Scott Eaton

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

_______________________

Comments

Total: 70, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
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

While K25 in 35mm and the short lived 120 variants provided good enlargement and projection potential nobody does optical / reversal printing anymore which will require you to scan it. Spent enough years trying to get decent commercial scans from Kodachrome, and while it can be done it requires a precisely exposed slide that's underexposed proportionally with increasing contrast. I'll take 120 Provia - thanks.
So, once again what are you going to do with a box of Kodachrome other than try to take pictures of it with a digital camera (scanner)? Nothing. Just another distraction for hipster contrarians who prefer to walk around with ancient cameras and bad mouth digital while stroking their precious Lecias, but don't actually take pictures. IMO, if Kodak wants to bring back a legacy emulsion you can actually do something with I suggest RG25. At least existing minilabs can print it.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:39 UTC as 42nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

km25: Digital is fast and perhaps a better creator of detail. Digital will give a slow film all the way up to fast film. Films have "looks" that can be part of the JPEG process. You change, undo with RAW. Therefore an Ape is able take picture of ones self, a selfy.
In the days of film, to create a proper exposure and properly focus took skill and knowledge. To day, it is more Ape like. Did Joe who has no talent and no skill ( sorry to all out there named Joe), just push the button as in those millions of monkeys
and those millions typewrites creating a War and Peace.
With film you got to know, your light ISO. Got to know lens and what will do, F stops and DOF. You got a roll ASA 200 and you knew what your after. Good God you may have read a light meter and use a gray card. It is call skill and artistry. Not saying Dig world is void of it, it's just all those monkeys.

KM25 - I used to work with the pro Wedding Photographer who, due to his inability to use a meter would over expose all his weddings by 2-4stop. Nightmare for my lab who had to try and print through 120 film as dense as welding goggles.
The lattitude of print film was a big reason so many "professionals" could stay in business because of it's absurd lattitude that was damn near 'meter free'. Just point, and over-expose.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:00 UTC

Good luck finding somebody locally to process the stuff, and if somebody wants me to set up a line for them I'm too expensive.

I stopped shooting E100 years before digital because Astia / Provia were light years better films. Fuji grabbed so much Kodak market share because E100's mediocre image quality and ancient materials like Kodachrome stuck around so long because of it. Truth hurts.

So, in a nutshell what this means is those of you who still haven't figured out digital can dust off your F3's and Leica's, and fill another shoe box or two with a bunch of processed 24x36mm emulsion in cardboard frames you can't do anything with because along with the demise of film processing few labs do film scanning, and those that still do will certainly do a dismal job. When you see retail scan of 35mm reversal film printed on paper you'll run screaming for your smartphone. Nothing like taking digital pictures of film vs the original scene because to some idiots that makes sense.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 03:41 UTC as 74th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Hanoise: Digital has its advantages. BUT, there will always be a difference to the truth of raw art and talent. Photography has progressed to a photoshop standard. The talent in most part of photography lies (didn't spell it wrong) in how well an image can be manipulated on a computer screen....
Analog has always and will always spearate the pros from the pro wana-be's.
People complain about the cost of developing etc, but the reality is, in life, if you want the best PAY FOR IT! or keep quite, and keep manipulating that wrongly exposed, poorly composed, semi-blurred, noisy and pixelated, sorry excuse as 'pic' on your pc.....

Pros for digital (both audio and visual):
- cheap
- easy
- widely available to the consumer unartistic masses
- guilt free shutter clicks/replay presses
- got lucky pics all over the web??

Cons:
- severely compressed
- lacks artistic initiative
- easily manipulated
- reproduced too easily
- gear becomes rapidly obsolete

Film/records pros:
- truely raw uncompressed quality both sound and visual
- truthful honest talent required only (consumers would see this as a con)
- light sensitive molecules have far for resolution and depth then the Much dopier square less intelligent pixel
- artist is able to much more to the image BEFORE, during and after the click of shutter/ record button.
- multiple film types available, only one Sony sensor type available.
- requires photographer to stop and think and actually appreciate the moment.

Cons:
- requires funding, so cuts out the smart phone happy ppl
- ppl start realising that selfies aren't worth the money.
- requires more effort and more time and more energy and more artistic creativity. Something the masses don't have generally.
- not many ppl are willing to learn the true art of photography.
- impatience with not being able to see your image in less than 0.025 of a second.

