Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: This Test was completely flawed  (Read 72238 times)
WilliamPatrickMoore
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #100 on: June 06, 2006, 11:43:54 AM »
ReplyReply

"Actually, I was about to start another digression about the relative merits of Kelvinator vs. Frigidair products.

Michael"


I'm holding out for the new digital freezing process to be perfected. So far it does a better job down to -2% F
Logged
Mike_Kelly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #101 on: June 09, 2006, 06:53:56 PM »
ReplyReply

This thread reminds me of my Audiophile days.  Any Audiophile worth his salt knows that no amount of specsmanship can define or quantify good sound. You have to listen to the gear yourself, pays your money and makes your choices.

This type of discussion falls into that category IMHO. No amount of calculation can substitute for comparing prints in person. Then and only then can you make your choice. Which might not be the same as the person next to you.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 21, 2006, 07:34:19 PM »
ReplyReply

i also don't understand all the technical numbers, this is about what looks better, not what registers better in some lab somewhere...we are talking about photography! as much as you can meter colors, no one sees colors the way YOU do....
i am so sick of analog versus digital...when you get to a certain level of digital capture (MF backs) it is simply impossible to tell the difference when looking at a print..if the negative/chrome is scanned...
i guess the heckler wanted to say that a print from a 4x5 neg looks different then an inkjet print from a scanned 4x5 neg....trying to explain that with numbers is just stupid...and so is bringing this issue up here...the results from this extensive test are published on the web or on DVD, either way digital, so why bring a print from negative into it? to scan the print? i think anyone would agree that a scan from a negative will be better than a scan from a print!
so terry i have an idea: why don't you make prints (real, wet) for all of us so we can make a real comparison...and please attach a technical paper explaining how, when and under which light conditions it should be viewed...
Logged

Ogando
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #103 on: June 22, 2006, 07:41:06 AM »
ReplyReply

"
Quote from: pss,Jun 22 2006, 02:34 AM
i also don't understand all the technical numbers, this is about what looks better, not what registers better in some lab somewhere...we are talking about photography!

i am so sick of analog versus digital...when you get to a certain level of digital capture (MF backs) it is simply impossible to tell the difference when looking at a print..if the negative/chrome is scanned..."


I´m with the member "pss" and others regarding pixel debates.

Although it´s nearly off-topic here:

The decisive point for me is, if professional photographers manage to communicate their costs for digital post-production instead of analog photomaterial costs to their clients. For professional preprint companies, who traditionally know how to do their job, there is pracitally spoken no difference preparing scanned files for print-processes or digitally shot files - for a lot of reasons. But instead for photographers and their clients often there is a problem regarding this issue.

Digital technology should be sold with two owner´s manuals. One dealing with the machine and one with negotiating know-how to be able to refinance the stuff within the short time the technology is state of the art. :-)

Og
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #104 on: July 10, 2006, 05:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all, this post (or Michael Reichmann's anti-film reaction) made me register actually...

Photography isn't only about selling and customers etc...
For many people (like me) taking photographs is ART. It is not about making comparisons and watching 100% crops of newspaper pictures all day long like there's nothin else.
I take digital too but for me, the artistic, timeless quality of B&W film is unbeatable.
You're very happy with your 39 mp digital back, well, good for you. But please, stop trying to convince us, people who see photography in other (say the old) way, that digital is better because FOR US, it is not !!



PS. I'm surprised none has comments about RGK's post. I supose because it's so obvious... no contest.
Quote
Talking about resolution, feast your eyes and mind by watching this site. Maybe peace will then return to the board! http://www.gigapxl.org/
Regards to all
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Best Regards
Samuel Axelsson
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #105 on: July 10, 2006, 05:25:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Well photography never really was about res tests and charts etc....I point my lens at something interesting, least I try too!

Still I guess someone has to do the testing...but not something I find intresting, unless there is some amazing technology out there. Megapixels just aint interesting!

I agree b&w film still has its place, alongside digital...
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4891



« Reply #106 on: July 10, 2006, 06:48:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But please, stop trying to convince us, people who see photography in other (say the old) way, that digital is better because FOR US, it is not !!

Say what?

I'm not interested on convincing anyone about anything. I am stating my opinions based on my experience. Nothing more, nothing less. If you disagree, fine, just say so. No need to be acusitory.

I still use film when appropriate. In my view it's becoming quite archaic, but it still occasionally has its place.

Michael
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 06:48:33 PM by michael » Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #107 on: July 10, 2006, 06:51:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
quite archaic,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Michael, that's not the way I see film photography.

BR
Samuel Axelsson
« Last Edit: July 10, 2006, 06:52:19 PM by samuel_js » Logged
Ogando
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #108 on: July 11, 2006, 05:41:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi all, this post (or Michael Reichmann's anti-film reaction) made me register actually...


PS. I'm surprised none has comments about RGK's post. I supose because it's so obvious... no contest.
Best Regards
Samuel Axelsson
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Didn´t notice the www.gigapixl.org post

Here´s a similar project from Europe as visual memory of a region that will become cultural capital of Europe in 2010:

[a href=\"http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de]http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de[/url]

pictures directly here (german navigation only I´m sorry) - still analogue the most ones, but they´re still there:-)
http://www.pixelprojekt-ruhrgebiet.de/themen/index


P.S.:
The Kodak sensor of Phase One is known for color-shift in wideangle performance,
the reason for the sometimes two exposures with opal-glass.
A problem Dalsa (built in sinar, eyelike, mamiya) tried to solve.
We´ll see how it goes on, or if Canon wins the race becuase of its effectivity towards market needs. :-(

Og
Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #109 on: July 11, 2006, 08:55:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael,
please, stop trying to convince me, you did already and I love it
and I really like to thank you for all those great informations that you giving me posting them here in some other places,  like your excellent DVD,and forget about who don't like your information.

You can't please everyone.....there are the ones that would complain if they were served Ice water in hell……sayin’ it wasn’t cold enough….or didn’t have a twist of lemon……. I find you one of the most honorable Person in photography ……any one doing   photography in the  way you do, will do just fine..Please keep the great work as always.

BlasR
Logged

Nemo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276



« Reply #110 on: December 10, 2006, 03:48:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The argument in itself is pointless anyway. Why do people need to measure things all the time? It never ceases to amaze me...

That is the base of science...
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #111 on: December 10, 2006, 09:42:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is the base of science...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Science or gearmania?

I am a photographer...I capture images...testing isnt part of the recipe..it is a side interest to those who want to look at it..

This isnt science..
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #112 on: December 11, 2006, 07:23:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is the base of science...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photography is a blend of art, science and magic.  You don't need to measure (maybe can't) art and magic.

I have not read the entire thread, but if one were comapring digital and film, why would you compare digital to a digitized film image?  Why not make a film image of the digital and compare with a wet print?
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #113 on: December 11, 2006, 08:32:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have not read the entire thread, but if one were comapring digital and film, why would you compare digital to a digitized film image?  Why not make a film image of the digital and compare with a wet print?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Because:

1) Most photographers who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print "dry vs. wet" find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film.

2) Transferring a digital file to film and then making a wet print from the resulting film would not be an accurate presentation of the original digital file.  Something would be lost in the transfer to film.  (And don't forget reason #1.)
Logged
pixman63
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #114 on: December 16, 2006, 02:59:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Because:

1) Most photographers who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print "dry vs. wet" find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film.

2) Transferring a digital file to film and then making a wet print from the resulting film would not be an accurate presentation of the original digital file.  Something would be lost in the transfer to film.  (And don't forget reason #1.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If reason #2 is correct (and I have no doubt that it is), then why should the same not be true of the converse. Scanning of any sort is the weak link in making digital prints from film originals.

Use a digital master printer for the digital, and a darkroom master printer for the film, then compare. Doing it any other way is absuing one method or the other by subjecting it to a process it wasn't designed for.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #115 on: December 16, 2006, 10:02:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If reason #2 is correct (and I have no doubt that it is), then why should the same not be true of the converse. Scanning of any sort is the weak link in making digital prints from film originals.

Use a digital master printer for the digital, and a darkroom master printer for the film, then compare. Doing it any other way is absuing one method or the other by subjecting it to a process it wasn't designed for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're ignoring #1.

Those who work at making the best possible prints from film generally find that they get superior prints from scanning and printing digitally rather than optically.  

If you were to make your judgement based on a film/optical print vs. a digital/inkjet print you would be placing the film capture at a disadvantage.
Logged
Forsh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 19, 2006, 04:24:38 AM »
ReplyReply

There's so much knowledge contained in this thread, I am in awe  
Logged

Juvederm in Denver
Juvederm in Littleton
Laser Hair Removal in Denver
Laser Hair Removal in Littleton
Co2 Fractional in Denver
CO2 Fractional in Littleton
Hormone Replacement in Denver
Hormone Replacement in Littleton
Colon Hydrotherapy in Denver
Colon Hydrotherapy in Littleton
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #117 on: December 21, 2006, 03:41:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're ignoring #1.

Those who work at making the best possible prints from film generally find that they get superior prints from scanning and printing digitally rather than optically. 

If you were to make your judgement based on a film/optical print vs. a digital/inkjet print you would be placing the film capture at a disadvantage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90925\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, you claim photographers "who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print 'dry vs. wet' find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film."

Seems you have assumed that a digital print is superior to a film print in order to prove it.  It is always easier to prove something is true is you first assume it is true.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #118 on: December 21, 2006, 03:58:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, you claim photographers "who have learned how to convert their film to digital and print 'dry vs. wet' find that the digital approach is superior to printing directly from film."

Seems you have assumed that a digital print is superior to a film print in order to prove it.  It is always easier to prove something is true is you first assume it is true.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually I'm making that statement based on what Michael and Jonathon (among others) have posted on this site along with what [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital_advantage.html]Roger Clark [/url] has posted.

I've seen no one present any data to the contrary.
Logged
LJLRenner
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #119 on: December 22, 2006, 05:19:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This thread reminds me of my Audiophile days.  Any Audiophile worth his salt knows that no amount of specsmanship can define or quantify good sound. You have to listen to the gear yourself, pays your money and makes your choices.

This type of discussion falls into that category IMHO. No amount of calculation can substitute for comparing prints in person. Then and only then can you make your choice. Which might not be the same as the person next to you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67812\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad