File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
This picture is one hundred years old.

Photography didn't evolve much, did it?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerLibrary of CongressImage-Specific Properties:Image Width3342Image Height2946Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1008 dpiVertical Resolution1008 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:08:14 22:33:01Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2048Image Height1526
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Sure about that?

Try using Prokudin-Gorsky's three-glass-plates color photography technique to photograph anything other than a static scene, then try the same thing with a 3FPS Digital Rebel.
>> Anonymous
>>68859
>>68862
Foiled, by someone who knows his shit.
>> Anonymous
old photo by russian genius is old
>> Anonymous
>>68862
Actually, the three-shot technique would be awesome with digital for still shots if there was a DSLR with removable Bayer and antialiasing filters. A 8-16 megapixel image with Foveon quality would've put even many MF digital backs to shame.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>68874
Or a digital sensor designed specifically for B&W work. There was once at least one black and white digital SLR out there, and there's talk of Phase One doing a small run of black & white MF backs for dedicated B&W photographers...
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
NOT TRUE WE HAVE HDR NOW
>> Anonymous
More like, photography hasn't changed in the last 160 years. Check out Eadward Muybridge and Henry Fox Talbot. Sure, color and faster chemistry (and digital...) have made pictures easier to take, but the basic pictorial process hasn't changed since, say, Rembrandt.
>> Anonymous
Analogic photograph will always have a better quality than digital photograph, no matter how many megapixels the cameras have.
The only advantage digital photograph have against analog photograph is cost, with digital you can make very good photos without spending a penny, with analog you have to spend a lot for buying special photosyntetic papers, acids, etc... but you can obtain outstandingly good photos.
>> Anonymous
>>68921

quite a bold statement you've just shot out.

>>Analogic photograph will always have a better quality than digital photograph, no matter how many megapixels the cameras have.

always...LIKE FOR THE REST OF TIME????
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>68921
Right, because film emulsions have infinite resolution thanks to the fact that film grains are euclidian points posessing neither width nor height.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>68923
<3
>> Anonymous
>>68923
fuck. so analogs have been dividing by zero since the start of time?

in b4 gb2 /b/.
>> Anonymous
>>68922

YES!
Analog will ALWAYS be better than digital, even after 9999 years: It's like comparing a painting and a scanned image. The scanned image is made by "bricks" (pixels) that gives you the illusion of the image, also digital sound is made by "bricks" that emulates the waves of the sound, analog don't have "bricks" but "perfect curves", the big problem of analog is preserving/reading the data without losing fidelty, and for doing this you need VERY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT... I'm not talking about crappy cameras, but PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT unavaible to the CONSUMER WORLD.
I know what I'm talking about, because at school we had those kind of equipment, you need a lot of money to buy all that stuff, instead with digital you can make professional looking photos without selling your house away.
>> Anonymous
>>69164

This is NOT TRUE, at least theoretically. If you had enough digital storage, you could digitally represent the location and identity of every atom that makes up the analog image. That would be just as good as a "perfect" analog image.

In fact, it doesn't even have to be that fine: If the digital sampling resolution is smaller than the wavelength of visible light, then it would be equally perfect.

However, practically speaking this is absurd. The amount of storage required to do that would be completey counterproductive, even if it were possible.
>> Anonymous
i dont really care about any of this shit...sorry let me make put that out as a question. Why does anyone actually give a fuck?

in b4 getting blood from a stone.
>> Anonymous
>>68859
On the contrary. Photography has become easier and more readily accessable. In the way-back olden times, it was reserved for things of importance; documenting wars, taking portraits of important people, etc... and was terribly expensive, to boot. Over time, the cost of taking and developing photos has gone down dramatically. Also, with the advent and improvement of the digital camera, photography is not only cheap, but readily accessable, so that most everyone can own their own camera.
>> Anonymous
What about making a 100MT2 CCD?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69164
Okay, so either you're a troll or really stupid. I should not feed you, but I've decided not to develop the roll of Neopan 100 sitting in my basement tonight, so I've got some free time.

"Analog" film emulsions are actually made up of discrete units (called grain). Each grain of film can be either exposed or not exposed. You can't have a partially exposed grain (well, you can, but that's basically equivalent to "not exposed). So, at the microscopic level--and note microscopic, not nanoscale; you can see grain with the naked eye in some films--film really isn't all that analog.

