Good news for photographers who yearn for film like images

[Verywierd]

Before the advent of digital photography I used to shoot exclusively in transparencies (mostly Fuji) and only printed on Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome Classic). In my opinion, there is still nothing to match the result (in colour prints). For those who have never heard of Cibachrome have a look at:

http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html
http://www.f-45.com/english/collection/index.php#Cibachrome

Now I have switched to digital. However, rather than agonise over how I can get digital images and inkjet (or dye sub) prints to match the Cibachrome prints, I simply choose to view them as two separate media which happen to give almost similar results, just like a painter can use watercolour or oils. Both produce a painting and, with a great deal of effort, can even be made to look somewhat like each other in texture and colour. But this is basically self defeating as the "imitations" will never be "as good" as the real thing and arguing over which is better is just as futile as they are simply different.

 

[student]

Before the advent of digital photography I used to shoot exclusively in transparencies (mostly Fuji) and only printed on Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome Classic). In my opinion, there is still nothing to match the result (in colour prints). For those who have never heard of Cibachrome have a look at:

http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html
http://www.f-45.com/english/collection/index.php#Cibachrome

Now I have switched to digital. However, rather than agonise over how I can get digital images and inkjet (or dye sub) prints to match the Cibachrome prints, I simply choose to view them as two separate media which happen to give almost similar results, just like a painter can use watercolour or oils. Both produce a painting and, with a great deal of effort, can even be made to look somewhat like each other in texture and colour. But this is basically self defeating as the "imitations" will never be "as good" as the real thing and arguing over which is better is just as futile as they are simply different.

Amen to that!!

 

[lsisaxon]

Before the advent of digital photography I used to shoot exclusively in transparencies (mostly Fuji) and only printed on Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome Classic). In my opinion, there is still nothing to match the result (in colour prints). For those who have never heard of Cibachrome have a look at:

http://www.horvath.ca/final/cibachrome.html
http://www.f-45.com/english/collection/index.php#Cibachrome

Now I have switched to digital. However, rather than agonise over how I can get digital images and inkjet (or dye sub) prints to match the Cibachrome prints, I simply choose to view them as two separate media which happen to give almost similar results, just like a painter can use watercolour or oils. Both produce a painting and, with a great deal of effort, can even be made to look somewhat like each other in texture and colour. But this is basically self defeating as the "imitations" will never be "as good" as the real thing and arguing over which is better is just as futile as they are simply different.

You cannot get the same as the real thing because it's just different, the dyes are different and the process is different (Ciba is reversal, Kodak Metallic is negative print). But if you want to get visually close to it, I can say that Kodak Metallic prints using Frontier machines or optical prints from negatives offer something close (IMO), but I am not sure if the print can last as long as Cibachrome. Whether you can accept it as another media to present your work or not, that's another story.

It's like people insisting on shooting on KodakChrome, if they cannot accept other slide film, it just have to stay that way. But I'm just presenting another possibility (if you don't already know of its existence).

 

[lsisaxon]

We are going OT, but what the heck!

I have a 20 year-old Musical Fidelity and Splendor set up.

I know what Krell and Sonus Faber Extrema is capable of. But this does not mean that I need to get hooked on ever "upgrading". My system serves my purpose, and gives me joy.

I will not get the Krell/Sonus Faber. But I know the difference out there.

Hahaha.. yeah.. Often it is good to know the difference but it does not mean that we have to go this way or that way. Just need to know what we are doing and whether that's sufficient for our needs.

Am I going to get a Frontier machine? No. Will I do digital B&W? Not very likely. I am still predominantly a colour person. Do I still shoot film? Yes, when the situation calls for it. Otherwise, I'm perfectly satisfied with the current state of technology and the convenience it has given me.

If I yearn for film like images? What the heck.. I'll just use film.

What I'm not happy with, however, is the fact that virtually all the minilabs are running Frontier or similar machines now, which means that if I were to send film to print, I will be getting a print of the film image scanned at 6Mpix instead of an optical print. Which also means that if I want a real optical print of a film, I might have to do it myself, find someone who can do it manually or send the negs to some third world countries where they are still using the old optical machines. Because of this, I'd rather not go through so many stages of conversion and stick with digital unless I really have to. But I'm glad that we're able to obtain a digital photochemical print because of Frontier rather than being limited to inkjets, dye-subs or worse colour laser printers.

 

[LittleWolf]

But I'm glad that we're able to obtain a digital photochemical print because of Frontier rather than being limited to inkjets, dye-subs or worse colour laser printers.

If you think about it, the Frontier _is_ a colour laser printer .

 

[lsisaxon]

If you think about it, the Frontier _is_ a colour laser printer .

Well.. yeah.. just that the method of forming the image is different. By the term colour laser printer, you knew I meant the office kind.

 

[LittleWolf]

Well.. yeah.. just that the method of forming the image is different. By the term colour laser printer, you knew I meant the office kind.

Of course . I'm just pointing this out because using a rather general term for only a specific subclass of items can lead to tunnel vision with respect to alternatives. It's important to distinguish generic, abstract concepts from the particular details of a certain implementation, as this allows one to step back, see things from a less restricted perspective ("out of the box"), and find other, possibly innovative and original, solutions.

I may be biased, but I have the impression that the culture here is largely focused on following/copying/imitating others instead of developing own concepts and improvements - from copycat restaurant/bread shop/bak kwa shop/... schemes to taking similar photographs in large groups on "outings". Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I believe it's worth being said.

 

[lsisaxon]

Of course . I'm just pointing this out because using a rather general term for only a specific subclass of items can lead to tunnel vision with respect to alternatives. It's important to distinguish generic, abstract concepts from the particular details of a certain implementation, as this allows one to step back, see things from a less restricted perspective ("out of the box"), and find other, possibly innovative and original, solutions.

