"digital" darkroom -- ok to discuss?

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:21:53 -0700, "Dana H. Myers" wrote:

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and

film

and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.

Now, you're right. You see, it's the little things you keep forgetting that make
all of the difference.


John - http://www.puresilver.org

"Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank
"Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:21:53 -0700, "Dana H. Myers" wrote:

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and

film

and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.

Now, you're right. You see, it's the little things you keep forgetting that make
all of the difference.


John - http://www.puresilver.org

"Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank
"Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 15:38:17 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

The more it changes the more it stays the same.

One can only wish. Unfortunately the publics ignorance exceeds its grasp.

John - http://www.puresilver.org

"Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank
"Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

What you ignore is the fact that digital and photochemical
imaging are completely different mediums.

Well, I am certainly asserting that the means by which a
captured image is stored and manipulated have little
impact on the end-to-end process of (1) capturing a
scene and (2) printing or projecting that captured
scene.

Composition is still composition.

Lighting is still lighting.

Manipulation is still manipulation.

and so on.

Of course I understand the difference between digital
and photochemical imaging. I'm just strongly asserting
that the means by which an image is captured and printed
are distinct from and orthogonal to the image itself.

Those little
"intermediate steps" are what make the processes and arts
different (e.g., painting from photography, sculpture from
pottery, et. al.)

In this case, no. Whether capturing an image onto a silver
halide film or photosensitive sensor, the print is a direct,
mechanical derivation of the capture. This is true in digital
as well as silver photography, though the specific technologies
differ. In both cases, photo-sensitve materials are used to
optically capture a scene. In one case, one material is able
to capture and store a single scene and is consumed in the process;
in the other, different materials are used to capture and store scenes,
and both are re-usable.

Painting is neither direct nor mechanical.

Sculpture and pottery are both indirect means of
capturing 3-dimensional object and the comparison is
not relevant in this context.

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.


Well, like I said, must be the same as a painting then
(btw, I'm not the one engaging in semantics here...)

Perhaps we're tinkering with semantics a bit, but my
point, and it is crystal clear whether you accept it or
not, is that the *art* of photography far transcends the
*technology*, and that the same set of skills that are used
to compose and capture a photograph apply in both cases.

[...]

What's your point? 5MP provides approximately the
same resolution as ISO 200 color print film.


No, it's not and never will be. Of sure, if your
printing out 4x6 machine snapshots the _print_ res
is about the same to the human eye. But not the
actual resolution.

OK, I'll admit that my own experimentation was
qualitative and not quantitative, but I've compared
common Kodak 200 color print film, scanned at 2400
dpi, to a Canon S50, and found that the S50 provided
about the same usable resolution as the Kodak 200
scans downsized to 5MP. Admittedly, not a perfectly
objective test, but that's why I said "approximately".

So I'm curious what you believe the resolution of
ISO 200 color print film is, let's say, the l/mm
at 50% MTF. I think it is around 55 l/mm; what do
you think?

Dana

John wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:21:53 -0700, "Dana H. Myers" wrote:


Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and


film


and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.


Now, you're right. You see, it's the little things you keep forgetting that make
all of the difference.

Tsk, tsk, John. I didn't write film, but at least we're mostly in
agreement ;-)

Dana

Dana H. Myers wrote:

OK, I'll admit that my own experimentation was
qualitative and not quantitative, but I've compared
common Kodak 200 color print film, scanned at 2400
dpi, to a Canon S50, and found that the S50 provided
about the same usable resolution as the Kodak 200
scans downsized to 5MP. Admittedly, not a perfectly
objective test, but that's why I said "approximately".

So I'm curious what you believe the resolution of
ISO 200 color print film is, let's say, the l/mm
at 50% MTF. I think it is around 55 l/mm; what do
you think?

Dana
I would be interested in this as well. I have never had much luck with
film that is faster then ISO 100. One of the great frustrations in the
last few years is that places like Costco started carrying ISO 400 and
higher film, which I know I can get a decent photo from.

