Digital BW, The Print

Let me begin by saying that I, too am not interested in starting a film vs digital thread.  Just a few comments aimed at Val's post.
One comment that "bothers" me is that need to have 35mm, street photos, needing to approach some large format "look", which I assume is why you're not making prints larger than 5x7.  I , too do "street" photography (since 1983).  Prior to that, from 1975 thru 1983 I shot with a 4x5 view camera b&w only.
If you look at the masters of "street" photography, Cartier Bresson, Robert Frank, William Klein, Andre Kertesz, Lee Friedlander, Gary Winogrand, just to name a few.  What gives the image its "zest" for lack of a better word, but one of those images where you just look at it and say "wow" I think is the graininess, the blurr, the overall texture of the print.  I think if one of the great photos by any of the photographers mentioned "looked" like an 8x10 c0ntact print, I would somehow be disapointed.
Not to belabor this point, my early work was all large format and very precise, It's certainly much "freeier" now and more spontaneous.  
Anyway, I'm printing 35 mm images to 17x27 inches on my 7600, both b&w and color with IP matte inks on sommerset velvet, and I think that they look absolutely incredible.  If fact the large size prints look much more "3 dimensional" than small prints of the same image.
Don't fear the grain or texture , go for it.
I recently asked a few "lists" about comparing the output of a 35mm scanned neg (either T max 400 or fuji cz800) and that of a capture with a fuji Finepix S2.  Everyone who responded thought that the Fuji cature looked better ( I was asking about large prints 24 x 30) I did borrow a Fuji and gave it a try.  I was disapointed with the "digital" look.  I did find the look "smoother", but something seemed lacking to my eye in the overall "look".  Particularly in the shadows, I would get a slight posterization.   I realize its all subjective, and I have no axe to grind, but I'm sticking with 35 mm neg film for now.
Just my 2 cents, but I can't imagine seeing a print by William Klein or Robert Frank all smooth and perfectly focused.
David Aschkenas

> From: Alan Zinn [mailto:AZinn@...]
>
> Did anyone see the current N.G.. aviation issue?  It was their first
> all-digital shoot. Check out the actual mag.. Tell me if I'm full of it,
> but I swear
> every image had a distinct "outline" effect around adjacent large tonal
> areas. I'm probably not describing that well, but take a look.
> Is that an artifact of the camera or reproduction?

Is it possible that they went trigger-happy with the unsharp mask? That
creates light halos around dark sharp edges (and less noticeable dark halos
around light sharp edges).

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

At 10:01 AM 12/28/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Let me begin by saying that I, too am not interested in starting a film vs 
>digital thread.  Just a few comments aimed at Val's post.
>One comment that "bothers" me is that need to have 35mm, street photos, 
>needing to approach some large format "look", which I assume is why you're 
>not making prints larger than 5x7.  I , too do "street" photography (since 
>1983).  Prior to that, from 1975 thru 1983 I shot with a 4x5 view camera 
>b&w only.
>If you look at the masters of "street" photography, Cartier Bresson, 
>Robert Frank, William Klein, Andre Kertesz, Lee Friedlander, Gary 
>Winogrand, just to name a few.  What gives the image its "zest" for lack 
>of a better word, but one of those images where you just look at it and 
>say "wow" I think is the graininess, the blurr, the overall texture of the 
>print.  I think if one of the great photos by any of the photographers 
>mentioned "looked" like an 8x10 c0ntact print, I would somehow be disapointed.
>Not to belabor this point, my early work was all large format and very 
>precise, It's certainly much "freeier" now and more spontaneous.
>Anyway, I'm printing 35 mm images to 17x27 inches on my 7600, both b&w and 
>color with IP matte inks on sommerset velvet, and I think that they look 
>absolutely incredible.  If fact the large size prints look much more "3 
>dimensional" than small prints of the same image.
>Don't fear the grain or texture , go for it.
>I recently asked a few "lists" about comparing the output of a 35mm 
>scanned neg (either T max 400 or fuji cz800) and that of a capture with a 
>fuji Finepix S2.  Everyone who responded thought that the Fuji cature 
>looked better ( I was asking about large prints 24 x 30) I did borrow a 
>Fuji and gave it a try.  I was disapointed with the "digital" look.  I did 
>find the look "smoother", but something seemed lacking to my eye in the 
>overall "look".  Particularly in the shadows, I would get a slight 
>posterization.   I realize its all subjective, and I have no axe to grind, 
>but I'm sticking with 35 mm neg film for now.
>Just my 2 cents, but I can't imagine seeing a print by William Klein or 
>Robert Frank all smooth and perfectly focused.
>David Aschkenas

