I recently saw some digital pictures from someone

<ragland31 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2cb014f-4967-498d-ba38-cda8c4bffaf3@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
> digital still sucks in many ways.
>
> Michael Ragland
**********************************************************
Michael: Careful, the digital boys on these newsgroups can't stand anyone
putting down digital. As you know, digital is what is used by the angels.
My camera is so backwards that it doesn't even use batteries. Someday I
hope to have a digital so I can buy batteries by the truck load. Ric in
Wisconsin.
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone 

On Jan 13, 9:46 am, Paul Furman <pa....TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> JimKramer wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 3:19 am, raglan....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 12, 5:30 pm, raglan....TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
> >>>> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
> >>>> digital still sucks in many ways.
> >>>> Michael Ragland
>
> >> The digital pictures I saw when you turned them certain angles had an
> >> "amost metallic"
> >> property or sheen to them.
>
> > Like a well aged silver black & white print?  Just to be clear, you
> > are talking about physical prints then and not something on a computer
> > screen? Was it all over the picture, or just in certain areas? Could
> > it have been a protective coating over the actual picture?
>
> I believe that's called metamerism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)
?
The silver crystals in a B&W print will migrate in some emulsions and
cause a "glow."

The only inkjet effects I've really seen, other than just plain
horrible printing mind you, have been the paper coatings not retaining
their spatial properties and swelling differently with different ink
colors and concentrations causing the surface to have a physical
"imprint" of the image.

>newer inkjets don't have that
> issue and most labs use lightjet (lasers) to print on traditional photo
> paper, in fact they scan film now at minilabs & print it digitally. The
> only real failing of digital is the way highlights blow out (and digital
> projectors are hideous compared to slides) but with care, blown
> highlights can be avoided in most cases and shadow detail can be boosted
> much more than film. Digital is cleaner, less noise, looks sharper with
> a little less subtle detail than the very best pro film but that's only
> discernible with huge enlargements.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So you see, digital is clearly better, otherwise we would be having
this discussion face to face rather than over this digital forum.
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone 

JimKramer wrote:
> On Jan 13, 3:19 am, raglan... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 5:30 pm, raglan... DeleteThis @gmail.com wrote:
>>>> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
>>>> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
>>>> digital still sucks in many ways.
>>>> Michael Ragland
>
>> The digital pictures I saw when you turned them certain angles had an
>> "amost metallic"
>> property or sheen to them.
>
> Like a well aged silver black & white print? Just to be clear, you
> are talking about physical prints then and not something on a computer
> screen? Was it all over the picture, or just in certain areas? Could
> it have been a protective coating over the actual picture?

I believe that's called metamerism... newer inkjets don't have that
issue and most labs use lightjet (lasers) to print on traditional photo
paper, in fact they scan film now at minilabs & print it digitally. The
only real failing of digital is the way highlights blow out (and digital
projectors are hideous compared to slides) but with care, blown
highlights can be avoided in most cases and shadow detail can be boosted
much more than film. Digital is cleaner, less noise, looks sharper with
a little less subtle detail than the very best pro film but that's only
discernible with huge enlargements.
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone 

JimKramer wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:46 am, Paul Furman <pa....RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> JimKramer wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 3:19 am, raglan....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 12, 5:30 pm, raglan....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
>>>>>> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
>>>>>> digital still sucks in many ways.
>>>>>> Michael Ragland
>>>> The digital pictures I saw when you turned them certain angles had an
>>>> "amost metallic"
>>>> property or sheen to them.
>>> Like a well aged silver black & white print? Just to be clear, you
>>> are talking about physical prints then and not something on a computer
>>> screen? Was it all over the picture, or just in certain areas? Could
>>> it have been a protective coating over the actual picture?
>> I believe that's called metamerism...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)
> ?
> The silver crystals in a B&W print will migrate in some emulsions and
> cause a "glow."
>
> The only inkjet effects I've really seen, other than just plain
> horrible printing mind you, have been the paper coatings not retaining
> their spatial properties and swelling differently with different ink
> colors and concentrations causing the surface to have a physical
> "imprint" of the image.

Older inkjets can have colors change depending on the light or angle and
there can be a change in glossiness where blank white areas reflect
different than darker printed areas. My Epson R1800 has a gloss
optimizer cartridge which coats the whole sheet to avoid that problem.

>> newer inkjets don't have that
>> issue and most labs use lightjet (lasers) to print on traditional photo
>> paper, in fact they scan film now at minilabs & print it digitally. The
>> only real failing of digital is the way highlights blow out (and digital
>> projectors are hideous compared to slides) but with care, blown
>> highlights can be avoided in most cases and shadow detail can be boosted
>> much more than film. Digital is cleaner, less noise, looks sharper with
>> a little less subtle detail than the very best pro film but that's only
>> discernible with huge enlargements.- Hide quoted text -
>
> So you see, digital is clearly better, otherwise we would be having
> this discussion face to face rather than over this digital forum.

<zooming in to 400% on your message to try & read between the lines>
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone 

On Jan 13, 2:51 pm, Pudentame <no.....TakeThisOut@no.were.invalid> wrote:
> Ric Trexell wrote:
> > <raglan....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:f2cb014f-4967-498d-ba38-cda8c4bffaf3@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
> >> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
> >> digital still sucks in many ways.
>
> >> Michael Ragland
> > **********************************************************
> > Michael:  Careful, the digital boys on these newsgroups can't stand anyone
> > putting down digital.  As you know, digital is what is used by the angels.
> > My camera is so backwards that it doesn't even use batteries.  Someday I
> > hope to have a digital so I can buy batteries by the truck load.  Ric in
> > Wisconsin.
>
> You could get one with re-chargable batteries if you wanted to.
>

Many film people don't yet know about re-chargable batteries, they
don't keep up with new things very well.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone 

On Jan 13, 7:36 am, JimKramer <j... RemoveThis @jlkramer.net> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 9:46 am, Paul Furman <pa... RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > JimKramer wrote:
> > > On Jan 13, 3:19 am, raglan... RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 12, 5:30 pm, raglan... RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
> > >>>> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
> > >>>> digital still sucks in many ways.
> > >>>> Michael Ragland
>
> > >> The digital pictures I saw when you turned them certain angles had an
> > >> "amost metallic"
> > >> property or sheen to them.
>
> > > Like a well aged silver black & white print?  Just to be clear, you
> > > are talking about physical prints then and not something on a computer
> > > screen? Was it all over the picture, or just in certain areas? Could
> > > it have been a protective coating over the actual picture?
>
> > I believe that's called metamerism...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)
> ?
> The silver crystals in a B&W print will migrate in some emulsions and
> cause a "glow."
>
> The only inkjet effects I've really seen, other than just plain
> horrible printing mind you, have been the paper coatings not retaining
> their spatial properties and swelling differently with different ink
> colors and concentrations causing the surface to have a physical
> "imprint" of the image.
>
> >newer inkjets don't have that
> > issue and most labs use lightjet (lasers) to print on traditional photo
> > paper, in fact they scan film now at minilabs & print it digitally. The
> > only real failing of digital is the way highlights blow out (and digital
> > projectors are hideous compared to slides) but with care, blown
> > highlights can be avoided in most cases and shadow detail can be boosted
> > much more than film. Digital is cleaner, less noise, looks sharper with
> > a little less subtle detail than the very best pro film but that's only
> > discernible with huge enlargements.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> So you see, digital is clearly better, otherwise we would be having
> this discussion face to face rather than over this digital forum. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The bringing out the best of civility.

Michael Ragland
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone 

Ric Trexell wrote:
> <ragland31.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f2cb014f-4967-498d-ba38-cda8c4bffaf3@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> They lack a naturalness that film has. I concede film will eventually
>> be like analog television as the technology and science improves but
>> digital still sucks in many ways.
>>
>> Michael Ragland
> **********************************************************
> Michael: Careful, the digital boys on these newsgroups can't stand anyone
> putting down digital. As you know, digital is what is used by the angels.
> My camera is so backwards that it doesn't even use batteries. Someday I
> hope to have a digital so I can buy batteries by the truck load. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
>
>

You could get one with re-chargable batteries if you wanted to.

OTOH, I'd recommend sticking with what you need to get the job done.

Use film if that's what you need or use digital if that floats your boat
.... or use either/and/or/both as occasion arises.
 >> Stay informed about: I recently saw some digital pictures from someone