Quote Originally Posted by doughowk View Post
All conversions include the loss of data information. This is true whether its making the initial conversion from an analog electrical current in the sensor to digital, or within digital from one file type to another. The final loss is when converting the digital representation into a physical object. To my way of thinking, provenance is part of that data info loss.
This is also true of optical aberrations and and processing degradation in an exclusively wet process.

I love film, but I've seen both inkjet prints from digital originals as well as scanned film (the same goes for Lambda/Lightjet prints) that, on a purely visual technical level rival, or exceed the "best" darkroom prints I've seen (I think Steichen's platinums serve as a good example for the baseline I'm using here). However, this is only the case when the digital originals have been made with that sort of output in mind (full frame or larger (MF) sensor, good lenses, and exacting handling of the digital file as far as post-processing. I would also like to remind those of you that think otherwise that no 35mm negative will, at this point in the technological cycle, ever rival, or even come close to equalling a photograph made with an 80mp Leaf AFi-II back. Hell, neither will 645, but that's another can of worms.

But I prefer Daido Moriyama's work to Ansel Adams, so what the fuck do I know about "good" printing...

As I've said in the "Loss of Fine Art Photo Traditions" thread, anyone that doesn't accept the fact that digital techniques are indeed fully capable of exceeding the -technical- abilities offered by normal film (aka, not weirdos that use a 16x20" view camera and claim that they have 3 gigapixel images or what the hell ever...show me a situation where you can use that to make a photograph where you don't have 10 minutes to unpack your camera) is a luddite that refuses to grow up. As I also iterated in the same thread, anyone that disparages film because of its perceived lack of technical perfection, is as much of a dumbass as the film guy that says a cibachrome is the only kind of color print worth making.

Because, you know, the supplies are so readily available and made frequently, right?

Bringing it all around, Ken Rockwell's site is a waste of time for anyone that can actually use a camera. He massages the collective crotches of the internet "photo-enthusiast" community while in reality being just another talking head himself...

I'm sorry but, he is a terrible photographer, his obsession with Velvia is nigh on nausea-inducing, and I have no problem saying that the -only- beneficial thing he has done as an internet personality is convey the idea that film is worth using, sometimes, if you're a "real photographer" (Sorry Pinocchio...)

His sensationalistic attitude and pseudo-cocky/experienced tone are annoying at best, and we would all be a lot better off if for every click someone gives his site, they were to open a book by Walker Evans, or Penn, or for that matter, anyone who has ever actually pushed the medium forward, instead of whining about farting and what Canon's best DSLR ever made is.

To top it all off, his sense of visual geometry is pretty mediocre, too...which is ironic because that's all he ever seems to brag about when it comes to composition.

You can learn far more about color from looking at good painters than a hack like him.