I added a new article entitled, well you can see it above. I was going to entitle it My Year of Living Dangerously, but I settled for Film to Digital Capture and back.
The article is a draft and I'll probably at least spell check it, but I'm interested in what you think in terms of accuracy. Is it my experience only - or is there really some movement back to film for certain types of shooting.
I don't want to disparage digital capture - or get into the "which is better" vein which runs pretty deep. But for black and white prints - using digital capture - as we say in the south, How y'all doin'?
3 comments:
dave- thinking about buying power retouche today. enjoyed your essay. i had some musician customers two weeks ago, shot about 100 frames, 2/3 tri-x, 1/3 with the D70.
They came back with their print order, 8 of the images they selected were captured on film, one was captured digitally.
I didn't propagandize or lecture.
Craig - I'll give you $100 if I go back to digital capture unless it is for some sort of commercial shoot or something specialized.
But your point about the evolution of printer technology for b&w is well taken and should be added.
I often feel that I'm going backwards and forwards at the same time as regards the technology I'm using.
Jeff - thanks. I agree about the improved latitude that is on the way; or maybe here. I haven't kept up with it over the last two months so who knows what I've missed.
There is one thing I'm still puzzled about though, the film - developer combination produces a certain exposure curve before it goes into the scanner.
I wonder whether it will be possible or even desirable to have a similar pre-process step on the digital camera, where you dial in the desired way the sensor should record different light intensities (i.e. a mapping system) - or is that crazy and just something you'd do afterwards in Photoshop?
In other words, you might want to tell the digital camera curve that you want to record more information in the first three lower tones.
According to my understanding - possibly wrong - the sensor simply produces a linear exposure curve and that when you under expose - you are also losing some detai (bits) on the left side of the histogram.
Any of this make any sense?
Post a Comment