The way I hear some people talk they can get a good looking 8 x 10
print using ISO 800 film and a Kodak disk camera, me I needed at least
35mm and no faster then 100.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

I would be interested in this as well. I have never had much luck with
film that is faster then ISO 100. One of the great frustrations in the
last few years is that places like Costco started carrying ISO 400 and
higher film, which I know I can get a decent photo from.

Yeah, I noticed when Costco dropped Kodak 100 - which I like quite a
bit - in favor of Kodak 200. I really like the 100 and the 200
just never has made me happy.

You can still find the ISO 100 film in four-packs, but it does cost
a bit more than it did at Costco.

The way I hear some people talk they can get a good looking 8 x 10
print using ISO 800 film and a Kodak disk camera, me I needed at least
35mm and no faster then 100.

Heh, I've heard it, too. Usually, the folks that are really satisfied
with the faster "versatility" films haven't ever seriously tested ISO
100 film and the notion of MF is completely alien.

My mother had a disc camera for years, she loved it. She knew I
could pick the prints out from 35mm prints even from a mile away,
but she loved the little camera. When she started complaining that
disc film processing was getting harder to find, I gave her a
decent 35mm P&S and she was then able to cope with the change :-)

On a serious note, disc film was ISO 200, IIRC.

Dana

Scott W wrote:

I would be interested in this as well. I have never had much luck with
film that is faster then ISO 100. One of the great frustrations in the
last few years is that places like Costco started carrying ISO 400 and
higher film, which I know I can get a decent photo from.

Yeah, I noticed when Costco dropped Kodak 100 - which I like quite a
bit - in favor of Kodak 200. I really like the 100 and the 200
just never has made me happy.

You can still find the ISO 100 film in four-packs, but it does cost
a bit more than it did at Costco.

The way I hear some people talk they can get a good looking 8 x 10
print using ISO 800 film and a Kodak disk camera, me I needed at least
35mm and no faster then 100.

Heh, I've heard it, too. Usually, the folks that are really satisfied
with the faster "versatility" films haven't ever seriously tested ISO
100 film and the notion of MF is completely alien.

My mother had a disc camera for years, she loved it. She knew I
could pick the prints out from 35mm prints even from a mile away,
but she loved the little camera. When she started complaining that
disc film processing was getting harder to find, I gave her a
decent 35mm P&S and she was then able to cope with the change :-)

On a serious note, disc film was ISO 200, IIRC.

Dana

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

"Dana H. Myers" wrote:

What you ignore is the fact that digital and photochemical
imaging are completely different mediums.

Well, I am certainly asserting that the means by which a
captured image is stored and manipulated have little
impact on the end-to-end process of (1) capturing a
scene and (2) printing or projecting that captured
scene.

Yeah I get it (got about 10 posts ago.)

You're wrong. I'd love to banter on forever about this
pointless debate. But I have to spend more time in the
darkroom practiing those frivolous and futile "intermediate
steps" of photographic art you think have so little meaning
as regards the final end resulting "picture."

Composition is still composition.

Lighting is still lighting.

Manipulation is still manipulation.

and so on.

Of course I understand the difference between digital
and photochemical imaging. I'm just strongly asserting
that the means by which an image is captured and printed
are distinct from and orthogonal to the image itself.

orthogonal? I'm afraid to ask (afraid that it might
entail another week long discussion...) IMO the only
thing "pointy" about it is your obtuse argument nothing
matters but the "picture." Yeah, and a platinum print
isn't different from gelatin silver, or cyanotype, or
carbon, or whatever other process photographers have
used to distinguish their art from someone else's art
for 200 years...

Those little
"intermediate steps" are what make the processes and arts
different (e.g., painting from photography, sculpture from
pottery, et. al.)

In this case, no. Whether capturing an image onto a silver
halide film or photosensitive sensor, the print is a direct,
mechanical derivation of the capture.

mechanical derivation? You really need to spend more
time in a real darkroom doing real creative print
making. Or try using a pinhole, or making a photogram,
or -- you know, real creative photography.

I'm beginning to think you're trolling...

This is true in digital
as well as silver photography, though the specific technologies
differ. In both cases, photo-sensitve materials are used to
optically capture a scene. In one case, one material is able
to capture and store a single scene and is consumed in the process;
in the other, different materials are used to capture and store scenes,
and both are re-usable.

Painting is neither direct nor mechanical.

Sculpture and pottery are both indirect means of
capturing 3-dimensional object and the comparison is
not relevant in this context.

Photography starts with capturing a scene using a
camera and ends with presentation of that image, either
by printing it or projecting it. No amount of semantic
dithering-about changes this.


Well, like I said, must be the same as a painting then
(btw, I'm not the one engaging in semantics here...)

Perhaps we're tinkering with semantics a bit, but my
point, and it is crystal clear whether you accept it or
not, is that the *art* of photography far transcends the
*technology*, and that the same set of skills that are used
to compose and capture a photograph apply in both cases.

My dear benighted fellow, in b&w photography it's a
completely different set of skills, and especially
_darkroom_ skills that count. Any idiot can read a
histogram and make a digital capture look good.

What's your point? 5MP provides approximately the
same resolution as ISO 200 color print film.

No, it's not and never will be. Of sure, if your
printing out 4x6 machine snapshots the _print_ res
is about the same to the human eye. But not the
actual resolution.

OK, I'll admit that my own experimentation was
qualitative and not quantitative, but I've compared
common Kodak 200 color print film, scanned at 2400
dpi, to a Canon S50, and found that the S50 provided
about the same usable resolution as the Kodak 200
scans downsized to 5MP.

Well duh, sure if you downsample the crap out of scan
you'll have barely usable resolution since most of the
scan/info is lost in the process...

Admittedly, not a perfectly
objective test, but that's why I said "approximately".

So I'm curious what you believe the resolution of
ISO 200 color print film is, let's say, the l/mm
at 50% MTF. I think it is around 55 l/mm; what do
you think?

I think you're rather freely mixing MP with film
resolution. MTF is not a function of film only. If
you knew anything about photography you'd know that.
It's system MTF that counts. Problem is with any 5mp
digital capture with a dumbed down antialiased lens
suffering from Nyquist the digital system is already
at a disadvantage.

BTW, Photoscientists have long determined typical 4x6
prints from CCD digital cameras vs. _400_ ISO color film
are comparable (cite: Progress and Future Prospects of
Silver Halide Imaging Compared with Digital Imaging,
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 1998.) While
both produce comparable image quality at that print size,
only 6 million pixels are required. Meaning the larger
the format (or even the higher the resolving power of a
35mm film-camera-lens system) the greater film begins to
outstrip any available consumer quality digital imager.

Dana H. Myers wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Yeah, I noticed when Costco dropped Kodak 100 - which I like quite a
bit - in favor of Kodak 200. I really like the 100 and the 200
just never has made me happy.

You can still find the ISO 100 film in four-packs, but it does cost
a bit more than it did at Costco.

I believe that our Costco does not have anything lower then 400, which
I will not use and I have never gotten close to the same quality with
200 film as I can get with 100 film.

The last long vacation we took it was really hard to find ISO 100 film,
I should say we were in a motorhome and were not stopping at
photography stores as much as places like grocery stores. It seems
that even a few years ago I could buy both 100 and 64 film just about
anywhere, but in the last few years it has gotten a lot harder to find.
I blame Kodak for a lot of this since they pushed the high speed film
in the last 10 years or so.

The other problem with high speed film is that it is going to fog
faster then low speed in the xray machines, and we have to fly to get
anywhere more then 100 mile from home.

I don't shoot film now, but in the last few years it was getting harder
and harder to do. BTW we only have one place that sells film slower
then 200 and they charge an arm and a leg for it, one of the problems
with living on an island.

Scott