Larry,

I think it is another factor almost entirely. When I was with Petersen's and later edited PhotoPro, I interviewed quite a number of top professionals in professional photography. And at the top with some subjects like jewelry , food, architecture and automobiles, the best photographers are specialists who know as much about the subject as they do about photography. The one jewelry photography specialist I met (before digital) actually shot everything with an 8x10 Sinar view camera, and using a very elaborate, custom lighting system. Can you imagine how many bellows and rail extensions were involved photographing a small piece of jewelry with an 8x10, and have you ever thought how do you go about getting light to reflect most effectively to illustrate the brilliance of diamonds in a necklace?

One of my closest friends is an architectural photographer of some stature, and it amazes me how knowledgeable he is about architecture, as well as design, furnishings. In addition I have come to understand the relationship of light and subject is a whole world unto itself.

In other words, it maybe takes more than just general competence as a commercial photographer to produce those really fine photographs you see in the best ads and magazines, it takes an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subject only a specialist can achieve. And I think you will find in each of those subject fields like jewelry, food, architecture and automobiles there are just a handful of top photographs for each specialty in the country.

Thanks David, But the photographers I'm referring to do just fine shooting film. I'm trying to figure out what they're doing wrong digitally.

Larry,

I obviously cannot see first hand what you are seeing. So, I must ask are they the same people? And on another point, what you say doesn't gibe with my experience. I am finding that I am getting better results with my Canon 5D than I did shooting the same thing with a 35mm SLR. But I would NOT use the 5D for something I would do only with a 4x5 in the past.

Larry I am not an expert by any means but when you say images look flat. This I have to agree with you. I still see film image having more depth to them. I was a a photo store a while back and they had a digital image contest with prints presented. The prints were extremely sharp but every one was flat.I think digital passes film in sharpness but when it comes to having depth in the picture I have yet to see a digital that presents well. Monte Johnson.

Monte and others,

Now you really aroused my curiosity; what exactly are you guys talking about when you say an image is flat? Is it lack of contrast, lack of pure white highlights, lack of pure black shadows or something else? The combination of a high quality digital camera, good lighting and your favorite image editing software should yield images that knock your socks off technically and I'm assuming that wielding a digital camera doesn't somehow hamper your artistic/aesthetic abilities.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Lacking dimension. I'll post an example in a few days when I get home.

Larry,

Thanks for your inputs. I hope you can explain what "lacking dimension" means in terms that I can understand. I know that "tents" are used a lot to photograph jewelry and other shiny or small objects and that may be the cause of a rather even lighting without much variation in brightness. I can see how you could call that "flat".

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Quote:
Larry,

Thanks for your inputs. I hope you can explain what "lacking dimension" means in terms that I can understand. I know that "tents" are used a lot to photograph jewelry and other shiny or small objects and that may be the cause of a rather even lighting without much variation in brightness. I can see how you could call that "flat".

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

At this point I would like to point out that there really should be no difference in the "dimension" one is speaking about. A lot of what you see in glossy ads is the result of what an "Art Director" wants--i.e. what is popular in the advertizing field at the moment. It has nothing to do with what a particular type of camera is capable of.

When I had my lab, I was constantly running into what an Art Director's "vision" of a shot should look like--which may vary quite a bit from "reality".

I also did quite a bit of small product photography of computer components in the early days of Silicon Valley because for some reason I was able to both record and print data on live computer screens for repro purposes. In that particular time, they all wanted "white on white" since most mini type computers were either white or and "off-white".

Dave,

I would essentially agree with you that the perceptions of the market are little related to reality, and what is thought to be good illustration is what serves the fancy of those pandering that reality to the public to be somehow better than reality
This was very evident in the last couple of decades of the film era when transparency film was used almost exclusively for commercial illustrations. the films that were the most successful and popular exaggerated reality with pumped up skewed coloration that was "eye popping". A truly accurate fidelity in a film reproduction just did not sell to art directors.

Quote:
Lacking dimension.

