Satin, Texas
Posted on 03/11/2002 12:24:59 PM PST by Don Joe
It's sickening! No more Ektar (25 & 100 missed the most), no more Royal Gold (25 & 100 as per Ektar), no more Pro100, no more Kodachrome 25, no more 120 Kodachrome, no more Verichrome Pan, no more Plus-X or Tri-X (although they will be delivering replacements -- different films -- with the same names for those two classics), and there was going to be no more Kodachrome 200, but they backed down -- they'll sell it at something like $23 a roll -- while there's still demand for it. (Gee, how long will that be at that price?)
"Just because a photograph is produced by digital means, does not make it an inferior photograph. It is the content of the photograph that matters."
Where have I heard this before?
Oh, yeah -- it's the battle-cry of legions of Diana and Holga "artists".
*chuckle*
"The digital photographer is still 'painting with light'."
So in other words, a kid with fingerpaints is capable of blowing Rembrandt out of the water. After all, they're both still "painting with paint".
Get back with me after you've seen some real professional quality silver halide based photographic work. Any kid with an oatmeal box and a pinhole can make fuzzy impressionistic crap, although I'll grant it's easier to churn out with a Diana, but -- call me old-fashioned -- I prefer what the "paint-with-paint" boys call "photo-realism".
Very discouraging that it's becoming an increasingly alien concept to the "paint-with-light" bunch.
Um, yeah, I'm "out of touch". Um-hum, sure. Whatever.
So, when you have a 33mp image sensor element, you'll have something that is starting to close in on the quality inherent in a 35mm image. Just don't expect to get comparable quality at smaller enlargement sizes like 16x20 if you're doing a side-by-side with a pro lab's Kodachrome (or Ektar 25, or Agfa APX25, etc.)
You gotta stop buying into the hype, man. It's not real. Yeah, you can get "35mm quality" -- but that's a qualified statement. Put my 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor put up against a five dollar one-use snapper and you'll have two examples of "35mm quality". That much is indisputable. You'll also have one example that "good" digital cameras can match, and likely exceed. That much is beyond dispute too.
The other thing that is indisputable that the two comparable images will not include one formed by my Micro Nikkor.
One thing is certain -- digital snapshots taken with a good camera and displayed on a 19" monitor are better than film snapshots taken with any camera and developed at the supermarket.
One of the things not being mentioned in the pixel debate is the contrast range (zones, if you will) that can be recorded and displayed. Video displays can support a much more realistic range than prints of any kind. There are digital backs for large format cameras that support 36 bit depth.
I think we can assume that prices and performance of digital imaging will follow Moore's law.
Damning with faint praise, are we? :)
"think we can assume that prices and performance of digital imaging will follow Moore's law."
Well, maybe, maybe not. Remember, we're not talking "pure silicon" anymore -- there's a very "non-mooreish" element introduced into the mix: optics.
Most people probably are not aware that due to the peculiarities of CCD sensor characteristics, lens quality beyond a certain level results in lower image quality. Schneider has a line of "digital" lenses that are designed with resolution/MTF characteristics that drop off suddenly at the critical range beyond which image quality will suffer. There are also serious issues having to do with the exit-angle the light rays take when traveling from lens to sensor, due to the "bucket" shape of the individual sensors. That's one reason why high-end cameras that accept "traditional" film camera lenses are smaller than the film gate in their traditional counterparts. Again "digital" lenses have larger rear elements, to create a wider exit pupil, so that the rays will be traveling in more of a straight line, and not be as subject to severe vignetting.
There is a lot more to digital photography than creating smaller and smaller active elements on a die. There are limits, and when the technology comes up against them, performance increases will become increasingly incremental (rather than mooreishly revolutionary), and increasingly expensive.
Digital is great where the needs are fast turnaround, low to moderate image quality, and fast recoup of investment. IOW press photography, and snapshots.
And I have yet to see evidence that the wild-eyed adherents of Digital Supremecy have actually see what film is capable of. Drugstore snaps, or five buck enlargements of marginal images may provide a baseline, but it's a baseline of what low end junk can produce. Unfortunately, the baseline of "acceptable quality" has been continuously defined-down over the past few years, which is one of the main reasons for the demise of the super-emulsions like RG25 & K25. Even at that, current high-resolution 35mm emulsions, exposed through high quality optics (IOW not the 18-500mm f6.3 "consumer zoom") will blow away any digital capture short of MF or LF scanning backs. And if anyone thinks that the existence of those backs somehow evens the score, then they're a better man than I, Gunga Din, because no way am I gonna pay 30-50 grand for something that takes ten seconds to scan a single image, and requires an expensive laptop as it's "brain", all so that I can have something that approaches what I can do with a three buck roll of 120 in my Rollei.