David,

I'm in substantial agreement with your thoughts re the classic street 
style.  It would be wrong (aesthetically whacked!) to try and emulate that 
with PS and a digital camera.
As a digital virgin - having just gotten a Canon A70 from Santa I'm having 
fits simply trying to get a candid picture with the freaking digital lag 
time! I may resort to shooting bursts of three. There is another level of 
concern (I don't mind a digital v. film dialog here :-))  and that is the 
fact that digital images are virtual and film images are "real." To me that 
is a big, important difference.

Regarding larger blow-ups I have friends with 5M cams who do enormous color 
ink jet prints that are stunning. They have a distinct digital look when 
examined closely.
I say "so what" to that. Us poor wind mill tilters looking to do excellent 
B/W reliably will soon achieve the same glory.

Did anyone see the current N.G.. aviation issue?  It was their first 
all-digital shoot. Check out the actual mag.. Tell me if I'm full of it, 
but I swear
every image had a distinct "outline" effect around adjacent large tonal 
areas. I'm probably not describing that well, but take a look.  Is that an 
artifact of the camera or reproduction?

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

There are a couple of digital myths here that I think need to be 
clarified.

On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 03:32  PM, Alan Zinn wrote:

> As a digital virgin - having just gotten a Canon A70 from Santa I'm 
> having
> fits simply trying to get a candid picture with the freaking digital 
> lag
> time!

The lag time is usually related to the fact that you are using a 
consumer model point and shoot camera, a comparable point and shoot 
film camera would have the same problem. Many people blame this 
incorrectly on digital when it is a function of the autofocus system. 
With some cameras you can get slow write times to the storage media but 
usually only when trying to shoot bursts.

> They have a distinct digital look when examined closely.

I hear this often and it is almost always an issue with how the image 
was processed in the computer after it was shot. Many photographers do 
not understand Photoshop and others get carried away with what they can 
do. You can easily get the same look from negs if they are over 
processed in Photoshop.

I have asked this in other forums and have never gotten a real answer, 
what is a "digital look?"

> Did anyone see the current N.G.. aviation issue?  It was their first
> all-digital shoot. Check out the actual mag.. Tell me if I'm full of 
> it,
> but I swear every image had a distinct "outline" effect around 
> adjacent large tonal
> areas. I'm probably not describing that well, but take a look.  Is 
> that an
> artifact of the camera or reproduction?

This is most likely another problem with not knowing Photoshop, it 
sounds exactly like bad Unsharp Mask settings.

If you want a "film look" you can set up a work flow to get that from a 
digital camera, and if you are scanning negs you are already doing some 
of it. The biggest issue isn't how the image was captured but rather it 
is handled between capture and print. And that part is the same whether 
you shoot digital or shoot film and scan.

Cort

--
Cort Anderson
Training Wheels, llc
www.trwheels.com
620-488-2960
620-488-3196 fax

sounds like you are also a P&S virgin as well.  the first thing you 
have to do is learn your camera and learn its limitations and then 
learn how to live with them.  There are many many fine photos taken 
with even more limited, but fine, p&s cameras like the Yashica T4 or 
Epic Stylus.  Read your manual and think about what it means to you 
and what you want to shoot.  If shutter lag is your biggest issue 
there is probably at least one way to minimize it.  I have a Canon 
S400 which has a "hard" focus lock which essentially turns it into a 
manual focus camera with nearly zero shutter lag.  You also should 
understand what kind of depth of field you will get (ie. gobs) and 
use this to your advantage.  With my S400 I generally set the focus 
lock at around 6' before even entering a room where I want to take 
casual candids of people (at a focal length of 7.4mm I get everything 
in focus from 3.8 to 13.8 ft. so there is no reason for the camera to 
focus every shot).

