traditional vs. digital

Scott Schuckert wrote:
 > In article <425FDE8F.5020503.RemoveThis@olympus.net>, Art Reitsch
 > <ar7500.RemoveThis@olympus.net> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>I saw such a digital print about four years ago
  >>and did not find it as "radiant" as a darkroom print, but that's a long
  >>time ago in the digital world. Where does this comparison stand today?
 >
 >
 > Oh, boy! This is flame bait of the first order; can't be answered
 > without going all weepy philosophical/theoretical. So be it.
 >
 > Any digtal system is an APPROXIMATION of an analog world (unless you
 > want to go so deep as to look at quantum states at the subatomic level)
 > At some point, digital is going to have to decide if something is a one
 > or a zero, not some intermediate value; this is a compromise.

You do not need to go to the quantum level to be confronted with the fact
that silver halide film is also discrete, just as digital photography is.
I.e., silver halide photography is not anymore analog than solid state
detectors in digital camera devices.

Either a silver grain is developped to silver, or it is not. If it is, it is
opaque. If it is not, it is clear. The apparent analog nature of this is
because there are an enormous number of these in a photographic emulsion,
and the statistics make it look analog if you do not look too closely. So
when they start making digital photodetectors approximately the size of
silver halide crystals, they will surely be as good as current "analog"
film. In fact this would be true even if those detectors could see only 0 or
1. Clearly, if a photodetector can give 8 to 16 bits of accuracy, it would
not need to be anywhere near as small as a silver halide grain.
 >
 > Therefore, it follows that a very, very good analog system will ALWAYS
 > be superior to the best digital, whether it be reproducing sound or
 > pictures. The fun thing is, digital makes it easy to be quite good; the
 > final layers of guilding on the analog lilly are very hard to achieve.
 >
While I have not seen digital photography as good as the best "analog"
photography, I do not think this need necessarily be so. With analog
systems, we are always limited by the signal to noise ratio, and it is very
difficult to reduce it more than a certain amount. In an analog system,
every 2:1 improvement costs twice as much, where in a digital system, each
2:1 improvement costs the same. A digital system could have a 120db signal
to noise ratio, where I doubt any analog system could achieve much better
than 70db, and that would be quite an achievement.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://counter.li.org" target="_blank">http://counter.li.org</a>
^^-^^ 09:50:00 up 5 days, 3:05, 4 users, load average: 6.41, 5.48, 4.53<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

In article <bugstopped_-EC23C4.07501516042005 DeleteThis @news.verizon.net>,
Gregory Blank <bugstopped_ DeleteThis @gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
 >Where it stands is that most B&W photographer/printers will agree with
 >BB because they understand what what it is they are seeing. A lot of
 >people just getting into photo or otherwise not lacking the experience
 >will think it is something obtainable with digital (prints or cameras)
 >Its not. Just one man's opinion,...but I am sure others agree.

The problem is to some extent that the B/W market is very small compared
to the market for color prints, and that most people doing B/W have
their own darkrooms and no real need for switching to digital.

High quality output to traditional B/W papers is possible. High quality
digital capture devices are also possible.

But without sufficient demand from the market it remains much more a
technical possibility than an economic reality.

At some point, the people who grew up with digital want a high quality
digital B/W workflow. They are unlikely to go back to analog just for B/W.



--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
  -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:46:24 -0400, Scott Schuckert <not.RemoveThis@aol.com>
wrote:

....
 >As noted, at one time film recorders were common. These would take
 >digital output from a computer and "print" it onto slide film. It would
 >be interesting to see if a similar system for B&W prints could be
 >marketed at the hobbyist level; this is of course already common
 >commercially for color prints.
....

apr1605 from Lloyd Erlick,

Would I want my very own Lambda or LightJet system to do my black and
white work?

If they could live at someone else's house and be paid for by someone
else, I'd do a little playing on them.

But I like my present darkroom, which is quiet and peaceful and
requires no maintenance contracts with outside parties. I also like
the prints I can make myself, in my present darkroom, and I do not see
how digital devices would make me happier. (This is not criticism of
anything digital, just a remark that I like the system I have built so
far.)

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait.RemoveThis@heylloyd.com
net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</a>
________________________________
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

"Art Reitsch" <ar7500 RemoveThis @olympus.net> wrote in message
news:425FDE8F.5020503@olympus.net...
 > I was directed to an interesting article by Bruce Barnbaum on
 > traditional vs. digital fine art photography: on his website at
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.barnbaum.com," target="_blank">www.barnbaum.com,</a> followed by "Thoughts on digital photography". I am
 > interested in reaction to his final statement in this article: "Nothing
 > has the radiance of a finely crafted silver print. Nothing."
 > I'm not asking for a critique of BB's work, but rather for a comparison
 > of a fine traditional black and white 16x20 print with the same size
 > generated digitally. I saw such a digital print about four years ago
 > and did not find it as "radiant" as a darkroom print, but that's a long
 > time ago in the digital world. Where does this comparison stand today?
 > Art
 >

You can create the radiance of a "finely crafted silver print" using film or
digital. Just use the same paper stock using a digital enlarger and tray
process and tone if required. Digital camera users need not limit themselves
to inkjet or similar prints.

What exactly are you trying to compare?

--
Dooey.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

Are you sure you're only 47???


