no one is certain of the breakdown time of polyester and
acetate film bases (other than that polyester is likely longer); these
materials are both so durable that other than a few bad batches and in
cases of long-term solar UV exposure, they haven't broken down
significantly in the 30-40 years they've been available. However, based
on the earliest examples known, they look to be competitive with paper
for longevity (and likely better in some environments, since they aren't
food for bacteria or fungi as cellulose is). We have many-many examples
of paper up to 5000 years old.


Suppose they invented a new memory next week, that allowed you to
store 500 exabytes (87 262 827 images from a Canon digital rebel in
Raw format) would last as long as the planet does, and never become
corrupted, even when at ground zero under a Hydrogen bomb. You
probably still not be satisfied.


I doubt anyone could prove the ground zero claim or the longevity (they
said something similar about CDs when they came out, remember? "Won't
skip like a record, and will last centuries!" and then they found out
the aluminum coating oxidizes between the plastic layers and the things
can become unreadable in a matter of 10-20 years in normal storage; I
heard one skipping on radio within a few months of the stations starting
to play them). The capacity would be wonderful, but it's still not
human readable.

I think the big resistance to digital in photography, is precisely that
the analog format is, to some degree human readable. Other media, like
audio, which always was encoded (either magnetically or as a long line
of vibrations on a disk), hasn't had the same degree of issue.

During this whole thread, I have been playing devils advocate, I still
shoot film. Currently I shoot, then get the film processed and scanned,
then process digitally from that point. I see no real reason to go
completely digital other then you can see the results immediately. Heck
a box of film chemistries and a film scanner, and I can see my results
in an hour as well.

IMO, and we might just have to agree to disagree, the box of old
pictures is much better off, in the hands of someone cleaning the attic,
than the box of old computer media. And if the pictures are B&W on
silver gelatin, either prints or negatives, they're likely to still be
in reasonably good shape even 200 or 300 years down the line (at least
as long as they weren't on celluloid base).


Actually I tend to agree with you, at least for now, where technology
will go in 5, 10, 25, 100, 300, 500 years is anyones guess. For all we
know in 20 years the digital photography thing will have run it's
course, and we will all be shooting film again. Just it will be
processed and scanned.

W

In article ,
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

One could say that all photographers are wimps -- if we were "willing to do
the work" we would learn to draw and paint.

Actually I decided around high school to do photo, prior I had always
shown an artistic talent. I chaff sometimes at the "Art" I see. Though I
have also, always been truly intrigued by illustrative artists and
realistic painters (M.C.Escher). I still keep my hand in it. But I earn
far more now at Photography (after 20+ years of establishing my self as
a local business) than I perhaps could going back to the drawing board.
Realistically photography serves me well, artistically,monetarily and
spiritually.

Here's a link to a modern illustrative artist I like, beware though
somewhat adult in nature, if you have more Puritan sensibilities.

www.garvgraphx.com

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
"P." wrote:

I've been using Photoshop for years but now my eyes are so f**ked that I
can't look at a a computer screen for more than 10 minutes at a time before
I get agonising migraines. My eyesight is very important to me and I
physically cannot spend prolonged periods in front of a computer screen
anymore.

Oh well.

Try an LCD screen, I had a lot of problems using an Apple Multiscan CRT
doing retouching and PS work.

When I went to an LCD the problems vanished. I would still keep the CRT
for color management checks but ditch it for the majority of time.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:26:31 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:

One could say that all photographers are wimps -- if we were "willing to do
the work" we would learn to draw and paint.

Working on it but my guitar and my Linhof keep getting in the
way !


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

Cheney, then? He certainly is a wogster if I ever saw one.

Wrong country, I'm in Canada, more of a Brian Mulroney type, except
never thought he was conservative enough.....

W

"Gregory Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"P." wrote:

I've been using Photoshop for years but now my eyes are so f**ked that I
can't look at a a computer screen for more than 10 minutes at a time
before
I get agonising migraines. My eyesight is very important to me and I
physically cannot spend prolonged periods in front of a computer screen
anymore.

Oh well.

Try an LCD screen, I had a lot of problems using an Apple Multiscan CRT
doing retouching and PS work.

When I went to an LCD the problems vanished. I would still keep the CRT
for color management checks but ditch it for the majority of time.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I'll second that. I work in front of a PC for a living. Life is much easier
in terms of eyestrain on an LCD. Six months ago I bought a Sony laptop (my
second) with a 16" (1600x1200) screen - it's a 'black', 'ultra bright' one
and its superb.

Also consider your posture. A couple of years ago I had a road accident and
went to see a chiropractor, he said a large portion of problems he sees are
to do with computer posture. Remember when your parents told you to sit up
straight? - Well they were right! Also using the touchpad on a laptop can
centralise your posture, which is tons better than sitting with one arm
sticking out to the side holding a mouse and making lots of tiny movements
for hours on end.


Cheers

Phil Hobgen, Southampton, UK
-------------------------------------------

for email please delete the dash
and take out the trash

In article , says...

Image quality wise, silver halides record tonal detail on
a molecular level (i.e., it takes just three photons to
produce an viable exposure in a silver halide crystal and
begin photolysis), whereas with silcon sensors each
photodector site requires a much higher influx of photon
energy to produce a viable signal that is then used to
create an image pixel. Even the smallest photodetector is
much larger than a typical silver halide crystal. For
comparitive purposes, though, photoscientists have used
equivalent pixels based on the number of absorbed photons
per pixel area. In film, this is assumed to be 100 square
micrometers; for a CDD sensor about 50 square micrometers.
Yet film contains vastly greater numbers of 'equivalent

While it is true that film still has much higher resolving power
than image sensors, the differences tend to be masked by the
other limitations in the image making chain. The two most
important are lens resolution and image degradation by camera
shake or misfocusing. Of course, the larger the piece of film
the less these things tend to matter.
In general, an average photographer, using typical equipment, can
expect to get about an 8x enlargement from a film original with
"excellent" quality. Very careful workers may be able to do slightly
better. I have a couple of examples of what can be achieved with
modern film, lenses and scanners in the tips section of my web site
where an 18x enlargement looks quite sharp.

As for dynamic range, color negative film is quite good, but I think
image sensors are closing in rapidly. There is an interesting study
by Roger Clark on dynamic range on his web site.

For myself, I currently still shoot film and then scan for output.
I find the control over color balance and density range much better
than I was ever able to obtain with conventional color papers.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

In article , says...
Inkjet _are_ watercolors. The ink is sprayed in a very
thin layer onto a paper surface (as thin as possible),
as opposed to a silver-rich image which contains a layer
of silver (or color dyes) in a gelatin binder. Inkjets
have no binder, and combined with the incredibly thin
layers of sprayed pigments is why they've tended to fade
so quickly.

I'm not an expert on inkjet technology, but some inkjets use
pigments instead of dyes and many inkjet papers have porous
coatings designed to pull the ink down into the coating.
Some cross-section microphotographs of both types of papers
would be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the emulsion
layer is that much thicker that the receptor layer on inkjet
paper.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Robert Feinman wrote:

In article , says...

Inkjet _are_ watercolors. The ink is sprayed in a very
thin layer onto a paper surface (as thin as possible),
as opposed to a silver-rich image which contains a layer
of silver (or color dyes) in a gelatin binder. Inkjets
have no binder, and combined with the incredibly thin
layers of sprayed pigments is why they've tended to fade
so quickly.


I'm not an expert on inkjet technology, but some inkjets use
pigments instead of dyes and many inkjet papers have porous
coatings designed to pull the ink down into the coating.
Some cross-section microphotographs of both types of papers
would be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the emulsion
layer is that much thicker that the receptor layer on inkjet
paper.


Depends very much on the paper. In the glossy, coated papers that look
most like photo paper, the coating is similar in nature to the baryta
layer underlying the emulsion in some photo papers, and exists for the
same purpose, in part -- to give brightness and uniformity to the
surface. However, that surface is effectively impermeable, and the inks
simply dry on the surface; some inks, in fact, will bead on this surface
almost as they do on transparency film not specifically made for ink jet
printing. Ink jet specific papers are often sized with a layer of
starch over whatever coating they might have, in order to give the ink a
base into which it can absorb, but this coating is probably about a
tenth the thickness of a commercial emulsion layer.

Generally, one would expect pigment inks to outlast dye inks, but
pigments are less able to wick into an uncoated or sized surface than
dyes; the surface acts as a filter and actually draws the moisture away
from the particulates (however fine they might be), leaving the pigments
on the surfce but potentially removing their binder (which would
otherwise harden by evaporation of the water carrier). It's best to
match the paper to the application, of course; more absorbent papers for
dye inks, more impervious surfaces (but still accepting of binder
adhesion) for pigment inks.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Donald Qualls wrote:
Robert Feinman wrote:

In article , says...

Inkjet _are_ watercolors. The ink is sprayed in a very thin layer
onto a paper surface (as thin as possible), as opposed to a
silver-rich image which contains a layer of silver (or color dyes) in
a gelatin binder. Inkjets have no binder, and combined with the
incredibly thin layers of sprayed pigments is why they've tended to
fade so quickly.


I'm not an expert on inkjet technology, but some inkjets use
pigments instead of dyes and many inkjet papers have porous
coatings designed to pull the ink down into the coating.
Some cross-section microphotographs of both types of papers
would be interesting to see. I'm not sure that the emulsion
layer is that much thicker that the receptor layer on inkjet
paper.


Depends very much on the paper. In the glossy, coated papers that look
most like photo paper, the coating is similar in nature to the baryta
layer underlying the emulsion in some photo papers, and exists for the
same purpose, in part -- to give brightness and uniformity to the
surface. However, that surface is effectively impermeable, and the inks
simply dry on the surface; some inks, in fact, will bead on this surface
almost as they do on transparency film not specifically made for ink jet
printing. Ink jet specific papers are often sized with a layer of
starch over whatever coating they might have, in order to give the ink a
base into which it can absorb, but this coating is probably about a
tenth the thickness of a commercial emulsion layer.

Generally, one would expect pigment inks to outlast dye inks, but
pigments are less able to wick into an uncoated or sized surface than
dyes; the surface acts as a filter and actually draws the moisture away
from the particulates (however fine they might be), leaving the pigments
on the surfce but potentially removing their binder (which would
otherwise harden by evaporation of the water carrier). It's best to
match the paper to the application, of course; more absorbent papers for
dye inks, more impervious surfaces (but still accepting of binder
adhesion) for pigment inks.


Given that there is a difference, between the needs of dye based inks
and pigment based inks, why are papers not marked as to the ink-type
they are designed for?

Can anyone recommend a few good paper brands types for dye based inks?
I have an HP printer with PhotoRET.

W