Also, consumer cameras like the A70 will often oversharpen images 
because it looks better to the vast majority of consumers.  The S400 
has a "low sharpening" parameter which I think is good... see if it 
is on the A70.

I don't mean argue with you on this, but it is practically insane to 
suggest that only film images are "real," once you make a print the 
image *is* real, period.  Make your edition, whatever, then pitch 
your negative or digital file and you are still left with a "real 
image."  Was it made using a 150 year old process?  No, of course 
not, but once you hang a print on a wall who cares as long as it 
looks good?

If you are making "huge" prints from a 5MP camera you don't have 
enough resolution to match most film images so your friends have done 
some kind of interpolation.  There is also no grain and if you think 
you should be seeing grain and do not, well, then it looks digital 
instead of grainy... but yes, I will agree that "real" film grain has 
an aesthetic quality not found in digital images, but silky smooth 
digital b&w images can look great as well... ya' know, some people 
that shoot silver film shoot in large format so they don't see the 
grain... so it's not like you have to have it to have a good photo:)

Enjoy your new toy, it should be capable of taking some decently 
serious photos with!

mark

PS  But watch out for CA, it will kill you.

...
> As a digital virgin - having just gotten a Canon A70 from Santa I'm 
having 
> fits simply trying to get a candid picture with the freaking 
digital lag 
> time! I may resort to shooting bursts of three. There is another 
level of 
> concern (I don't mind a digital v. film dialog here :-))  and that 
is the 
> fact that digital images are virtual and film images are "real." To 
me that 
> is a big, important difference.
> 
> Regarding larger blow-ups I have friends with 5M cams who do 
enormous color 
> ink jet prints that are stunning. They have a distinct digital look 
when 
> examined closely.
> I say "so what" to that. Us poor wind mill tilters looking to do 
excellent 
> B/W reliably will soon achieve the same glory.
> 
> Did anyone see the current N.G.. aviation issue?  It was their 
first 
> all-digital shoot. Check out the actual mag.. Tell me if I'm full 
of it, 
> but I swear
> every image had a distinct "outline" effect around adjacent large 
tonal 
> areas. I'm probably not describing that well, but take a look.  Is 
that an 

> artifact of the camera or reproduction?
> 
> AZ
> 
> Build a Lookaround!
> The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
> NOW SHIPPING
> http://www.panoramacamera.us

> The lag time is usually related to the fact that you are using a
> consumer model point and shoot camera, a comparable point and shoot 
> film camera would have the same problem. Many people blame this 
> incorrectly on digital when it is a function of the autofocus system.

Digital cameras also perform operations like white balancing that take
time (at least in consumer models).

Professional digital cameras do not have these delays.  They don't have
the same price tags, either.

> I hear this often and it is almost always an issue with how the image
> was processed in the computer after it was shot.

Digital images usually do have a distinctive look, especially when
examined closely.  The lack of grain is usually noticed first.  The
"creamy" colors are noticed next.  The two features of the images are
related, as part of the lack of grain comes from the fact that color
resolution in digital is very poor, and color pixels are interpolated.
In other words, you're unlikely to see pixel-to-pixel noise in the blue
channel of a digicam image simply because the actual blue pixels are
separated by three other pixels, so the intervening blue pixels are
interpolated, which always smoothes out any disparities.  So you get
less grain, less color resolution, and a creamy appearance to the image.
Some people like it, some don't.  It looks nice from a distance.

> I have asked this in other forums and have never gotten a real answer,
> what is a "digital look?"

See above. A near-total lack of "grain" and a creamy, somewhat pastel
appearance to colors are typical of digital images.  The lack of grain
is mostly due to low noise, but is also due to the poor color
resolution, as stated above.  The creamy pastels are entirely due to
poor color resolution.

High-end professional digicams look a lot more like film (except for the
lack of grain), but the only way to completely eliminate the color
anomalies is to capture color information for all three primaries for
every pixel, which no existing camera currently does (except the
Foveon--but it doesn't do it well enough).

> This is most likely another problem with not knowing Photoshop, it
> sounds exactly like bad Unsharp Mask settings.

