[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:14:51 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

I don't think that we have to come up with any magical explanations
for some people liking or preferring vinyl, just as some people prefer
film to digital photography. Vinyl is a pleasing little bit of
retro-technology, with attendant cleaning rituals and nice-looking
turntables; people like to use their beautiful old Pentaxes and Leicas
and Hasselblads too. And, just as vinyl has a certain sound, film has
a certain look, if you like that kind of thing.

When it gets serious, though, people are not so keen on the retro: if
you have a life-threatening infection you're not so likely to reject
antibiotics and insist on sulfonamides.

In addition to my love of audio, I have an equal love of photography.
While LPs are not uniformly better than CDs, or vice versa, large format
film remains superior to digital, by a long shot. OTOH, 35mm (or DX)
digital, to my eye, blows film away.

I think digital is getting closer. Phase One just released an 80
megapixel 645 back that, from what I have heard, is almost as good as
film, but not quite. It also costs about $22,000. You can buy a
complete 4x5 setup for not much more than a tenth of that.

I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that is
fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe) connected directly
to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data that the camera produces.
While his finished landscape photos are spectacular, they look "different"
from the same shot on sheet Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film
exposure of the same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated colors. Of
course, he can achieve the same effect with Photoshop and the digital
picture, but still, I like both renditions - sort of like the same scene
pained by two different, equally competent painters.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. (I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 28, 7:13=A0am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. =A0While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). =A0The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. =A0That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. =A0I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" =A0Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. =A0(I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. =A0If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)


I know this is off topic but this is simply a load of misinformation
about color and contrast accuracy. Velvia is hardly the only film
stock in the world of film. And digital is anything but color
accurate. There is yet to be adigital color profile that begins to
represent the color palette of the real world. Neither film nor
digital imaging can match the contrast or color range of real life but
film still covers more of it.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:13am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Audio Empire wrote:
I know a local photographer who uses a 4 X 5 sheet-film camera that
is fitted with a scanning digital back (from Leaf, I believe)
connected directly to a laptop to capture the gigapixels of raw data
that the camera produces. While his finished landscape photos are
spectacular, they look "different" from the same shot on sheet
Ektachrome or Fujichrome (he always makes a film exposure of the
same shot - it's easy, just swap the digital back for a film
holder). The film has more contrast and richer, more saturated
colors.

Indeed it does, and there's a parallel with audio here. That
contrasty highly-saturated look is a bit like the "smiley EQ" and
compression loved by record producers -- pretty it may be, but
accurate it ain't. I remember one wag who on seeing Michael Fatali's
photographs said "That's not God's own light, that's Fujichrome's own
Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*, just like digital audio can be. (I am rather sensitive to
this issue, because one of my jobs is copying paintings for
reproduction. If you want to be able to compare an original and a
print side-by-side on a wall under bright lights, the last thing you
want is a contrast and saturation boost.)

I know this is off topic but this is simply a load of misinformation
about color and contrast accuracy. Velvia is hardly the only film
stock in the world of film. And digital is anything but color
accurate. There is yet to be a digital color profile that begins to
represent the color palette of the real world. Neither film nor
digital imaging can match the contrast or color range of real life
but film still covers more of it.

Hold on one moment: I didn't suggest that any imaging device could
represent the entire visible gamut. I didn't suggest that any digital
imaging device had a larger gamut or contrast range than any film. I
disagree that "digital is anything but color accurate": it's not
perfect, of course, but from the point of view of repro work it's
linear and repeatable, and can be accurate if done right. Also,
digital (is there any other kind?) colour profiles certainly can
represent all visible colours, even though no physical device can.

My point was that the films popular for landscape photography are not
accurate *because they are not designed to be*. Very much like CD
mastering, in other words.

Andrew.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote:

Velvia!" Digital, on the other hand, is linear, or can be once you
find all the curves and filters in the workflow and turn them off.
Once you've done that it's regular, stable, and repeatable, and
*accurate*,

I don't know what digital sensors you are using but the ones I have seen
are no more accurate than film when it comes to being able to match
color, and they have a much smaller dynamic range. I suspect highly
specialized equipment might improve on this but I don't know that. The
advantage digital has over film is it is easily manipulated on a
computer.

The problem with digital vs. film is the same as CD vs. LP. In order to
match the smoothness of analog, you need a very high sample rate. In
theory, 44.1/16 is enough for audio, but the trend now seems to be to
96/24 or higher. Frankly, with my old ears, 44.1 is enough if done
right.

I'm not sure if anybody has concluded on large format photography. 80
Mp seems to be getting pretty close for 645. I have a 6 Mp DX camera
that satisfies me in comparison to 35 mm negative film, but slide film
seems to need more. I suspect the current 20 Mp range cameras are
enough, although I don't know about sharpness issues. People might
argue over color but not over the ability to resolve detail. School is
still out on that in the larger formats.