I welcome the analog not because I disregard the digital, but because I use both equally as much and I can see the difference....

I will always love my 5DSR and xt-2, but I love my Xpan and 1Dv and Fuji medium formats much more :)

So, basically this pile of garbage you wrote is the usual film is 'art' but digital is all about manipulation? Glad the industry has passed people like you by because those years 'sucked'. My smartphone produces a better image than 120 Ektachrome 100 printed on reversal paper.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 03:29 UTC

Way back in the early 90's I got into a nasty snail-mail debate with the editor of Pop Photo after they published an article listing their favorite wedding film as Ektar 125 based on it's "high sharpness" and "excellent skin contrast". Working in a commercial lab at the time that catered mostly to pros a wedding shot on medium format professional portrait film (typically Reala, NPS or VPS) -vs- overly contrasty and garish amatuer print film like Ektar or Fuji Superia was liked getting kicked in the head followed by a shot of bad whiskey. My boss put the magazine in the front label with some nasty sharpie comments indicating to customers "don't listen to this #$%^". Always wonder where these mags get their advice.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 22:09 UTC as 100th comment | 1 reply

Sorry if I'm not on the Adam's bandwagon, but his legacy isn't what people think it is. Adam's goal was to execute a final print and to quantify the aesthetic of silver gelatin printing to a fine degree. The army of fine art photo snobs that use him as a banner really don't get it. Zone system was already well known by practice in the conventional print industry. Adams simply applied it to the chemical / photo medium.
While most of his images are pleasing to the eye, I find many of them to be so heavily manipulated in terms of burn/dodge I don't recognize the scene. Also, if you browse through his dept of energy portfolio the work is pretty bland, so it seems we're making a statement about post image manipulation rather than being a good photographer. Some of his students, particularly John Sexton, IMO, blow Adams away in terms of technical execution and composition. Please, go visit really important 20th century photogs who really should get more fanfare like Russell Lee.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2016 at 19:10 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies

A 4000 lumen Philips Fortimo Line array costs me about $20, has a CRI of 90, and a driver costs me about $15. The prices being charged for these commercial rigs defies rationale.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 15:42 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies

While monochrome capture has an arguable niche' in still photography, and I say very 'arguable' I don't quite get the need for this thing.

Having a full RGB capture to reduce in post via selective digital filtration would seem mandatory for any director working with cinema media wanting to produce a monochrome digital print. The improved resolution over the common RGB sensor (we have this same debate in the still realm) is likely to be lost with common DLP projection anyways. Maybe RED sees a market - I don't.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 19:34 UTC as 18th comment | 10 replies

I recently helped install a large 3x3 matrix video all in a night club, and if you want to see how limited 1080p is you should see Sunday NFL on that thing. Totally dreadfull - 4k/8k can't come fast enough.

The 4k/8k debate has three entirely distinct debates; aquisition, broadcast, and display. Display is already there, and home TVs are getting big enough to need the extra resolution. Broadcast is almost entirely political - the bandwidth is there, but also lobbiests pushing for cartels on data bandwidth.

Aquisition is a different debate entirely. I agree with the skeptics here in that whats the point in doing 4k pro-sumer if we can't do 1080p correctly and have to toss 80% of our chroma information to keep file sizes practical? I still think if we have 5 or even 6 color sensors with more discrete luminance sensitivity we would have better data to start with and could be upscaled to the same quality level. The samples of 4k video I have show outstanding detail, but little else.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2015 at 20:04 UTC as 9th comment | 5 replies

One thing, or two things than have driven me nuts with older Canon dSLRs like the 7D is their blatant habit of 'sludging' up warm and saturated colors, especially magenta's and reds. This was an eventual deal breaker for shooters like myself when dealing with macro, or just needing some degree of color accuracy. The second problem is colorblind Canon fanbois who are blatantly oblivious of the problem when it's obvious looking at the test chart here compared to the 7D.