I may be biased, but I have the impression that the culture here is largely focused on following/copying/imitating others instead of developing own concepts and improvements - from copycat restaurant/bread shop/bak kwa shop/... schemes to taking similar photographs in large groups on "outings". Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I believe it's worth being said.

It is really unfortunate that I have to agree with you. Even in the field of engineering, we find people here following than finding another path. "Oh, that xxxx (reputable) company is going in this direction, so we should stop everything we're doing now and follow.. " etc etc.. Always playing catching up game.. But if that suggestion was made by one of the engineers like 2 years before this xxxx company announced something like that, the answer would probably be something like.. "No, that will not work.. if it is feasible the big companies would already have done it! Don't waste our resources!"

 

[dslang]

what? Creative isnt actually creative?

Everything I learnt growing up in Singapore was all a lie!!

 

[student]

what? Creative isnt actually creative?

Everything I learnt growing up in Singapore was all a lie!!

Wah! Sounds terrible!:bigeyes:

 

[dslang]

BRB, gotta book myself in for therapy sessions

 

[lsisaxon]

what? Creative isnt actually creative?

Everything I learnt growing up in Singapore was all a lie!!

Well.. can't blame them.. they have their KPIs to meet.

 

[LittleWolf]

what? Creative isnt actually creative?

Everything I learnt growing up in Singapore was all a lie!!

Creative Labs may be one of the better companies, but what use is it if the consumersheep are not concerned about the quality of products, but about how fashionable a brand is?

 

[lsisaxon]

Creative Labs may be one of the better companies, but what use is it if the consumersheep are not concerned about the quality of products, but about how fashionable a brand is?

I don't think we are talking about Creative Labs are we?

 

[Pablo]

Hi,

Mind if I jump in on the creative discussion ?

I am not relating to companies here and/or if they are really creative.

More so, how creative WE are. Just a thing I was thinking about.

There are many or should I say most of the people that post their photo's here, "creative".

But what is even more creative (I think) is what you actually get to see.

Sure, there are those that can "one shot one kill"; but how many photo's we see have been nurtured to give what we view.

That takes another tallent. To me that is creative.

To take the result of what the person wants to shoot, but doesn't get it exactly right, then uses their tallent to show what they really had in mind.

Eg. Cropping, colour adjustment, contrast adjustment etc etc. "that is creative"

I hope this makes sense to you when you are reading it.

But, Ahhhh, if I am the only one that posts a modified photo here, I am going to feel so small :cry:

Cheers all

 

[LittleWolf]

I don't think we are talking about Creative Labs are we?

Maybe I misunderstood a previous comment then.

This is an interesting topic, but we have strayed quite a bit from the original topic of the thread (mea culpa :embrass: ). May I put forward a motion that we continue the "creative" discussion in another thread with an appropriate title?

 

[doug3fflux]

aww what a wonderful thread!!! makes me drool thinking of all that technicalities and black and white films waiting to be exposed...and also makes me think of all my unfinished tutorials....

 

[Pablo]

Maybe I misunderstood a previous comment then.

This is an interesting topic, but we have strayed quite a bit from the original topic of the thread (mea culpa :embrass: ). May I put forward a motion that we continue the "creative" discussion in another thread with an appropriate title?

Hi LittleWolf,

My appologies for straying more so.

Mind you, where the initial subject matter of the thread may have been and where it has matured too has and is most interesting !

I would motion to continue on.

 

[LittleWolf]

There are many or should I say most of the people that post their photo's here, "creative".

But what is even more creative (I think) is what you actually get to see.

So there are at least two aspects to it: one can be creative by coming up with a picture, or one can be creative by finding ways to achieve a picture that, by itself, is not necessarily creative. E.g., if one comes up with a clever way to photograph falling drops hitting a water surface, that may be creative. But the resulting picture would just be another copy of the same thing.

To take the result of what the person wants to shoot, but doesn't get it exactly right, then uses their tallent to show what they really had in mind.

Eg. Cropping, colour adjustment, contrast adjustment etc etc. "that is creative"

Cropping etc. are IMHO not "creative" by themselves. If you use them as intended, they're just ordinary tools. E.g., using an eraser to correct a typo isn't creative. Where it may become creative if you find new applications for the tools. E.g, if you use an eraser to draw onto a graphite-covered sheet of paper, it may be a creative way to make a drawing.

Of course, one can use ordinary tools in completely normal ways to create something new. But the creative aspect is then not in the craftsmanship - it is in the conception of the object being made.

And then, if one arrives at a novel masterpiece purely by coincidence, is this creative? I'd say no, no matter how good the result may be.

I have to admit though that, by playing with ordinary tools, one can get creative ideas. The tools we have available affect the way we think and what ideas we may come up with.

I hope that's not too academic?

 

[Pablo]

Hi LittleWolf,

I may have been too simple in my example or maybe to broad.

There are photo's that I have taken that seemed to me to be OK through my viewfinder.
But when I have looked at them on my screen the photo was not right.

Through manipulation, be it cropping/contrast change/ or what ever, I have resulted with something I am happy with.

To me, this is being creative.

To me, being creative is to find a better result for what ever the outcome might be.

In another thread, a photographer is trying to design themself a ring light using LED's.

That is creative.

Creative being; I have a situation and I want to improve on it, or, I want to find a more suitable way.

Creative is, I am going to make scrambled eggs on toast, but I will try putting some Dill on it.

Sorry if I have streached this a bit, but I was being creative with my examples :bsmilie:

Cheers