M8 and Simon Wheatley in BJP [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : M8 and Simon Wheatley in BJP

Sorabji

11-07-2006, 03:38

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 03:40

Could not agree more!

jaapv

11-07-2006, 03:48

I guess it was Simon Wheatley's call to process them this way. I agree with your asessment, I don't like them either...Most of his work is in this style. I don't see any difference in his treatment of either film or digital shots.

Have a look at his portfolio for yourself. (http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL534XKOXU)

J. Borger

11-07-2006, 04:05

well ..... i do not agree.
That's just a trend in modern photography.
If you take a look in the Magnum book: "Eurovisions" the whole book is printed in that style.
There is also a tendency for colorprints on matte paper ...... they all look flat and dull.
It all fits the taste in the fine art world of the moment ...
Times are a changing ..... stop imitating the old masters and move on ......... photograhy is (as every artform) an art in transition.
Art and personal taste do not go very well together in general: these are 2 differen things;)
These files could also have been printed shiny and saturated: its a personal vision we have to accept: liking or disliking has nothing to do with this!

Just my 2 cents!

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 04:11

jaapv

11-07-2006, 04:35

Two things, Vladimer:
1. It is a great photo, what has the capture medium to do with that? Nobody asked Rembrandt which brand of brushes he used.
2. It is a great photo. What has the time factor to do with that? There are nature photographers who disappear into the wilderness for months on end, only to return with one shot -but what a shot. And how many of his waking hours did AA spend in his darkroom? 50%? Again- the result counts.

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 04:40

It is a great photo no doubt, why don`t you leave it color? why photshop it and make it black and white? why play with curves? if it makes no difference? for me aesthetics make difference no metter subject is amazing or not...

jaapv

11-07-2006, 04:42

It does make a difference, it was his choice to present it in B&W, and with good effect. But I think there is a confusion between the artistic merit and the technical process going on here.

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 04:45

Oh god, how can it be confusion when technical process makes difference in artistic merit?

jaapv

11-07-2006, 04:52

Oh god, how can it be confusion when technical process makes difference in artistic merit?

Because the technical process is the artist's choice to arrive at a certain result. We can analyze it to death, but the result is what it is and we will never know whether it would have been even better or worse had it been done differently. We can only apply our preconceptions to that and offer suppositions. The photo as such stands as an end product.

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 04:57

Exactly, so what are you claming? the guy is saying it is looking lifeless and flat to his aestetical needs, what is your (not yours personaly) problem?

1 - Because the technical process is the artist's choice to arrive at a certain result. We can analyze it to death, but the result is what it is and we will never know whether it would have been even better or worse had it been done differently. We can only apply our preconceptions to that and offer suppositions. The photo as such stands as an end product.

2 - 1. It is a great photo, what has the capture medium to do with that? Nobody asked Rembrandt which brand of brushes he used.

Are you contradicting yourself or its just me?

jaapv

11-07-2006, 04:59

In a similar vein, there is a comparisn between a M8 shot and a 645 shot of the same subject Here on FM forums. (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/470256/12#4052377)
Interesting - I leave everybody to drw their own conclusions...

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:00

And please difference in brands and mediums is quet large, some people do grafity some people do oil painting...

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:01

645 with digital back! state it out!

jaapv

11-07-2006, 05:04

Exactly, so what are you claming? the guy is saying it is looking lifeless and flat to his aestetical needs, what is your (not yours personaly) problem?

1 -

2 -

Are you contradicting yourself or its just me?

I think it is just you - or I did not make myself clear: The medium is the artists choice - it makes a difference -to the artist- in his workflow to arrive at the result he presents to the world. The viewer likes or dislikes the result. But it is foolish to hold the technical process responsible - the artist is the factor involved. In other words: who are we blaming for the cabinet - the wood, the saw and hanmmer - or the carpenter?

