On 24/1/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
invite you to try to find a 70's era Playboy magazine
and have a look at the technical merits of the centerfold.
The gamut is, admitedly, limited to the gamut of the inkset, just
like today. That hasn't changed.
As for the rest, as anyone
On 24/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from
8x10
Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days.
Can I go find out ? :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 24/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway,
No you're not
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Yes I am, Am, AM!
Cotty wrote:
On 24/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway,
No you're not
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Probably not, the Guards may have a shoot on sight order, at least in
your case...
Cotty wrote:
On 24/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from
8x10
Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days.
Can I go
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from
8x10
Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days.
Can I go find out ? :-)
NO! It's too perilous!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:56:39 -0500, Peter J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes I am, Am, AM!
Cotty wrote:
On 24/1/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway,
No you're not
Cheers,
Cotty
Guys, guys,
GD Didn't they use Gowlandflexes, in addition to 4x5s, Hasselblads,
GD Rolleiflexes, and other medium to large format cameras? 35mm was
GD far from the established film standard in fashion and beauty
GD work at that time.
I almost forgot these beasts! Never seen them in flesh, unfortunately,
Shame on you, Peter
On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:06 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative
anyway, but are you sure it's another?
mike wilson wrote:
H. It appears we have another Antonio.
'Bye
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
--- mike.wilson [EMAIL
On Jan 25, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
It seems I need to send you a *ist D based print or two :-)
People will still see what they want to see.
However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current portfolio
consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver prints, the rest
In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:36:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All,
Interesting debate. I'm going to step back a little bit and
touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about
how it is created.
To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
People will still see what they want to see.
However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current
portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four are 11 x 14 silver
prints, the rest are color prints
vs. an optical sensor. To compare those two elements, you
have to use the same output device. If there's more than one variable,
it's not a controlled experiment.
Paul
On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
experiment.
Paul
On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:28 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
People will still see what they want to see.
However, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. My current
portfolio consists of about 48 prints. Four
WR Or are you merely going to see if they can pick out the four 11x14
WR silver prints from the rest. [of colour prints, note by Fra]
Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they
couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints.
Or are they ;-)
grin, duck run
Frantisek asked,
Now, William, most advertisement agency people aren't _THAT_ stupid so they
couldn't pick out BW prints from colour prints.
Or are they ;-)
In my experience, they very well could be g. But I'm going to ask some
photographer's reps and, hopefully, some photographers as
I'm not trying to determine whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to
determine if experts can distinguish between MY prints from digital and MY
prints from film. Obviously, if half of the film prints are optical and the
digital prints are inkjet, anyone could tell at a glance.
Paul
But for the purpose of comparing digitally recorded images and images
recorded on film, everything else has to be as equal as possible. I
don't think that's true.
If you really want to compare digitally recorded images with film
recorded images, you'll have to use the method which will minimize
Well, from that point of view you're right. But then you're not
comparing digital with film, but the results of 2 different workflows.
Hmmm... look who's talking... I have absolutely no ideea what a really
good print looks like.
Alex Sarbu
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:48:24 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Normally when I hang a show, I group photos based upon
aesthetics and theme, not necessarily anything to do with how
they were produced. So in some cases, my matted and framed
all-digital inkjet photos get hung right next to scanned
film-inkjet and wet-lab produced prints.
People often ask how a
In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:36:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All,
Interesting debate. I'm going to step back a little bit and
touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about
how it is created.
To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic
When I saw some digital (D100) and 35mm film (some Fuji slides I
think, couldn't get more details) prints exposed in a gallery in
several cases I liked the digital result better (they were cleaner,
which imho would have worked well for some portraits). In other prints
however the film grain wasn't
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I'm going to step back a little bit and
touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about
how it is created.
To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic level,
increasing accutance and adding a crunchy texture to
smooth areas. I think
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:04:36 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This photo of the Golden Gate Bridge was made in such incredibly
hazy conditions that in the original capture you could barely
even make out the bridge. The down-rezzed web image doesn't do
the A3 print
On 25 Jan 2005 at 11:04, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I like your viewpoint, and I agree with your assessment. I've
used techniques of adding noise/grain to smooth out very fine
tonal transitions in printing that would otherwise cause even a
high-end printer to 'stair step' the tonal levels. Some
Thanks, Juan.
It was captured with the Panasonic FZ10 in full color ... The
original is what you see when you click on the image, pre all
significant processing work other than rotation and a small
amount of cropping to get the verticals where I wanted them.
When I first saw it on the
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:44:35 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was captured with the Panasonic FZ10 in full color ... The
original is what you see when you click on the image, pre all
significant processing work other than rotation and a small
amount of cropping to get
Perhaps you misunderstand ... That original photo IS in color.