Agreed, although some cameras do USM right inside the camera (pro
cameras should allow this to be disabled, if it is present).

At 06:15 PM 12/28/03 -0600, you wrote:
>There are a couple of digital myths here that I think need to be
>clarified.
>
>On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 03:32  PM, Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> > As a digital virgin - having just gotten a Canon A70 from Santa I'm
> > having
> > fits simply trying to get a candid picture with the freaking digital
> > lag
> > time!
>
>The lag time is usually related to the fact that you are using a
>consumer model point and shoot camera, a comparable point and shoot
>film camera would have the same problem. Many people blame this
>incorrectly on digital when it is a function of the autofocus system.
>With some cameras you can get slow write times to the storage media but
>usually only when trying to shoot bursts.
>
> > They have a distinct digital look when examined closely.
>
>I hear this often and it is almost always an issue with how the image
>was processed in the computer after it was shot. Many photographers do
>not understand Photoshop and others get carried away with what they can
>do. You can easily get the same look from negs if they are over
>processed in Photoshop.
>
>I have asked this in other forums and have never gotten a real answer,
>what is a "digital look?"
>
> > Did anyone see the current N.G.. aviation issue?  It was their first
> > all-digital shoot. Check out the actual mag.. Tell me if I'm full of
> > it,
> > but I swear every image had a distinct "outline" effect around
> > adjacent large tonal
> > areas. I'm probably not describing that well, but take a look.  Is
> > that an
> > artifact of the camera or reproduction?
>
>This is most likely another problem with not knowing Photoshop, it
>sounds exactly like bad Unsharp Mask settings.
>
>If you want a "film look" you can set up a work flow to get that from a
>digital camera, and if you are scanning negs you are already doing some
>of it. The biggest issue isn't how the image was captured but rather it
>is handled between capture and print. And that part is the same whether
>you shoot digital or shoot film and scan.
>
>Cort
>
>--
>Cort Anderson
>Training Wheels, llc
>www.trwheels.com
>620-488-2960
>620-488-3196 fax

Cort,

While I believe you have cleared up some "digital look" issues regarding 
less than optimal work-flow skill,  I still think there are and has to be 
some characteristics that are unique. The adjacency thing must be near to 
impossible to eliminate. I haven't studied ink-jet digital compared to 
laser/chromogenic printed images which may be more like conventional prints.

One way to look at it is to think of the apparent increased sharpness one 
gets from contrast and grain from TX v. softer films. Digital gets a huge 
perceived sharpness boost from the way the data is processed in-camera and 
later in PS. I scanned 8 x 10 TX negs and made 8x 10 piezo prints for a 
view camera buddy.  It drove him a bit nuts trying to figure out why the 
piezos looked so sharp until we began thinking about the extent that the 
neg was literally re-built silver grains-for-pixels.

RE shutter lag, the A70 has manual controls and I hope that reduces the 
problem. The camera performs quite well in all respects - enough to make a 
believer out of me.

AZ

Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Digital images usually do have a distinctive look, especially when
> examined closely.  The lack of grain is usually noticed first.  The
> "creamy" colors are noticed next.  The two features of the images are
> related, as part of the lack of grain comes from the fact that color
> resolution in digital is very poor, and color pixels are interpolated.
> In other words, you're unlikely to see pixel-to-pixel noise in the blue
> channel of a digicam image simply because the actual blue pixels are
> separated by three other pixels, so the intervening blue pixels are
> interpolated, which always smoothes out any disparities.  So you get
> less grain, less color resolution, and a creamy appearance to the image.
> Some people like it, some don't.  It looks nice from a distance.
>
> A near-total lack of "grain" and a creamy, somewhat pastel
> appearance to colors are typical of digital images.  The lack of grain
> is mostly due to low noise, but is also due to the poor color
> resolution, as stated above.  The creamy pastels are entirely due to
> poor color resolution.

I'm like to know more precisely what you mean by "color resolution" and
"creamy pastels". The former sounds like something that could have a formal
definition, but the latter sounds like something subjective that doesn't
describe anything I've seen.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> I'm like to know more precisely what you mean by "color resolution" and
> "creamy pastels".

Color resolution means the finest details that can be resolved in an
isoluminant image, that is, the finest _color_ differences that can be
resolved.

Only one out of every four pixels in a digicam image has any blue
information; the same is true for red.  Only every other pixel has green
information.  All the rest is an educated guess added by the camera
software (or by subsequent processing of a raw image).

This means that one- or two-pixel details in red and blue can't be
resolved properly by a digicam, since only every fourth pixel even
captures red or blue to begin with.  One effect of this is that noise
seems to be reduced, because one pixel is being smeared over four
pixels.

> The former sounds like something that could have a formal
> definition, but the latter sounds like something subjective that doesn't
> describe anything I've seen.

"Creamy pastel" is just another way of saying a limited gamut and
limited saturation.  Again, this is a consequence of the use of a matrix
filter over a single sensor.  It would not be a problem with three
separate CCDs capturing every primary color for every pixel, or the
equivalent (like a Foveon, if it were ever perfected).

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Color resolution means the finest details that can be resolved in an
> isoluminant image, that is, the finest _color_ differences that can be
> resolved.

If you can represent both color A and color B digitally, and you can render
a gradient from A to B that shows no posterization to the eye, then you have
all the color "resolution" you need. Inability to render sufficiently fine
color differences equals posterization. If you don't see posterization, then
you have enough resolution.

> "Creamy pastel" is just another way of saying a limited gamut and
> limited saturation.  Again, this is a consequence of the use of a matrix
> filter over a single sensor.  It would not be a problem with three
> separate CCDs capturing every primary color for every pixel, or the
> equivalent (like a Foveon, if it were ever perfected).

Gamut and saturation have nothing to do with this. There's nothing about
Bayer sensors that limits the gamut or saturation. I don't think you have
any idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> If you can represent both color A and color B digitally, and you can
> render a gradient from A to B that shows no posterization to the eye,
> then you have all the color "resolution" you need.

Unless the original scene showed additional details in that gradient
that cannot be simulated by any form of interpolation.

> Inability to render sufficiently fine color differences equals
> posterization.

In terms of chrominance, yes.  In terms of spatial resolution, no.

> Gamut and saturation have nothing to do with this.

They have everything to do with it.  That's why offset printing never
looks like a chemical print, and that's why chemical prints never look
like monitor displays, and that's why monitor displays never look like
projected slides.

> There's nothing about Bayer sensors that limits the gamut
> or saturation.

Yes, there is.  They remove fully 2/3 of the color information from the
image.

> I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

Now you've graduated from near personal attacks to actual personal
attacks.  I take it that you've run out of arguments in support of your
stated position?  I still have plenty of data and logic on my side.

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Paul D. DeRocco writes:
>
> > If you can represent both color A and color B digitally, and you can
> > render a gradient from A to B that shows no posterization to the eye,
> > then you have all the color "resolution" you need.
>
> Unless the original scene showed additional details in that gradient
> that cannot be simulated by any form of interpolation.
>
> > Inability to render sufficiently fine color differences equals
> > posterization.
>
> In terms of chrominance, yes.  In terms of spatial resolution, no.

Well, now we're back to spatial resolution. You said color resolution.

Look, if an scene contains a red dot that happens to fall on a blue sensor
element, you won't see it. No one denies that. But you began with the
statement that digital images (by which I take you to mean Bayer pattern
images) have a certain "look" which can be seen, presumably without
comparing the image with the original scene and looking for obscure flaws in
the details.

> > Gamut and saturation have nothing to do with this.
>
> They have everything to do with it.  That's why offset printing never
> looks like a chemical print, and that's why chemical prints never look
> like monitor displays, and that's why monitor displays never look like
> projected slides.

Everything to do with what? The different gamuts of offset prints, chemical
prints, inkjet prints, and so on, has nothing to do with Bayer patterns.

> > There's nothing about Bayer sensors that limits the gamut
> > or saturation.
>
> Yes, there is.  They remove fully 2/3 of the color information from the
> image.

