I.Lewis on mon 30 aug 99
------------------
To Clayart=40lsv.uky.edu
>From Ivor Lewis iandol=40pirie.mtx.net.au
29 August 1999
Subject: Recent Photographic experiences
Having just started a photo project which involves good old fashioned silver
emulsion, hoping to overcome the need for a dark room by printing in B =26 W=
( a
medium which has several advantages over colour) via the scanner, I have
pondered on the usefulness of recent developments in digital photography. As=
of
now, I am unconvinced that an image, created using a top quality traditional
camera with a well engineered optical system can be replaced by current =
computer
technology. Nowhere in literature I have read which is published for popular
consumption, most of which seems to be sales hype, has a comparison been =
given
which compares the size of a pixel with a silver grain. For publication, as =
far
as I know, Editors like to have as big an image as possible to work with. I =
have
been out on shoots with a pro photographer who is frequently commissioned by=
a
major Australian magazine publisher and he uses a large format camera and =
120
film, not 35mm. For =24Au2000 dollars it is possible to buy a single lens =
reflex
and have a selection of excellent optics. But I would doubt if the same =
quality
of initial image could be obtained from any of the digital cameras I have =
read
about for the same price. Until grain size versus pixel size is sorted out I=
am
being cautious about investing in a digital imaging system. Nor do I see the
small lenses used in these devices emulating the quality of a 90mm portrait =
lens
on a 35mm camera.
Now, about the value of Computer Image Enhancement Programmes. I have Corel
Photo-Paint installed and tested others. I play around with it to crop =
images,
change tonal ranges, alter colour saturation, eliminate flaws and other =
simple
tasks. It has the capability of doing lots of other things, distorting =
shape,
changing colour balance and adding =22artistic effects=22 which at one time =
could
only be achieved using complex chemical and optical techniques. However, it
cannot add in what a top class photographer should be able to achieve at the
click of the shutter. It is always limited by pixel size and imput, so that
=22sharpening=22 will never add new factual information from the original =
subject. I
know slides of mine have been retouched, that=92s the old fashioned word for
=22computer enhancement=22, prior to publication. Reflections have been =
coloured
out, but that is an editors privilege.
If Lynne is wanting to make the best presentation of her own work for =
commercial
reasons and can afford the services of a commercial studio, this may in the =
long
run cost her less than setting up a studio of her own. More profitable to =
make
pots rather than invest time an dmmoney learnign to be a photgrapher. But =
anyone
using this solution should make their intensions clear and give precise
instructions to the person they hire. If she only wishes to post thumb nail
sketches on her web page, a digital camera may do the job adequately. Edmond
Burke sounds as though he has all the technical expertise necessary. His
solution is a good compromise=3B a high quality camera, good film stock, =
access to
hired facilities which he can control and most important of all, prior
experience which enables him to make well reasoned judgements which no doubt
enhance his results.
One last thought, concerning virtual galleries. It is now possible, using a =
3D
programme and rendering engine, to design a pot in virtual space and produce
images which would be indistinguishable from those posted on the Web. Such
images could even be converted into slides and entered for competition. =
Would a
jury be any the wiser? So how do we know what we are looking at, real or
virtual? Will this be another case of smoke, mirrors and snake oil?
Ivor. In South Oz, looking out at a cloudless sky
| |
|
