Smieglitz@aol.com
Date: 05/13/01-09:16:22 PM Z
In a message dated 05/13/2001 19:11:37, bmaxey1@juno.com wrote:
<<However, I wondered how big of a file I would end up with at the
scanner's full resolution...
>>
Bob,
I've been told by an owner of a large digital lab that a 35mm color slide
would need a 5100 spi resolution scan in order to capture all the info on the
film. At 1"x1.5" that produces a file size in RGB of 111.7MB. To get it all
from a 4x5 transparency would produce a file of 1.49GB. So those are the
numbers, but I think the actual resolution you would need surely would be
limited by the final intended output (media and size) such as catalog, print
etc. Much lower resolutions would probably be okay for most applications.
Whether scanning or photographing a catalog cover, the resolution would still
be limited to that inherent in the cover. Still, your point about the
computer system needed to handle these size files is well taken, especially
to someone with my annual income.
There are pros and cons to each side. Personally, I'm schizo on this issue.
I'm starting to use a recently acquired 11x14 camera and at the same time
trying to learn all the digital stuff to incorporate into a new photo class
I'm designing at the local community college. I prefer the traditional but
also see the utility of the novel.
I've been able to do certain things in Photoshop that I could do
traditionally, but shudder at the time and effort involved in the darkroom to
accomplish it. (The incidence that comes to mind was altering the contrast
of a houndstooth couch fabric while leaving the rest of the image as is. A
simple selection and brush saturation sweep with the sponge tool in PS did it
in a few seconds. In the darkroom, I'd have to be making selective contrast
masks, etc. Also, I defy anyone to make a *predictable* sabatier effect on
film or paper and duplicate the results...not that I'm saying anyone should
be doing this. PS lets you do it in a second using the curve function on a
file.)
With film and large cameras I'm challenged by the limitations of the tools,
and I like that. Digital on the other hand really bores me. But that's
mainly because of the type of imagery I prefer and the majority of the
digital and contemporary work in other media work I see about. I'm a
realist. I go narcoleptic looking at any sort of collage - digital,
photographic, gumprint, or otherwise. Ditto with abstract painting. (And,
if I hear one more nonobjective painter tell me "I prefer to let the work
speak for itself", I'm gonna hurl.) So, I'm a dinosaur. Oh, well. This
uncanny ability to pigeonhole really does make my life easier.
One of the things that does bothers me about the new digital revolution is
the shift in manufacturer's product lines. Kodak just did away with Ektalure
and 2475 recording film (my favorite silver combo) for example, and the range
of films available for my 11x14 really sucks. But, I also think this has
more to do with the advent of RC papers, auto everything 35mm cameras and
lack of marketing quality items to pros. As a result, collodian and albumen
are on my list of technologies to master.
---> I think the more important issue with digital is not what it does to
mimic/replace traditional techniques and materials, but rather what it's
potential is for creating a new aesthetic.<---
I recently attended a workshop with John Cone and at the very end, amidst a
jumble of huge Epson & Iris printers and prints, he pulled out a box of his
personal work consisting of small 5x7 prints that were to die for. They were
landscapes shot with a Nikon 990 digital camera and printed using his
Piezography quadtone system. They were gems. Kinda like platinum in their
quietness and tonality, but deeper and different in a way that is hard to
describe. They just looked good! (And, why quibble between an inkjet print
vs. platinum? It would be like denigrating the palladium process in favor of
platinum, or gum vs. casein bichromate IMHO.) I doubt Cone's prints would
have the same effect larger, but they were just absolutely perfect the way
they were. (If you can't make 'em good, make 'em big comes to mind...) Cone
has realized the aesthetic potential of the new digital tools and materials
and I'm certain others will do the same.
I just had my favorite 35mm system lens fall apart from years of use and
abuse. My favorite 35mm camera is a manual beast nearly 30 years old. If I
decide to replace them I'll surely drop $900 on a Nikon 990 (or similar
digital camera) and spend another $ 1000 on a printer and quadtone inkjet
system before I buy a computerized 35mm autoeverything system with a
comparable pricetag that needs to be reprogrammed after every shot and
sometimes won't let me do what I want. Digital is gonna kill the amateur
35mm (and that APS) film market in a very short time. I wouldn't want to own
a minilab in a few years either. Not sure about the pro side but I suspect
it will just take a bit longer cause the price/resolution issue isn't going
to be solved in the same time frame.
But, I'll still be doing that large format thing as long as I live, even if I
have to make my own plates, assuming glass will still be around.
Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST