Luminous Landscape

Don't be so very sure about that: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml Yes, you can get a greater tonal range in a single capture if you're shooting B&W and know your way around the Zone System, but that is the sole remaining real benefit. And unless you're contact printing at the original negative size (and don't mind the inevitable damage to your neg or the quality loss of an interneg), you'd want to have at least a digital intermediate step between negative and print (unless you're turned on by contrast masking, spotting and bleaching under a loupe).

I see your point completely. I will say that the best camera is the one you have with you. The reason to buy a G12 over a d3000 is because you can literally fit the G12 in a pocket (although not the most comfortable solution) or in even a small purse. You can't with a d3000. It's something you have to always consider "Do I want to take this with me?" I was not clear above in the discussion of image quality (got sidetracked with more or less irrelevant arguments about sensor size/dynamic range/etc.). I was attempting to say that image quality as a whole from the higher end point and shoots is on par with DSLRs for almost everyone. See here for a comparison with the 2 generation old G10 v. a $40k medium format rig: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Yes, you're right, I felt the 20 years was a little bit of a stretch, but it sounded better. I do think at least 17 years is legit, though, back to release of Canon EOS D30 in 2000. D30 was only 3.3MP, but was used by a lot of professional photographers and made some great images (I still have one, taken by a photographer friend, that is one of my favorite pictures ever). I think it was priced around $3k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_D30 You can read review by Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape, who called the D30 an "inflection point" and said it "changes the playing field forever". He took plenty of pictures with D30 and had multiple exhibits with gallery-size prints: https://luminous-landscape.com/d30/ I'm pretty sure good photographers made great images with lesser digital cameras before that, but D30 was the camera that started people thinking that digital could really be as good as or better than film.

I think its worth backing up a bit. "What puzzles me is this purism." "Not all viewers are equally naive." "the original intent of the artist" "Where is the original artwork" "What I really want to know, is a suggest for fixing this alleged problem" "There is no way for us to experience these images in the original" "What you're reacting to is a modern photograph." Nobody thinks like this anymore. These were debates from a long time ago. This is all strawman. These questions don't need to be answered. Digital post processing is the norm. It does not make an image worth anything. It does not ruin it. It is just a fact or not (and in these cases, we know its true). Second, why does this even matter? Well, for (1), it opens up an entirely new realm of colours. Second (2), it allows for an entirely new realm of image-data-translations. So, we can assign point X a unique color, and then translate point X and all its neigbours to unique colors, without ruining the "image" information in the process. (3) It enables an entirely new rage of output colours, so what we see is and relate too is more/less similar based on 1x2x3. This is independent of the quality of the input image, but is magnified when these inputs are high-quality (because more translation can occurr with better tonality, et). Here is the intuition: Photoshop workin space vs Monitor output space. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Images32/17.jpg Massive difference. Of course none of this has to do with what…

Yeah, PSD is still at the top. I could swear that a fresh install of Photoshop 7.0 defaulted to TIFF -- I remember it because it was also the first OS X compatible version, so all changes felt intriguing... But I don't know if they changed that later due to feedback, or if I hallucinated the whole thing due to spending so much time staring at the rainbow spin cursor (Photoshop on Mac OS X 10.1 and a G4 was not particularly snappy). Anyway, Photoshop guru Jeff Schewe recommends TIFF over PSD: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t17170.h… "Everything that can be saved in a PSD can also be save in a layered Tiff-6.0 file format...everything, paths, channels, layers, transparency, layer effects...there is nothing that PSD has "special" any longer and when that happened, Bruce and several engineers and I realized that the end of the Photoshop native file format had arrived. "Tiff has better compression (zipped tifs), can save everything that a PSD can save and be as large as 4 gigs in size (I think PSD is still limited to 2 gigs). Tiff is publicly documented where PSD requires a special NDA to access the internals. As a result, tiff is a more "archival" format while losing nothing by being used." [- - ] "So, since Photoshop CS, only PSB is a format unique to Photoshop which does not fall under the heading of having to work with the Suite...and when once looks at all the pluses and minus, I think layered TIFF's offer the best file format for…

See here for a couple of comparisons with 8x10 with differing results: https://luminous-landscape.com/iq180-vs-8x10/ https://petapixel.com/2020/03/19/8x10-film-vs-150mp-digital-can-150-me… Given these results on 8x10, it seems highly unlikely to me that 4x5 film could offer any significant advantage over a 150MP digital sensor in practice.

This article covers the topic much better: https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-acquired-dji/ __ Hasselblad has been in financial trouble since the late 90s and it has been sold a number of times; see this press release for info: http://photorumors.com/2011/06/30/hasselblad-set-for-growth-under-new-… And recent cameras[1] have been a joke ("Sonyblads") to some: http://photorumors.com/2012/09/19/hasselblad-goes-into-damage-control-…

As a hobbyist photographer, I can tell you the problem with this will be optics. The discussion here (and the article itself) seems to act as if sensor pixel density is the primary limiting factor on resolution at this point - and it's not. [1] is an article that has a good and through discussion on sensors out-resolving lenses. So, your limiting factor is glass, and manufacturing precision on that end is moving forward much slower than on the sensor. [1] - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

Boke (meaning blur) is from a combination of kanji 暈 (bo) and hiragana け (ke). You'll notice that "bokeh" doesn't look like usual romaji (Japanese romanization) spelling, since it would normally be transliterated as boke. It was spelled bokeh with the extra 'h' to avoid accidental pronunciation like poke. [1] http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

It looks like the disruptor doesn't like being disrupted. While Jannard is taking years to get Scarlet right, his "worse is better" competitors Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are eating his market out from under him. Here's Jannard's original rant: http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount=266 Commentary from a prominent DSLR cinematographer: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-has-war-been-d… A technical discussion about "line skipping" vs. "binning" (averaging): http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38713

Continuous Ink System such as: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cis.shtml

One thing I noticed about France vs. the US is that in the cafe culture in France means it's fine to "stare" at passersby as you sit, slowly sipping your espresso. (Often, all the chairs face the street -- such as in this photo http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-99/cafe-thumb.jpg). No one minds you "staring" as they walk by. In America, if you watch passersby on the street you can tell they get uncomfortable.

