Digital BW, The Print

Peter,

You are absolutely correct. All the "I did this with film and digital 
and compared them and found.........." suffer the same fundamental flaw. 
There is no ground truth in the test. If you must test film against 
digital, you must test each against a calibrated standard using 
calibrated instrumentation. The test must be performed using good test 
procedures and the results must be repeatable to have any meaning at 
all. I've not seen this.

We know from the arithmetic the maximum lines/mm a digital sensor is 
capable and we know from the bench test the limits on good lenses and 
the good lenses are better than the best current crop of digital sensors.

How it appears to the eye is a different story and if someone prefers 
the "digital look" over the film look that a matter of personal 
perception and not an issue of technical specifications. In a lot of 
respects the Tmax films are probably technically superior to good old 
TriX ( needs to be proved to me however) but I sure prefer good old TriX.



Peter Nelson wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla" 
><E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
>>Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
>>cope with the quality of the sensors.
>>    
>>
>
>Some of us got into photography from the technical side such as 
>science and engineering. (I started off doing astrophotography and 
>eventually graduated to other subjects such as studio nudes)   Other 
>photographers started off as art majors.
>
>You can tell which are which by who can do the math.   
>
>Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X could 
>easily do over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM 
>of) two pixels to resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor such as 
>the type used in MF photography would need to have 160 elements/mm to 
>resolve 80 lp/mm.  That would be over 33 MP.    Sinar's best is 22 MP 
>and it's 36x49mm, which means it's even lower-res than what I used in 
>the above example.
>
>So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.   Actually 
>digital sensors are even worse than the above math suggests because 
>of the need for bayesian reconstruction.   The color resolution is 
>even lower than the luminance resolution.
>
>The reason why art major MF photographers say that their digital 
>backs are so good that they exceed the capabilities of their lenses 
>is psychological:  they need to justify the astronomical amounts of 
>MONEY those backs cost.   If it cost that much money its resolution  
>must be incredibly, phenomenally, supercalifragilistically 
>stupendous!    
>
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I should have added IMHO but maybe I should have added "in their
humble opinion" They use the digital backs and cameras. And yes
their comparing is very unscientific: they compare the one step
digital result on their monitor and in print with the
analogue>digital workflow result on the monitor and in print. It
could well be different if a one step analogue result like a
slide with a loupe on it is compared to the monitor. But that is
not what we want, we want the print and more and more in a
digital workflow. So what is so good in the film/lens combination
is already partly lost in the translation to digital: another
lens, another CMYK>RGB translation, another matrix to address the
data to. In that translation loss it will be hard to find what
was caused by the translation itself or what was never there as a
result of flaws in the process. It is nice to quote the lpm
possible in film but easy to forget how often the film isn't
plane enough for those numbers. The chance that the sensor is
plane, the focus correct, the lighting right and the processing
without flaws is much higher in digital. If only because that
laptop can show the fault right away. Then it also becomes much
easier to check which lens performs better. Could be that the old
lenses only need a good CLA to be at the front again, maybe it is
just that but at least they see that difference within two takes.
Chris Perez did tests on all kinds of lenses, old and new and we
have seen differences not always represented by their price or
age. The difference with digital is that the setup to compare
lenses takes less time, is less complicated and the result can be
judged on a monitor from an armchair meaning it get's done.

There are other observations too, landscape photography isn't a
fort of digital so far (scanning backs maybe excluded), the out
of focus parts not as nice as in analogue (probably as a result
of the interpolation etc routines). The last can also be a
temporary thing, we compare the new with what we are used to and
the taste for that can change.

IMHO, I hope that all the lenses you have collected and kept will
show to be the best performers around and worth the time you have
waited to use them on digital cameras. I'm sure that in the end
you will stretch their capability more on digital bodies than
they ever were on analogue bodies. Despite the better lpm of
film.

