Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-31-2016, 09:29 PM - 2 Likes   #46
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
Cool shot. Those men were definitely cut from a better cloth than most of us today...

Part of the beauty of film vs digital in regards to post processing is where certain decisions are made.

With film, I make many decisions when I load my camera. B&W vs Color. Dynamic range. Color palette, saturation, and temperature. Fine grain or fast speed or something in the middle. Etc. I make more decisions that affect the image when I shoot: over vs under exposure, save the highlights vs saving the shadows, to filter or not to filter. What developing process do I use? Assuming I'm printing on my own, I'm also making decisions about contrast, brightness, overall tone, and more when I choose my paper, whether or not I use filters on my enlarger head, how I develop my paper, and more.

With digital, much of that work, especially when it comes to film selection, filters, white balance, saturation levels, etc, is put off till the end, so called "post processing". A straight OOC jpeg is today's drug store 1 hr developing with 4x6 prints: choices are made, just not by you, and the art, craft, and soul lies in those choices.

How much any given print is the work of the photographer, the work of the editor, and the work of the printer, depends on who's putting in the most effort, if they are different people.[COLOR="Silver"]


Last edited by skierd; 05-31-2016 at 09:45 PM.
06-01-2016, 01:12 AM   #47
Senior Member
Johnny Rod's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 115
My first thought when looking at the D-Day shot was, well, it's not technically great but it tells a story. But then I read skierd's comments, and you know, there is a lot more to "technically great" than I'd first thought - as well as being shot at on a beach.
06-01-2016, 04:46 AM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 358
QuoteOriginally posted by skierd Quote
Cool shot. Those men were definitely cut from a better cloth than most of us today...

Part of the beauty of film vs digital in regards to post processing is where certain decisions are made.

With film, I make many decisions when I load my camera. B&W vs Color. Dynamic range. Color palette, saturation, and temperature. Fine grain or fast speed or something in the middle. Etc. I make more decisions that affect the image when I shoot: over vs under exposure, save the highlights vs saving the shadows, to filter or not to filter. What developing process do I use? Assuming I'm printing on my own, I'm also making decisions about contrast, brightness, overall tone, and more when I choose my paper, whether or not I use filters on my enlarger head, how I develop my paper, and more.

With digital, much of that work, especially when it comes to film selection, filters, white balance, saturation levels, etc, is put off till the end, so called "post processing". A straight OOC jpeg is today's drug store 1 hr developing with 4x6 prints: choices are made, just not by you, and the art, craft, and soul lies in those choices.

How much any given print is the work of the photographer, the work of the editor, and the work of the printer, depends on who's putting in the most effort, if they are different people.[COLOR="Silver"]
There were purists who regarded burning and dodging as manipulation...
It was a lot easier doing cibachromes from perfect Kchrome 25 slides than mono prints from bad mono negatives.
06-01-2016, 11:44 AM - 1 Like   #49
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,804
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
scanned straight-up with no post processing applied
This statement makes it sound as if the final image is somehow more pure because it's "unedited". It is edited though, you just relied on the scanning software to make editing decisions (black point, white point, grey point, contrast/tone curve, etc.)

FWIW, it could use some PP It has a magenta hue in the highlights.

06-01-2016, 02:02 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,492
Just thought of another one:

Depending on your camera and the accuracy of the winder counter - you can reverse the film back into the canister and leave the leader out (not fully rewound) on most manual cameras. This allows you to change film in the middle of a roll. I usually wrote the number of exposed frames on their with the following nomenclature "#+" this told me to put it back in and go to that number and then add a blank after that just in case to avoid multiple exposures - and YES I have messed up and ended up with unintentional multiple exposures at times when I failed to write the number while thinking of it.
06-01-2016, 03:07 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Cuthbert's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,573
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Just thought of another one:

Depending on your camera and the accuracy of the winder counter - you can reverse the film back into the canister and leave the leader out (not fully rewound) on most manual cameras. This allows you to change film in the middle of a roll. I usually wrote the number of exposed frames on their with the following nomenclature "#+" this told me to put it back in and go to that number and then add a blank after that just in case to avoid multiple exposures - and YES I have messed up and ended up with unintentional multiple exposures at times when I failed to write the number while thinking of it.
That sounds dangerous!
06-01-2016, 03:17 PM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,492
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
That sounds dangerous!
In practice it really isn't. I have done it literally hundreds of times. I only screwed it up once. If you forget to label a roll - you play with fire. LOL
06-01-2016, 06:10 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,926
QuoteOriginally posted by Swift1 Quote
This statement makes it sound as if the final image is somehow more pure because it's "unedited". It is edited though, you just relied on the scanning software to make editing decisions (black point, white point, grey point, contrast/tone curve, etc.)

