>
> I apologize for not making myself clear. My point was not about film v
> digital, but rather the _approach_ to any such discussions.
I'll try harder to de-bias my comments.
In the spirit of that, let me ask this:
One of the big challenges I've found with a full-digital workflow is when I
want to do excessive curves and contrast adjustments that I can get
solarization artifacts as well as a general loss of tonal separation. I know
I'm not alone, and some of what I battle is visible in the works of some
really top-dog photographers, including Michael Richtmann. I could give
examples, but let's stick with conceptual issues here.
This is NOT a matter of one camera brand over another, sensor manufacturer
over another or even choice in raw converters and editors. I'm talking about
the fact that we have only so many bits to work with and manipulation of
those bits causes troubles whether we admit it or not. The goal is to
minimize or disguise those troubles as much as we can. Unfortunately, we're
dealing with hard math here. When you have to digitize the entire A-D stream
with 12-14 bits per pixel, you have to reassign the measurements into the
final result. When most people don't realize is that by the time we've
mangled the image into the final product that those 12-14 bits per pixel of
original A-D conversion are now down to an effective 2-4 bits at best. Even
less if you convert to aRGB as the dynamic range is sacrificed in exchange
for a wider color gamut.
One method I've personally found to deal with this is to mask the artifacts
through random noise injection. The E-1 seems to do this natively, but even
with digitized scans, I'll still have to randomize things to break up the
artifacts if I need to do extensive adjustments. Some may actually say that
this is what defines the "digital look" is the loss of tonal separations.
Specifically in the world of B&W, this is a big issue. When optically
printing a B&W negative any "curves adjustment" is not only in the analog
realm, but is by it's very nature effectively increasing the "bit-depth" of
the image without loss of tonal separation in the highlights or shadows. If,
for example, I want to increase the exposure (lighten) the shadows by 4
stops in a digital image, you end up with some pretty aweful shadows. But if
I increase the exposure of the shadows by 4 stops in the darkroom through
the dodging process, the shadows lighten but you don't get solarization
artifacts. The same thing goes on the other end of the spectrum--if I want
to darken a portion of the image by burning in, this adjustment also occurs
without getting artifacts in the highlight transitions. Sunsets anyone?
What is presumed to be an "anti-digital" stance is anything but. I'm
struggling with both Lightroom and Darkroom technologies and techniques like
everyone else. I doubt there is anybody who has completely "arrived" in
either system. If so, then there wouldn't be any demand for upgrades and new
equipment/software purchases.
"Good Enough", as Chuck stated, is a relative term. What is "good enough"
today may not be tomorrow. In fact, I seriously doubt that it will be at
all, because we have a track record. "We" includes me too.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|