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:06

Okey and what are we discussing than? For my aestetical taste digital is flat, lifeless, cheap and crapy what is the problem?

jaapv

11-07-2006, 05:14

No problem- the difference is that I look at the photograph and you look at the machine...;) And I'm glad to hear you find the M8 cheap :D:D

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:16

I look at the photograph and you look at the machine
LOL, That was funny... no comments :D

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:18

Just remember whenever you or anyone else states that M8 has film like feel (even if you think it should not have because digital is different medium) I can also state that it has not!

jaapv

11-07-2006, 05:19

Ah- another shake-hands I see. :)

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:20

: Shake-hands :

HansDerHase

11-07-2006, 05:22

If anyone saw the Simon Wheatley pictures in BJP with the M8, you must agree that the results are rather disappointing. Colours look flat and dull. Contrast is lacking and images generally look lifeless. Is this the result of digital imaging in general or specifically the M8?
This is just and only a result of how Mr. Wheatley wants his pictures to look like. For counter evidence check out how Constantine Manos (http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/color.aspx) wants his pictures to look like. (Click on the M8 link on the right ). Mr. Manos likes 'em well saturated. See how the colors pop like Velvia on steroids (as far as one can tell from staring at a computer screen).

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 05:26

colors pop like Velvia on steroids Another blind statment, it has been long time since you have seen velvia obviously... did you also check that plastic high-lights? does those look like velvia too?

KM-25

11-07-2006, 05:34

telenous

11-07-2006, 05:41

The more I use Kodachrome in my M6, the less I care for digital. It has a place in my work, IE: Income, but it is just not the same.

This is from a guy who has an archive of nearly 300,000 Canon digital files.

It will most likely be at least 3 years until I even consider a digital M.

Just an aside to the above comment - I just received back a roll of Kodachrome 64 which I sent intentionally to the Lausanne lab after they closed down. It came back three weeks after my initial despatch (presumably it was sent to the US and back), so it is still possible to use this wonderful film in Europe.

devils-advocate

11-07-2006, 06:01

Does a Cibachrome look different than a mini-lab RA-4 print? Does a print from a chromogenic BW film look different from a print from a traditional BW film? Yes and yes, of course.

So I absolutely agree that digitally-captured images often have a different look than film-captures. There is also a significantly greater range of 'looks' one can accomplish with digital because of the range of post-processing options.

I also agree that Wheatley's images look like sh*t. Yes, it's likely a subjective choice, but an unfortunate one.

However, this thread has a 'digital is inferior' subtext (and sometimes not-so-subtext). Frankly, I thought we were past that. A well completed image from digital capture is capable of emulating all of the best qualities of film, and then some. The classic 'tell' in identifying digital from file is the smoothness of the tone(owing to the absence of grain), not any alleged defect in colour or anything else.

I have seen digitally-captured images printed (16x16) on traditional fibre-based paper (through a very high-end Lambda) which looked like 8x10 contact prints -- absolute brilliance -- from a 'mere' 22mp MF digital back.

Similarly, there are artists who produce colour prints of astonishing quality from digital capture. One can only tell, or guess, that film was not involved because of how high the quality is.

But guess what, it's HARD! to produce fabulous output from digital capture. A lot of technical elements (profiles of cameras, monitors, output devices) and skills (use of converters, sharpeners, photoshop, etc) have to come together. It's the hardest thing since....oh, getting a perfect BWprint on FB paper using the Zone system with a viewcamera on BW film.:D

Those who criticize the digital 'look' in broad terms are actually criticizing the lack of skill & effort expended by the creator. And yes, it's warranted quite a lot of the time. We have been sold digitial on the whole ' it's-so-easy-any-idiot-can-push-the Ansel-Adams-button' line. That's a marketing scam.

Producing great images from digital capture is at least as hard, at least as time consuming and at least as expensive as doing so with film.

The advantages of digital lie with things like the fact that I now carry the equivalent of 12 rolls of every speed of BW and Colour film in the camera at the same time, can interact with my subject and 'work' a picture in real time like never before, can achieve better ultimate quality in output from cameras of equal size if I do everything right and can once again have the joy of creating images in my uber-urban home (where $400/sq foot real-estate costs make a darkroom an impossibility).

Digital is a great advance in photography, as it has created really an entire new medium, with endless creatrive possibilities. Film-based photography is great, too. Nothing in the digital world feels like watching a great print emerge in the developer tray.

Can we all hold hands and say mutually-validating things now? :angel:

- Nick.

StuartR

11-07-2006, 06:04

Dear all of you,

The pressures from many users have forced the digital tide upon Leica and to be fair to them, they have evidently come up with the goods in the shape of the M8.

However, if like me, you are a blissfully happy analogue M user, you cannot deny that there is a different look to digital images in general. Some may say this is just a difference, not necessarily better or worse. Some may even say, if I'm blissfully happy with the analogue M's, why bother posting about the M8? "Film" is the issue? How long will it be available at a reasonable price?