See also:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
>> Anonymous
>>69164

This guy calling himself Werner Heisenberg wants to have a word with you.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69196
Are you certain?
>> Anonymous
No i can't be sure.
>> Anonymous
Past a certain point the human eye can't detect the difference, so case closed. Until people begin owning microscopes in which to view photographs up close from within their homes, the point is moot. Digital will soon, if it hasn't in most cases already, equal so-called analog images.

After that it no longer matters to improve the technology of image sensors being able to correctly copy what is viewed, only accessibility and reliability remain.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
IMO digital surpassed film for general color photography, ISO noise performance improves drastically, the resolution is big and usually the photos look pretty clean.I've photographed a wedding on color negative film and didn't like it too much.. digital would have given less grain/noise and I had a bad time cleaning up all the dust/scratches from the lab (I thought they were good, heh)

I shot all of it on low-contrast (pro) film. color adjustments were minimal in PP (unlike digital) but I didn't like the tonality of must photos. guess you need to be more experienced.

anyway, get on your feet that digital has surpassed 35mm negative film for consumers. for pros on the other hand, nothing still beats their magic with low-contrast film and skin tones (skin tones are hard to get right in digital). grainless medium format format just rocks.

the black-white story is different. digital sensors capture way too little dynamic range and have a lot of shadow detail, while b-w film has a lot more dynamic range and more highlight detail (like the human eye). most black-white converted digital photos just look gray, usually I can tell immediately if a photo is film or digital. film b/w is also a lot more tolerant to grain, it's just part of it.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>69231
in addition, I like Astia and Velvia slides. theyre very fine-grained and are hard (or just impossible) to approach with digital.
>> Anonymous
tangible photography FTW
>> Anonymous
>>69191
I never insulted anyone like you did, I just said what I think, is that a crime?
The reason I posted this is because I see a lot of people that thinks that analogic is an "already dead" technlology because it's "already surpassed" by digital.
More professionals are starting to use digital, only because it's more cost effective and a easy medium to manage, you can store the photos on dvds or even retouch your photos with photoshop and it's less an hassle to distribute more copies.
By the way, in addition to what you said about grains, do you really think that a printer or monitor can reproduce perfectly the image you have stored on your digital camera? It all depends on the quality of the printer/monitor and the quality of the medium you are going to print, and all those mediums I've seen this far can't really reproduce as many details as grains can.
The truth is: If you buy the best equipment that's avaible in digital photography and compare it with the best equipment that's avaible in analogic photography, you can bet that analogic would win.
Also with digital photos you lose a lot of that "magic" that makes analogic photos so beautiful, I can't explain that, but every time I see a digital photo I have the sensation that something is missing, it's like the sensation you get when you listen to a digital hi-fi music and compare it with vinyl.
>> Anonymous
>>69299
By the way, in addition to the "magic" I mentioned before, don't you think there's a reason because artists prefer analogic photography instead of digital photography?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>69299
You mean imperfections (ps digital is now better than vinyl, more dynamic range etc etc). I agree that its the imprefections that can make an image so rememberable, but its something you have to sacrifice. If you want grain shoot film, nothing is stopping you.
>> Anonymous
People who talk about the magic of film generally tend to take grainy photos of flowers, their friend’s feet or stairs at angles that convey the depth of their soul.

People who talk about the magic of vinyl are generally easily conned out of large amounts of money.

Both are generally full of bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>69304
I don't really think if something is perfect it means = better.
You can have an idea of what I'm saying if you go to see a hand-coloured Walt Disney cartoon and a digitally coloured one.

And vinyl doesn't really mean a lot of imperfections if you have the right equipment, don't you think there's a reason that there are so many companies that are still manufacturing modern equipment for carving/listening vinyl mediums and audiophiles that are actually buying them? Why should they buy or manufacture such things if digital music was so "perfect"?
>> Anonymous
>>69307
Ah, yes, audiophiles:

http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C
>> Anonymous
>>69299
>If you buy the best equipment that's avaible in digital photography and compare it with the best equipment that's avaible in analogic photography, you can bet that analogic would win.

There are holographic films with incredibly fine grain, and there are scanning-type digital sensors that produce images with hundreds of megapixels. No photographic artist uses either. So what's the point?
>> Anonymous
>>69307
Incidentally, hand-coloured Disney cartoons that have been digitally remastered look MUCH better than the originals.
>> Anonymous
>>69309
I still lol every time I see those knobs. I wonder if there is something as outrageous in the photo-phile world...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69299
No, you posited your opinion as a fact. "I prefer film to digital" is an opinion. "Digital will never match the quality of analog film" is not an opinion. It's presented as a fact, and it's an obviously incorrect one to anyone who knows the technology involved.

