Bacon and ham: what's the difference

[doris_chan]

Paul, they're Olympus E1s, and I should point out that they're supplied by Olympus. Having

said that, they like the results that they're getting and they wouldn't use them simply

because they're free. The problem for a lot of serious reportage photographers is that

Canon 1 series digitals are just too big and heavy (unlike on a 1v you can't just throw away

the big battery pack)- they're fine if you're a sport or local press photographer but can be

overwhelming if you putting in really long hours in a hostile climate. The attraction of the

Olympus is that it's compact but also well sealed. Personally, I don't thing they deliver as

much as an EOS20D.

 

Regarding your friend at Getty, if he really likes drum scanners then I'm guessing in his

film days he was working with transparency rather than neg. Drum scanners will give

startlingly good results with transparency, but can struggle appallingly with neg -

particularly with the more interesting emulsions like NPS and NPZ. A lot of pre-press guys

will be really dismissive of Imacon scanners, but, if you're working on color neg then they

really are the way to go. They're cheap (compared to a drum scanner), compact, fast, low-

maintenance, and really preserve the character of film emulsions - Kodachrome still looks

Kodachrome after scanning and NPZ still looks like NPZ. Too many scanners strip away all

character and make all emulsions look alike.

 

Regarding your musical query, apparently Boris is going through a bit of an old school

Chicago house phase. Anyway, I'm in Manila right now and it's very late, so goodnight.

[joel_matherson]

Thanks John, those are very specific examples, but I was more referring to general off the cuff usage of the terms. Although never 100%, I just notice that there is a regional deviation on the genral use of the term.

[john_morris4]

Sorry, Joel. I'll try to not fall into that trap.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I might just put Shutterbug out of it's misery......

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Then where else will we be able to read marginally-rewritten press releases called

'Previews'?

[Allen Herbert]

It's all about the eye of the beholder. Anyway better post a relaxing photo before we all get a bit heated..........<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

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;

 

Hmm whole plate users used to say the same thing about 35mm. 35mm was convenient and was about getting the photo....cutting edge really. Digital is about the same thing, don't you think? Time moves on.

 

It's always been about getting the photo, the rest just follows along.

 

Nothing has changed

 

Regard Allen.<div></div>

[claudia__]

despite all the crepe hanging and the donning of widow's weeds by the drama queens of the digi/film debate, it you look at the Unified Forum you will notice that at least for users of this site film is still up there. just an observation. please....no personal attacks. i no longer reply to them.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Allen,

 

And they were right. Which is why I like 5x7 inch contact prints so much. It's also why I've lately been making just 3x enlargements off 56x72mm '6x7cm' to get, yes, whole plate.

 

Yes, the picture is the thing. And using the appropriate camera to get the effect you want is part of that. If you are prepared to put up with a loss of technical quality in return for greater convenience, fine. Just don't pretend that you can match the bigger or better camera.

 

As for the argument advanced elsewhere in the thread that digital is a great leveller and will force us to look at aesthetics rather than technique, this is a non-starter. If even the most diehard digital user really couldn't see quality differences, or didn't care about them, there would not have been the pixel escalation there has been from less than 1 to 6 as the amateur and news standard or 22 as the 'high quality' standard.

 

As I've said before, and as my published articles demonstrate, I use digi as well as film. It's just that I care enough about image quality to use the right camera for a particular job whenever possible.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[Brad_]

zzzz...

 

 

Anyone else see the correlation between the die-hard propping up of film's "superiority,"

and the general quality level of images posted on this forum? Telling, isn't it?

[paul t]

Yawn. As if it's exclusively on this forum where you can see <a href="http://

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BRQC">dull photos

taken with very expensive gear. </a>

[Brad_]

Sorry, Paul, didn't mean for my post to whoosh over your head - it wasn't about exclusivity

of poor images. Whenever photography is reduced to being about gear and film/digi

issues, inevitably, poor images result. Take a look at what's posted on the Street forum,

where nobody gives a rats a## about film/digi silliness.

[travis1]

a good digi picture taken by you or a poor film pic taken by you? Which would you choose?