FWIW, it could use some PP It has a magenta hue in the highlights.
There are definitely a variety of perspectives on this. If you consider that I printed this b&w on RC paper and it resulted in this image with regards to those qualities you point out then consider this scanned image as "edited". Having scanned over 30,000 frames of various films, I first qualified the results to be as I want them to be and not as the scanner and software decided they should be.

BTW, I have been using digital capture and manipulation since the 80's and have no reservation doing so anytime I want to. One thing I have learned is that I can control what the image looks like on my end and not what it looks like on anyone else's setup . . .

06-01-2016, 06:52 PM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,804
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
There are definitely a variety of perspectives on this. If you consider that I printed this b&w on RC paper and it resulted in this image with regards to those qualities you point out then consider this scanned image as "edited". Having scanned over 30,000 frames of various films, I first qualified the results to be as I want them to be and not as the scanner and software decided they should be.

BTW, I have been using digital capture and manipulation since the 80's and have no reservation doing so anytime I want to. One thing I have learned is that I can control what the image looks like on my end and not what it looks like on anyone else's setup . . .
But in the making of the print you make many choices that all add to the outcome of the final print. Paper choice, developer choice, exposure time on the enlarger, color filters if needed. etc. You can choose not to use filters and not to dodge or burn, but that in itself doesn't make the print better somehow.
Scanning and editing are not so different from enlarging in a dark room. You can choose to let the scanning software make certain choices for you (if you are using autoexposure in the scanning software then you are letting it make those choices) and if you are happy with the results then that's great. There is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the final image more pure in any way.
06-01-2016, 08:22 PM - 1 Like   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,926
QuoteOriginally posted by Swift1 Quote
You can choose to let the scanning software make certain choices for you (if you are using autoexposure in the scanning software then you are letting it make those choices) and if you are happy with the results then that's great. There is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the final image more pure in any way.
I am afraid you have me mistaken for something I am not. We simply have a difference in perspective when it comes to editing.

When I say I didn't edit a scan, that means I setup the scanner and software to deliver an accurate image based on what I know it should be. To achieve this I will use - or disable, every facility available to me including the autoexposure, autofocus, ICE, crop to film borders, orientation, color and contrast settings.

Case in point. I took a picture below on Kodak Gold 100. I scanned it on my Coolscan (upper) as well as the minilab's Noritsu scanner (lower).



We won't debate individual color perceptions but suffice it to say I know the Coolscan interpretation of the color negative - based on what I set it up to do as viewed on my screen, is correct and the Noritsu is not. I used all of the facilities available to me with the Coolscan+Nikonscan to deliver an accurate scan and I don't believe that is called editing. If you think this is editing then we can agree to disagree.
06-01-2016, 09:00 PM   #56
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,804
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
I am afraid you have me mistaken for something I am not. We simply have a difference in perspective when it comes to editing.
I do not disagree with your results, and I understand how you are getting them.

I do disagree with the prevalent idea that an "unedited" scan is somehow more pure.
06-01-2016, 11:49 PM - 2 Likes   #57
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
And to add, that there is a superiority in a "pure" scan or chrome. There is efficiency which I won't deny, and I do love the efficiency of good negative scanning or well shot chromed, but to me it's the final image that matters more so than how we got there.
06-02-2016, 09:35 PM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,926
QuoteOriginally posted by Swift1 Quote
I do disagree with the prevalent idea that an "unedited" scan is somehow more pure.
One of the great things about film is that two different people using same film may have completely different results. Whether or not one is pure and the other not, I will leave that for someone else to decide. If someone offered me an obscene amount of money for one of my images, I'd be happy to call it pure . . .
06-02-2016, 10:08 PM   #59
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 3,905
Get a decent negative scanner and learn to use it. That will take time but it's worth it as scanning is the most difficult part of a film/digital hybrid workflow.
06-03-2016, 05:10 AM - 2 Likes   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 358
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
Get a decent negative scanner and learn to use it. That will take time but it's worth it as scanning is the most difficult part of a film/digital hybrid workflow.
Nice of you to say I'll say with my print frames and enlargers while I can get silver paper.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
advice, balance, box, camera, choices, color, course, decisions, examples, f/11, f/16, film, films, filter, filters, fuji, grain, iso, kodak, lomography, lot, paper, post, res, saturation, shade, shadows, version, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tips & Advice for old film lens jerry7171 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 05-19-2016 01:56 PM
Need some advice for my newly secondhand Ricoh GR Digital? keitai Ricoh GR 2 10-27-2015 01:33 AM
Advice needed for a digital camera for a 76 year old Bustedup General Photography 21 04-07-2015 02:33 PM
People Alina - Film & Digital (but mostly film) and a cautionary tale alan_smithee_photos Post Your Photos! 9 01-23-2015 05:45 PM
Recommend a digital photography technique book for experienced film photographer frogoutofwater Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 12-11-2014 07:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top