Discussion in 'Minolta' started by no_name, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. no one noteworthy wrote:
    With statements like that, it is always important to identify whether
    you are talking about raw or not. Since buying my digital SLR about
    one-and-a-half years ago, I have only shot raw. My experience doesn't
    match what you say.

    Paradoxically, one criticism of many people new to raw is that the
    images are more muted, less vivid, than when they shoot JPEG in the
    camera. This is especially the case when people use ACR (Adobe's raw
    converter) - they miss the saturation and contrast they were used to
    with JPEG. I have read that camera manufacturers often deliberately
    cause the JPEGs out of their camera to be more "impressive", while ACR
    attempts to be more neutral.

    If so, then this explains the different sides in this debate. Hence my
    statement above - are we talking about shooting JPEG (or TIFF), or
    shooting raw?


    Those things are surely under the control of the photographer? Yes, if
    you drive the histogram into clipping at one end or the other, the
    image may lack that subtle graduation. So don't do it! It needs care
    with the exposure, and in that respect I feel it is more like shooting
    slides than negatives.

    I have many Cibachromes & Ilfochromes from my slides where I have
    failed to control the highlights and/or shadows, and so they look like
    your description. My digital prints from scanned films tend to need
    significant work in Photoshop to get the toe and shoulder right, and
    one problem I have suffered from is getting sufficient shadow detail. I
    find I need relatively little Photoshop work if I do a decent raw
    conversion on my digital camera images, and often do a useful A4 print
    without any Photoshop work except a bit of sharpening.

    We may be talking about a different level of quality. I never print
    larger than A3+, and they are certainly not "fine art" photographs. But
    I do put them into competitions and exhibitions, so they are not just
    for handing round. Better digital photographers than me do some
    beautifully subtle large prints.
    Barry Pearson, Jan 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Also, Kewfi, remember _you_ can't even tell the difference between
    You've got to be joking with this one Alan, give me two 16"x12" prints side
    by side, one done with film the other digital capture and I will pick out
    the flat, artificial, electronic blown out highlights of the digital capture
    every time, I can get those results with my digital video camera on pause.
    I have a system, it worked in 1990 when I started and it still works now,
    why would I change the system? if it ain't broke.....
    I don't need anything new to do my photography, my kit satisfies me and I
    haven't bought any new equipment in years now, I'm not the type to rush out
    and buy into something new, just because it's new and whizz bang, I think
    you should have stuck with electronics Al, some of the better photographers
    ever, stuck with the same equipment their whole careers, you clearly are
    fascinated by ever changing gadgetry, real photography probably isn't for
    Alan, I tell you what. You and the others like you on this group can keep
    playing with your electronic toys and pretending you're interested in
    photography, I'll stick with my system and we'll all be content.
    Al, there are fundamental differences between you & I. I'm not the type of
    person that requires a new taste in my mouth every five minutes to feel
    satisfied, I find something that works, that pleases me, and I stick with
    it. If you find this "childish" I can't say I really care.

    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Really, I guess you forgot the time you insisted one of my photos was
    digital .... long before I had a digital camera.

    No. I still have film equipment and use it regularly, if less than I
    did a year ago. (I've said this many times but it seems to go over your

    For that matter, well after buying a digital camera, I bought a used
    Hassy and lenses. (Which I've also mentioned, and you've also let by...)
    See above (again).
    What you prefer to do is your affair; but to be obstinately closed
    minded about the alternatives is silly. Esp. when it is founded on half
    truths and misperceptions.

    Alan Browne, Jan 26, 2006
  4. What on earth are you guys talking about? - Everything that is posted over
    the internet is digital. If it didn't start out that way, how the hell could
    you ever tell the difference? It gets scanned into your computer with some
    kind of digital device, and the bits/pixels/bytes/or whatever you want to
    call them, are transmitted through cyberspace, and there isn't anything you
    can do about it........Unless, of course, you guys live next door to one
    another, and you can take a print, and run next door and ring the doorbell
    and hold it up and say, "Well.....What camera did I use to take this?"
    William Graham, Jan 26, 2006
  5. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Google away: Kewfi insisted that a photo I posted was _shot_ digital,
    not film. He wasn't so sure that he'd wager on it, however.
    Alan Browne, Jan 26, 2006
  6. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Google away: Kewfi insisted that a photo I posted was _shot_ digital,
    I'm not denying I made that mistake. I was rightly pulled up about it too,
    by nearly the whole group if I remember correctly.

    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 26, 2006
  7. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Really, I guess you forgot the time you insisted one of my photos was
    No no, I remember that and I was wrong about trying to judge small images on
    a computer monitor, I made a mistake and I hold my hands up to that one.
    Alan, explain to me. If film was working for you for over a decade, why
    change? unless you perceive digital to be better ?
    Is it a misperception to state that nobody knows whether the digital images
    being produced today will be accessible in the future? I don't think so,
    some digital proponents on this group have even gone so far as to state,
    that the jpeg will be readily available and accessible in 100 years time
    (Scott W), now that is ridiculous.