[paul t]

Oh Brad, thank you so much for explaining. I too am bored of endless film v

digital trolling. I am merely pointing out that dull images are the preserve of

diehards on both sides. I note also that while you agree no one side has the

monopoly of dull images, you chose specifically to condemn those on this

forum. <p>

Personally I don't give a rat's arse, I'm interested in good photographs

whatever the medium.

[brunom]

Roger [Hicks]

 

I did not say that digital is the great leveller, but suggested that "maybe digital capture will become the great leveller. . ." inferring that in the future when digital has mature that possiblity may occur.

 

Roger, if you are going to quote someone, to make a point ,it does help to get the quote right!

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Bruno,

 

Sorry. I stand corrected. I am quite happy to admit this -- when it happens.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[brunom]

Roger

 

No Probs!

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[msitaraman]

Bacon and eggs (in the UK)-the bacon is to die for, folks. My favorite USA diner eggs and bacon is now a distant runner up in the bacon department. And note, American diner bacon has been slipping seriously in the last decade. A large population of discriminating palates (OK, just me) has been monitoring the situation closely!

 

Roger, I think the film and digital 'bacon' and 'ham' divide is very real. Surely one has to have very selective memory to forget that fabulous chrome look of just a few short years ago, when quality fresh processing of chromes were not hard to find. But its very hard to explain to people who have not actually seen it.

 

The same is true of niche enthusiasms. Agfa Portriga, now vanished, is simply untouched as an expressive portrait BW medium, for those who have seen it. For those who haven't an HP 8250 monochrome print will wow them.

 

On the flip side, its hard to explain the enlargeability and clean look of digital to film fans, who have no practical experience of it.

 

The biggest 'bacon' and 'ham' dichotomy in world views, of course, from the point of view of this forum, is that between longtime rangefinder shooters, and those who have never invested the time to understand the subtle change in shooting and visualization style it can induce. Its just so much hokum, if you're an SLR user, and have never had the opportunity to get beyond the 1000=2000 shot learning curve that rangefinders entail.

 

Just my two bits.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Mani,

 

Your response is the closest to what I was thinking: people who have only one 'experience track' cannot appreciate another. You have to try things, experience them, care about them. I was surprised at how many people thought I was just trying to plug a particular view (one accused me of 'anti-digital trolling' or some such) when what I was really trying to do was see where these cultural divides fall and how people feel about them.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

On the whole I prefer green eggs and bacon.

 

Nevermind. Roger, what I don't understand is why it seems to have to be one or the other?

Film and digital are both wonderful. Whether it's an M6, 35 Lux and Tri-X, or a 20D with a

24 f1.4--they're both great as ofcourse are the results. As a great American once said,

"Why can't we all just get along?"

[roger_hicks1]

Dear John,

 

That wasn't my point. I DO use both film (in all formats up to 8x10 inch) and digital (D70, Epson coming soon I hope). I'd buy a 4x5 scanning back if I could afford one. But they don't do the same things and the prints don't look the same.

 

At happy-snap size the difference between 35mm and digital and indeed 6x7cm may be negligible or non-existent; at A3 (297x420mm) the difference will be very clear in some pictures (where texture and detail are important) and irrelevant in others.

 

This is what I was getting at. There is a culture that says digital is good for nothing, and another culture that can't see why anyone shoots film. We had a fair number of both in earlier responses. You are one of the few to make the wise response that there is room for both -- but I am in total agreement with you, and have said nothing to the contrary.

 

What I can't understand is first, people who make wildly optimistic claims for digital sharpness, and second, people who can't imagine any style of photography other than their own.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[andy m.]

Roger, I don't understand, "Then it's a Leica (or possibly Voigtlander) all the way"?

 

Are these really better than any of the other 35mm marks in real-life use?

[dan_brown4]

Yes, it's time...<div></div>

[eliot_rosen]

The pancake bunny was mildly amusing the first time it was posted but now that it has been posted dozens of times it is just plain stupid. Come to think of it, it was stupid the first time it was used. Enough is enough. Have you heard the saying "equus moribundum flagellatum et interum"? It means to beat a dead into the ground and bury it".

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Andy,

 

Well, an RF prime is a LOT easier to design and build than a reflex lens under 50mm or a zoom, so yes.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Eliot,

 

Hear! Hear!

 

But it's so much quicker than devising an intelligent answer...

 

(though a typing gremlin killed the horse)

 

Cheers,

 

Roger