Scott Eaton

Lives in United States grand rapids, United States
Joined on Sep 20, 2005
About me:

_______________________

Comments

Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

mmarian: I personally do not get this nostalgic obsession with resurection of these bygone years lenses with their old and outdated optical designs. What is suppose to be the atraction again??

In other words, a random number generator for the less talented. Or, for people who like to brag about lenses and rarely take pictures.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

panchorancho: Film? What's that?

Shooting film and scanning is is about the most brain dead, retarded thing anybody can do. A film scanner is a digital camera. Film shooters just want to add random number generators to their crap work to bring attention to themselves.
At least do the chemical R and C types, but the film advocates in this thread would flip the red light on while making cibachromes because they have no idea what they are talking about. They want to shoot film, and bring it to the lab so they can hit on the 20yr old clerk wondering who the ugly old man is flirting with them while they send the film out.
Again, what loser hangs out in a digital forum yacking about film sales which are so small they don't even appear on net/gross statements to shareholders.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 06:31 UTC

Alicia Silvertone ("Clueless") can clap for joy that she can now go back to taking polaroids of her clothing choices because after all, she like, doesn't trust mirrors.

Art contests next year will be full of the same muddy, 4x5" 'Roids in massive 16x20 white over-matts of ugly Emo girls and park benches.

Why can't we bring something back from the past really cool. Like, Arby's Chicken sandwich.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 06:24 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies

Conventional B&W film when it's run through reversal process produces a very long tonal range due to the higher density range of B&W film. The problem is...so what. You then have to scan the film to do anything with it, and taking digital pictures of film (film scanner) is retarded. You sure as hell aren't going to make direct prints from it unless you want to futz around with ciba/ilfo chrome. The old Fuji R-type process was much lower in contrast and could produce workable prints from reverse B&W.

B&W film when run through conventional E-6 also trashed the chemicals if it's a replenishment process. Workable if it's one shot chems.

Dpreview must be trying to pull traffic from photo.net or something.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 02:25 UTC as 5th comment | 5 replies

Dumb question here, but explain to me why you'd own a camera at this price point and yet be too stupid to adjust skin tones to taste. None of the images I see here stress any of the camera's imagers to their limits (Canon's habit of blowing oranges/reds has long since been fixed). A few seconds of hue/saturation adjustments and all the images could be brought within subjective tolerance.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 04:32 UTC as 45th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Mark Turney: Or ... if you’re a leftist radical, you destroy the photo because he possibly owned slaves or supported slavery by omission of documentation stating he adamantly denounced it.

Don’t read me wrong ... Slavery was and is one of the most vile things ever done to people. Just trying to make an analogy between this very neat piece of history and the statues being knocked down all over the US.

He's probably too busy watching Fox news in his wife beater and yelling 'go boy!' to Sean Hannity. Sad.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 00:26 UTC

Doing something for 'free', be it uploading photographs or doing computer programming so that somebody else can make a commercial profit is wrong. I don't care how the author tries to spin it. Conventional economics dictates that this results in deflating a market, and deflation is wrong. I have no issue with distributing images for free for free purposes. Somebody is making $$$ somewhere from this.....just not the creator...and that's ethically wrong.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 14:57 UTC as 94th comment | 7 replies

I've printed large, stitched images of night cityscapes like this on pretty much all types of commercial printers, and for 'living room wall' quality levels diminishing returns sets in real fast beyond 200dpi or so.
LightJet's and other c-type writers , while they maybe capable of > 300dpi optical resolution just don't produce enough mechanical resolution to warrant more information. Inkjets can go a bit higher due to their higher absolute resolution, but even if you stick your nose to the print the detail doesn't get much better beyond 240dpi. For this reason I found 10,000 linear pixels in a 4' print the most I want to bother with. I like the images, and commercial reproductions can often suffer sucky DPI and compression levels, but I'm working with the same technology printers and anything much beyond 240dpi, and that's a pristine and razor sharp file doesn't produce any more visible information in the print.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 20:20 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply

Nolan needs to get over it and adopt the digital formats, which when shot native and projected native (digital) provide a superior image.

Before our goose stepping film purists step it lets be clear in that every frame of the movie that's exposed gets digitally scanned (photographed with a digital camera), color graded, enhanced, CGI added, etc. before being scanned out onto IMAX format. With all these variables things get missed, which is why at times during the movie the actors looked like they had over dosed on self tanner because an emulsion wasn't profiled right.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 03:17 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
On article CineStill 50D Film in 120 format goes up for pre-order (26 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lobbamobba: Great, I kick started the film and was a bit let down when I only got the 800 version in the mail.
Doesn't matter, will buy many rolls of this. The 35mm version is one of my favorites.
Unmatched colors (specially by digital standards).

I've worked commercially with the best print films ever made up to 8x10, and never found a one to produce color in the same zipcode as reversal films, let alone digital. Print films were designed for corner wedding shooters and housewives to have an easy way to make analog prints. 99.99% of commercial film shooters I knew only shot reversal, and when scanned reversal films crush print films because the former don't sacrifice lattitude for density range. So, please don't try to revise history.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 20:50 UTC
On article CineStill 50D Film in 120 format goes up for pre-order (26 comments in total)

We tried this motion picture film thing a few decades ago. In every side by side test MP film got slaughtered by professional grade print films because MP film isn't designed for direct to print applications. I had my own custom dark room at the time , and found the stuff to be crap compared to Kodak or Fuji Professional emulsions. MP films were optimized to produce interpositives for movie production. If you removed the orange mask from print film and jacked up the density range you might have something, but motion picture film simply isn't that remarkable.
Last, unless you're shooting a wedding or high school senior shoot with a high key background print film sucks. Landscape shooters abandoned the medium long before digital hit the scene. I can guarantee you that Fuji Provia will humbly annihilate this junk for landscape use, expecially if you process it yourself and give it the proper extended color developer times so it gets some Velvia saturation but not the harsh contrast.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 20:44 UTC as 1st comment
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

Shiranai: I dunno what they did from ISO 800 upwards, but it looks worse than a point-and-shoot camera from the 90s. ISO 6400 - awful, its like the worst I've seen ever.
But its detail rendering from ISO 100-800 beats all of its peers. Look at the line drawing on the upper left of the test scene. That detail even puts a Canon 5D4 and a Nikon D5 to shame.
Kinda tragic regarding the ISO performance.

