Notes on Digital Documentation

[Marco B]

Hi all,

I thought some of you might find this an interesting read. To be honest, I only quickly surveyed it, so won't say more about it:

Notes on Digital Documentation by Tim Vitale:
http://cool.conservation-us.org/cool...tation_001.pdf

Marco

[bob carnie]

Keep them coming Marco, this is the second one this week , you are on a roll.
thanks
Bob

[pellicle]

Marco

interesting read ... seems to draw together stuff I've read elsewhere in the past but take a few angles differently.

I do often feel though that the writers of these things are trying to justify a standpoint which is often un-stated. In my study of research the classical viewpoint is "objective writing" where subjective statements are avoided. I find this clouds the intentions of the researcher and beguiles the reader into thinking that the statements are actually objective.

More modern approaches (and the ones I favor) take the view that the researcher can not possibly be an automaton of no inclination. So we try to build in stuff like "I found" and "my findings" as well as my assumptions and stuff like that.

It seemed to me (reading that only quickly and once as yet) that the researcher seems to regard film as 35mm and does not cover larger formats. Much time is spent discussing Kodachrome 25 (was that ever available in sheet or only 35mm + 120 roll?) which is not even the highest resolving colour film any longer. Further Kodachrome is well known for having very poor shoulder characteristics; meaning that at the edges of the dynamic range will suffer. I did not see much discussion of negative in there.

considering that Kodachrome dates from the 1930's (ref) it is remarkable that it did what it did as well as it did it. I'm personally very happy that my father used it to take the whaling photographs he did when he was working on whale chasers in the 1950's ... I would not have such vivid representations of the world as he saw it had he not.

There's no doubt that I use digital for 90% of my photography, but as I recently found there are other situations and environments where the application of theory seems to fail. I recently did a wedding for some friends and at the last minute tilted towards film (colour negative) over digital ... I had both with me in the car and chose at the last minute. Despite the offering in that article that a TIFF is superior to film because of its linearity it was exactly because I did not want that linearity that I chose negative. For instance, this image:



would not have been possible to capture in this way with the digital. There would not have been the capture of texture in the white fabric of if there would have been then the dark textures available. I have discussions on the prints made from different scanning systems here. Please excuse my poor copy stand attempts to show what the prints actually look liked.

So what I'm saying is that while its a good read and I thank you for posting it, its not the only view of the picture. All the maths in the world can prove a bumble bee can't fly ... but seeing is believing. This is why I spend so much time to know my media so that I use my media to best benefits. Film is different to digital. Once upon a time digital was a poor cousin, but times are different now and digital capture easily stands so well on its own two feet we can forget there are still uses for and advantages in the demonstrably "inferior".


:-)

[Marco B]

Hi Pellicle,

By posting it here, I wasn't passing any judgements on the contents, nor that I agree or disagree. As I wrote, I just had a quick look through it, and thought it might be interesting to others, especially since I already knew another interesting article by Tim Vitale (Film grain, resolution and fundamental film particles).

In addition, about DR, especially with BW film, there is an incredible amount that can be done to capture and manipulate it using adjusted development. Especially with pull developments in combination with deliberate overexposure like in Zone System. Just look at the image below, captured on TriX 320 with a 40% pull development and deliberately overexposed. I wish one good luck capturing such a night time image on a digital sensor, without introducing either hot pixels due to the long exposure, or terrible chroma noise due to high ISO or extended digital DR manipulation.

The good thing here with BW film is that, contrary to the digital solutions that are bound to cause at least some form of negative image degradation, the image actually improves in the analog workflow. Doing a pull development in these high contrast night time situations significantly reduces the grain size, leading to a very nice fine grain, while the overexposure combined with the pull on the one hand allows detail to be captured even in the darkest part of the image, while at the same time limiting overall contrast. Just notice how there is detail in both the shadows and the highlights. The lamp light would probably have resulted in clipped pixels on a digital sensor, not so here. I haven't actually measured the total number of stops here, but I leave it for you to guess... it must have been big, and certainly much more than the average "5 stops" listed for normal development and film in general.



Obviously, with color film the situation is different, as there are generally less possibilities for push/pull development, without affecting the colorbalance negatively.