They don't remove 2/3 of the information; they remove 2/3 of the data. I
assume you know the difference. Besides, that has nothing to do with
saturation or gamut, which is the range of possible colors that can be
represented. Having a Bayer pattern does absolutely nothing to reduce the
range of possible colors; it only means that you can't represent arbitrary
colored one-pixel dots. But a photograph doesn't consist of abritrary
colored dots, it consists of meaningful shapes and textures, which is why we
can recognize a farm in an impressionist painting. Modern Bayer
interpolation recognizes shapes, or more precisely edges and gradients, and
makes intelligent choices about how to fill the pixels in. In 99% of all
real-world images, it does this subjectively perfectly. The 1% figure is
generous, because in the thousands of images I've shot with the 10D, I've
yet to see an image degraded in any meaningful way.

> > I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Sorry.
>
> Now you've graduated from near personal attacks to actual personal
> attacks.  I take it that you've run out of arguments in support of your
> stated position?  I still have plenty of data and logic on my side.

I don't mean to offend, but you make astonishing, outlandish statements that
leave me nearly speechless sometimes. As you can see, I hadn't run out of
arguments. I've just run out of patience.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
> group Owner and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
> OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND MODERATORS OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
> DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
> RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>
>
> Look, if an scene contains a red dot that happens to fall on a blue sensor
> element, you won't see it. No one denies that. 

I think there is some contradiction between the statement above and the 
one below. That is the exact point that has been made about information 
not captured can not be created by interpolation.

>
>
> They don't remove 2/3 of the information; they remove 2/3 of the data. 


Truman

there is limit to this, you know?  If the red dot is much smaller 
than what you can see with your naked eye on your enlarged print it 
doesn't matter.  Also, with the resolving power of digitals starting 
to beat 35mm color negative films, who cares if you are theoretically 
missing something in a DSLR image that you couldn't pick up with a 
35mm SLR anyway?  Ok, an 8x10" negative will beat out digital images 
for a very very long time, but who cares again?  That is not a 
reasonable comparison.  I agree that a 6MP DSLR will not match 
traditional b&w prints *yet*, but they come really really close to 
matching or beating prints from scanned b&w negatives...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Look, if an scene contains a red dot that happens to fall on a 
blue sensor
> > element, you won't see it. No one denies that. 
> 
> I think there is some contradiction between the statement above and 
the 
> one below. That is the exact point that has been made about 
information 
> not captured can not be created by interpolation.
> 
> >
> >
> > They don't remove 2/3 of the information; they remove 2/3 of the 
data. 

> 
> 
> Truman

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> Well, now we're back to spatial resolution. You said color resolution.

The resolution of colors in space is spatial resolution.  Spatial
resolution in color is color resolution.

> Look, if an scene contains a red dot that happens to fall on a blue sensor
> element, you won't see it.

True.  Whereas, if you are using a sensor that captures all three colors
for each pixel, you _will_ see it.

> But you began with the statement that digital images (by which I take
> you to mean Bayer pattern images) have a certain "look" which can be
> seen, presumably without comparing the image with the original scene
> and looking for obscure flaws in the details.

And they do, which is why digital images have a "look."  Some people
like the creamy pastel look, some don't.

When the sensor is of sufficient size and quality, with appropriate
electronics and software to back it up, and when you use three sensors
or the equivalent to capture all three colors at every pixel, and when
you have a sensor with sufficiently high resolution, you can get better
results from digital than from film.  But real-world cameras at
realistic prices simply don't come anywhere near that ideal for now.
Until they do, it will be relatively easy to recognize digital photos by
their "look," at least before editing.

It's true that the absence of grain is part of the look, which should
not be a defect, but part of that absence of grain is _due_ to a defect,
in this case (namely, the absence of full color information).

> Everything to do with what?

Everything to do with the pastel look I described.  A limited gamut
produces faded-looking colors that tend to resemble each other a lot.

> The different gamuts of offset prints, chemical prints, inkjet prints,
> and so on, has nothing to do with Bayer patterns.

The limited gamut of a typical digicam has a great deal to do with
matrix filters.

> They don't remove 2/3 of the information; they remove 2/3
> of the data.

Same thing, in this case.  All light coming from the scene is
information _and_ data.