If anyone saw the Simon Wheatley pictures in BJP with the M8, you must agree that the results are rather disappointing. Colours look flat and dull. Contrast is lacking and images generally look lifeless. Is this the result of digital imaging in general or specifically the M8? Most digital files I see have great clarity, but show no depth in the image quality - compared to film.

Can anyone help with a knowedgable answer, or am I the only one who perceives these differences? Most experts tend to fall in the firmly biased digital camp, because they're young and want to embrace the new technology etc., so I've found precious little material on the net with regard to the scientific analysis of image qualities of both analogue and digital.

First of all, welcome to the forum. I am sorry, but I have not seen the Simon Wheatley pictures you have mentioned, but I think I would agree with jaapv who state that it is all about what the artist chose to do with the images. I shoot mostly film, but also digital with the Leica Digital Modul-R. By default, the RAW files give you a low contrast image. It is up to you to form it into something you are comfortable with. Personally, I have found the files out of the DMR to be similar to film in quality, but with a different look. Part of this is the lack of any grain, which as you note, increases the clarity of the images. I do not think that it handles black and white or the most subtle color transitions as well as film, but it does not make a difference in most applications.

I believe part of the reason for this is the way digital sensors (other than the Foveon) work. The sensor is a matrix of red, green and blue pixel wells. If blue light enters a blue pixel well, it turns on. If blue light enters a red pixel well, nothing happens. If only red pixels or mostly red pixels are on in one area, the camera will guess that that area is entirely or mostly red, so it will make the blue and green pixels show up red. The firmware is very very good at this, and for the most part it works wonderfully, but for the most subtle color transitions you are always getting an approximation. The foveon chip, which is built in a red, green and blue layer like film, does not have this problem. And of course, film does not have it either.
Basically, I would say that shooting digital is like shooting negative film, even if it presents you with a positive image. You need to take the time to properly adjust the contrast, color balance and tonal range to your preferences. Whereas slide film is pretty much natural (or unnatural for films like Velvia) out of the gate, digital requires you to supervise the decisions that the camera made for you when it took the image. It is not better or worse, than it can be either in different situations.

Anyway, here are some digital shots from the DMR...I think they look nice, but perhaps you would characterize them as lifeless. Everyone has their own preferences.

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur3.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/puffin-on-cliff2.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/drying-fish-bw-dmr.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/spooky-snaefellsnes.jpg

And here are some film shots from the same or similar areas.

This is the same shot of the drying fish with 6x7cm film...so much much much larger imaging area. It looks better, but it would look better than 35mm film too.
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/drying-fish-m7ii.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/skogar-cows.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/skaftafell-airport.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/tern-post.jpg

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 06:10

file is the smoothness of the tone(owing to the absence of grain) That is the main problem, absence of random grain and having of paterned noise :) and again people mentioning skils of photoshop, full of junk, you wont be able to emulate or simulate, for the reason mentioned on top, also there is more, I remember fuji trying to simulate all this with doing crystal form sensor which will try to simulate randomnes of light and tonality, until then happy photoshoping files from $5000 camera :D :D

ywenz

11-07-2006, 06:31

jaapv

11-07-2006, 06:51

That is the main problem, absence of random grain and having of paterned noise and again people mentioning skils of photoshop, full of junk, you wont be able to emulate or simulate, for the reason mentioned on top, also there is more, I remember fuji trying to simulate all this with doing crystal form sensor which will try to simulate randomnes of light and tonality, until then happy photoshoping files from $5000 camera
__________________

In a way I do agree with Nachkebia here. It is senseless to try and photoshop digital images to look like film and a particular film to boot. But my point is - one shouldn't do so but one must use the strengths of the digital file to produce outstanding images- as illustrated here. If it must look like film -use film. Having said that, with the reference frame most of us (still?) have, it is logical to use film terms to describe images - but it does confuse the issue to do so.

x-ray

11-07-2006, 06:55

This discussion is nothing new. There are as many wiews on how an image should be shot and presented as there are photographers. Whether it's platinum vs silver or digital vs film it's the same old argument. Each are different with neither better or worse. A good example of different interpretations of the same ismage can be seen in Edward Westons work. Edward printed his negs very flat, too flat for my taste, and Cole printed with much more contrast and snap. I studied with Ansel Adams in the 70's and there is a great deal of variation in his prints of the same image over the years. His vision of how they should be printed changed dramatically. My own vision of how I print has changed.