It was an unbelievably hazy day.
Rendering RGB to monochrome I do after I get the cropping the
way i want it. It's often the largest part of my image
processing work.
Godfrey
--- Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25
- Original Message -
From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
... I have absolutely no ideea what a really
good print looks like.
Don't feel badly. Most people don't.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
People often ask how a particular photograph was made. The most
telling comment, from what seemed a fairly knowledgeable
individual, that came back was, Hmm. From film, you say? That's
mighty good for a film
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'm going to show color prints from film and color prints from
digital. I see thousands of prints a month. I can't control the
experiment if all the prints are not outputted from the same
source. The discussion
In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing
something else.
j
==
Sorry, I worded what I said a bit too strongly. Didn't mean it quite the way
it came out. Thanks for sharing
the transparencies just as other publications did. A
print would be useless for offset printing. Although they probably
made some for display and portfolios.
Paul
On Jan 24, 2005, at 1:23 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'd
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I can't provide much help. I don't know how they shoot Playboy
centerfolds these days, but I can try to find out. I suspect they
use large format digital. I know they did shoot huge chromes in the
past. I don't
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In a message dated 1/23/2005 11:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is art, and if the rules were so well defined then I'd be doing
something else.
j
==
Sorry, I worded what I said a bit too strongly. Didn't mean it quite the
On 24 Jan 2005 at 6:36, William Robb wrote:
I'm not totally conversant with how a film image gets made into
seperations for publication, but the centerfolds in the old days were
produced from unenlarged Ektachromes, as opposed to enlarging the
images, which is what you would do if the
Hi Marnie,
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:44:40 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still I'd like the option to print a photo on a bumpy sort of paper.
Trouble is, on my inkjet it probably wouldn't work. The ink probably
would absorb unevenly and the photograph come out look like hell.
I've printed on
Hi,
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's correct, Rob has it just about right. A quality digital
camera used correctly does a clean job of recording a photograph
without creating defects in the rendering. How the photograph is
textured/rendered is up to the judgement of the
Epson Velvet Fine Art paper has a texture like watercolor stock. It prints
beautifully on my Epson 2200. Some Hannemuhle stocks have an even more toothy
feel. They print very nicely as well, although the roughest textured papers can
chip if you're not careful.
Paul
Hi Marnie,
On Mon, 24
Quoting Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Marnie,
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:44:40 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still I'd like the option to print a photo on a bumpy sort of paper.
Trouble is, on my inkjet it probably wouldn't work. The ink probably
would absorb unevenly and the
--- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of
bollocks.
_Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However
correctly it is
used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects
(hot
pixel, anyone?) than film.
Thank you for
But digital images do have a digital look to them. It has been called the
cartoon effect. It smooths out detail, and colors by normalizing adjacent
areas. Even very high res digital images have that that look though not to the
extent of lower res images. You can do something similar with film
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
..
To get back to my original statement, there is no digital
look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it
ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the
capture medium.
Godfrey
There are however, some defects introduced by the
--- Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But digital images do have a digital look to them. It has been
called the cartoon effect. It smooths out detail, and
colors by
normalizing adjacent areas. Even very high res digital images
have that that look
though not to the extent of lower res images.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
--- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of
bollocks.
_Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However
correctly it is
used. Digital captures are more likely to have gross defects
(hot
pixel,
H. It appears we have another Antonio.
'Bye
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
--- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of
bollocks.
_Nothing_ records a photograph without defects. However
correctly it is
used. Digital captures are more
You are wasting your time. It's a troll.
m
Gonz wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
..
To get back to my original statement, there is no digital
look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it
ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the
capture medium.
Godfrey
The term Cartoon Effect was coined by one of the list members (I forget
exactly who, and my archives have been lost) here about 3 years ago. It so
succinctly describes the look of digital that I have used it ever since. Every
media has its own look. Digital is no different than any other.
Your
I don't see it that way
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, January 24, 2005, 11:14:51 AM, you wrote:
mw You are wasting your time. It's a troll.
mw m
mw Gonz wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
..
To get back to my original statement, there is no digital
look. A photograph recorded
Godfrrey has in no way demonstrated that he is another Antonio. His positions
are politely and intelligently argued. I don't think the discussion should take
this kind of personal turn.