Additionally, you confused (in your previous post and this one) "this is not currently technologically possible" with "this is not theoretically possible", which is never a good thing to do. Technology tends to advance at a double-exponential rate. So yeah, someone with a reasonably good microscope and a lot of free time could probably tell the difference between a print made with an optical enlarger and one made with something like a lightjet today, but the difference between an optical enlarger and a lightjet produced five years from now will need an *extremely* good microscope and way more time, and so on.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>69307
There is no reason, vinyl production is becoming smaller and smaller each year. Besides you said audiophiles, the group of people who think wooden knobs can improve the quality of music. Digital is as perfect as we can get, besides the whole idea of my point was that it isnt perfection that people are looking for.
>> Anonymous
so you all mean to say, in summation, that digital vs analog should be personal preference?! i have to think for myself about what i want to use?!

damn it!
>> Anonymous
The vinyl record vs. digital music is not a very good example here.

The real reason why most audiophiles (myself included) like vinyl is that most vinyl recordings are made with a minimal amount of processing. The music is recorded and then cut to the master. On the other hand, most music produced in the "CD Era" has gone through a huge amount of processing, including dynamic range compression and expansion.

Generally speaking, a typical vinyl recording has far less artificial processing than a typical CD. Of course, some records are horribly mastered and some CDs are fabulous. (CD mastering tends to be a lot better once you get away from the pop stuff and get into classical and jazz)

True that many audiophiles fall for BS marketing and buy crazy objects like the aforementioned $500 wooden knob. (And don't forget the VPI "Magic Brick")...but I know two camera snobs that are in the same boat. They spend more time bragging about their latest fancy lenses and filters than they do actually taking photos.

Anyway, in the end, it all comes down to the quality and the precision of the digital representation. Everybody knows that a lossy-compressed format such as a JPG or an MP3 looses data from a "perfect" image. Even an uncompressed digital file is somewhat lossy simply due to the sampling density of the digitization. However, when that sampling density meets or exceeds the fundamental units of the "real thing" then digital perfection has been acheived.
>> des
>>69417
>>The real reason why most audiophiles (myself included) like vinyl is that most vinyl recordings are made with a minimal amount of processing.

uh wut. Song placement and length has to be taken in to consideration by the producer with collaboration by the mastering engineer. compression and fairly drastic EQing for cutting the master. RIAA compensation EQing during the cutting of the master and then RIAA compensation make-up EQing during playback.
A better-than-adequately mastered CD shits all over a masterfully mastered 33. Don't confuse noise and format-induced frequency limitations with quality reproduction. I enjoy records but I don't fool myself into thinking they're more capable than cds.

One thing I never got is why audiophiles cling so tightly to vinyl. Tape in even stereo quarter inch has the potential for better sound, depending on playback speed, it's less delicate, is easier(arguable) to store and holds up better. Whatever.
>> Anonymous
>>69554
Because tape is a magnetic medium that loses quality with time and can be ruined by magnetic fields, vinyl is physically carved and never changes with time.
>> Anonymous
>>69554
>>69577
Vinyl loses its quality mostly over playback cycles, not over time. Since audiophiles never listen to their precious Japanese-made limited edition LPs, this is a serious advantage for them.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69554
The explanation I've heard is that Vinyl sounds better because the producers and whatnot who used to work with vinyl were better at it because it was such a shitty medium. CDs reproduce a lot more true-to-life, so the craft of sound engineering is in a decline.

Kind of like how there are a lot more shitty photographs out there now that you don't need to lug glass plates and a wet darkroom everywhere you go if you want to get a shot.

>>69577
>vinyl is physically carved and never changes with time.
Right, because the needle just asks the record politely what waveform is carved on it. It doesn't scrape over it.
>> Anonymous
I don't know why the fuck we're arguing about vinyl in /p/, but who cares?

It's ironic that vinyl is preferred by "audiophiles", since it's absolutely terrible for critical listening. Try listening to some classical music that was pressed 40 years ago. If you've got an ear for pitch, this should be all the convincing you need. Vinyl warps with age, and even a small variation makes a big difference. What's more, there's a fair degree of art that goes into just balancing the arm so that the needle doesn't skip and doesn't drag. CDs simply are better for listening when quality counts.

