-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the look is similar. I forgot to
post that in either of these cases
the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more
the tonal range captured
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only film in
general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-)
Your arguments has a flip side that goes:
If you don't need negatives, there's no point in shooting negative film
either. Unless you
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:42 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
JCO, maybe you were referring to neg film. You wrote only film in
general, so I couldn't know, could I? :-)
Your arguments has a flip side
...but it was a real hassle
to develop and extremely critical on exposure for direct viewing.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the latitude
is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide
and colour negative film.
I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS,
similar to my
hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw processing, Godfrey.
Both depressing and encouraging...
Jostein
On 12/14/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:42 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
you have made your point. I'm not going to bother anyone with my views
in ths matter, since it is completely irrelevant
Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
thanks, jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Jostein
On 12/14/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, dont forget there is much
BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all
but a very few films, of any format, either BW or color. My old
mentor/buddy who specializes in 'exotic process' 6x9cm and 4x5 inch
BW film work was impressed with the DR I was showing him when I
visited with some
If you only shot 35mm (like the vast majority of people, including on this
list), missing 35mm is all that counts.
-Adam
Who still shoots 35mm and MF film, and will go LF in the future
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
OK, but to put it shortly, FILM STILL RULES
when it comes to top quality imaging
to compare.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML
Cotty wrote:
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Mark!
For full effect, I suppose I should put it in ALL CAPS and repeat it a
hundred times...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Don't worry. I seem to get it for you. :-(
On 12/14/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 14/12/06, Jostein Øksne, discombobulated, unleashed:
jco.
you have made your point again.
I don't think I need further iterations.
Mark!
For full effect, I suppose I should
Perfect solution! =)
Jack
--- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adding a film look to ones photographs can easily be done (at the
present
moment) - by using film.
These were - of course - done more than 30 years ago:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594413264675/show/
Regards
I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film,
rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look
more like grain as opposed to pixels.
Dave
On 12/13/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote:
I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film,
rather they're goal is to try and have the high ISO digital noise look
more like grain as opposed to pixels.
That's what I read in Ken's translation: film-grain-like noise.
Kostas
--
As long as PS allows me to effectively reduce objectionable levels of
grain (film like), I'll be fine.
Jack
--- Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, David Savage wrote:
I don't think they trying to make digital images look like film,
rather they're goal is to
: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The Film Look
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend
themselves to more scrutiny.
Jack
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation of the film look is like
watching
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
graywolf
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:21 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the look is similar. I forgot to
post that in either of these cases
: Re: The Film Look
Luckily we can adjust that in Photoshop. It does help some.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the look is similar. I forgot to
post that in either of these cases
the film grain is NOT an issue. Its more
the tonal range captured and the look
of the extreme highlights. Film
in neg films IMHO...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range
: Re: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome increase.
Jostein
On 12/13/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may be able to undo the knee on
the film captures but its going to be
impossible to undo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jostein Øksne
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The Film Look
I take it you never shot slide film, JCO.
I did, and the dynamic range of the *istD was a welcome
About 10-12 years ago I was applying for a job as a lab tech for an
advertising company that did all it's own in house photography printing.
I remember being shown a 4x5 transparency that had been captured on a
digital back, burnt to CD, sent to another company that then transferred
the
I agree - for snow flake photos where grain and noise are killers,
Velvia 50 can't hold a candle to the *ist-D. But for street photography
where I want a certain, um, grainy, effect, there's not substitute for
film. I like Microdol-X, a fine(r) grain developer. IMO with a grainy
film it simply
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic understanding
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:07:45 +0100, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different
I know, I know. Use film.
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
I don't think I can conjure up that much nice without hurting myself
somehow. =)
Jack
--- Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means
Everyone will then want the digital look.
Jack
--- P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know, I know. Use film.
Scott Loveless wrote:
On 12/12/06, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look.
Jack Davis wrote:
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some general generic understanding as to what
that means?
Have, for many years, been a big fan and user essentially grainless
25, 50 and 100 ISO films.
These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much
for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed
image.
If film is your thing, knock yourself out.
Jack
Have, for many years, been a big fan and user essentially grainless
25, 50 and 100 ISO films.
These were/are the films that I have replaced with digital, not so much
for its work flow advantage, but because I see a cleaner more detrailed
image.
If film is your thing, knock yourself out.
Jack
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: The Film Look
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each viewer will have a somewhat different interpretation of such a
statement, but is there some
My interpretation of the film look is like
watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print )
vs. a high defintion live video broadcast
( more like the digital look ).
jco
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Bingo! Image handling is everything.
Jack
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jack Davis
Subject: The Film Look
Pentax engineers (and others) refer to a desirable digital image
goal
as having a film look. To me, that means grain.
Each
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend
themselves to more scrutiny.
Jack
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation of the film look is like
watching a high quality movie ( 70mm print )
vs. a high defintion live video broadcast
( more like the
as much range but there
isnt a knee, its straight right up to
the point of clipping...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jack Davis
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The Film Look
I've had
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: The Film Look
I've had the same experience. Stills, by their nature, may lend
themselves to more scrutiny.
Jack
--- J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My interpretation of the film look
Adding a film look to ones photographs can easily be done (at the present
moment) - by using film.
These were - of course - done more than 30 years ago:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594413264675/show/
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
+45 56 63 77 11
+45 23 43 85 77
41 matches
Mail list logo