Ernst

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Techies -vs- Artists


> Peter,
>
> You are absolutely correct. All the "I did this with film and
digital
> and compared them and found.........." suffer the same
fundamental flaw.
> There is no ground truth in the test. If you must test film
against
> digital, you must test each against a calibrated standard using
> calibrated instrumentation. The test must be performed using
good test
> procedures and the results must be repeatable to have any
meaning at
> all. I've not seen this.
>
> We know from the arithmetic the maximum lines/mm a digital
sensor is
> capable and we know from the bench test the limits on good
lenses and
> the good lenses are better than the best current crop of
digital sensors.
>
> How it appears to the eye is a different story and if someone
prefers
> the "digital look" over the film look that a matter of personal
> perception and not an issue of technical specifications. In a
lot of
> respects the Tmax films are probably technically superior to
good old
> TriX ( needs to be proved to me however) but I sure prefer good
old TriX.
>
>
>
> Peter Nelson wrote:
>
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst
Dinkla"
> ><E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
> >>Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
> >>cope with the quality of the sensors.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Some of us got into photography from the technical side such
as
> >science and engineering. (I started off doing astrophotography
and
> >eventually graduated to other subjects such as studio nudes)
Other
> >photographers started off as art majors.
> >
> >You can tell which are which by who can do the math.
> >
> >Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X
could
> >easily do over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a
MINIMUM
> >of) two pixels to resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor
such as
> >the type used in MF photography would need to have 160
elements/mm to
> >resolve 80 lp/mm.  That would be over 33 MP.    Sinar's best
is 22 MP
> >and it's 36x49mm, which means it's even lower-res than what I
used in
> >the above example.
> >
> >So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.
Actually
> >digital sensors are even worse than the above math suggests
because
> >of the need for bayesian reconstruction.   The color
resolution is
> >even lower than the luminance resolution.
> >
> >The reason why art major MF photographers say that their
digital
> >backs are so good that they exceed the capabilities of their
lenses
> >is psychological:  they need to justify the astronomical
amounts of
> >MONEY those backs cost.   If it cost that much money its
resolution
> >must be incredibly, phenomenally, supercalifragilistically
> >stupendous!

To quote one of the best equine veterinarians in the world, Dane 
Frazier, DVM, PhD; "Study principles, not methods. The mind that grasps 
principles will devise its own methods." Dane made this comment in a 
clinic he was giving or people involved in long distance (50 miles to 
100 miles) horse racing - one of my prime passions in life along with 
photography. But it applies to anything you do in life.

If one doesn't understand the underling principles they will be limited 
in what they can do.  To understand an use the principles one does not 
have to know the formulas, details in the chemistry of developer X vs. 
developer Y, but one needs to know there is a difference and to have a 
"feel," (we mathematicians/physicists call it intuition), for what will 
happen.

The photographic process is not a black box - it is not magic - and if a 
person treates it like a black box they will be limited by your lack of 
understanding.  I am not sure it's artist vs. techies. I noticed a vast 
difference in the students that came to me in college in the early 80 
vs. those just 5 years earlier. The students in the early to mid 70's 
knew principles and were able to reason. The students starting about 82, 
knew fact and there ability to reason with those facts were limited - 
they weren't taught to do so. They didn't learn that the key to an 
education is learning how to learn. I see this all to often these days.

Truman

Peter Nelson wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ernst Dinkla" 
><E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The people that are using digital Canon D1's, Sinar backs on
>>Sinars and Hasselblads write that few of their old lenses can
>>cope with the quality of the sensors.
>>    
>>
>
>Some of us got into photography from the technical side such as 
>science and engineering. (I started off doing astrophotography and 
>eventually graduated to other subjects such as studio nudes)   Other 
>photographers started off as art majors.
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truman writes:

> To quote one of the best equine veterinarians
> in the world, Dane Frazier, DVM, PhD; "Study
> principles, not methods. The mind that grasps
> principles will devise its own methods."

Richard Feymann, the famous physicist, said essentially the same thing.

The only problem with this philosophy is that it requires much smarter
students than the simple rote memorization of methods and procedures.  Even
dim bulbs can follow a procedure; but one must be considerably more
intelligent to grasp a principle and invent a procedure of one's own.

> To understand an use the principles one does not
> have to know the formulas, details in the chemistry
> of developer X vs. developer Y, but one needs to
> know there is a difference and to have a "feel,"
> (we mathematicians/physicists call it intuition),
> for what will happen.

"Feel" is a romantic word for reasoning ability.  Physicists and
mathematicians "feel" when they see the logic in something but cannot quite
write it out yet.  This is different from the "feel" that artists have,
which is based on their own emotions and typically does not reflect any
specific line of reasoning.

