question about 2 dimensional look in a digital image

[john_afflitto]

<p>I have a question for those who use digital cameras. I'm about to by a digital camera. My photography is focused mainly on landscapes and close up work of flowers and other natural objects. I noticed some time ago when I was looking through a photo magazine of an image by Tim Fitzharris of a landscape with mountain in the background. The top of the mountain was exposed rock with lots of crevices. He uses a Mamiya medium format camera with a digital back. I looked at the image closely because I'm curious about digital and if I can tell differences from film. It certainly was a sharp image and seemed to have much detail. But something about the exposed rock on the top of the mountain looked a little unusual to me. I noticed that the crevices and indentations had a bit of a flat 2 dimensional look to me. It was subtle but noticeable. It occurred to me that maybe it looked like this because there was not enough contrast between shadows in the crevices vs the more sunlit pieces of rock. Am I just imagining this or is this sometimes a characteristic of digital images ? Or is it simply the way he post processed the image.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In Photoshop there is an "Adjustment" called "Shadow/Light" --the defaults for it are WAY off in my opinion, and one thing that can be done in this (or slightly more laboriously in RAW) to make the image so pumped up in the shadows and so muted in the highlights that the picture looks "flat". I have no way of knowing if that is the problem in the pictures you've seen, but if so, it's not a flaw in "digital" but rather a lesson to not-overprocess an image.</p><div></div>

[don_e]

<p>"Am I just imagining this or is this sometimes a characteristic of digital images ?"</p>

<p>I don't think so because I've seen the "flat" look in some of mine, but I also don't see it in some of mine. Light and contrast are factors, but I'm starting to suspect that it is due to improper use of zoom lenses which may compress dimensionality coupled to the clean and smooth look common to digital images. Then there's pp -- perhaps a tendency to get it even cleaner, even smoother, even more eyeball-peeling edge sharpness. But it is also just nature: the high desert horizon can produce 'chromatic aberrations' when the sun is low (you can see it with your eyes, not just in the viewfinder). In northern California, I've seen tree lines that look like stage flats. So can mountain peaks. Thus "light and contrast".</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>My own work, and that of of dozens of very fine photographer/printers, is that<strong> </strong>a digitally influenced aesthetic is developing that's <strong>simply different from what we experienced in film</strong>. Not better or worse.</p>

<p> At this stage, it appears that digital has a technical edge in many respects, most of the time. But I personally miss some of the limitations and subtleties that seemed more probable with film, helping to shape results. Perhaps film photography benefits (benefitted) from limitations like those expected in haiku.</p>

<p>Similarly, the typical gelatin-silver B&W aesthetic , as demonstrated by Ansel Adams, is wildly different from that of the even greater and (arguably) more beautiful limitations of platinum (eg Irving Penn's)... the methodologies (technologies) have very different potentials and limits. </p>

<p> </p>

[colin carron]

<p>John, as you have not posted a link to the image there is no way without guessing we can express our opinions on what it is you think you saw.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The answer you're looking for is <a href="00TS7o">right here</a> .</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>John -<br>

I don't think that you should buy a digital camera. From your posts here and in the other thread, Its obvious that you are predisposed against digital. Even though Digital photography is a wonderful thing and is the next evoulation step in photography - Don't go there. If you are happy with film, stay there. There's nothing wrong with it. <br>

But -<br>

You're like a child who wont try new food. Stop looking for problems. <b>TRY IT, YOU'LL LIKE IT</b><b>.</b></p>

<p> </p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>digital is the cause for all the photographic problem you know! out of focus, motion blur, blowned higlight, blocked shadow, specular reflection, 2d look..wait! i remember having those problem also in 92..must be a general film / digital problem from bad operator then?</p>

<p>Lex link is excellent, you must know it im sure ; p</p>

[john_afflitto]

<p>I'm sorry guys, but I don't get your drift how my other post relates to this question. I see digital images posted that I don't notice this problem so until I become more familiar with digital output I will assume that is the way the photographer post processed the image. </p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I noticed the same problem ever since I lost my Stereo Realist (sad story). No off-the-shelf digital camera produces the same 3-D effect.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"I'm sorry guys, but I don't get your drift how my other post relates to this question."</p>