For a consumer orientated camera it's nice to see Canon has finally fixed the problem. At the least the 750D has come close to matching the detail and color resolution of the Nikon 7100, although it can't match the Nikon's low noise floor at higher ISOs.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2015 at 18:51 UTC as 102nd comment | 6 replies
On article Pentax K-S2 added to studio scene (75 comments in total)

I'm noticing something RAWs in many cases actually look worse in terms of color than JPEGs. RAWs are actually blowing out colors in some instances while JPEGs are holding detail. Just look at the spools of thread and details on the Beatle's charictures compared to pretty much any other camera - the Pentax K-S2 in RAW mode is blowing out the colors very badly and detail looks sludgy. Maybe some of you should get off your smart phones and use a decent monitor. Why would I want a camera that seems to be using a 10yr old Canon color engine?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 22:51 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

More 'craft and art' nonsense from the anti digital crowd posing on a digital forum. 99.999% of the users of this junk product will use a film scanner 'digital camera' to reproduce the images. That's....stupid...and horrendously illogical. Akin to people who use drawing as an example to program a robot to do it for them in raster. At least I had experience not only manually cross processing film but then printing via optical enlargers and chemical papers which was a joy dialing in a neutral print with a conventional dichro set. We had no other alternative, and we sure as hell would go digital if we could have,

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:48 UTC
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)

Cool for hipsters, hypocrites and college art major drop-outs that say they prefer to 'work with film than digital cameras', then will use a digital camera (film scanner) to post the images on their computer.

At least in another life I would cross process and directly / optically print on C-type paper, and did so for some very pricey commercial clients. Results were sometimes cool, and sometimes weird in a Warhol kind of way. This stuff is a solution looking for a problem.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:41 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Most all color negative film has a red mask layer, so isn't it already color shifted in a way? If I tried scanning these negatives, how would I know how to properly adjust the color curves for the mask layer?

Thanks!

No, the scanner profile, if properly designated for the film will adjust. This creates two problems; first, the orange mask varies between color neg film types, second, the compensation for the orange mask reduces density range in the film. Another reason slide film lacking these masks work better. The orange mask is a legacy concern anyways. Nobody prints with halogen light sources anymore.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:36 UTC

I shoot a lot of landscapes and haven't used a 'polariser' in years. I do realize their benefits, but their need is aesthetically quite narrow...aside from killing annoying glare on reflective surfaces for commercial work at times. Often the 'free glare' version in landscape work is often the more preferable.

In other respects, lunking around a 105mm filter when your lenses are smaller threaded makes no sense. Using a warming filter on a digital camera makes less sense. Most of the comments below trying to justify warming filters are from the same people that would use warming or color adjustment filters with print film because they we're too ignorant to realize lab printing nullifies the effect.

AWB in digital cameras also nullifies the warming effect. Perhaps Lee should include a recipe for ice cubes in the box as well.

So, unless you're still shooting tranny film this is a near pointless product,

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 05:29 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm X-T1 Review (657 comments in total)

I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?

Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.

DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 20:22 UTC as 100th comment | 12 replies
On article Canon EOS 70D Review (718 comments in total)

Looking at the comparison shots objectively I'm not sure how anybody working on a real monitor can't see the improvements over the 7D and 60D. Those saying it's not improvement over the 60D need to stop surfing with their Androids and use a real computer. Color accuracy has also improved with the 70D...something 7D fanatics don't comprehend.

What's also obvious is while the 70D has made substantial improvement with high ISO noise the camera lags the 7100 by a rather substantial margin in all other areas, especially just plain detail. Typical 'smudgy' Canon sensor detail...no surprise.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 02:47 UTC as 142nd comment | 3 replies
On article Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

clicstudio: Gorgeous and amazing photos! They almost look recent.
Makes u realize the "real" photographers were those, 70 to 80 years ago, who shot manual and film and without an LCD screen to help and no photoshop.
I really admire them and the glimpse of Americana their photos show. Color makes the whole difference.
Thanx for sharing!

With all due respect, get a life. Anytime old photographs are displayed on Dpreview we have an onslaught of film zealots picking away at digital -vs- analog and otherwise using their computer to complain about computers. Seriously, unplug, and go away.

Fact is, that many years ago photographers had little choice in what options to use, and had a dSLR been available -vs- kodachrome they likely would have picked a dSLR.

As it is, it took a film scanner (a digital camera that takes pictures of film) and several computers to transpose these images into a medium (digital) than others can view (digital internet). This was the only way to get these images away from the shoebox / archive they were stored in. It's uttery hypocritical to glorify a medium which was so difficult to reproduce to be seen by the masses while at the same time complimenting their ultimate display. There's a reason most people don't think color tranny existed in the early part of the 20th century, and this is why.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
Total: 70, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »