Jump to content

Bacon and ham: what's the difference


Recommended Posts

What's the difference between bacon and ham?

 

This is a culturally specific question. Both 'bacon' and 'ham' can

mean different things in English English and American English. I

don't know about Indian English, South African English and

Australian English, let alone Canadian English. I do know what

happens in (usually mis-) translation into French.

 

The answer to this question isn't important. But how far do similar

misunderstandings make it hard for long-time Leica M users to

understand reflex and digicam users; reflex users to understand

rangefinder users; film users to understand digi-photographers; etc?

 

This is a genuine question. I'm looking for examples of 'I don't

understand it when...'

 

I'll kick off with 'I don't understand it when digi users say they

can get film quality'. Actually I do, if they restrict themselves to

ink-jet prints of certain subjects; what I don't understand is how

they can say that for full-page 300 dpi photomechanical repro of

sharp pictures containing sharp detail. Then it's a Leica (or

possibly Voigtlander) all the way -- or easier still, a larger

format...

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The reason that they say they can get film quality is related to what you're saying about printing at home, but in a different manner. A casual person shooting film generally won't use Velvia or such, he or she will be using a 400 or 800-speed print film. The issue is not resolution, for which film beats digital without sweating, but perceptual noise. Digital sensors nowadays have really low noise, esp. when compared to a consumer-grade film. Consumers generally print at a magnification consistent with not seeing film grain. Even though the image size is less, a digitally captured image can generally be magnified much more than consumer-grade film, so, the user can get prints of the same size that he or she used to get with film, without noticeable degradation in quality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>Actually I do, if they restrict themselves to ink-jet prints of certain subjects; what I

don't understand is how they can say that for full-page 300 dpi photomechanical repro of

sharp pictures containing sharp detail. Then it's a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) all the

way -- or easier still, a larger format...</I><P>Actually you don't understand at all. There

are diferences in different digital cameras, different resolution sensors and even different

size sensors. In addition --as with film --the skills & process of the person developing

and printing the

iamge differ wildly as well. your lumping all digital cameras as if they have a single

standard is like saying all 35mm film behaves only like Kodachrome 64 or only like Tmax

3200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger, I have 12x8 & 15x10 prints from a pro lab's Frontier derived from 35mm film shot with Contax SLR and 50mm Zeiss planar f1.4 on ISO 100 Reala and from my D70 at ISO 200 with 50mm f/1.4D AF (examples from both where tripod and remote release were used). I have no side by side comparisons because the Contax stuff got sold a while back now, but there is no qualitative difference even with close viewing. (~12")

 

I have yet to get any 15x10s done with my new(ish) R3A/Summicron (and a tripod) so that comparison remains to be seen.

 

I do not bother with an inkjet printer as I prefer a good frontier print whatever the original media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>I'll kick off with 'I don't understand it when digi users say they can get film quality'. </i><p>

 

Here's what they mean.<p>

 

Brad Evans, who has posted his photographs here, was in a juried competition last year and won. The judge, a very successful master darkroom printer, was talking to a group of people at the opening, walked over to Brad's print and said (I paraphrase here), "This is an example of a print that couldn't be done with digital."<p>

 

Brad's print was taken with a Sony digicam and printed with a Canon printer.<p>

 

So now you know what it means, particularly when people look at things objectively instead of just dissing things because of how they were made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand it when... some of us say e.g. that the current 2/50 is a great improvement over the penultimate 2/50 (one just before it) without saying "why". Sure, if you have big hands and fingers, the somewhat longer barrel features may be better for you, but if you have rather "normal" hands, and love tabs, the penultimate 2/50 may be the only way to go. Ditto "their" and "other" hoods...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger the resolution is not too bad. ISO 400, handheld, D70....

 

 

small jpg of orginal...

 

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2828553-md.jpg"></center>

 

 

Actual pixel crop...

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=20246184"></center>

 

 

And of course the screen you view with is not 300 pixels per inch so that 'actual pixel' crop would be much smaller on a print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you're talking dpi, the picture has been rasterized somewhere.

 

Up to the late sixties, when photosetting was Science Fiction, my father and grandfather shot watches, shoes and jewlery with a Linhof Master Technika. They where shot in B&W and handcolored to get a "natural" color in print.

In the seventies 4c photosetting improved as well as slide film and 6x6 slides where usable for these shots.

In the early 90's they started scanning the slides and pagesetting with a DTP application.

Today these shots are still taken with MF cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Claudia, do you go into bookshops and write in books you dont like... "book X is way better than this one. Don't bother with it" ?</i><p>

 

Trevor, i do not. and it serves no purpose to imply that i am a vandal who would consider defacing books that belong to someone else! my comment suggests only that this is a definite TTT (truly tired topic.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"if they restrict themselves to ink-jet prints of certain subjects; what I don't understand is how they can say that for full-page 300 dpi photomechanical repro of sharp pictures containing sharp detail. Then it's a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) all the way -- or easier still, a larger format..."</i>

<p>Of course, all things being equal there's no substitute for a larger format (contrary to the belief of the Leica fundamentalists). However, some might be surprised at how well modern digital does if they actually <i>tried</i> it sometime rather than waste their time number crunching to derive figures and theories that make them look only a bit smarter than a rust stain. You know, the ones who claim their Leica M6 and 50mm Summicron can "do the equivalent of 80 megapixels," therefore making it "far superior" to a Phase One back.

<p>Anyway, 300 dpi full-page isn't exactly demanding these days. Last year I did a 300 dpi 11x17" doubletruck in a glossy that the prepress guys couldn't stop asking me about. D70, 28/1.4, tripod - that's it. In my experience, 6MP dSLRs outperform 35mm film, the new 8MP standard is beginning to approach medium format, while 16.7 in the EOS-1Ds MKII just about blows medium format out of the water. I don't number-crunch - I shoot with this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a pro-film but don't want to get involved about the reasons, again.

 

I just want to say that all die hard pro-film persons I know and still maintaining to use film today are all very aware and interested to keep updating what digital cameras/prints can do. Excellant digital prints are everywhere now and they are improving quite amazingly - you cannot fail to become aware of them if you keep going to camera shops and the salesman cannot wait to show you the latest best of the best digital prints here. Almost all of such diehards have tried several digital camera models already. Thus, please don't just show them your digital files on screen as if you are teaching them something or proving something. I would rather you simply deem all of them are wrong and send your own digital files only for the sake of sharing photos .

 

Another fact is (I don't know whether it is also true in US), almost all film die hard in this part of the world are not new to photography and money is normaly not an (important) issue to them with respect to cameras and lenses, or other supporting equipment. For this they really continue to buy the latest digital equipment but just decide not to use them. They just want the best they can get, according to their standards. What digital people don't agree is their standards and how to achieve such standards, which I believe can be discussed meaningfully in this forum. But just show them your digital file to prove something is ..... I don't how to describe it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must say, Beau, that your ascetic approach has enabled you to make some great photos. Must be the veggies.

 

Jeff - Good story. (Perhaps one you've told before, but it fits well here.) I find myself wondering whether you or Brad ever told the judge the truth ? And if so, how did he react ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"I think you will find that Roger does too, as do many others here."</i>

<p>Somehow, for the most part, I doubt it - at least to the point of being able to say they have extensive experience with both media, including the <i>currently available</i> digital stuff (Nikon D1 doesn't count). That's why their arguments don't hold water. In fact, once they get worked up, the sad truth of their ignorance comes out, such as in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BRQD" target="_blank">this classic thread</a> where "Maestro Logos" says:

 

<p><i>"I still wouldn't care less for 35mm digital even if it was given to me. Not when the quality is that poor and appalling to look at."</i>

<p>"That poor and appalling to look at"? Obviously this person has never used even a basic 6MP dSLR. So after all this back-and-forth, it turns out that this person really knows zilch about what he's talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...