<p>Your posts are perceived as a pattern of dissing digital. Therefore, you are not conforming to the unwritten rules of this "community". Therefore, expect bullying (usually in the form of ridicule).</p>

<p>I don't understand why you are expending so much energy over the issue of whether to buy a digital camera. If you are curious (as you wrote) about digital photography, then head on over to Adorama or your store of choice and buy a dslr w/ kit lens for 300-500$ (or a p&s for 100-200$) and satisfy your curiosity. Keep the box and contents and if you don't care for it, sell it and not lose much (if you don't wait too long).</p>

<p> </p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>BTW, what ever happened to Fuji's stereo digital camera? They had a mockup at one of the bg conventions.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Sorry John,</p>

<p>But after your other post, people have taken you for a digital hater. Plain and simple. This post just seems to be continuation of that.</p>

<p>While you ask; "question about 2 dimensional look in <em><strong>a</strong></em> digital image"</p>

<p>Most folks are reading; "question about 2 dimensional look in <em><strong>digital images</strong></em>"</p>

<p>I guess that is our fault, but it also seems odd that you do not offer an example for us to see. What you describe can be from a number of things. With out seeing what you see, there is nothing anyone can really tell you. That is unless you were trying to start another rant on the so called "flat look" of digital, and yet not appear to be the one starting it. I think that is what most thought was going on. I did.</p>

<p>If you do try a digital camera, just remember it will not look just like film. Its not suppose to. It has its own characteristics with its own strengths and its own weakness. Also the final is just as dependant on every step of the workflow as film is. One miss step and your final product will suffer. You will find it is not point and shoot simple to produce a truly quality product.</p>

<p>Have fun and hope you get what you are after.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

 

[mike dixon]

<p>It's not unreasonable to infer an "anti-digital" slant to the question. Most images in magazines these days are captured digitally. If you notice one flat-looking example (out of millions of digitally-captured images), the reasonable assumption would be that there was a problem with that particular image, not with the fundamental aspects of the capture medium. Raising the question of whether flat-looking images are an attribute of digital capture isn't logical; it reveals an underlying bias.</p>

[Barry Thomas]

<p>Say photo.net had an archive of 100 pictures, 50 shot on film, 50 on digital. But they are not labeled. The film shots are scanned by someone _good_ and the whole gallery made available for anyone to try to guess which were which.</p>

<p>The gallery could be refreshed every week or so by the addition of a bunch of new shots and removal of older shots, but overall keeping roughly the same 50/50 mix. Then anyone wanting to post something along the lines of the OP here, first they have to prove that they can tell one set from the other.</p>

<p>All we have now is people seeing characteristics in shots from one medium or the other, mainly because they already know what medium was used.</p>

<p>You might say, ahhh, but only in a 100% analogue wet print can you tell the difference... maybe so, but the posters I'm talking about are comparing shots they have seen on the web.</p>

<p>If anyone nowadays can do better than average on such a test I'd be prepared to eat my shorts.</p>

[john_afflitto]

<p>Hmm, no I was not trying to be antidigital. I'm just trying to determine if I would be happy with digital for landscape because that is what I like to do. Tim Fitzharris frequently has his photos published in one of the magazines ( I think Popular Photography) and they are usually very nice. And don't get me wrong, what I noticed in this photo was not glaring - it was just a little flat looking in one part of the photo. I guess it would be unreasonable to expect digital to look exactly like film. Also, I am used to looking at my shots directly on transparency film with no processing and that will usually look different than a post processed photo. But before I spend money getting into Digital I like to know what I can expect.. Right now I shoot film and film is not perfect either so I understand there will always be plusses and minuses for any process. If I had the photo in questin I would post it.</p>

[Barry Thomas]

<p><em> "I guess it would be unreasonable to expect digital to look exactly like film."</em></p>