I'm seeing the K-1 and 810 samples produce at least 30-40% more detail in that scene than the Sigma. Please stop using your smartphone for viewing this matter. It's obvious on 19" monitor.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 19:04 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (639 comments in total)

Using my eyeballs and ignoring hype; the color accuracy of the test scene might be the worst of any dSLR I've seen to date. Not sure what glue sniffer at Dpreview is comparing it to the K-1, but all I'm seeing is blown out colors with terrible chroma detail. Decent spatial detail, but my world consists of color. As predicted, +18mp bayer technology has made Foveon obsolete. Moving on.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2017 at 19:01 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (639 comments in total)

As a macro shooter struggling with Canon sensors and their annoying low color accuracy and habit of 'color puddles' when it comes to saturated warm colors (red is the worst) I was expecting this camera to do better than grocery store print film. All I have to do is look at the test results to see the Foven has *worse* color response under high gamut conditions than my 60D. The Foveon captures more spatial detail, but at a far more limited brightness / gamut range, and that sucks. This camera proves that just like bayer we are reaching the limits of RGB capture and need to expand to a physical aquisition mode with 4 or preferably at least 5 filter windows. RGB is fine for low gamut scenes and remote space probes, but even colored thread on a spool proves it's inadequate for full pictorial use.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 19:44 UTC as 76th comment | 5 replies
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (815 comments in total)

One thing I learned shooting for a few years at a local metro paper alongside really talented journalists is that unlike a digital camera a film camera is useless unless you have a really good external workflow. So, it's pointless to discuss what film camera to buy unless there's consideration as to what you are going to do with those 24 x 36mm exposed pieces of film. Commercial analog printing of small format is either non existant or a seldom used dusty module on a Fuji Frontier. DIY film scanning requires a tack sharp and well behaving desktop scanner that can handle true 4,000dpi to get the most from low speed slide films. Drums are a royal PITA. IMO, you're better off investing in MF because the gear is about the same price and the potential for better production still viable.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 13:40 UTC as 88th comment | 1 reply

Bayer sensors don't exactly help when it comes to dedicated monochrome capture. The issue has less to do with spectral response than the spatial 'fuzziness' associated with full color bayer capture. Note how well Sigma images convert to monochrome. However, if you've ever worked with panchromatic materials in the past you've learned how 'boring' and tone dead the materials can be, and nobody ever loaded their 4x5 cameras with panchromatic film -vs- tri-x. The samples here just don't impress me much and remind me of panchromatic capture - dull. I'd rather capture in full color with a high rez back and then convert to monochrome.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 14:36 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies

My 10D was my first serious dSLR.

The other day I went through my old portfolio of 10D images and compared them (all RAW) to my 60D and 7D. First thing I noticed was while my 60D had better low ISO noise and bit better DR the 10D images had far better color saturation and were less prone to blowing out reds under high saturation situations. In this respect my 10D has a wider red/orange gamut than my 60D and borrowed 7D.

Canon hasn't exactly been moving forward by widening the spectral windows on recent CMOS sensors.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 17:36 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

Modern and Petersen's were technically good reads with subject matter sophisticated enough to meet the demands of a pt time photo journalist. Always some content or side by side tests worth reading.

Pop Photo was typically the worst of the mags with pulp content and little content to impress anything other than amatuer shooters. I recall having a very serious snail mail debate with Pop Photo's editor in the late 90's after they continuously advocated the use of amatuer (grocery store) class print films for shooting weddings on the basis of 'color saturation'. This drove my lab manager nutz as we tried to get casual shooters to use more professional materials, which delivered obvious and tangible results even with novice cameras. No brain - no headache.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 17:03 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

rsf3127: Check this out: http://www.adox.de/Media/cms20test.jpg

What am I looking at besides posterization? Was the scan made in GIF mode because it kind of looks like it.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 20:59 UTC
In reply to:

melgross: I can't understand any of this. I ran a major commercial photo lab here in NYC for many years, until we sold it in late 2004. By that time, we were mostly digital.

When talking to Kodak, I saw the depths that film had come to. In fact, in 2000, I wrote an article for their monthly publication, "Lab Notes" that went to all the independent labs that used Kodak products. In that, I predicted that by 2010, film would effectly be dead, and it was. Kodak predicted the same thing later, in 2002.

We also processed Kodachrome film with our own modified process, which we developed for professional photographers, as Kodachrome was considered, and treated as, a consumer film. We and Kodak signed more than a few agreements over that.

Having said that, Kodachrome was a great film, for its day. But as far as sharpness goes, it's the equivelant of between a 14 and 18MB sensor, and the color is so much worse from batch to batch.

I agree. We would get amatuer customers who would shoot weddings on Kodachrome and then want Cibachromes. Bride would be in tears when she saw the contrast. Kodachrome only existed because of it's popularity with commercial photogs and the 64iso version that publishers adored because it was so much more 'crisp' than Kodak E-6 emulsions. Then Fuji took them all to school. Even the best labs I worked with couldn't get K14 processing consistent enough to track my drum scanner channels.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:46 UTC
Total: 68, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »