Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Happy to agree :-) But there still is a nuance in what you and I are saying. The beauty of a full analog procedure lies in the following: the result depends of so many variables that it's impossible to perfectly recreate an image time after time. No matter what amount of (sometimes frustrating) work you put into it. And that the result is always coincidental. A piece unique. Not so in digital. And digital is the way the world is going. Nothing will stop it. And it's good, too. Because it's easy. I'm just trying to combine the 'best' of both worlds. So any time something passes by that adds possibilities to the recreation of this kind of coincidence in this digitized era, I'm interested. Because coincidence is the motor of change, IMO. By trying to eliminate that coincidence the world will come to a standstill. Hence: perfection is boring. Just my opinion, ofcourse. I think I'm finally ready to embrace to LP's and turntables again ;-) Philippe P.S.: One could also argue that since reaching perfection is impossible, coincidence is invoked by trying to reach it. The result is nevertheless the same. Look at the M8: purely coincidentally a totally new style of magenta cast photography emerged... I bet you'll see it in the fashion magazines within a few months. (wink wink, nodge nodge, smilies ad nauseam) Op 3-dec-06, om 22:12 heeft Henning Wulff het volgende geschreven: > At 4:00 PM +0100 12/3/06, 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. > > hmmmm.... that sounded a lot grumpier than I intended. > > The main point still is though that we've been trying to get better > quality overall, and this plug-in throws a lot of information away, > reducing the 'technical' quality. > > Like you say though, the mood can often be enhanced by 'lesser' > technical quality, and for the very best photos, it just doesn't > matter. So therefore, in the ultimate sense, it just doesn't matter. > > On a similar note, each time we use a lens like a Thambar or Imagon > we throw away information right at the start. Also if we use a film > like 2475 or Kodalith, or IR or even B&W. I've done all of that; > some of it extensively to get the correct feeling. > > Now with Photoshop we can shoot digital or high quality film and a > good scan and then decide what areas of the picture are important > and bring those to the fore by throwing the rest away. > > So, in a lot of ways I obviously agree with you. :-) > > -- > * 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 >