<p>You may have missed my point - I'm saying that most of the shots in this 100-shot theoretical archive would prove that a decent film shot and a decent digital shot are very hard to tell apart. Unless you know in advance what the medium is, you would be guessing, which undermines the kind of comments some people make about "this digital shot shows this flaw", or "that film shot shows that flaw".</p>

[john_afflitto]

<p>No, your point is well taken. I have done that with a few photographs and I believe you. In most instances they could not be told apart. maybe I should have said I guess it would be unreasonable to expect cdigital to look exactly like film 100% of the time.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> And don't get me wrong, what I noticed in this photo was not glaring - it was just a little flat looking in one part of the

photo.

 

Have you ever noticed an area that was flat on an image captured on film? Would you draw the same sweeping

conclusions? I've seen a ton of bad work captured on film; but don't feel the need to draw sweeping conclusions about the

capture method in general.

 

In the end it makes no difference...

 

Compelling images are what move people. Not the capture method.

[john_afflitto]

<p>Who drew any sweeping conclusions ? Frankly, I can't remember if I have ever seen any flat looking shots on film that I have taken. Probably only ones isolated with long telephoto lenses. Sure I examined this photo in question critically and I noticed the characteristic I mentioned. The casual observer may not notice it. But I have no idea whether it's due to digital capture or what the photographer or magazine did to it in photoshop because I have no experience taking digital photos..<br>

Yikes ! Some digital photographers are very defensive.</p>

[Barry Thomas]

<p>I got off the plane and walked into a bar in somewhere in the USA. I said, to anyone who happened to be in earshot, that having seen a guy called George Bush on TV, who appeared to be kind of dim, that it might be because he's American. "Am I just imagining this or is [stupidity] sometimes a characteristic of..." Americans. And you know what? Some of the people there didn't like what I was saying!</p>

<p>Some Americans are so defensive.</p>

<p>(Please insert your own stereotype / nationality / social group into the above so we can ALL get defensive).</p>

 

[john_afflitto]

<p>Barry,<br>

I never said digital, as a process, is inferior to film photography. Comparison was not my intent. I'm just exploring what I saw and if it relates to digital capture.<br>

But I do agree with you about Bush, he is kind of dim, lol</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>John - You start a post called <i>"Digital Photography has hurt photography in general" </i>and then are surprized that some people think you are anti digital. You then post a thread about flat digital images and that adds fuels to the anti digital fire you have created.<br>

I have found a wealth of knowledge available here on Photo.net from people who are extremely knowledgeable, experienced, enthusastic and most importantly very creative. All you have to do is ask any question that you have and you get the answers you need. post a photo to illustrate a problem and I'm sure you'll get plenty of suggestions. Ask a well thought question and you'll get all the help you want. Post bold statements like Digital has hurt photography in general, and then say you never shoot digital or even own a digital camera and you'll get an argument.<br>

You learn best by doing. Since you are only guesing about digital and going by what you have read, you have no real feel for what digital photography is all about. Do yourself a favor, Buy, rent or borrow a digital camera and go shoot. A lot will fall into place and you will then have a better feel for whats going on. <br>

When I got my first DSLR it restarted my photographic juices flowing again, and I rediscovered photography.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Here we go again....<br /> <br /> John Afflitto wouldn't happen to be related to Mr. Ken Rockwell would he?<br /> <br /> Also, I've noticed that Mr. Afflitto doesn't have a single photo posted in his portfolio nor a website listed (on his photographer biography page) with his work; and most of his postings are just trashing on digital. Until I see some of his work I am going to have trouble taking him seriously.<br /> <br /> What is your purpose here Mr. Afflitto? Just to trash on a medium that some people like? So you like film and have very little experience with digital. WHO CARES. I shoot both film and digital, like both, but still haven't seen any good discussion come out of your postings. I think you are mostly trolling at this point; I guess I just bit.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>He said in the other thread: <br /><i> My computer is inoperable and I'm using my sister's computer</i><br>

<br /> Maybe he's just a young kid who is playing and not serious.</p>