Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-20-2015, 05:13 PM   #11251
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,003
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
Yes, I am aware of that but for me scan is just a way to share pics online, and should be faithful to the prints.



How are your prints made?

05-20-2015, 05:56 PM - 1 Like   #11252
Pentaxian
Colorado CJ's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Colorado
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,296
This is the old sugar plant in my home town. There are these sugar plants stretching along the front range. Most are now abandoned as they beets are processed somewhere else. This old plant is still going though. I'll need to get a shot of the actual buildings soon.

I used some front tilt to focus on just the train cars and buildings.

Taken with a Zone VI 4x5 and Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 lens. Shot on Foma 200 film rated at 120 and developed in Pyrocat MC for 8.5 minutes.

05-20-2015, 10:16 PM - 1 Like   #11253
Pentaxian
cooltouch's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 581
I'm afraid I'm one of those who is guilty of freely manipulating emulsion based images. I mean, if we really want to be honest about it, even the process of having a negative printed involves some manipulation of the image. The processor does in most cases correct for exposure and even white balance.

But when it comes to other aspects of post processing, here's the way I feel about it. An emulsion based photo -- let's say a slide in this instance -- has a certain amount of latent quality to it that will only become realized through processing. I can point to slides of mine that appear to be underexposed but which actually still retain a large amount of detail in the unexposed-looking shadows. The trick -- or even the art, if you will -- is being able to bring out this detail without distorting the quality of the rest of the image. Often to do this sort of thing, I will treat a slide as if it were a set of HDR images. In processing, I will "take" several shots of that image, ranging from almost black to almost white, and merge them using HDR processing. Frequently the image I get back is a strange, washed out looking affair, but just as often, it isn't. And a bit more processing can bring it to life. Now, is this wrong? Is this somehow being unfaithful to the nature of film? Hardly, IMO. You know, the great Ansel Adams was a wizard in the darkroom much more so than he was behind a camera. I've read that many of his negatives appeared flat and uninteresting, but it was his magic in the darkroom that gave them their unique beauty. And isn't this sort of work post processing, albeit done in an analog fashion rather than digitally?

Again, getting back to the latent qualities in an emulsion-based image, too often I've been able to extract almost hidden detail from a slide or a negative by judicious use of sharpening routines. Often coupled with contrast work, the resulting images can be transformed from something quite dull in appearance to something quite exciting.

So, sorry, I'll continue to process my film images, and I won't be the least apologetic about it. But ultimately it amounts to what the photographer feels comfortable with. And if that means no PP, then so be it. But I will reserve the right to do any and all PP that I deem necessary.
05-21-2015, 01:06 AM   #11254
Veteran Member
Cuthbert's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,573
QuoteOriginally posted by Swift1 Quote
How are your prints made?
We already went through that, I use a minilab because I can't print on my own, and almost all of them are using the Fuji Frontier that probably is a machine older than me.

05-21-2015, 01:47 AM - 1 Like   #11255
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,967
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
No, YOU don't understand the simple fact you can't judge the sharpness of a lens from a post processed image. Or any other optical qualities for the simple reason you are adding other parameters that modify (enhances?) the quality of the glass.
If you use the same sensor, same setting, same processing routine, you can judge anything about the lens as the whole process will be the same.

Even if you decide to do optical prints, you'll have to deal with various factor that can screw your test : is the focal plane of film paralell to the focal plane of paper ? is the focus point of the enlarger exactly right to get the best sharpness ? is the paper perfectly fitted for the task ? is the paper perfectly flat ? is the chemical bath at the exact same temperature ? are the time of bathing exactly the same ?

In both case you have a boatload of things that can simply screw your test.

So tell me, why is processing a picture trought the same scene / same parameter / same sensor is so inferior to optical print, for the purpose of testing a lens ?


QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
From an engineering perspective if we have to define what is called "transfer faction" its value should be as equal to 1 as possible
Yeah, that's in theory, and some day i will live there, because everything is always fine, in theory.
In reality, the scanner will do the enhancement it feels appropriate to get a "good" picture. Whether the scanner is from your home, or the minilab. I can even say that the operator of the scann even did some modification on his own, like tweaking yellow or blue.