Having said that, there's no file format in the world that can match the bass of a Jamaican-pressed reggae or dub LP from the 60's and 70's. Those things are dense, because they stamped them outside their shacks with cheap presses. You'd even get bits of palm frond and cardboard mashed into your record.
>> Anonymous
>>69584
I lol'd @ Jamaican LPs.

Brb gonna go get my SVEMA film rolls, they're just too awesome to compare with digital.
>> Anonymous
>>69554

Don't get me wrong. There certianly is processing that happens during vinyl production. But a typical CD has gone through more processing steps than a typical vinyl LP has. And furthermore, many of those steps introduce various errors of the digital sort, including quantization, dithering, and so on.

Now then I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that LPs are always better than CDs (far from it). In fact, I'd say that most of the time, the opposite is true. However, it is a fallacy to assume that a digital medium is always better.

These days "digital" has become a buzzword for "better", but this isn't always the case. Digital has a lot of advantages, but it doesn't always come out on top.
>> Anonymous
>>69231
>most black-white converted digital photos just look gray
1. If feasible (only on static scenes or on a camera with a live histogram), shoot RAW and overexpose as much as possible without blowing out the highlights.
2. When in ACR (or Capture One, or whatever) bring the exposure back down to an accurate point. The highlight detail will be there, because you extended your exposure to cover it. Also, sliding up the blacks a bit almost always helps.
3. Do levels.
4. Do local contrast enhancement.
5. Apply "color variations" very, very lightly (if appropriate, it isn't for every image) to the highlights to simulate how photographic paper always has a slight tint to it.
6. Profit! Er... digital black-and-white that, yes, does look "different" from film but still has great tonality and so on.

As for the argument advanced at various points in the thread that extra human effort = "magic," whether in photography or audio processing, I fully agree. The reason most digital photographs people encounter look like worse than film is because people assume digital = easier processing, and treat it accordingly. That's not true. It's just processing with less toxic fumes wafting around.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>69629
my fixer has neutral odor :)

digital doesn't have "great" tonality as it doesnt capture such wide dynamics as film can, and unavoidably, has too much shadow detail and crappy highlights (prolly the thing resulting in bland gray tonality). your advice might help, but what isn't there can't be brought forward with any kind of PP. RAW might help but it's not that practical... its slow, big and bothersome IMO. for a couple of BW's it could help recovering dynamics (please post proof), but otherwise studio lighting is the only situation where you have full control over tonality.
>> Anonymous
>>69645
>RAW might help but it's not that practical... its slow, big and bothersome IMO

Kind of like developing film?

I'll respond to the rest later, but if you're willing to expend effort developing your film, I don't see how a RAW file would bug you.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>Kind of like developing film?
it's so great. I must confess i'm too lazy to process my backlog of 15films in my fridge though.

>>but if you're willing to expend effort developing your film, I don't see how a RAW file would bug you.
valid point. but my film comes out of my developing tank and its scans rarely require a lot of of adjustment. I agree fully that it takes time (especially scanning on a mid-end scanner is annoying as hell).

I got a D200 but only shot a handfull of RAWs. I dont know, I'm not the kind of guy to go mess around with all kind of tricks to make something look good. I should do some research about extending dynamic range with RAWS, it could be useful if I got only a few photos to take that could make use of that. but first of all, I need some sleep now..

digital vs film is a long and shitty discussion. I like digital color for my jobs I do, but shooting street on quiet compact RF's with b-w film i process is a whole lot more fun as I have full control over every single step in the process (including bulk loading the film)
>> blockoftextget des
     File :-(, x)
>>69584
>>I don't know why the fuck we're arguing about vinyl in /p/, but who cares?
This was arguing? Man, we are some polite motherfuckers.
>>69609
>>These days "digital" has become a buzzword for "better", but this isn't always the case. Digital has a lot of advantages, but it doesn't always come out on top.
It's been a marketing buzzword for decades, not just these days :P
Quantizing and dithering problems are pretty much non-issues outside of poor studios and very manageable if you're careful but have no bux. We just gave up one set of signal degradation for another.

Go outside and shoot! Go to a concert! Go shoot a concert! Lock small boys in cages for other's amusement!

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2007:08:17 20:52:00Image Width466Image Height700