I've seen this myself. My Fuji Ga645Zi puts out some shots that really look really 3-dimensional, especially when there are points both in front of and behind the point of best focus that are slightly blurry. I have never been able to do that with the EOS-10D, though I am finding I can get the effect on the EOS-5D (especially when using a Lensbaby - see my post in the April Issue forum.)

I wonder if this preceived flatness is due to the fact that the APS-C size sensor sort of compresses everything (I think I had a similar situation with an APS film camera - I can pull it out and shoot some tests, if folks would like.)

Ed,

If "dimension" as you identify is what Larry is really talking about, that effect of depth can be duplicated with any imaging format size to be the same whether shot on 8x10 inch film or an APS-C sized digital sensor. Just choose the lens focal length and aperture that is the mathematical equivalent, and view angle and depth of field in a print will look the same.

But I suspect what Larry was referring to is not so much a purely physical optical effect, it also involves a perceptible "tonal" depth.

Yes, thinking about it I believe you may well be correct. I have also noticed (and I think others have written about) this lack of tonal depth in most digital sensors. In fact, I am hoping that the next big leap forward in digital technology isn't more megapixels, but a sensor which more closely approximates what you get with film -- I was hoping the 5D's "picture styles" would be it, but I don't think so -- not yet, anyway, though it is getting closer. Think of it as a "film personality" module -- where you could not only shift ISO speeds between shots, but also make one shot look like Velvia, the next Tri-X or Ilford, the next Astia, etc...

Ed, now you got it. I felt like I was the only one to see this,but you nailed it on the head. Digital lacks the depth film has in my eyes. One of the nice things about film is the look different film gave. TRI-X,Agfa,Ilford,Kodak,Fuji all have their own characteristics to them. Digital is digital with most cameras producing the same or similar look to them. I am not saying this is bad. Many think software can make the difference and it does,but still comes out to the same look. When I look at a digital print i see nice sharp colour and definition but for me it stops there. I like to not just see the print I like to walk into it. Many may disagree with me here and to each their own. Because digital is so sharp and defined I feel we over look the rest. I know I am stepping on dangerous ground here,but it is just my thoughts. I am not a expert.

And I thought I was the only one who saw this! People who have never shot film won't have a clue what we're talking about. I attached an image from my 20D, which to is OK but just OK, lacking depth, dimension, or whatever you want to call it. I went back and re-shot the same shack with the Hassy, but I'll have to wait until the film is processed to make a direct comparison (shopping for a new lab). My gut feeling is that it will have more depth. It's probably an unfair comparison, digital vs MF. Maybe I shoud do it again in 35mm.....

Can somebody please explain what exactly they mean when they talk about "tonal depth"! If we want to have a meaningful discussion then we need to define in technical terms what it is we are talking about. Is it the range of tonality between black and white or shadows and highlights or the gamma or shape of the tonality curve? All these can be easily modified in an editing program so that would not be an inherent film characteristic that could not be achieved with digital.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Ed,

The solution to this problem I don't think will be supplied by technology. At least as far a tonal depth in prints is concerned. This became an increasingly serious problem in wet darkroom printing years ago because the major producers of printing papers to maximize profit (their only goal) kept reducing the materials content, with B&W with less and less silver substituting light sensitive dyes and using plasticizers. So there was a constant search for papers made traditionally that had the potential to reproduce tonal depth.

And finally, the one thing that has always been a part of the making of those images which have those exceptional qualities, and that is skilled craftsmanship applied to the making of the image. With film and wet darkrooms we had an accumulation of technique refinement and experience going back over a century. Digitally made imaging remains in relative infancy. Few have been using it long enough to acquire the skill and craftsmanship to know how to make images sing. And with digital, as it was with analog, the manufacturing industry is not your friend but your adversary always working against your interests if those interests are to produce the best possible image quality, by the manufacturers limiting the potential for quality to garner more and more profit while selling at lower and lower prices to be competitive.