> The students in the early to mid 70's knew principles
> and were able to reason. The students starting about 82,
> knew fact and there ability to reason with those
> facts were limited - they weren't taught to do so.

The advantage to teaching facts is that it requires less intelligence, and
thus allows all students to perform more or less the same, which is the
current politically-correct goal of most educational systems.

But all of this is far, far away from the nominal topic of this list.

I'm not sure the intuition of Einstein or Feymann is all that different 
that of Picasso.  In fact many of the great discoveries in Science are 
counter to the accepted logic of the times as are many of the visions of 
the great artist. The theory of Relativity fits that bill as does 
Quantum Electrodynamics. Many people have suggested that mathematicians 
are more similar to artist that mathematicians and Roger Penrose is 
found of making this analogy between the development of a mathematical 
theory as a classical score. In fact Penrose goes on the lump scientists 
into two groups - those that approach the world analytically and those 
that approach it geometrically.  To him the geometric approach is much 
more intuitive and the process is much more along the lines of how an 
artist would approach a problem rather than the rigid logical approach 
of those more analytically inclined. Of course the details have to be 
filled in and the scientist must have the ability and tools to fill in 
the details. But the first intuition is one of geometric beauty and 
order. To add to this there is also a much larger percentage than in the 
population as a whole of left handed mathematicians and physicists and 
this is particularly true in the "geometric" disciplines, e.g. in 
mathematics topology, differential geometry, algebraic geometry, and in 
physics relativity, string theory, quantum field theory, etc.

I believe the problem lies more with the educational system rather than 
the students. You can test and evaluate the ability to regurgitate 
facts, it is much more difficult to test the progress in the ability to 
learn how to lean and apply that knowledge. Today we seem to be more 
interesting in evaluation the teachers than providing an education to 
the students.

Yes this is pretty far off topic.

Cheers
Truman

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>Truman writes:
>
>  
>
>>To quote one of the best equine veterinarians
>>in the world, Dane Frazier, DVM, PhD; "Study
>>principles, not methods. The mind that grasps
>>principles will devise its own methods."
>>    
>>
>
>Richard Feymann, the famous physicist, said essentially the same thing.
>
>The only problem with this philosophy is that it requires much smarter
>students than the simple rote memorization of methods and procedures.  Even
>dim bulbs can follow a procedure; but one must be considerably more
>intelligent to grasp a principle and invent a procedure of one's own.
>
>  
>
>>To understand an use the principles one does not
>>have to know the formulas, details in the chemistry
>>of developer X vs. developer Y, but one needs to
>>know there is a difference and to have a "feel,"
>>(we mathematicians/physicists call it intuition),
>>for what will happen.
>>    
>>
>
>"Feel" is a romantic word for reasoning ability.  Physicists and
>mathematicians "feel" when they see the logic in something but cannot quite
>write it out yet.  This is different from the "feel" that artists have,
>which is based on their own emotions and typically does not reflect any
>specific line of reasoning.
>
>  
>
>>The students in the early to mid 70's knew principles
>>and were able to reason. The students starting about 82,
>>knew fact and there ability to reason with those
>>facts were limited - they weren't taught to do so.
>>    
>>
>
>The advantage to teaching facts is that it requires less intelligence, and
>thus allows all students to perform more or less the same, which is the
>current politically-correct goal of most educational systems.
>
>But all of this is far, far away from the nominal topic of this list.
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 
>
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>
>  
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truman writes:

> I'm not sure the intuition of Einstein or
> Feymann is all that different that of Picasso.

The only difference is that the Fine-Arts Majors are ruled by their
emotions, and the Engineers ("techies," but I call them Engineers) are ruled
by their intellects.

I noticed these two extremes of human behavior long ago and they are
interesting.  I'm not the first to notice, of course.

FAMs will do things because they feel good; Engineers will do things because
they make sense.

Engineers are usually smarter than FAMs; FAMs are sometimes more talented
than Engineers.  However, in all cases, being in one category or the other
depends on the extent to which a person's behavior is controlled by his
emotions or his intellect.  Smart people tend to rely on intellect; dumb
people tend to rely on emotion.  Some people are smart but with strong
emotions, and end up as FAMs despite their intelligence.  Some Engineers are
not the brightest people around but are so lacking in emotion that they end
up on the Engineer side despite their lack of any particular genius.

