Ansel Adams size resolution--try to duplicate in digital?
Jan 13, 2022 03:41:18 #
OldSchool-WI wrote:
Isn’t he the guy that plays uke while singing in falsetto about tulips ?The only masquerading is in the new Austian name. But a description for people not familiar with view cameras--the ultimate for commercial photography has been given by Tim Hall.----
Jan 13, 2022 03:42:59 #
Jan 13, 2022 03:47:39 #
TimHGuitar wrote:
No, but I do play guitar and sing to my grand kids.
Close enough !
Lucky kids to have such a role model.
Jan 13, 2022 04:05:06 #
OldSchool-WI
Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
User ID wrote:
Isn’t he the guy that plays uke while singing in falsetto about tulips ?
I will answer for Tim Hall-----was that funny? Maybe you and Canon can start a comedy routine? That was Tiny Tim. Possibly he made an impression on you in your youth?-----
Jan 20, 2022 18:42:48 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Being a Superior Being, why are you even rolling around in the mud with us UHH bugs?
Jan 20, 2022 18:51:03 #
OldSchool-WI
Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
DickC wrote:
You make a good point there Dick----mud for sure---possibly worse?-----
Jan 20, 2022 18:56:50 #
If Ansel Adams could post on the various forums he would probably say,
"Why don't you folks look forward instead of back, and let me rest in peace."
---
"Why don't you folks look forward instead of back, and let me rest in peace."
---
Jan 20, 2022 19:35:36 #
OldSchool-WI wrote:
You make a good point there Dick----mud for sure---possibly worse?-----
Since you mean shit, say shit. You’re not cute, clever, or funny, and do a verrrrrry shitty job of pretending at it.
Jan 20, 2022 23:36:10 #
OldSchool-WI
Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
Bill_de wrote:
If Ansel Adams could post on the various forums he would probably say,
"Why don't you folks look forward instead of back, and let me rest in peace."
---
"Why don't you folks look forward instead of back, and let me rest in peace."
---
This all is not a play on fiction. When forward has less IQ---than film---Adams would choose the best. He would not be into---forward or backward terminology. But neither of us has the right to conclude about the thoughts of Ansel Adams.
Jan 25, 2022 21:03:22 #
OldSchool-WI wrote:
You are totally correct and I want to rub it in. The only quality comes from large film cameras as this date. All the rest are recreational cameras as discussed on UHH. But lets make it clear which is which. i.e which is the "filet mignon and which is the chuck." The large film is the filet mignon final print.---ew
Zoom in on this then and tell me it's chuck and I had to resize it to 5 meg to post it. By the way I'm cooking some chili tonight with chuck and it's pretty dame good.
Jan 25, 2022 21:27:43 #
OldSchool-WI
Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
DanielB wrote:
Zoom in on this then and tell me it's chuck and I had to resize it to 5 meg to post it. By the way I'm cooking some chili tonight with chuck and it's pretty dame good.
The filet and chuck were not my wording but an answer to someone else. As for your photo--very nice for what it does and says. I have large photos from my Sigma SD1Merril--46mpixels--also of people doing things----but yet they don't compare wtih film. EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE.---ew
Jan 25, 2022 22:36:30 #
TimHGuitar
Loc: San Francisco, CA
Personally, I have to say that digital technology has come a long, long way. I "went" digital in 1995 when I purchased $1,000,000 in digital equipment for my photo lab. We bought scanners, work stations, a digital printer and also an LVT film recorder.
It saved a lot of time because prior to that equipment, I was doing all my composite work with films (combination printing). Eventually we didn't even need the work station because Photoshop was able to perform all the tasks that the $100,000 work station did.
I do have to say, though, that a digital printed image, as good as it was, and even today as it can made, is not the same as an analogue image. If you are talking about sharp images, then yes, the digital image is sharper than it was when digital printing first came out. But, most of the detail in a digital image does not render truthfully to my eyes. Keep in mind, I am strictly talking about my eyes and not yours. Things look almost too sharp in many cases. I believe the rendered image is printed sharper than the lens can even produce. This, in my mind, is probably due to software and not hardware... hardware being the camera and lens... software being the math that can determine the differences in color and contrast and enhancing those differences so that everything stands out more.
Another thing that bothers me is the over correction done on the saturation of colors. Although they don't need to be, digital prints look too "plastic" to my eyes.
But I understand that many like this look. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
It saved a lot of time because prior to that equipment, I was doing all my composite work with films (combination printing). Eventually we didn't even need the work station because Photoshop was able to perform all the tasks that the $100,000 work station did.
I do have to say, though, that a digital printed image, as good as it was, and even today as it can made, is not the same as an analogue image. If you are talking about sharp images, then yes, the digital image is sharper than it was when digital printing first came out. But, most of the detail in a digital image does not render truthfully to my eyes. Keep in mind, I am strictly talking about my eyes and not yours. Things look almost too sharp in many cases. I believe the rendered image is printed sharper than the lens can even produce. This, in my mind, is probably due to software and not hardware... hardware being the camera and lens... software being the math that can determine the differences in color and contrast and enhancing those differences so that everything stands out more.
Another thing that bothers me is the over correction done on the saturation of colors. Although they don't need to be, digital prints look too "plastic" to my eyes.
But I understand that many like this look. Just my 2 cents on the subject.
Jan 25, 2022 23:16:48 #
OldSchool-WI
Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
TimHGuitar wrote:
Personally, I have to say that digital technology ... (show quote)
Super description. Again I plug away also about the Foveon X3 sensor in the Sigma SD1 Merrill in that there is less software fudging around and filtering and three layers like film color emulsions.----ew
Jan 26, 2022 00:36:07 #
Fredrick wrote:
Try carrying that around in your pocket.
My Fuji X100V APS-C 26MP (pocketable) digital camera allows me to produce huge wall prints that are tack sharp. There comes a point in resolution where enough is enough, and you really can’t see a difference anymore (unless you’re a pixel peeper).
My Fuji X100V APS-C 26MP (pocketable) digital camera allows me to produce huge wall prints that are tack sharp. There comes a point in resolution where enough is enough, and you really can’t see a difference anymore (unless you’re a pixel peeper).
Hi Fredirck……glad to see someone in this thread that’s happy with their (same as mine) camera and getting great results. (This thread is way-to-long and technically pointlessly for today’s available equipment and technology). No fossils here.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.