Marco

[pellicle]

Good morning Marco

Hi Pellicle,

By posting it here, I wasn't passing any judgements on the contents, nor

I know, and by making an analysis of it and posting my thoughts on it I was in no way suggesting anything about your opinions (I was careful to phrase it that way), I even thanked you for bringing it to attention.

I was almost afraid to say anything due to a concern that you may take my analysis of that publication as a reflection on you.

it makes me feel that one is unable to say anything (however cautiously) about a topic which is anything other than "wow that was great"

like in Zone System. Just look at the image below, captured on TriX 320 with

a lovely image btw

[Marco B]

Good morning Marco

I know, and by making an analysis of it and posting my thoughts on it I was in no way suggesting anything about your opinions (I was careful to phrase it that way), I even thanked you for bringing it to attention.

I was almost afraid to say anything due to a concern that you may take my analysis of that publication as a reflection on you.

it makes me feel that one is unable to say anything (however cautiously) about a topic which is anything other than "wow that was great"

No need to be to concerned , and to be honest, I wouldn't like to live in a world where everybody said "wow that was great", so please, do submit your remarks and thoughts here on HybridPhoto.

a lovely image btw

Thanks... still hope to get this series published as a book one day (working on that now)

[Loris Medici]

Marco, this topic is more than one month old - but will comment anyway (not about the article but your sample photo): Sorry for what I'm going to say, "-Wow, that's great!"

Film has its strengths undoubtedly (and I really love using film, wherever / whenever appropriate to me), OTOH (not a criticism in any way - just a remark), that kind of capture is perfectly possible with a digital camera; if you also have a tripod, and an HDR image processing software...

Best regards,
Loris.

[Marco B]

Film has its strengths undoubtedly (and I really love using film, wherever / whenever appropriate to me), OTOH (not a criticism in any way - just a remark), that kind of capture is perfectly possible with a digital camera; if you also have a tripod, and an HDR image processing software...

Best regards,
Loris.

Hi Loris,

Yes, I am fully aware of the HDR option. But it remains cumbersome with some camera's, as you need to merge multiple images.

It just is a nice thought it can all be done in one (analog) shot too (whatever digital is possible)...

[Loris Medici]

Well, definitely not more "cumbersome" than developing film and then scanning - or printing the image in the darkroom. (And I'm not even mentioning the lot of tests one has to do, in order to be able to capture such a great dynamic range in a such successful way...)

Just to make sure that I'm not going to be be misunderstood: I'm just waiting impatiently my last camera purchase to arrive right now; it's a 70-75 y/o Bessa 6x9 RF. I just crave for shooting MF B&W film; I had sold all of my MF equipment recently, just to raise funds for a brand new NuArc 26-1KS. (It was a hard decision, which I don't regret at all...) P.S. I have mixed feelings about film, but I'm perfectly sure on the fact that I like those mechanical cameras (gems) way better than digital ones... And the tools are definitely important in the way of feeding one's creativity, especially in the field of photography; you just have to feel at home (with your tool) while shooting...

Best regards,
Loris.

...
Yes, I am fully aware of the HDR option. But it remains cumbersome with some camera's, as you need to merge multiple images.
...

[sanking]

I just crave for shooting MF B&W film; I had sold all of my MF equipment recently, just to raise funds for a brand new NuArc 26-1KS. (It was a hard decision, which I don't regret at all...) P.S. I have mixed feelings about film, but I'm perfectly sure on the fact that I like those mechanical cameras (gems) way better than digital ones... And the tools are definitely important in the way of feeding one's creativity, especially in the field of photography; you just have to feel at home (with your tool) while shooting...

Best regards,
Loris.

Loris,

I feel the same way about MF film. If correctly exposed and developed 6X7 cm or 6X9 cm film contains an incredible amount of detail. Way, way more than 60 mp digital backs.

To get the most from the film you need a very high end scanner. But even mediunm end scanners (Epson 2450, 3200, 4990, V700) will give you as much resolution from MF film, for a given area, as the best DSLR.

And film is so much fun to work with film. I love the experience. Gigapan experience is not bad either, but so, so, boring.

Sandy King (aka S. Carl King, aka Samuel Carl King, né Samuel Carl King Jr.)