Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Philippe, Very well put. Len On Dec 3, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Philippe Orlent wrote: > OK. > > To clear some things out. > I shoot both digital and analog, with a big preference for analog > because it makes me somewhat less just snapping away. Digital is > OK, but I use it differently. > However, I adore using PS and other digital technology because for > me, it gives me more possibilities to get out of a shot what I > imagine(d) in my head. And that has very little to do with > 'technical' perfection. > In other words, the main problem I have with digital is that the > image quality is getting too perfect. And if everything is perfect, > there is no difference any more. Pretty boring, IMO. > Maybe that's a strange thing to hear, but coming for somebody who > only started with photography in the 80s, it maybe is not that > uncommon: > I never had to crave for better quality as some of you might have > back in the 50s, 60s or 70s: the quality of film back in those days > was seen by some as limiting, and I understand that it must have > been frustrating not being able to capture something exactly as one > saw it. Hence probably the 'filtermania', postprocessing etc back > then. > But for me, and looking at such photographs (or printed > representations) now, it was the era were photos were not > necesseraly technically perfect but had a lot more character and > charm. Take Ted's 'Men of the saddle' for instance: technically, > these photographs are somewhat dated. But qua content and picturing > quality, they still are top notch. I'd even say that the technical > 'flaws' in them (color rendition and print reproduction) enhance > the feeling of authenticity and quality they have. > Same thing with traditional mechanical cameras (of which a pre-M7 M > is the ultimate result) and lenses: not perfect, but what character! > Try to copy 'le baiser de l'h?tel de ville' with modern material > for instance. It's virtually impossible to get that softness and > tonal rendition right out of camera with today's cameras, lenses > and film. > In short (and call me melancholic): I'm not looking for perfect, > I'm looking for imperfect. Because that very often makes a part of > the charm and personality of a photo. And, as a matter of fact, of > a lot of other things in life, too. > So if I stumble upon a program that lets me recreate the imperfect > feel of films that do not exist any more, that makes me -as I > already said yesterday- very happy. > Does that mean that I'm against the digital revolution of these > last years? > Not at all, but I'm confronted and work with that in my > professional life every day. > If I were a photo pro, I'd probably sing another song. But I'm not, > I'm an amateur. (Which BTW origins form the word 'aimer'). > > Philippe > > > Op 3-dec-06, om 07:03 heeft Henning Wulff het volgende geschreven: > >>> This is a photograph that I already showed exactly as below here. >>> I shot it on Fuji NPS160, with professional development, but had >>> it scanned commerially on low res: all flattened out. >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/y4o8pq >>> or bigger: >>> http://tinyurl.com/tbwgw >>> >>> >>> >>> This is the same shot after I let Alien Skin (and some minor >>> additional PS alterations) have a go at the original scan today: >>> >>> as big as above: >>> http://tinyurl.com/y373rf >>> >>> !!! the big ones are in Adobe RGB !!! >>> >>> Isn't the 2nd one much more distinctive and doesn't it have a lot >>> more character? Or am I just overenthousiastic? >>> >>> Philippe >> >> Hi Philippe, >> >> The plug in just seems to increase contrast, throw a lot of the >> extended tonal range away and skew the colours to introduce a cast. >> >> This is usually what I fight to get rid of when scanning. >> >> Film, properly printed lets me get a huge tonal range and a good >> printer was always able to handle the colours properly. My scans, >> even with a fairly good scanner, are usually limited in comparison >> to projected slides or a good print. >> >> I'm sorry, but the first image, while not necessarily optimized, >> allows all sorts of interpretations, but the second looks like a >> poor scan. It is a 'film' look, but one that mimics something I >> try to avoid - not always successfully. >> >> -- >> * Henning J. Wulff >> /|\ Wulff Photography & Design >> /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com >> |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information