There seems to be three camps on color now. One which I like is a more natural rendering where others like over saturation. over sharpening and contrasty images. The third is very flat pastel and soft like Loretta Lux prints her work.

Neither is bad but just different ways each artist depicts their work. I shoot film in my documentary and art images and use digital for my commercial work. Both are great tools and now we have the choice. With digital atleast we have a chance to create our own look by adjusting curves and creating our own "electronic emulsion" look and not being bound to the vison some engineer in Rochester or Japan had for how our work shoul look. We have choices with digital well beyound anything we could do with film.

Personally I don't know what the future of color film will be. I think B&W will be here for a good bit of time. We have a great deal of film choice now as far as B&W goes and don't see this changing any time soon.

StuartR

11-07-2006, 06:55

StuartR:

Your DMR shots are very nice. But I must say that the Iceland 2005 pics shot on Velvia are of a different level- maybe it has to do with the more dramatic scenery in those shots. However, I can imagine that someone people would perceive the DMR shots as life-less simply because it has a different look to their baseline, which would be film/slides...

Thanks ywenz,

I was trying to choose representative work, but I think that part of the problem is that I am still not very good with digital. I can make it look punchy, but no particularly subtle. I am good at scanning slides and getting them to more or less match the slide, but I don't know that much about digital post processing since I have only been doing it for a few months. I can do levels and so on, but I am not up on curves, masking, shadow/highlight or any noise management.

But anyway, I think you have a very good point about people preferring the look of their baseline. I would even agree...if I could get digital to look like slides straight out of the camera, I would much prefer it even if I had to sacrifice some processing flexibility. At this point I am shooting both so that I can learn as I go. I think it is the best method for me for the moment.

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 06:59

I shoot film in my documentary and art images and use digital for my commercial work.
Me too, I think it is perfect in that way and it works. but was not suposed M8 to be for documentary and art? not for rich belly boys in the weekend park walk shooting flowers :D

furcafe

11-07-2006, 07:02

Yes, but even the line @ Dwayne's will eventually shut down.

Just an aside to the above comment - I just received back a roll of Kodachrome 64 which I sent intentionally to the Lausanne lab after they closed down. It came back three weeks after my initial despatch (presumably it was sent to the US and back), so it is still possible to use this wonderful film in Europe.

HansDerHase

11-07-2006, 07:06

Another blind statment, it has been long time since you have seen velvia obviously... did you also check that plastic high-lights? does those look like velvia too?
You allready guessed that I'm not a big fan of Velvia, do you. I'm not a big fan of colour after all. But I can't see a big problem in the hightlights. I'm not sure what you mean or how you define plastic highlights. I need some demonstatrion that Velvia's highlights are any better in night scene at, well, guesstimated LV 6 or 7. Which usually need some really high dynamic range. Highlights block on slide just as they do in digital when you push beyond the limits.

That aside, my point was, that the primary factor for color saturation is not the sensor (film or digital) anymore as soon as you have a digital file.

Toby

11-07-2006, 07:08

Me too, I think it is perfect in that way and it works. but was not suposed M8 to be for documentary and art? not for rich belly boys in the weekend park walk shooting flowers :D

Maybe Leica should make people submit a portfolio before they sell them a camera. I'm sure that would make perfect business sense

grantray

11-07-2006, 07:09

While I understand your point, which is valid, there is no need to get flustered, Nachkebia. The M8 will not, nor is it inherintly designed to, record images in the manner of film. All that talk that it will is just marketing. The film-based M's and the M8 are different devices- much like a company that manufactures both charcoal and lead based drawing materials.

For me, the M8 is a tool that presents a new set of parameters which will challenge the way I work within the medium of photography. I have no plans on being frustrated when the images from my M8 record something with a different look and feel than film. In fact, I'm excited to delve into the plasticity of the RAW workflow. I look forward to finding the limitations of the device and accepting them as artistic challenges, whether that be film, digital, or the various densities of drawing materials and paper textures and weights. And will I be upset if I spend hours to get what I want out of a DNG file off the M8? My drawings take MONTHS. A measly hour or two on a photographic image is chickensh!t.

So, in the end, rejoice! Leica has made a new tool that requires new ways of working and thinking. Zeiss will surely follow with one of its own soon. And for God's sake, stop comparing digital to film. That argument is boring already.