Paul
H. It appears we have another Antonio.
'Bye
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
--- mike.wilson
Nor do I. Godfrey obviously disagrees with some list members, but he has stated
his positions politely and lucidly. There is no reason this should become a
flame war. I've enjoyed the discourse. Some of the disagreement is based on
different interpretations of highly technical evidence. But
In a message dated 1/24/2005 6:57:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Epson Velvet Fine Art paper has a texture like watercolor stock. It prints
beautifully on my Epson 2200. Some Hannemuhle stocks have an even more toothy
feel. They print very nicely as well, although the
In a message dated 1/24/2005 8:13:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've printed on canvas and linen papers with my Epson Stylus Photo
820. They actually felt like coated pieces of cloth more than paper.
The results were just fine, though not quite like a drawing or
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Nor do I. Godfrey obviously disagrees with some list members, but
he has stated his positions politely and lucidly. There is no
reason this should become a flame war. I've enjoyed the discourse.
Some
GD To get back to my original statement, there is no digital
GD look. A photograph recorded with a digital camera looks as it
GD ought to, as a capture of light without defects intrduced by the
GD capture medium.
^^
If you really do
I've reread his posts. He presented detailed explanations of his opinions.
Whether one disagrees with them or not is beside the point. He's not a troll,
and he's not Antonio.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Nor do I. Godfrey
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I've reread his posts. He presented detailed explanations of his
opinions. Whether one disagrees with them or not is beside the
point. He's not a troll, and he's not Antonio.
I can give some pretty detailed
They would last even a shorter period of time on the street during a
Miami summer.
William Robb wrote:
I can tell you with absolute assuredness that Ferraris are the worlds
worst cars, based on how long they would last on the street during a
Regina winter.
- Original Message -
From: Daniel J. Matyola
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
They would last even a shorter period of time on the street during
a Miami summer.
Point made.
Thanks Dan.
William Robb
Bill said:
I can give some pretty detailed explanations of opinions I have as
well.
It doesn't alter the reality that an opinion is just that, until
backed up with some factual evidence.
At the moment, all we have is:
there is no digital look. A photograph recorded with a digital
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your fixating on one thing he said that was perhaps a bit over the top. Much
of
his argument was valid and well supported. As I said, it matters not whether
one
agrees with him. To label him as a troll is grossly unfair.
I must be a troll,
On 24 Jan 2005 at 6:36, William Robb wrote:
Sorry if anyone has seen this post already but I didn't see it back, I'm sure
I'm missing about 50% of the posts at the moment, so if I haven't replied to a
post I'm not ignoring you :-)
I'm not totally conversant with how a film image gets made
Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s,
I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked
heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. And
regards to retouching ... if they were not retouched, they sure
blurred a lot of pubic and facial hair. ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Thank you for your opinion. I disagree: evidence indicates
otherwise.
Links to your evidence please.
Since you are so insistent on making these rather absurd claims, you
had better back it up with some
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
The net result is that there is no digital look; the term is
just as meaningless as cartoon effect. Show me two identical,
unprocessed pictures taken with a film and a digital camera of
comparable quality
On 24 Jan 2005 at 13:54, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s,
I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked
heavily processed and artificial, not like real women.
I'm just a bit too young to have been reading anything in the
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
They would have looked like 70's off-set print, not great and gamut
limited.
Rob, I have always treated you with the greatest of respect, so
rather than tell you that you don't know what you are talking about,
I
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s,
I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked
heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. And
regards to retouching
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Yes, it is precisely analogous to choosing a film and processing
treatment to achieve a visual effect. The difference is that you
can choose the rendering you want after you've made the
exposure, allowing more
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
If anyone has only ever seen cartoon like rendering from a
digital camera
then they've never seen a well post processed digital image.
I've certainly seen my share of them, but remember what I do for a
living
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
Since I was around and reading Playboy in the mid-late 1960s,
I'll tell you that I never liked the centerfolds. They looked
heavily processed and artificial, not like real women. And
regards
William,
I am very happy with the performance of film in 4x5 and larger
formats. Grain and other defects become quite small. I've been
producing photographs for exhibition and other use for close on
42 years now, and I'm quite happy to use film where it's
appropriate. My current work does not
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:11:49 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A neat advantage to the canvas stuff (haven't tried the linen) is that you
end up with a print that's much more forgiving of being handled -- you can
bend it and flex it and such and unlike regular paper it won't crease. :-)
It
grain to a digital source as i do applying a
grain removal filter to a film scan, i do it because i like what i get.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
4x5 Provia or Velvia.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I've certainly seen my share of them, but remember what I do for a living,
and where I work.
So far
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Godfrrey has in no way demonstrated that he is another Antonio. His
positions are politely and intelligently argued. I don't think the
discussion should take this kind of personal turn.
Paul
I agree with Paul. I've seen Godfrey post in other places and he's never
In a message dated 1/24/2005 11:12:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the strongest images are those that speak to you so clearly
you don't
for a minute think about the technique that was used to create it.