> Having a Bayer pattern does absolutely nothing to reduce the range of
> possible colors; it only means that you can't represent arbitrary
> colored one-pixel dots.

That is a serious limitation, and it does reduce the range of possible
colors overall.  Remember, 2/3 of the image is gone before it reaches
the sensor.

> But a photograph doesn't consist of abritrary colored dots, it
> consists of meaningful shapes and textures ...

Then how do we manage to represent photographs with arbitrary colored
dots?

> ... which is why we can recognize a farm in an impressionist painting.

Like the paintings of Georges Seurat?

> Modern Bayer interpolation recognizes shapes, or more precisely edges
> and gradients, and makes intelligent choices about how to fill the
> pixels in.

That still isn't the same as actually capturing the information.

> In 99% of all real-world images, it does this subjectively perfectly.

And it all cases, it does it objectively wrong.  Personally, I prefer to
see what the scene really looked like, not what the software estimates
it might have looked like.

> I don't mean to offend ...

I'm never offended.  Indeed, personal attacks work in my favor.

> ... but you make astonishing, outlandish statements that
> leave me nearly speechless sometimes.

In other words, I say things with which you don't agree, and since you
can't always think of objective arguments to support your own opinion,
you lash out with personal attacks in the hope that that will somehow
validate your own position or discredit mine.

> As you can see, I hadn't run out of arguments. I've just run
> out of patience.

None of your arguments is persuasive.  My experience is that people with
good arguments always have more than enough patience to present them.

To summarize, if you like the silky-smooth, slightly blurry pastels of
digital, that's fine; but you should not attempt to prove that a
defective design (like a matrix filter) is better than or equal to a
superior design (like three sensors of the equivalent capture of all
color data), because it is a losing battle.

Mark Hahn writes:

> there is limit to this, you know?  If the red dot is much smaller 
> than what you can see with your naked eye on your enlarged print it 
> doesn't matter.

That's true, but unless you know exactly how much an image will be
enlarged and you're sure that you have all the information the eye will
be able to see in that enlargement, it is prudent to capture as much
information as possible, just in case.

There is no disputing that a matrix filter removes 2/3 of the image
information.  Color resolution is very poor through such a filter.  The
human eye works in a similar way and this makes the defects less
noticeable, but they will still show on close examination.  Any sensor
or sensor system that captures all three primary colors for every pixel
will produce images that are superior in every way to those produced by
a matrix filter.

And, just not to be too far off topic, I should point out that the
defects of a matrix filter damage black and white images as well.  Two
thirds of the information missing is two thirds missing, even in black
and white.

> Also, with the resolving power of digitals starting to beat 35mm color
> negative films ...

The resolving power of digital cameras comes nowhere close to 35mm film.

I don't understand why people who prefer digital insist on arguing that
the greatest defects of digital are somehow it's greatest assets.  Why
not concentrate on the assets of digital instead.  The weakest points of
digital are resolution and color, and yet many people seem to be
determined to "prove" that digital does this better than film, when the
undeniable fact is that it does them worse.

Try concentrating on speed, lack of grain, or something like that to
support digital.  At least in those respects, it's superior to film, so
you aren't trying to push water uphill with a fork.

> ... who cares if you are theoretically missing something in a
> DSLR image that you couldn't pick up with a 35mm SLR anyway?

But you can pick all of this up with a 35mm SLR, and more.  If that were
not true, nobody would be shooting film, since film has very little to
recommend it beyond image quality.  Of course, for many photographers,
image quality is a sine qua non of their work.

> Ok, an 8x10" negative will beat out digital images
> for a very very long time, but who cares again?

People who need top quality.  See

http://www.dougsalin.com

for good examples of large-format film photography.

> That is not a reasonable comparison.

Why not?  For someone shooting LF, it's a vital comparison.  Suggesting
that he throw away all that image quality just to join the digital boys'
club makes no sense.

> I agree that a 6MP DSLR will not match traditional b&w prints
> *yet*, but they come really really close to matching or beating
> prints from scanned b&w negatives...

My scans from B&W 35mm film are just under 22 megapixels, and I'm not
getting everything on the film. Digital doesn't come anywhere close. No
need to mention what I'm getting from MF film.