My personnal conclusion is that you think that digital is like "the mother of all sins" and that optical print is as pure as some God. Which is pretty much not ... scientific, to me. You are some sort of paradox to me (no offence here, we all have some in ourselves - i tries to eat well and balance, but from time to time, a big fat macDonalds is like heaven to me )
05-21-2015, 04:30 AM   #11256
Veteran Member
Cuthbert's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,573
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
If you use the same sensor, same setting, same processing routine, you can judge anything about the lens as the whole process will be the same.

Even if you decide to do optical prints, you'll have to deal with various factor that can screw your test : is the focal plane of film paralell to the focal plane of paper ? is the focus point of the enlarger exactly right to get the best sharpness ? is the paper perfectly fitted for the task ? is the paper perfectly flat ? is the chemical bath at the exact same temperature ? are the time of bathing exactly the same ?

In both case you have a boatload of things that can simply screw your test.

So tell me, why is processing a picture trought the same scene / same parameter / same sensor is so inferior to optical print, for the purpose of testing a lens ?

Yeah, that's in theory, and some day i will live there, because everything is always fine, in theory.
In reality, the scanner will do the enhancement it feels appropriate to get a "good" picture. Whether the scanner is from your home, or the minilab. I can even say that the operator of the scann even did some modification on his own, like tweaking yellow or blue.

My personnal conclusion is that you think that digital is like "the mother of all sins" and that optical print is as pure as some God. Which is pretty much not ... scientific, to me. You are some sort of paradox to me (no offence here, we all have some in ourselves - i tries to eat well and balance, but from time to time, a big fat macDonalds is like heaven to me )
That's an interesting post because in real life I'm an engineer and I do a lot of calibration among the other things, if I had to think bad things about you guys I might say you are trying to teach me my own job.

In order:

1) I don't think you ever heard about the concept of "tolerance"...my professional experience says that all the factors you mention are irrelevant.

2) For the purpose of testing a lens a sensor is not inferior if the results are not manipulated, the problem is that it's easier to manipulate a digital signal than an analogical one, that's the reason why for many sensors just analogical measurements are considered acceptable. Still in this case we are talking about people who heavily manipulate the pictures to improve them in PP by their own admission and unlike cooltouch's pics for instance in many cases they look evidently artificial.

3) A very good scientist once said "there's nothing more practical than a good theory" and I strongly agree with him. I don't work in R&D and my job is to make things works in real life, so far I've been successful and I thank the Continental university to have taught me the theory of things so well. Brits or Americans in many cases can't even understand the basic physical principles behind for instance a CFD simulation so something I receive airflows who violate Newtonian physics...but that's another rant for another board.

4) I don't understand why you think scanners have a mind of their own and they "decide" to improve the pics, for the Boots personnel, they are a pharmacy and what they told me is that they just insert the roll into the machine and they don't anything to them because they don't have a clue on how to change the settings...I believe them.

5) My humble conclusion from the above points is that you have very confused ideas on what is scientific or logical, as well as little practical sense, but that's just me!

Anyway, enough talking, let's post some pics:



Have you seen how cool this Transform is? Even if the pic has been taken with some livid overcast winter light it's better than Michael Bay's, and you guess why? Because of course it's physical and not CGI!

P.S. Hopefully I haven't already posted it here, however it's taken with my LX, M200 f4 wide open and Portra 160.

Last edited by Cuthbert; 05-21-2015 at 04:44 AM.
05-21-2015, 04:43 AM   #11257
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,967
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
That's an interesting post because in real life I'm an engineer and I do a lot of calibration among the other things, if I had to think bad things about you guys I might say you are trying to teach me my own job.

In order:

1) I don't think you ever heard about the concept of "tolerance"...my professional experience says that all the factors you mention are irrelevant.

2) For the purpose of testing a lens a sensor is not inferior if the results are not manipulated, the problem is that it's easier to manipulate a digital signal than an analogical one, that's the reason why for many sensors just analogical measurements are considered acceptable. Still in this case we are talking about people who heavily manipulate the pictures to improve them in PP by their own admission and unlike cooltouch's pics for instance in many cases they look evidently artificial.

3) A very good scientist once said "there's nothing more practical than a good theory" and I strongly agree with him. I don't work in R&D and my job is to make things works in real life, so far I've been successful and I thank the Continental university to have taught me the theory of things so well. Brits or Americans in many cases can't even understand the basic physical principles behind for instance a CFD simulation so something I receive airflows who violate Newtonian physics...but that's another rant for another board.

4) My humble conclusion from the above points is that you have very confused ideas on what is scientific or logical, as well as little practical sense, but that's just me!
My response to your overall answer us that you simply don't answer my questions.

try to print a sharp picture with a curly negative, you'll see that flat field is not as irrelevant as you think it is, in practical terms.

You explain why digital is supposedly less trust worthy than print, but still my point remain, you artificially think prints has more value to "show" reality.

And to finish, i have a very neat idea and definition of what logical and scientific means. After all i'm teaching economics and epistemologie of economic science and sociologie. So yes' i think i far more understand those concept than what you credit me.

I have to admit that you have a very smart way of avoiding question and not answering it. I truely reconize that your ability is quite the one of a smart man.
05-21-2015, 04:44 AM   #11258
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Pensacola Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 130
QuoteOriginally posted by cooltouch Quote
You know, the great Ansel Adams was a wizard in the darkroom much more so than he was behind a camera. I've read that many of his negatives appeared flat and uninteresting, but it was his magic in the darkroom that gave them their unique beauty. And isn't this sort of work post processing, albeit done in an analog fashion rather than digitally?
No magic or wizardry was involved, just hard work and lots of failure. But I agree post is post. Heck Vermeer pre-processed with camera obscura, what a cheater.

05-21-2015, 04:44 AM - 1 Like   #11259
Pentaxian
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,295
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
A very good scientist once said "there's nothing more practical than a good theory"
I like that. Put another way, if its not good in pactice, it can't be good in theory.
05-21-2015, 04:48 AM   #11260
Veteran Member
Cuthbert's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,573
QuoteOriginally posted by _Ben Quote
No magic or wizardry was involved, just hard work and lots of failure. But I agree post is post. Heck Vermeer pre-processed with camera obscura, what a cheater.
The Soviet photographers of the Stalinist era were VERY good at making people disappear from official pics, usually post mortem:





And hell yes! They were amazing cheaters!!!

QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
My response to your overall answer us that you simply don't answer my questions.

try to print a sharp picture with a curly negative, you'll see that flat field is not as irrelevant as you think it is, in practical terms.

You explain why digital is supposedly less trust worthy than print, but still my point remain, you artificially think prints has more value to "show" reality.

And to finish, i have a very neat idea and definition of what logical and scientific means. After all i'm teaching economics and epistemologie of economic science and sociologie. So yes' i think i far more understand those concept than what you credit me.

I have to admit that you have a very smart way of avoiding question and not answering it. I truely reconize that your ability is quite the one of a smart man.
Bold sentence number 1 contradicts bold sentence no.2, Aristotle would not be happy of that.

Section in red destroys any credibility you can have on this board: economics, epistemology and sociology are NOT science!



Let's have a good laugh together!

Last edited by Cuthbert; 05-21-2015 at 04:53 AM.
05-21-2015, 07:28 AM - 1 Like   #11261
Site Supporter
jgblodgett's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 152
Day at Huntington Beach

05-21-2015, 08:33 AM   #11262
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,967
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
epistemology and sociology are NOT science!
Who said they are ?

Wether or not economics is a science is a two century debate, and nowadays the answer remains that it is still considered as a science.

But if you want we can have a 400 years debate about what is and what is not science.

Overall, i think, that you have such confidence in your supposed superior intellect that it only show you have a very limited social skills, and that you rely on your professional knowledge to compensate.

Anyway, i've tried to have a polite conversation, something you seems not to be able to stand for, around what makes so superior prints to digital in the testing field of lens. I have to say that it's sad to face such individual incapable of explaining their ideas because of quite undelicate sufficiency.

Have a wonderfull day wallowing yourself in your bliss of mockery.

Last edited by aurele; 05-21-2015 at 08:45 AM.
05-21-2015, 09:20 AM - 1 Like   #11263
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,003
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
We already went through that, I use a minilab because I can't print on my own, and almost all of them are using the Fuji Frontier that probably is a machine older than me.
So your film prints are are made digitally?
05-21-2015, 09:35 AM - 1 Like   #11264
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,095
Here's a straight scan from film of my dog. Just look at those realistic colors and all that latitude! no post processing here at all, just a straight mini lab scan and resizing for upload.