-grant

Nachkebia

11-07-2006, 07:12

And for God's sake, stop comparing digital to film. That argument is boring already.
I am not comparing, M8 owners are comparing M8 to film :D for me it is absurd :D

ywenz

11-07-2006, 07:13

Maybe Leica should make people submit a portfolio before they sell them a camera. I'm sure that would make perfect business sense

I think what Nach was alluding to was these "belly boys" with their weekend walk flower shots are the ones trumping the equipment's greatness against utter evidence that say otherwise.

IGMeanwell

11-07-2006, 07:13

Another blind statment, it has been long time since you have seen velvia obviously... did you also check that plastic high-lights? does those look like velvia too?

If you actually watched that essay .. you will notice many of those photos were taken by Constantine in the early 90s with slide film as he states ... so I am not totally sure who is mistaken in that statment

jaapv

11-07-2006, 07:21

I think what Nach was alluding to was these "belly boys" with their weekend walk flower shots are the ones trumping the equipment's greatness against utter evidence that say otherwise.

Boy, am I glad that the only flower shot in my gallery was not on a walk but in my garden...:D :D :D

HansDerHase

11-07-2006, 07:23

If you actually watched that essay .. you will notice many of those photos were taken by Constantine in the early 90s with slide film as he states ... so I am not totally sure who is mistaken in that statment
I'm talking not about the images in the essay but the ones behind the "M8"-Link, which I hope (and guess as some seem to be high ISO) were actually made with an M8.

ywenz

11-07-2006, 07:23

Boy, am I glad that the only flower shot in my gallery was not on a walk but in my garden...:D :D :D

But he couldn't have been talking about you because you don't have any flower shots with your M8 yet.. ;)

IGMeanwell

11-07-2006, 07:38

To answer the original thread question...

The reason Digital has a perceived flatness or lifelessness ... would be latitude and dynamic range

Digital backs are the only sensors that have come close to film in those respects... this is why digital is easier to overexpose, overblow, or what have you...

The Fuji S1, S2, S3 were not the easiest DSLRs to use yet they are a favorite of the image quality crowd because the Super CCD sensor has a greater dynamic range than the DX and CMOS chips.

Same thing is film ... some films have higher latitudes, some have flatter latitudes... but it still all comes down to the photographer, his abilities, pre and post processing; of course their eye.

If you don't like digital photography because you can't get the same results or you feel nobody can get the "proper" results then thats your opinion.

I am just amazed at the sheer joy some of us are getting at slamming Leica in the ground as if they had insulted the photographic community for releasing the M8. Granted it has problems, but think of how many threads since the day it was announced of speculations, arguments, and heralds regarding this camera ... there was absolutely no way Leica was going to satisfy even 85% ... they are lucky to get 60%

x-ray

11-07-2006, 07:39

Me too, I think it is perfect in that way and it works. but was not suposed M8 to be for documentary and art? not for rich belly boys in the weekend park walk shooting flowers :D

I don't see this as a particularly great documentary camera. Whether the images are stunning or not it's a bit shy of pixels for a serious documantary camera. It will be fine for small reproductions and prints up to 14 inches but I suspect it will seriously suffer above that.

J. Borger

11-07-2006, 07:41

Yeah, it is art in transition, so is digital photography, I was never fan of temporary art, J. Borger I don`t want you to spend hours in photoshop to simulating classics on film? :D

How meany hours you spend on this to make it look like a proper photo? http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47913&cat=500&ppuser=1403

And shooting with noct at f/1 does help a bit to blur things around but ........
So what's the point here ? .. PS work on that picture was about 20 seconds, the time to resize and sharpen for web. It's R-D1 B&W mode, pretty much off camera.

But i really do not get why you turn this personal or in a film vs digital topic?
It was about the way Wheatly had his work printed because he wanted to have his picture a certain look .. which is perfectly in line with tast at this moment
He could have made the same prints if he had captured on film, or glossy prints with high contrast from his M8 files.

I do not even know why i am going into a discussion with you ... :bang:

Just wished you could once in a while forget about your anti-digital crusade ... and look beyond the capturing medium .. .. i know i am askink the impossible from you though ;)

humanized_form

11-07-2006, 07:59

i think the dmr and film images look great. nice!

i am finding how you get there is really the issue for me, and it all varies according to personal preferences. i use both mediums (started with digital and now primarily shoot slides), use computers every day all day at work, am comfortable with digital manipulation etc... but the digital process just seems gross to me in ways i can't explain. something about computers needing other computers to fix the images they capture. i just can't help but feel we are going backwards in some ways and making something more complicated to achieve a similar result.

is post processing creative freedom? it could be viewed that way. yes, we can work images over in post forever, but i just keep thinking why does that have to be necessary to get a high quality result? why can't the exposure decisions be made at the time you are taking the photo and achieve a high quality image?

thanks for great thread!
kevin

IGMeanwell

11-07-2006, 08:05

Would you prefer an analog system to manipulate digital images?

What do you feel about computers manipulating analog images?

Do you have a problem with dodging and burning in the dark room when printing? Or possibly an analog unsharp mask?

I just ask these questions, because photo manipulation is part of photography... whether its times for processing film, different developers, tempertures... different photo papers, different enlarging lenses... different types of analog processing its all a means to get the image that you perceive in your mind

jaapv

11-07-2006, 08:18

But he couldn't have been talking about you because you don't have any flower shots with your M8 yet.. ;)

Ok. I'll stay well away from weekend walks then ;)

humanized_form

11-07-2006, 08:24

good questions. personally...i have found that i like shooting color slides because i can make all the decisions at the time i take picture. i have found a really fun thing to me is thinking about everything as i take the picture. so i dunno, maybe it is just a phase i'm going through .... but i really don't alter images after i take them. my goal is that i have made decisions that make manipluation not necessary. i did do post when i used digicams and dslrs etc and like not having to do so with slides. so maybe what i do now is a reaction to digital imaging

i do get ones i like drum scanned for prints. so i am always digital in the end! haha...

ywenz

11-07-2006, 08:25

Ok. I'll stay well away from weekend walks then ;)

just dont post a stopped down picture of a flower with muted colors and call that "see how good the M8 is!?" promise?

Allen Gilman

11-07-2006, 08:45

"Another blind statment, it has been long time since you have seen velvia obviously... did you also check that plastic high-lights? does those look like velvia too?"

and it must be a long time since you've seen film since these pics were not taken with a digital cam...check out the plastic highlights running through your comments in this thread :D :D :D

i think we're gonna need a few months of a lot of shooting to see how the m8 really performs so kick back and enjoy the ride folks :P

jaapv

11-07-2006, 08:52

just dont post a stopped down picture of a flower with muted colors and call that "see how good the M8 is!?" promise?
As a matter of fact I will be doing just that in due course, but for a different reason: I have figured out a way to do real macro on a M camera: I plan to use the Visoflex, my Noflexar400 and (I just found out this works) the 500D diopter by Canon. Everything fits. I cannot do Chrismas decorations due to the banding issue :mad: ;):D, so it will have to be flowers.Or rather small parts of them.

rolo

11-07-2006, 09:00

Two things, Vladimer:
1. It is a great photo, what has the capture medium to do with that? Nobody asked Rembrandt which brand of brushes he used.

Oh yeah ??? Today he would have a sponsor deal worth about $10million a year.

"Hey Rem, what sneakers you wearing today man ?" ;)

StuartR

11-07-2006, 09:23

Perhaps people might find this interesting. Here are two Jpegs out of the DMR. One as the unadjusted raw file from flex color, and another my edit. Depending on your monitor and your taste, it may look overcooked, but the high contrast version is much closer to what real life looked like. Anyway, it is just an example of how much digital can vary based on the conversion and photogs vision. FWIW, all I did was a level's adjustment, clipping some shadow and highlight information and adjusting the midpoint darker.

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/snaefellsnes-farm-uned.jpg

http://www.stuartrichardson.com/snaefellsnes-farm.jpg

jaapv

11-07-2006, 09:27

Oh yeah ??? Today he would have a sponsor deal worth about $10million a year.

"Hey Rem, what sneakers you wearing today man ?" ;)

Indeed he would, he was a pretty sharp business man, despite some disasters in that department.

Sparrow

11-07-2006, 09:38

Indeed he would, he was a pretty sharp business man, despite some disasters in that department.

apart from the bankruptcy!

jaapv

11-07-2006, 11:52

apart from the bankruptcy!

I thought it was nicer to say disaster instead, this being his anniversary year...:( :D