"John Bartley" <oldrad.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:TeY7e.6607$MZ2.953271@news20.bellglobal.com...
 > Art Reitsch wrote:
 >
  >> I was directed to an interesting article by Bruce Barnbaum on traditional
  >> vs. digital fine art photography: on his website at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.barnbaum.com," target="_blank">www.barnbaum.com,</a>
  >> followed by "Thoughts on digital photography". I am interested in
  >> reaction to his final statement in this article: "Nothing has the
  >> radiance of a finely crafted silver print. Nothing."
  >> I'm not asking for a critique of BB's work, but rather for a comparison
  >> of a fine traditional black and white 16x20 print with the same size
  >> generated digitally. I saw such a digital print about four years ago and
  >> did not find it as "radiant" as a darkroom print, but that's a long time
  >> ago in the digital world. Where does this comparison stand today?
  >> Art
  >>
 >
 >
 > This is the same sort of "for the average person - useless comparison
 > that means nothing" as the audiophiles get into. Parallel push-pulled
 > 6L6GC's driven by "black plate" 6SN7GTB's will deliver "sweeter" highs and
 > more "earthy" lows then the grey body, 6V6's driven by 12ax7's.
 >
 > WHAT CRAP!! (for the average person) My 47 year old badly abused by
 > "workplace noise" ears won't tell the difference.
 >
 > I have a digital camera and I use it and I enjoy using it.
 >
 > I have a 4x5 LF camera and I enjoy it and I enjoy using it
 >
 > They both have their place.
 >
 > WHAT BLOODY ELSE MATTERS??
 >
 > Besides, isn't this a "darkroom" group? The equipment group is elsewhere.
 >
 > --
 > regards from ::
 >
 > John Bartley
 > 43 Norway Spruce Street
 > Stittsville, Ontario
 > Canada, K2S1P5
 >
 > ( If you slow down it takes longer
 > - does that apply to life also?)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:06:41 -0400, Lloyd Erlick <Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com> wrote:

 >But I like my present darkroom, which is quiet and peaceful and
 >requires no maintenance contracts with outside parties

  Mine rocks ! LOUDLY !!!!

JD - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.puresilver.org" target="_blank">www.puresilver.org</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:15:46 GMT, "dooey" <dooey RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

.... Just use the same paper stock using a digital enlarger and tray
 >process and tone if required. Digital camera users need not limit themselves
 >to inkjet or similar prints.
....

apr1705 from Lloyd Erlick,

How much does a digital enlarger cost? Do users feel they become
outmoded as quickly as other forms of digital gear?

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait RemoveThis @heylloyd.com
net: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.heylloyd.com" target="_blank">www.heylloyd.com</a>
________________________________
--<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital 

"Jean-David Beyer" <jdbeyer.RemoveThis@exit109.com> schreef in bericht
news:11626p2gpegr774@corp.supernews.com...
 > Scott Schuckert wrote:
  >> In article <425FDE8F.5020503.RemoveThis@olympus.net>, Art Reitsch
  >> <ar7500.RemoveThis@olympus.net> wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>I saw such a digital print about four years ago
   >>>and did not find it as "radiant" as a darkroom print, but that's a long
   >>>time ago in the digital world. Where does this comparison stand today?
  >>
  >>
  >> Oh, boy! This is flame bait of the first order; can't be answered
  >> without going all weepy philosophical/theoretical. So be it.
  >>
  >> Any digtal system is an APPROXIMATION of an analog world (unless you
  >> want to go so deep as to look at quantum states at the subatomic level)
  >> At some point, digital is going to have to decide if something is a one
  >> or a zero, not some intermediate value; this is a compromise.
 >
 > You do not need to go to the quantum level to be confronted with the fact
 > that silver halide film is also discrete, just as digital photography is.
 > I.e., silver halide photography is not anymore analog than solid state
 > detectors in digital camera devices.
 >
 > Either a silver grain is developped to silver, or it is not. If it is, it
 > is
 > opaque. If it is not, it is clear. The apparent analog nature of this is
 > because there are an enormous number of these in a photographic emulsion,
 > and the statistics make it look analog if you do not look too closely. So
 > when they start making digital photodetectors approximately the size of
 > silver halide crystals, they will surely be as good as current "analog"
 > film. In fact this would be true even if those detectors could see only 0
 > or
 > 1. Clearly, if a photodetector can give 8 to 16 bits of accuracy, it would
 > not need to be anywhere near as small as a silver halide grain.
  >>
  >> Therefore, it follows that a very, very good analog system will ALWAYS
  >> be superior to the best digital, whether it be reproducing sound or
  >> pictures. The fun thing is, digital makes it easy to be quite good; the
  >> final layers of guilding on the analog lilly are very hard to achieve.
  >>
 > While I have not seen digital photography as good as the best "analog"
 > photography, I do not think this need necessarily be so. With analog
 > systems, we are always limited by the signal to noise ratio, and it is
 > very
 > difficult to reduce it more than a certain amount. In an analog system,
 > every 2:1 improvement costs twice as much, where in a digital system, each
 > 2:1 improvement costs the same. A digital system could have a 120db signal
 > to noise ratio, where I doubt any analog system could achieve much better
 > than 70db, and that would be quite an achievement.
 >
 > --
 > .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
 > /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
<font color=purple> > /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://counter.li.org</font" target="_blank">http://counter.li.org</font</a>>
 > ^^-^^ 09:50:00 up 5 days, 3:05, 4 users, load average: 6.41, 5.48, 4.53

Have a look at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.the-imagepress.de/" target="_blank">http://www.the-imagepress.de/</a> (in German)
They print digital on baryt Agfa MCC

Hans<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: traditional vs. digital