---------- Post added 05-21-15 at 10:54 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote

analogical

4) I don't understand why you think scanners have a mind of their own and they "decide" to improve the pics, for the Boots personnel, they are a pharmacy and what they told me is that they just insert the roll into the machine and they don't anything to them because they don't have a clue on how to change the settings...I believe them.


Have you seen how cool this Transform is? Even if the pic has been taken with some livid overcast winter light it's better than Michael Bay's, and you guess why? Because of course it's physical and not CGI!

P.S. Hopefully I haven't already posted it here, however it's taken with my LX, M200 f4 wide open and Portra 160.
4). Because scanners do have a mind of their own I.e. their default programming that presumably a group of real engineers and probably a few photographers somewhere in Japan came up with so that the pimply faced teenager that gets to run the scanner in some backwater drug store can load in film and get acceptable enough results for the masses wanting a set of 24-36 $0.13ea 4x6 digital color prints from their vacation.

They also built in calibration tools to allow the scanner, should he or she decide to become proficient at what they do or should the machine find itself at a decent lab that cares, to be adjusted for various film stocks and photographic issues such as low contrast, color balances, exposure problems, and more. You know, everything you do with a home scanner or Adobe Camera Raw with RAW files to make the images look their best.

As far as your transformer goes, it looks like what it is: a snapshot of a statue on decent film with a good camera. You're sounding a lot like Ken Rockwell in your approach and thoughts on photography...

Even if you choose to post and print from negatives that you have not altered, it does not mean that they have not been 'post processed'. The negative was scanned, inverted, white balanced, and adjusted by the scanner before it was written to a cd for you to post online or before it spit out a cheap digital print. Taking a straight scan like that is akin to using straight jpegs and relying on the cameras own default internal processing over shooting RAW.

Ive also found it usually means the person is either scared of or confounded by Lightroom or photoshop. I've gotten lucky and had some really nice jpegs over the years, but more often than not there's a better image waiting in the raw file for me to extract. Not because I missed exposure or needing to add a giant flying alien or remove a person (though I have clone stamped out distracting objects in backgrounds and will happily remove all too frequent dust spots) but because the default image didn't match what I remember seeing or wanted to show when I took the photo.

I don't take offense to people who can't be bothered to put a little time in to their images, but I do find it odd that there are so many people like yourself who are so put off by the notion of creating a good photograph (and *all* good photographs are created, be it from a digital file, a negative, or a slide) that they dismiss the process altogether and then have the nerve to shout at the top of their lungs against it. "But it's not straight out of the camera!" Is double speak for "I don't want to work that hard" and it usually shows in the shots...

Last edited by skierd; 05-21-2015 at 10:13 AM.
05-21-2015, 09:57 AM - 1 Like   #11265
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Pensacola Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 130
Here's a scan of an 8x10 print that I made in the bathroom one night. I exposed the paper twice with two different filters using Dave Butcher's technique. It involves using different filters to maximize contrast in highlights and shadows at different times. Then I scanned it and healed the dust in PS and bumped a few sliders to make it look more like the analog print.
Split Grade Printing the Ilford Way | Darkroom Dave

Canon A-1 FD 75-200/4.5, Ilford HP5 400, D76 1+1, Omega B-22, Ilford multigrade paper. Epson V600.
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!
architecture, details, ektar, exposure, film, goats, grandma, hood, kodachrome, kodak, lab, legs, lens, lunch, lx, mx, pentax, phil, photos, post, q7, roll, sarajevo, scans, shot, shots, steve, thanks, tokina, velvia
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K20D test shots at Lets Go Digital schufosi777 Pentax News and Rumors 6 04-20-2013 11:31 AM
Macro Cool Macro shots derajjjg Post Your Photos! 2 12-27-2009 09:36 PM
Lets see your Moon and Mars shots Igilligan Post Your Photos! 9 12-05-2009 08:55 AM
Way cool bat shots and General Talk 7 10-01-2009 02:54 AM
Cool Shots & Info Fl_Gulfer Post Your Photos! 0 12-10-2007 11:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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