Anthony,

Your post below is not only off topic but has to be insulting to the group
members as well. I am sure that there are Internet groups devoted to
psychology out there and they would be a more appropriate place for you
remarks.

Both as a chemical engineer and a fine artist, I find your ideas to be
untrue and offensive.

Martin Wesley

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Techies -vs- Artists


(snip earlier)

> The only difference is that the Fine-Arts Majors are ruled by their
> emotions, and the Engineers ("techies," but I call them Engineers) are
ruled
> by their intellects.
>
> I noticed these two extremes of human behavior long ago and they are
> interesting.  I'm not the first to notice, of course.
>
> FAMs will do things because they feel good; Engineers will do things
because
> they make sense.
>
> Engineers are usually smarter than FAMs; FAMs are sometimes more talented
> than Engineers.  However, in all cases, being in one category or the other
> depends on the extent to which a person's behavior is controlled by his
> emotions or his intellect.  Smart people tend to rely on intellect; dumb
> people tend to rely on emotion.  Some people are smart but with strong
> emotions, and end up as FAMs despite their intelligence.  Some Engineers
are
> not the brightest people around but are so lacking in emotion that they
end
> up on the Engineer side despite their lack of any particular genius.
>

100% agreement with you Martin. Thank you.

Barry S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Techies -vs- Artists


> Anthony,
>
> Your post below is not only off topic but has to be insulting to the group
> members as well. I am sure that there are Internet groups devoted to
> psychology out there and they would be a more appropriate place for you
> remarks.
>
> Both as a chemical engineer and a fine artist, I find your ideas to be
> untrue and offensive.
>
> Martin Wesley
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 7:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Techies -vs- Artists
>
>
> (snip earlier)
>
> > The only difference is that the Fine-Arts Majors are ruled by their
> > emotions, and the Engineers ("techies," but I call them Engineers) are
> ruled
> > by their intellects.
> >
> > I noticed these two extremes of human behavior long ago and they are
> > interesting.  I'm not the first to notice, of course.
> >
> > FAMs will do things because they feel good; Engineers will do things
> because
> > they make sense.
> >
> > Engineers are usually smarter than FAMs; FAMs are sometimes more
talented
> > than Engineers.  However, in all cases, being in one category or the
other
> > depends on the extent to which a person's behavior is controlled by his
> > emotions or his intellect.  Smart people tend to rely on intellect; dumb
> > people tend to rely on emotion.  Some people are smart but with strong
> > emotions, and end up as FAMs despite their intelligence.  Some Engineers
> are
> > not the brightest people around but are so lacking in emotion that they
> end
> > up on the Engineer side despite their lack of any particular genius.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi Martin,

> Both as a chemical engineer...

I was unaware of this ;-)

Regards,

Austin

At 02:31 PM 5/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
>100% agreement with you Martin. Thank you.
>
>Barry S.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 2:10 PM
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Techies -vs- Artists
>
>
> > Anthony,
> >
> > Your post below is not only off topic but has to be insulting to the group
> > members as well. I am sure that there are Internet groups devoted to
> > psychology out there and they would be a more appropriate place for you
> > remarks.
> >
> > Both as a chemical engineer and a fine artist, I find your ideas to be
> > untrue and offensive.
> >
> > Martin Wesley

Yes...!

The whole thread sounded like something from the boys down at the tap 
room.  It's called essentialism lads!  :-)

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Engineers are usually smarter than FAMs; FAMs are sometimes more 
> talented
> than Engineers.  However, in all cases, being in one category or the 
> other
> depends on the extent to which a person's behavior is controlled by his
> emotions or his intellect.  Smart people tend to rely on intellect; 
> dumb
> people tend to rely on emotion.  Some people are smart but with strong
> emotions, and end up as FAMs despite their intelligence.  Some 
> Engineers are
> not the brightest people around but are so lacking in emotion that 
> they end
> up on the Engineer side despite their lack of any particular genius.

1) There are two kinds of people in this world: Those who categorize 
others, and those who don't.

2) Chinese proverb: When in hole, stop digging.

M.