If the first
thing that pops in to your head when you look at
Graywolf mused:
Did I mention that the last time I was down in Charlotte I had a short
coversation at a stop light with a guy driving a silver 450. He reved it out
off
the light just so I could hear that V-12 at full chat.
Sigh..., I can not even immagine paying that much for a house.
Did I mention that the last time I was down in Charlotte I had a short
coversation at a stop light with a guy driving a silver 450. He reved it out off
the light just so I could hear that V-12 at full chat.
Sigh..., I can not even immagine paying that much for a house.
graywolf
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:14, Graywolf wrote:
For most of us photography is a hobby, not a religion. In the end digital is
no
more true to reality than film, just differently different.
Of course I'm not disputing film has its place and digital imaging is far from
a religion but it ain't cartoon
In a message dated 1/24/2005 10:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In conclusion, the final digital image contains defects also, they are
just different types of defects from film.
rg
=
Agreed. Six of one, half a dozen of another. Every medium has its
On 24 Jan 2005 at 21:20, Graywolf wrote:
Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10
Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days.
The old process was positive art-work (usually reflective, but transmissive
would be possible using a special re-pro
On 24 Jan 2005 at 19:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles
Oh NO!
(shakes head)
It's been my observation that the only thing nastier than a film vs. digital
flame war is a digital audio vs. analogue audio
What Herb said plus -
they have more control over the process.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
your experience runs counter to all the major fine
Yah, and Velvia has accurate color rendition.
Digital is good enough for most uses, very convenient, and a money maker for
professionals. Why can you guys not leave it at that? But, no, it has to be
DIGITAL UBERALL!.
For most of us photography is a hobby, not a religion. In the end digital is
Playboy's centerfold used to be printed from direct separations made from 8x10
Ektachromes. I have no idea what they do these days.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 24 Jan 2005 at 6:36, William Robb
Not if you make it clear that you are talking about money making productivity
(grin).
I think you are reacting too negatively to the cartoon effect statement. It
simply means that digital tends to simplify the image a bit. There is a lost of
detail as a trade off for smoothness. To me the term
Quoting Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have the same problem with vinyl audiophiles
Oh NO!
(shakes head)
It's been my observation that the only thing nastier than a film vs. digital
flame war is a digital audio vs. analogue audio flame war that breaks out on
a tangent to the film vs.
I've been staying out of this, since I tend to be argumentative anyway,
but are you sure it's another?
mike wilson wrote:
H. It appears we have another Antonio.
'Bye
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
--- mike.wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, Godfey, but that paragraph is the biggest load of
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
I'm still trying to persuade I guy I know that he needs me to
come along the next time he takes his Ferrari out to the track.
Persuade him to bring it up here next week.
Pansy ass little Italian sports car.
Lets
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: PP: Digital Grain
your experience runs counter to all the major fine art pros in my
area.
Well, I guess I am still better at film than digital.
Thats life.
William Robb
On 24 Jan 2005 at 22:00, Graywolf wrote:
Not if you make it clear that you are talking about money making productivity
(grin).
Simply speaking of personal productivity no $$$ signs in there.
I think you are reacting too negatively to the cartoon effect statement. It
simply means that
All,
Interesting debate. I'm going to step back a little bit and
touch on what grain gives an image rather than worrying about
how it is created.
To my eye, grain increases contrast at a microscopic level,
increasing accutance and adding a crunchy texture to
smooth areas. I think that the
PP = post processing
I was visiting the Adobe site recently looking through the actions people
have uploaded (to share) for PS. Discovered a few that would add grain to
digital
pictures.
I wondered has anyone on the list tried that? Adding grain, that is. Not
necessarily those specific
it makes digital images look like film. sometimes i add digital grain to
mask editing artifacts. not often though. i shoot digital because i don't
want film grain.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:12 AM
A month ago I played a bit with digital grain, and posted this:
http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0142.html
I think it kind of works. I need to print a full frame of this and see
it side by side with some real Tri X. One of these days.
j
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:12:38 EST, [EMAIL
In a message dated 1/23/2005 9:22:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A month ago I played a bit with digital grain, and posted this:
http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0142.html
I think it kind of works. I need to print a full frame of this and see
it side by side
The grain structure of Tri-X - or any BW film for that matter - varies
with the developer used and the developing technique, including time,
temperature, and agitation, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the
exposure. To answer your question, yes and no, more or less, it depends.
Shel
Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some came to
incorporate it as part of a style or look. Tri-X, at its inception, was
heralded as a high-speed film with minimal grain. For years, photographers
worked to eliminate the grain. Yes, there have been exceptions, and
My feelings exactly. If you want the look of film (which is more than just
grain) then shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grain was once the nemesis of film photographers. Over the years, some
came to incorporate it as
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
