I was expecting responses like this. They somewhat miss my point.
>From: Jan Steinman
>Two words: "Adobe Photoshop."
>
>I even have an action I built called "Velveeta" that will do a credible
job of turning a normal image into something that looks like it came from
Velvia.
So why spend valuable time and effort trying to make something sort of look
like it came from Velvia instead of just using Velvia? (See below).
>------------------------------
>From: Marc Lawrence <mlawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Hmm, well at least on the c5050z you can vary saturation.
>You can also adjust the white-balance to some degree, without
>filters or "film-changes". You can even run a black & white
>"film" through it if you want. There's a sepia tone too. ;-)
Yes, you can adjust the white balance - so you don't need filters to shoot
under different types of light (incandescent, fluorescent, etc.). All this
does is allow me to leave my color meter and filters at home. And while
you can vary the saturation to some extent (which is nothing more than the
camera processing the RAW image based on someone else's pre-defined
software algorithms), your choices are still severly limited as compared to
the choices available in film. And if you like to work with RAW files
directly, it's a moot point.
>------------------------------
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Interesting idea. I'm sure the original idea of color film was to make
>as accurate a reproduction of the colors that impinge on the film as
>possible. Now digital sensor/firmware delivers color that is more
>'accurate', in that specific sense, than any film and we bemoan the loss
>of our film's imperfections.
>
>Wo/Mankind; the're so crazy, ya gotta love 'em.
>
>Besides, you don't need those capabilities in the digital 'film'. Photo
>editing programs can go way beyond any film adjusting 'color reality'.
>Moose
Who says color film is or was intended for accurate reproduction?? If I'm
shooting an ad for red lipstick or yellow flowers, I'd rather use a film
that pumps up the color - Velvia, etc. For portraits, I want a film that
renders nice skin tones, such as Astia. In neither case do I want accurate
colors, and in neither case was the film intended for accurate colors.
Different films designed for different purposes. And many, many choices to
pick from to match the intent of the photograph. Some digital cameras
allow a few different "modes" such as saturated or B&W, but this is nowhere
near the choices available in film (and which B&W - Plus-X? Tri-X? T-MAX?).
Another point of digital that many people miss is the hidden expense. For
example, assume you shot a 36-exposure "roll" of film on your digital
camera. To vary the "look" you will need to download the camera to your
computer, open each image in Photoshop, do your tweaking, and save the
file. If this process takes 15 minutes for each photo, it will take you
nine hours to "process" the digital images to make them look like Velvia,
Astia, Provia, Whatever-ia. That's nine hours of your life you'll never
get back just to do one "roll" of film. And for pros who shoot 10-20 rolls
per day...
I'm serious about this - let's take a real-life example from my brother's
studio work. He has more and more clients requesting that he shoot digital
for catalog use to cut costs. In each case, the post-production costs have
made the total cost of the photoshoot SIGNIFICANTLY greater than when using
film. Normally, my brother uses one assistant during a shoot for normal
stuff like lighting, setup, going for lunch, etc. But on a digital shoot,
two assistants are required - one for the normal stuff and another to
download the images, sort them and burn them to CD. Assistant cost has
just doubled. And then each image has to be post-processed for color
matching. OK, sounds easy to do on Photoshop. But each video card/monitor
used will give a slightly different color rendition (even when calibrated
using a Spyder - and we won't even go into the additional variability of
color printers) so color matching turns out to be quite difficult, and the
resulting files sent to the printer must be accompanied by a fabric swatch
or other similar item so the printer can do the final color matching.
While film also requires color matching at this stage, it's not as
expensive or time consuming as with digital as the film can usually be
efficiently batch-processed.
The cost of the high-end computer equipment my brother needs to shoot
digital also has to be amortized over the digital photoshoots (ever price a
decent digital back for an RZ-67?), so this raises the cost to his clients.
And they need similar high-end equipment to do the post-processing, which
adds further to the cost. So these clients start out thinking they save
money and time with digital, but by the time they get the "look" they want,
the cost can be up to twice as much as shooting film (including the cost of
the labor involved in post-processing).
While I look forward the the 4/3 system as much as anyone, and would really
like to buy one when they are avaialble, I'm not going to kid myself about
digital's capabilities. It has its good points, but at the same time it is
nowhere as flexible (nor cost effective) as an OM-1 with film. This is
also why I think digital will never completely replace film. I have been
using Photoshop since the dark ages (and Aldus Photostyler even before that
- anyone remember that program?) and while you can do amazing things with
it, it isn't a cost-effective way to mimic the results you get from film.
Last week, my brother and I shot 2,196 frames of Velvia in five days. I
sure as heck don't want to process each one of those on my computer - I
won't live long enough.
And this doesn't even touch the area of creating mural-sized prints...
Steve Troy
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|