As per usual Ken is being pretty disingenuous here, even ignoring the hyperbole about needing a 175MP digital sensor to 'capture the same information'. Velvia 50 might resolve 160 lines/mm (I'm not sure if this is line pairs/mm or lines/mm) but that's at a contrast ratio of 1000:1, for a contrast ratio of 1.6:1 (more typical for normal shooting conditions) you're down to 80 lines/mm which is 22.1 MP, and that's for just the film stock under optimal conditions. When you factor in real life shooting conditions like the lens MTF charts, the aperture you were shooting at, whether you were shooting on a stable tripod, dust, grain, noise, etc, that number only goes down. Conventional wisdom has been that you can get good results scanning colour film at 6-12MP, and this tracks with the results people got when they started comparing the first DSLRs to 35mm film - something like the full frame 11MP Canon EOS-1DS from 20 years ago with a mere 25 line pairs/mm (including losses from the Bayer and AA filters) compares favourably(*) to medium format film, with 6-8MP DX format DSLRs from the same era comparing favourably to 35mm. B&W film can be scanned at a higher resolution but still, 87MP is a theoretical maximum not a practical one. https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/

> The idea was born from a mistake. One night near Death Valley, California, Wu set a camera to make a time-lapse series in the dark. A pickup truck drove by and washed out the scene with its harsh headlights. > At first, says Wu, “I was really annoyed. But when I looked at the images, I was fascinated. Here was artificial lighting in a natural environment.” The quote above indicates that Wu stumbled upon the technique by accident but, sandworm101 is correct, this technique has been known and widely used for decades. I know the technique as "painting with light" and a Google image search should convince any skeptics. Add "stars" to the search and you will see that the technique is often combined with star trails. Using drones is a nice enhancement. The criticism about originality doesn't make Wu's images any less spectacular. EDIT: The Luminous-Landscape article Introduction to Landscape Astrophotography [1] includes a section on "Light Painting". [1] https://luminous-landscape.com/introduction-to-landscape-astrophotogra…

Ok, here we're getting into confusion about terminology here. To clarify: In the Bayer filtered Canon CCD each individual photosensor is covered in a colored filter [1] in a pattern such as: B G G R So when capturing an image 1/4 of the sensors are capturing blue light, 1/4 capturing red, and 2/4 capturing green. In contrast the CCD in the rover's cameras do not have filters in front of individual photosensors. Instead, there is a set of filters on a disc which are mechanically positioned in front of the sensor. Using this method three images are taken. On each with a red, green, and blue filter covering 4/4 of those same sensor elements giving you 2x-4x the number of elements capturing each color and thus much higher image quality at a given resolution. B B B B then G G G G then R R R R Similar multi-shot technology was used in the early days of terrestrial digital photography to provide better color, exposure latitude and resolution. [2] for a bit of discussion on multishot vs. single shot medium format digital camera backs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter [2] http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/h3d50ii.shtml

The article is completely and utterly obsolete. 35mm digital would out-resolve medium format film circa 2002, with the Canon 1Ds[1]. A 39 megapixel medium format digital back will come within spitting distance of 4x5 film[2]. Hasselblad now have a 60 megapixel medium format camera. Being able to use a smaller sensor format at the same or better quality is of critical importance, because it allows the photographer to use smaller, lighter, brighter lenses. A digital MF system can happily be used handheld, whereas a 4x5 camera demands a very large and heavy tripod to work at all. Large format lenses are so slow and the cameras so bulky that a mere gust of wind can ruin an image. That's at low ISO. Start cranking up the sensitivity and digital is in a world of it's own. A Nikon D3s will produce useful images at 12800 ISO and very clean images at 6400 ISO[3]. For any serious use, film is absolutely stone dead. It still has a place for hobbyists and students, for whom the much cheaper equipment makes up for the inconvenience and poorer quality. For any serious use, digital is vastly, incomparably better than film. [1] http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml [2] http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml [3] http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s…

On the subject of medium format, there are rumors that Fuji may be about to announce a medium format mirrorless camera in the next few months[1]. This wouldn't surprise me at all - Fuji have experience with various sizes of medium format going back 40+ years[2], they have manufactured medium format cameras for other brands (including Hasselblad[3]), and recently discontinued their last remaining medium format film cameras[4]. The question remains as to how big the medium format sensor will be, as other manufacturers have continually claimed "full frame" sensors when medium format generally means "anything larger than 35mm but smaller than large format". So it could be medium format but not that much bigger than 35mm. The second question is how much will it cost? If it's "affordable" it could take a lot of the wind out of Hasselblad's recent X1D announcement[5]. [1] http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-medium-format-more-affordable-than-… [2] http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fuji (Medium format section) [3] https://luminous-landscape.com/hasselblad-xpan/ [4] http://petapixel.com/2014/08/25/fujifilm-to-discontinue-its-medium-for… [5] https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-impressions…