|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 5, 2015 3:34:08 GMT -5
Mickey - film shots both wrong, DSLR shots both right. 50%
I have an 11x14 print of the Pastoral River scene that would knock your sox off. And an 11x14 of the little creek that you'd say was not very good at all. But on the screen it's fine.
The guys on the Large Format forum (many of them world class photographers) know exactly what I'm talking about here - computer screens are useless to show how good the medium really is.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 5, 2015 3:56:30 GMT -5
Another point that seems forgotten in the digital domain is a well known wet darkroom fact - a sharper print is not necessarily a better print. You can take a film, say, HP5, and shoot two identical exposures. Develop one in a solvent developer such as D76, and another in an acutance developer such as FX1 or even Rodinal at 1:12, and the sharper developer (acutance) will not always produce the better or more pleasing print. Subject matter, adjacency effect and other things come into play here.
If sharper was always better, everyone would be using FX1 or Tetenal Blue for souping. But it is not so. Sharpness is not always the issue it's made out to be.
But no matter what the domain, I've never known anyone that likes blown highlights or no shadow detail. So you keep that RAW file handy if you have to haul some of that stuff out.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Apr 7, 2015 2:00:57 GMT -5
Computer screens have one great advantage over paper in a frame: they are lit from behind. That makes for more vivid colours, but not necessarily more natural pictures. Angle of view can easily distort contrast, blacks are not really that black, and many common screens are reflective.
Agfa Portriga did not have luminous whites, but neither did it reflect what was behind you. And of course the Cibachromes on your wall will still be visible 100years after they were made, while you may be hard pressed to keep changing storage media to preserve your digital snaps.
Raw files do lend themselves to correcting mistakes. No more juggling of filters when the light is 2800K instead of 5500K. Tradeoff with noise in one minute of juggling with the computer rather than moving to different films. Large pixel count so as to enable blowups when not having a telelens around, so yes, raw is fine. Especially if all companies standardized on one way of organizing the info received by the sensors.
Otherwise, only computer screen use (or 12x15cm prints), no blowups or corrections needing 16bit Tiffs, then Jpegs and small sensors will be adequate.
p.
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Apr 7, 2015 6:45:03 GMT -5
Just a not about cibachromes. I have some printed in 1975 they are all going a little yellow now. Yesterday we saw an art exhibition at the Tate Modern and there was a cibachrome print - again yellowing.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Apr 7, 2015 13:33:55 GMT -5
I mostly gave away Cibachromes, so the only one I have hanging here is of ferns against the light. They were yellow green then and are yellow green now. Difficult to say whether they have changed.
I have the original Kodachrome stored dark& not too warm, but together with a very large number of other slides, so do not expect facts anytime soon.
p.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2015 15:27:35 GMT -5
Remember that each time you open and save a jpg file, you do a new compression with even more loss. You beat me to it!
|
|