    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 26, 2006
  8. I can sum it up for you Joseph... *LAZY*
    Lazy as in too lazy to bother mixing some chemicals and spending time in a
    darkroom. It's what leads people to believe a digital camera is somehow
    "better" than a traditional one. The fact society has a romance with
    computers and this further enhances these beliefs through compulsory
    computer interaction should not go un noticed either.

    Eventually... If Alan really is a dedicated photographer, he will drift back
    to film like we all do. Even Bret with his totally digital D60 and fantastic
    20D, (his words not mine - thank God) occasionally posts really nicely
    defined images with pleasant dynamic range, taken with his film camera.

    My biggest personal concern is not going 'back' to film but abandoning auto
    focus too. I have to find an optician who can create a lens for my
    viewfinders which allows me to actually see when an image is focused! It is
    what led me to SLRs in the first place.

    Having climaxed... She turned on her
    mate and began to devour him.
    Not a lot changes, eh Spiderwoman?

    silly. Esp. when it is founded on half
    : > truths and misperceptions.
    : Alan, explain to me. If film was working for you for over a decade, why
    : change? unless you perceive digital to be better ?
    : Is it a misperception to state that nobody knows whether the digital
    : being produced today will be accessible in the future? I don't think so,
    : some digital proponents on this group have even gone so far as to state,
    : that the jpeg will be readily available and accessible in 100 years time
    : (Scott W), now that is ridiculous.
    random user 12987, Jan 26, 2006
  9. no_name

    Scott W Guest

    And yet the tools are still around to compile and run Fortran programs
    from over 50 years ago.

    Even now there are people who get a kick out of writing graphic
    converters for file formats that never were even in the mainstream.

    JPEG images are such a large part of our history that it is
    inconceivable that there will not be converts for that format 100 years
    from now.

    Think about this, the RS232 interface has been around since 1960.
    The ASCII char set has been around since 1967

    File formats do not disappear as fast as hardware standards since there
    is no real added cost to supporting old formats. Take a look at the
    number of file formats that IrfanView will open.

    Scott W, Jan 26, 2006
  10. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    I can sum it up for you Joseph... *LAZY*

    Yes, that is the end product when you consider the whole western world is
    geared toward the 'easy' life and convenience.
    This is common with digital over-shooters like Bret, when he rarely shoots
    film, the cost of the material and processing restrains him and this has the
    effect of a higher quality more considered output which is noticeable, in
    comparison to the unending plethora of digital fire & forget images he posts
    on his pbase account. This situation isn't exclusive to just Bret by the
    way, in case anyone thinks they're being singled out ;-]
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 26, 2006
  11. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    JPEG images are such a large part of our history that it is
    How will the average digital shooter's jpegs be stored until then, on CD's &
    DVD's or mothballed flashcards and hard drives ?
    I suppose they will all be retrievable by the average shooter in 100 years
    as well ?
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 26, 2006
  12. no_name

    Scott W Guest

    File format issues are different then storage issues. If nobody cares
    about your photos that are lost no matter what, film or digital. If
    someone cares at all it is easy to keep the files on current media.
    When I visit my parents I copy their entire collection of digital
    photos onto an external hard drive. Their film photos are in a bit of
    disarray. I will have much better luck with their digital photos then
    with their film ones. What is more their digital photos are all time
    stamped, something sadly lacking on the film ones. What is more I can
    make perfect copies of all their digital photos for their grandkids
    when they get old enough to care and their great grandkids when that
    time comes.

    Scott W, Jan 26, 2006
  13. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    One step at a time ... now if you'd just spend a week with a good DSLR ...

    Alan Browne, Jan 26, 2006
  14. no_name

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    If nobody cares about your photos that are lost no matter what, film or

    Nonsense, whether 'nobody cares or not, you can put slides & negs away in
    the attic for decades, try putting your CDR's & DVDR's away for decades and
    see how useful they'll be to anyone in the future.
    You're wonderful Scott, but how many other people do you think are going to
    do this?
    Joseph Kewfi, Jan 27, 2006
  15. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    Ah! Finally! The _question_. I shoot a lot of stuff that is worthy
    of shooting, but that will not be very much enlarged. Web. Publicity.
    Parties. Experiments. Film works of course, but it's not "worth"
    film. Lowly digital is enough. I also have great lenses that fit on
    the Maxxum 7D. My first "job" with the 7D paid for just under 1/2 half
    of it and saved me a mountain of time. In fact, because it only cost
    $29 to print a 24" x 36" poster as an order poster at the clothing store
    (with several dozen photos from the shoot (an amateur fashion show)) it
    made sales fly more than I would have been able to do with straight
    film. The models bought lots of prints (5x7 mainly). I just had to
    pick up the order sheets every few days and electronically order the
    prints at $0.39 each.