Frans, I would have to descibe it like this. When using film the darker shadowed areas have more detail. That is in medium format. In turn I believe it produces more depth to your image. If the detail is not there it flattens the look. Anyway that is what I see. Once again I am no expert.It could be the digital sensors are capable of doing this and I just am not seeing it in what I have seen around here. It could be David is right when we just do not have the time behind us like we do in film which has be refined over the years. besides it is only my obervation. Once again I use film mainly for BW and only medium format. I believe you would have to agree because you have shot a lot of film that the look is different. Monte Johnson

Monte,

Yes, I have shot film for 42 years and digital for only 6, but I can't agree with your statement that digital has less detail in the shadows. The Photoshop Curves and Shadow/Highlight tools do a marvelous job of increasing shadow detail if desired or needed. The limiting factor in dynamic range is the paper we print our images on, either traditional photographic paper or inkjet, etc. so that limitation is hardly an issue of film versus digital. I would like people to explain this issue in a more technical manner and post some comparison images.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Frans you could be right it is just I have not seen that for myself. In my 35mm prints I did not see this as much but in medium format prints I do. Once again add I am not an expert on digital paper or PS tools. I cannot explain the tech. end of it because I have no knowledge of that to prove my point. I have only what I have seen in print. I will attach an image.

I forgot to say the image was taken with film using a medium format camera. It may not show my point because there is not anything I have to compare it with. I only hope no one sees this as being anything except a person observation. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

You are correct to an extent about shadow detail. But that is to a large part also the function of the scene brightness range related to the exposure latitude of the recording medium, film or digital. A digital sensor has sufficient exposure latitude to record as much detail in both highlights and shadows as some of the better color transparency films (just considering current dSLR cameras).

But what you see in print results involves other factors. A glossy print finish usually has more potential for tonal depth compared to a matte print because surface reflection obscures the depth of the darkest tones. In the old, old days of B&W fiber-based prints competition exhibition printers would often "wax" prints to obtain a look of greater depth in the blacks and shadows. With inkjet printing the main factor other than print surface involves the quality of the paper in terms of how much of an ink load it will accept before causing artifacts like puddling and bronzing. The better and more expensive papers will handle more ink and will reproduce a much higher Dmax. This can be easily measured with a densitometer, something I test for when evaluating papers - and there is a large range of differences in Dmax potential between printing papers for inkjets.

I do believe David that is the best answer I have heard concerning this matter. It should satisfy all concerned here. With the new papers coming out abnd better inks all the time along with the constant inprovement of digital sesors my guess this will not be discussed in the near future.

This is the image that I was referring to that I feel lacks dimension.

Larry,

A couple of comments. I doesn't look like the limitations of a good quality digital camera, but rather issues with image editing. It appears that some of the highlights have been clipped; I'm not sure how much damage this has done, but it may have been significant. Also, the contrast is in my opinion way too high. I've applied a "anti S-curve" if you will to lower the contrast and get some detail back into the face area; in Curves I applied the following 3 curve correction points:
- input 64, output 84,
- input 128, output 128,
- input 192, output 172.
These corrections are of course extreme but seem to be necessary to get back some resemblance of a nice image.
It also looks like the image has been oversharpened although, at the resolution of the sample, it is a little hard to judge.
I would love to get my hands on a full-resolution RAW version of this image to see what can be done with careful editing.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Hi,
Here is my take on it. I copied to my imaging program,
resized in GF to an 8x @ 300 ppi,
(PSPX) lowered contrast about 20%, applied a touch of Gaussian Blur, Applied a bit of High Pass Sharpen, burned in a few of the over bright areas, and applied a bit of selective sharpening to a coulple of areas. Then resized down to web size in GF.
This shows a before and after view.

I would just add that If I were taking this photo in film or digital I would have preferred to have shot it on a black or navy blue velvet. I also would have used or constructed a light tent to reduce/eliminate the amount of blown out highlights.

I also would have used tungston lights, especially with digital for complete control.

In my opinion, a graded background should not be used in photographing jewelry of this type. It is not desireable that the background competes with the piece.