Comments on: Latent Images http://danslaglace.com/latent-images/ Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:50:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: DPC http://danslaglace.com/latent-images/comment-page-1/#comment-203 DPC Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:45:23 +0000 http://danslaglace.com/?p=398#comment-203 Thanks! Sorry it took so long approving your comment. It got spam filtered... Thanks! Sorry it took so long approving your comment. It got spam filtered…

]]> By: Night Vision Camera http://danslaglace.com/latent-images/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Night Vision Camera Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:17:56 +0000 http://danslaglace.com/?p=398#comment-165 Hey, wonderful blog you got here! Keep up the good work Hey, wonderful blog you got here! Keep up the good work

]]> By: DPC http://danslaglace.com/latent-images/comment-page-1/#comment-11 DPC Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:07:40 +0000 http://danslaglace.com/?p=398#comment-11 Hi Stefan, Digital and film are two different things. I prefer working with digital but that's not to say it's best for everyone. You just have to use what suits you best. For my paid work, it's simply no longer possible to use anything else: clients want digital files, won't pay processing costs and have got used to rapid turn-around times. Bear in mind that you are looking at an image on a computer screen and not a print of that image. At 60 x 90 cms it's not so clean, although the texture is not the same as film grain. As an aside, I think that in photography, technology determines aesthetics to a large extent. Each generation of films and cameras had a particular look, each generation of digital cameras has its own look too. I believe you need to embrace this. It seems strange to me ("to me" underlined here), for example, to use digital media and then Photoshop plugins to get the results to look like film rather than accepting it for what it is. Blogpost on that subject soon... Hi Stefan,
Digital and film are two different things. I prefer working with digital but that’s not to say it’s best for everyone. You just have to use what suits you best. For my paid work, it’s simply no longer possible to use anything else: clients want digital files, won’t pay processing costs and have got used to rapid turn-around times.
Bear in mind that you are looking at an image on a computer screen and not a print of that image. At 60 x 90 cms it’s not so clean, although the texture is not the same as film grain.
As an aside, I think that in photography, technology determines aesthetics to a large extent. Each generation of films and cameras had a particular look, each generation of digital cameras has its own look too. I believe you need to embrace this. It seems strange to me (“to me” underlined here), for example, to use digital media and then Photoshop plugins to get the results to look like film rather than accepting it for what it is. Blogpost on that subject soon…

]]> By: Stefan R. http://danslaglace.com/latent-images/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Stefan R. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:05:35 +0000 http://danslaglace.com/?p=398#comment-10 With digital.... a lot has changed, until now no digital file has made it onto paper in the same quality film is represented on fiber paper (barita), digital files on paper is missing depth and grain, just to mention tow things.. also the best papers for digital printing get scratches very quick, something that does not happen with FB paper. excuse me, your picture above look pretty digital, perfect "clean" without any grain. best S. With digital….

a lot has changed, until now no digital file has made it onto paper in the same quality film is represented on fiber paper (barita), digital files on paper is missing depth and grain, just to mention tow things..
also the best papers for digital printing get scratches very quick, something that does not happen with FB paper.

excuse me, your picture above look pretty digital, perfect “clean” without any grain.

best S.

]]> By: jane hansen http://danslaglace.com/latent-images/comment-page-1/#comment-9 jane hansen Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:55:57 +0000 http://danslaglace.com/?p=398#comment-9 Wow! Thank you for this explanation! Maybe it is now that I am a bit more computer/photoshop/whatever literate I can actually understand what photographers are talking about? Your comments did actually help me understand all the intricacies of the finished photograph. I have also been taking/looking/editing getting a bit more critical about the sculpture photographs, I know what I see and what I want the viewer to see, so now it is the process. Thanks David Wow!

Thank you for this explanation! Maybe it is now that I am a bit more computer/photoshop/whatever literate I can actually understand what photographers are talking about?

Your comments did actually help me understand all the intricacies of the finished photograph.

I have also been taking/looking/editing getting a bit more critical about the sculpture photographs, I know what I see and what I want the viewer to see, so now it is the process.

Thanks David

]]>