Now, if I was in a studio and I had to churn out mass quantites of product shots for a thick catalog, and the client had his own post-production facilities that would take my bits, hand me money, and say thankyavurrymuch, then that would be a whole 'nother thing.
But I don't live in that world -- and few do.
True...but we're not talking about $5 one-use snappers. Put your 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor on a D100 and then on a F5 and you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in image quality.
When I want to produce real professional quality silver halide based photographic work, I keep my 35mm cameras in the bag and break out my trusty old Rolleiflex TLR.
As a point of reference, a 35-mm Kodachrome slide captures the equivalent of about 1 billion pixels of information
At what print size? I daresay a 30x40 would be telling.
"When I want to produce real professional quality silver halide based photographic work, I keep my 35mm cameras in the bag and break out my trusty old Rolleiflex TLR."
Ah, that's where I put my Cambo roll back on my Crown Graphic with the 1.5CM Apo Lanthar. (Or if really necessary, load up some 4x5 film holders.)
I've had a Beseler 4x5 enlarger with Schneider lenses. I recently gave my daughter an Omega B22XL, which she loves. But everyone in the family also has a CoolPix.
Since college I have never had the money or the space to devote to a darkroom. And to me, film means B&W, and photography means loading your own bulk film, mixing your own chems, Agfa paper, the works.
What I take for the family are snapshots.
Your techie arguments loom large in the near future. Perhaps Moore's law needs a fractional exponent when applied to digital imaging. But the future is digital, both in creating and displaying the images.
Try taking your Luna-Pro (or whatever) to a good video monitor at its darkest black and brightest white. How many f-stops difference? Compare this to a print, or even to a projected transparancy. Transparencies may be as good or better, but they will fade with age.
Heresy! :) I'm a purist. Weston Masters and Sekonic Studios.
"to a good video monitor at its darkest black and brightest white. How many f-stops difference? Compare this to a print, or even to a projected transparancy. Transparencies may be as good or better, but they will fade with age."
Not Kodachromes. They have archival dyes. Remember, they're not like chromogenic films.
My first new camera was a Nikkorex F from that era. It was stolen along with my lenses, light meter, and the top grain cowhide case my father made.
I later bought a Nikkormat FS w/50 2.0, a 35 2.0, and a 105 2.5 which I kept for quite some time, then sold to go to Pentax MX stuff. Wish I'd kept it all. I bought the FS because it was the least expensive variant (no meter) and I liked my Master V. Now, the FS is worth an arm and a leg because they may so few of 'em.
"I've had a Beseler 4x5 enlarger with Schneider lenses. I recently gave my daughter an Omega B22XL, which she loves. But everyone in the family also has a CoolPix."
I used the Beseler 4x5 enlargers when I was in photography school. I have a B22XL too (in "storage" AKA "somewhere in the barn with my Componons and I hope I can find 'em before it's too late), and an old Elwood 5x7 that does beautiful work (it's a diffusion enlarger with a silvered aspherical dome, a graduated density groundglass diffuser, and an opal glass).
I do hope to put a darkroom up again soon. I bought a PM1a analyzer on ebay for 15 bucks. No more "unicolor grids" for me! :)
My "newest" toys are a couple of Mockbas (a 2 and a 5), and a Kodak Medalist I that I plan on converting to 120 (so I won't have to respool onto 620). The 100 Ektar is widely ack'd as about the best lens ever in that focal length range. (Don't take my word for it, do a web search for medalist ektar 100.) I also like my Minota Autocord (another "sleeper" with an incredible lens), and I will be restoring some Mamiya 3/330 bodies & lenses "at my leisure". :)
Then there's the Feds and Zorkis... (And Nikkormats, an F, an FM, an EL that I'll most likely sell, and another Pentax MX to replace the one I used to use.)
After I get on top of that (and some other stuff I won't bore you with) I'll break out my "new" (never used, pushing 50 yrs) 5x7 B&J Grover. That's when I'll consider myself "serious". :)
I used a Mamyia C3 in college. We had all the lenses. What a great camera. Nothing much to wear out or break.
Every 20 years or so the Nikon F needs a new foam pad for the mirror. I guess the prism rattles a bit but focusing isn't affected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.