    Having said that, one of my early images with the 7D is:

    I would love to get that on slide ... preferably with the hassy.

    That shot I have printed at 12x6.5 (or thereabouts, without the lt.brown
    border) and it is a beautiful, detailed, sharp image. You would _not_
    be able to say what it was shot on, except that is is so noise free,
    that you do wonder. (Two different labs printed it, one nailed it, the
    other, well ...).

    It is a misstatement to claim that anything, film included, will be
    available and accessible tomorrow morning.

    There are CD's that use gold as the recording medium. They will, in
    moderately benign conditions last hundreds of years. BUT most people
    use cheap CD/DVD's with an organic dye medium. They last 5 years in
    benign conditions.

    SO: It is up to the interested party to _maintain_ his images. Film or
    digital. It is easier to lose digital images than film images, but it
    is also much easier and cheaper to copy digital images to as many places
    as you like thereby improving the chance of survivors. Further, using
    digital, you are more likely to document them better, so that in the
    future the context of the image that is not immediately apparent can be
    "bound" to the image.

    As to being able to read these formats, it is really never going to be a
    problem. Once software can read format A, and then A.1, and then A.302B
    and then A.45.6.32.A / xc ... well, usually, they all keep the ability
    to read all past format versions. The new s/w just keeps building in
    size (but computers grow in memory even faster)... It will (in human
    terms) never be a problem. And then there are so many different
    programs that read similar formats, the 'safety factor' just multiplies.

    It's really about focusing on the benefits and not worrying the pitfalls
    if you plan for them.

    Alan Browne, Jan 27, 2006
  16. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    I haven't been in a darkroom in over 20 years. Hasn't stopped me from
    shooting film. I do develop B&W film (a very few rolls/year), but other
    than loading the bucket in my crawlspace (X-dark) the rest is done in
    the glare of the kitchen lights. Thence to scanner or girl at lab who
    does the B&W prints at her home per my instructions (paper, contrast ...
    she figures the rest).
    No if.

    I never drifted away. There is no law that I know of that prevents me
    from shooting both. I've also _bought_ a film camera and lenses for it
    since I bought the 7D. And a lot more expensive that was, to boot.

    OTOH, I know several very dedicated, award winning, oft-published
    photogs who hav enot touched film in over 2 years (or more). I very
    much doubt they will ever shoot film again if they have a choice.
    His exposures (digital) have been very consistent since he bought his
    D60. That was never (or only rarely) the case with his prior film
    shots. I do enjoy much of his 'later' efforts.
    I rue the day. I have very good near vision, and my myopia has been
    stable for the past 10 years and is easilly fixed with the camera
    diopter. Right eye astig has slowly worsened (I shoot left, no astig).

    Alan Browne, Jan 27, 2006
  17. no_name

    Alan Browne Guest

    May only mean they failed to capture color with film, and they can chimp
    their way to glory with digital.
    Alan Browne, Jan 27, 2006
  18. no_name

    Scott W Guest

    Well where we live putting your slides and negatives in the attic does
    not seem to work very well, execpt for Kodachrome. Prints seem to last
    better and I still get a fair number of prints made.
    How many people are going to keep thier parents negatives?

    When my grandmother passed away my parents were going to throw out her
    slide collection, I saved it from the dump. But if her photo are last
    another generation it will likely only do so as scanned images.

    BTW I also grabbed my parents negatives, what a mess they are. It is
    kind of fun to scan them however, there are photos that are over 60
    years old that have never been printed well. But all the negative need
    a lot of cleaning, this is typical of what I get in a scan.
    Now that is not too bad but the damage/dirt is clear.

    The other thing is that even now I am having problems with is dealing
    well with his MF shots (every thing from 645 to 6 x 9). I don't really
    have a good scanner for MF, I have a flatbed that will sort of scan it,
    which is what I used for the above. I don't want to pay over $1000 for
    a good MF scanner. What will this be like in 20 to 40 years? How many
    people will be able to make a print from a negative 40 years from now?
    How many people will take the time and money to scan old negatives of
    their relatives 40 years from now?

    There are large issues to be faced trying to keep either digital photos
    or as film. Best to hegde one's bets and keep at least some in both

    Scott W, Jan 27, 2006
  19. no_name

    no_name Guest

    I've always thought digital's color is a little flat, not enough
    contrast, although you can pump it up in post processing if you need to.

    And if you're used to film, you will.
    no_name, Jan 27, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.