Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,677   Posts: 1,481,969   Online: 925
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    I suppose there are digital enlargers now which will project a digital image for development on photo paper
    Yes, that's how it's done. Minilabs have been producing digital RA-4 prints for years.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Oz
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
    ...what are some of the traits that help you recognize the difference?

    Sprocket holes along both long edges of the prints.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,810
    It all depends. Well done prints are hard to tell most of the time which is which. Badly done film prints are often easy to tell unless someone simulated that effect using digital. Well done digital prints can do things only feasible in digital media.

    If I am looking at an image that tells a story or moves me emotionally, how it was made isn't something I think about though.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #14
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    The difference is usually plain, and if not, it is visible on close inspection. Even if digital artifacts do not easily give it away, tonality does (as do obvious things like manipulation of certain levels or types). I would say this about anything but the very highest quality prints from digital films made by people who really know what they are doing. With pictures shot in ambient light, the difference is plain as day to me. It is harder for me to tell when the shooter has used controlled lighting, as good lighters simply tailor their light to match the medium being used. I have never once seen a digitally-captured print that just looks like a plain photo, as opposed to like a digital photo, by a photographer who did not really learn their craft with film.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 01-06-2011 at 06:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #15
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    675
    Back in the days when I used to sell Zeiss microscopes I used to look at exposed/processed photographic materials at a variety of magnifications up to 1000X.

    Traditional black and white materials always showed an emulsion consisting of a clear medium, gelatine, containing silver grains generated in situ. Apart from autoradiography plates or nuclear track emulsions this gelatine+silver structure was unique to photography.

    Colour materials, except Kodachrome, showed gelatin with dye clouds generated in situ. Also present were millions of minute highly refractile resin beads which served as the anchor points for colour couplers.

    Give me one of those nice microscopes now and I reckon I will pick real photographs from look-a-likes 100% of the time.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  6. #16
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    So I guess what I am hearing is that at the current state of technology a straight print show no real difference with normal viewing.
    I know if I want a "lith" look the real deal looks better than a fake "lith" from photoshop.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  7. #17
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,090
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius
    So I guess what I am hearing is that at the current state of technology a straight print show no real difference with normal viewing.
    That has been my view for a long time now. For a \"straight print\" like school pictures, studio sittings, and the like, the reason it all went to digital is because digital was cheaper and Grandparents need a magnify glass to tell. Nobody looks at pictures of little Susie in her ballerina suit with a magnifying glass.



    What does this mean for me? It means I can buy pro gear that was astronomically expensive before.
    Last edited by michaelbsc; 01-08-2011 at 08:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  8. #18
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,939
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
    So I guess what I am hearing is that at the current state of technology a straight print show no real difference with normal viewing.
    I know if I want a "lith" look the real deal looks better than a fake "lith" from photoshop.
    Again, one can't see a digital image. It has to be converted to some analog form to witness the image. Digital is a capture and storage medium, not any way to view an image. High and low voltages are not visible.

  9. #19
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    Obviously we are discussing the what can be seen and not what can't be seen!!! I am not sure what your point is or how it adds to the discussion. All "captures must be processed somehow to make them "visible" whether analogue processing or digital processing. You eventually arrive at something that can be viewed!
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  10. #20
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,939
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
    Obviously we are discussing the what can be seen and not what can't be seen!!! I am not sure what your point is or how it adds to the discussion. All "captures must be processed somehow to make them "visible" whether analogue processing or digital processing. You eventually arrive at something that can be viewed!
    I'm not sure how the word "capture" relates to film. Film and paper are "exposed." Additional 'processing' is not always needed to form the analog image (POP etc.)

    In the OP you asked "how analogue and digital images look different." Well, if you can see it then it is an analog image, so they are the same thing. If you are asking about comparing film to a computer file, then there are many differences and not many similarities.

    There are no "intrinsic" properties of any image produced from a digital file. There is no standardization of A/D processing that produces the image. Therefore generalizations about 'digital images' may be faulty.
    Last edited by ic-racer; 01-08-2011 at 11:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin