|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article will
look at the pros and cons of digital imaging, and offer some advice to
the photography enthusiasts who want to engage in some form of digital
imaging at home, without breaking the bank.
Introduction to Digital Imaging Jurassic Park, The Matrix, The Mummy and Star Wars all had one thing in common (other than the fact that they were all blockbuster movies) - a huge part of their success depended on digital processing and imaging. Many of the effects used were almost impossible to duplicate using conventional methods, and complex digital imaging were required to pull off the digital effects to make them look realistic to the audience. The 21st century is the era of digital, and it has become the catch-phrase that nobody can be without. Take a look around you, and you will discover just how much digital has become part of your life. The digital age has enabled the transfer and storage of information like no other media. This very article that you are reading has been made possible via digital documents, which allows thousands of readers to view it at any one time, unlike the conventional printed page. Rather than retyping a document, anyone can open a file to cut-and-paste to create a new document from older files. In short, digital has opened up various opportunities never before possible with conventional means. Like all other areas,
digital has worked its way into photography. Digital imaging has become
integrated into our lives, whether you like it or now. And more frequently
than not, we are not aware of the digitization of photography. The pictures
that we see in magazines and newspapers have all been digitized from conventional
film, and so are all the images on the Internet.
Watch your back...
How digital imaging
can save your images: It only takes a moment of inattention to screw up
a potentially useful picture. In the case illustrated above, the grabbed
shot of the boys were taken in a hurry and I did not notice the messy background.
A quick 15-minutes job in PhotoShop helped to save the day, by defocusing
the background and adding a soft halo to the boys.
My Perspective on Digital Processing There are proponents
and opponents of digital processing.
- It's a replacement for the conventional darkroom
Personally, I support the last opinion, that digital manipulation is simply another aspect of photography. It is another tool for the photographer to achieve the expression of his emotions. Just because it is digital does not make it fake photography, since the beginning point is still silver halide based film. Many of the digital manipulations possible via computers have conventionally been done in the darkroom as well. Dodging and burning, colour correction, cropping and softening are all examples of such techniques. Photographers have been using filters and various exposure techniques to manipulate their images, so why not do it digitally? Some argue that manipulation should be done during exposure, and not in the computer. Such arguments are quite superficial, and do not stand up to closer examination. Ask yourself these questions "Are images taken with digital cameras but no manipulated real photography?", and "How much manipulation can be tolerated before it can be considered digital imagery rather than photography?". You will find that it is difficult to create a black and white distinction. The conventional darkroom will still stand against the digital onslaught. Put very simply, the conventional darkroom does basic manipulations very much more cheaply than the digital alternatives. In addition, there is a certain magic in watching a print develop in a tank, which waiting for a rambling inkjet printer to squit out prints will not replace. Of course, a well-processed and fixed black and white print will outlast a inkjet print by decades. ______________________________________________ "It's
like the good ol' darkroom, minus the stench and loneliness"
For many professionals,
digital imaging has a great impact on their work, and ignoring the trend
of digital imaging is courting trouble. In fact, many of the professionals
have jumped into the digital bandwagon. Rumours have it that George Lucas
will be shooting Star Wars Episode II completely on the digital platform,
without
using any conventional films. Galen Rowell and Bill Aktinson are other
notable professionals who are into digital imaging. Click here
to find out what Galen Rowell has to say about digital imaging.
Do you know what you have been looking at? If you think that digital imaging is something new, think again. You have been looking at digital imaging far longer than you have ever realized. In today's world, almost all commerically printed publications use digital images. The original images may be taken on conventional silver halide film, but they are scanned into digital formats before being sent to the printers for colour separations. And very likely, during the digital stage, manipulations would have been performed to clean up and to enhance the image before publication. If you were wondering how the models in advertisements and frontpages appeared to have such flawless features and wonderful eyes (with no hint of eyebags whatsoever), herein lies your answer - digital retouching. Newspapers throughout the world depend more and more on digital images, to transmit the image from the photographer to the printing press with unparallelled speed. There is no longer any need for the film to be physically transported back to the editor, nor to be dunked in chemicals and waiting for the cellulite to dry. A click of the shutter, a modem and a phone connection, and the image appears on the editor's desktop ready to be printed. Love it or hate it;
there's no ignoring it. Digital imaging is here to stay. If there are any
bias against digital imaging, they probably come from previous bad experience
with digital works, or perhaps from looking at low someone else abused
the digital process to churn out some sub-standard works. Or maybe the
digital process had been abused by some unethical party to mislead the
public. But whatever it is, if you approach computer manipulation with
the attitude that it is the digital equilvalent of darkroom work, you might
be more forgiving of it. If you had realized that what you had always been
looking at were all digital works, you might not have such strong anti-sentiments
against digital.
Advantages of digital processing Digital imaging opens up vistas of opportunity not possible with conventional methods: 1) Saving a marginally
ruined picture
In fact, there have
been instances where the films were ruined by incompetent labs, resulting
in scratched or torn film. Digital imaging was used to clean up the scratches,
or join torn images digitally, saving the day for the professionals whose
reputation depend on delivering the images.
San Francisco Bridge is falling down... or is it?
______________________________________________ "The
possibilities are only limited by your imagination."
2) Recreating a new
image, expanding your creativity
3) Archival purposes
4) Multiple-purpose
and cross platform uses
5) Repeatable prints,
and consistent output once calibrated
6) Print whenever
you want!
7) Inkjet not good
enuff for ya? Print on conventional paper!
However, you can
avoid this problem by scanning at a higher resolution, and output the digital
image to conventional prints at the colour lab. You can't do this at home
(unless you're Bill Gates), because the equipment to do this costs at least
a hundred thousand dollars. Lightjet printing and other technology outputs
the digital image to conventional paper, just like in conventional colour
printing. As such, your digital output will have the same lifespan as conventional
prints.
Tired of colour? Go
black-and-white! With digital imaging, you can feel free to convert your
images from colour to black and white for that old world look. If the original
colour image looks dull and lifeless, why not convert it to b/w for a change?
While you are at it, consider "toning" the image with the Duotones option.
The possibilities are endless. But of course, you can't get a true colour
image from a b/w negative. Even a donkey knows that!
Drawbacks Like any other techniques, digital imaging has its draw-backs. High initial investment
Outdated equipment
And you should know that the colourful inkjet prints from your home printer are non-archival, which means that they will not last for years like a conventional photo. Traditional photo paper have a lifespan of around 15 years, and the best colour paper can last much longer (Fuji Crystal Archive - 70 years, Ilfochrome - 100 years). In contrast, an average print from a inkjet printer will fade in 6 months if subjected to UV light (eg. sunlight). Ink manufacturers are coming out with better inks which will withstand fading for a longer period, but comparing inkjet prints to conventional photo paper is like comparing a bugs life-span to that of a human. Archival inks are in the pipeline, and manufacturers have developed a few inks, but they are difficult to colour calibrate though. A consolation is that you can output your high-resolution images to conventional paper, so it enjoys the same long lifespan. It isn't cheap and it is only done by pro labs, but it is worth the cost if your image is really good. Colour Calibration
In addition, there is the problem of colour gamut. A colour gamut of a device is simply the range of colours that the device can produce. Every device in the chain of digital imaging has its own colour gamut. For example, the monitor has a different colour gamut from the printer, which overlaps each other. So while the majority of colours can be reproduced accurately on both the devices, there are some colours which cannot be properly printed on the printer even though the screen displays them, and vice versa. So what does it all mean? It simply implies that what you see on the screen might not be what is printed! All these means that
there is a steep learning curve involved in digital imaging. The rewards
are fantastic, but it sure isn't a easy path. Regardless of what the manufacturers
promise you, there is no such thing as plug and play. You can never achieve
accurate or the desired effects straight out from the box. If you came
to the conclusion now that the prints that were printed by inkjet printers
during PC fairs were specially tailored and calibrated for optimal quality,
you are totally right. Those images were indeed specially chosen, scanned,
manipulated to make the printers look good. So now you know why your printed
images did not look as good as the sample prints. In addition, digital
imaging breeds laziness if it is abused. Of course, by the time you have
a good grasp of the imaging technology, you can hardly be labelled as lazy,
after learning all the terms and trying all the configurations. But it
is easy to be tempted to be lazy during the shooting stage, only to compensate
it during digital imaging. But for digital imaging to work its magic best,
the conventional image should be done as well as possible in the first
place.
See the world through rose-coloured glasses...
The image on the left
is the original version, while the image on the right has been digitally
enhanced to give a different colour to the sky. This falls outside the
range of image correction into the realm of digital manipulation, which
means that you should not be doing this if your work requires that the
image shows the actual situation. Photojournalism and documentory works
should not be manipulated in this manner.
What do you need for serious digital imaging? This section is for
people who are seriously into digital imaging... For the others, check
out the next section on "Budget Users: Getting away with the minimum"
Pentium IV-1.8 GHz Why a Pentium IV-1.8 GHz? Because it offers the best value for money. The Pentium IV-2 GHz offer no significant amount of increase in speed (at least in digital processing) compared to the 1.8 GHz, and it is about S$500 more expensive. Increasing your memory (RAM) is a much more efficient way of increasing imaging speed than buying the latest processors. Like I said before,
equipment starts becoming obsolete the moment you purchase them. So by
the time you read this, the folks and Intel and Microsoft are probably
working on something better to milk you dry of your precious savings. Try
to be more sensible and stick with your current setup for as long as possible.
Newer versions might not be better, because they tend to be overly-complex
and buggy. Chasing the digital trend is a hobby that is guarenteed to generate
ulcers - trust me!
Psst.... a Mac or a PC?
Many people, especially
in the graphics and imaging world, prefer using PowerMacs G4 processors
to using PCs for their work. Essentially, the argument is more accurate
colour management and more tools at their disposal. Frankly, I'd love to
spurge on a cool translucent blue Mac G4 and a 21-inch flat-screen LCD
display, but my budget (and I'd guess it applies to you too) is simply
not in the same league. I estimate that a comparable Mac will cost at least
S$1000 more than the PC equivalent, probably because PC components are
so widely manufactured that they enjoy greater economies of scale. Not
to mention the vast accessories and software that can be found cheaply
for the PC in Singapore. Mac peripherals are much rarer here, and cost
much more than PC versions. There is also the issue of orientation - although
Macs are supposedly more user-friendly than Intel-Win machines (I'm sure
they are!), being a PC-guy for years, it'd take me time to relearn everything
from the OS to the various software if I want to switch to a Mac now.
Finally, I do not live in my own world (yes, I wish I can). I need to interact
with others, to communicate and to transfer information. Using a Mac is
cool, but not if my friends and acquaintances are using PCs and I can't
send them any files. This issue is the main barrier to my deflection to
Macs. If more than 70% of the world use Macs, I'd be over in a jiffy!
17-inch monitor
80 GB HDD
And with increasing
capacities of hard disks, it is tempting to store all your scanned images
in the drive. Other than causing unnecessary wastage of disk space, you
are also challenging the gods of PC to trash your machine and rob you of
hours of work. Backing up images onto Zips and CD-Rs will free up precious
drive space and insure you against PC failures. There are times when even
Saint Norton can't help save your soul.
CD-RW
Photoquality printers
Film Scanners
Simply cool...
The automatic removal of dust and scratches is extremely useful technology. Although it may not sound like a lot, average users usually have to spend around 15 minutes to touch up their images after scanning from the film, to remove spots and scratches from the image. For 10 images, that'll be two and a half hours! So it all adds up to a lot of saving in time! PhotoShop does offer a Dust and Scratches filter, but it is essentially a software filter which eliminates scratches and dust specks based on the pixel size, which means it cannot distinguish between real image details and dust specks. The Nikon and Canon scanners perform scans over the reflective film surface at varying angles to determine which are actual dust particles, and which are image details, so you will end up with a fantastic scan almost totally void of the irritating vermins.
Budget users: Getting away with the minimum Let's begin with the very minimum requirements: If you already have
a Pentium computer, and you are looking to making 8R sized print-outs from
your PC after manipulation, you need to invest less than S$400 if you are
satisfied with prints from your printer. If your current configuration
is as such:
In these cases, you'll
be working with the very minimum requirements to produce adequate prints
from your PC. You can scan images from your flatbed scanner, process it
with imaging software in your PC, and print it out at home without breaking
the bank. Of course, your results will not be as fantastic as those people
using top of the line resources, but with sufficient knowledge of scanning
and PhotoShop techniques, you can squeeze out enough quality out of your
setup to give the higher-end users a run for their money!
As stated earlier,
a film scanner will give you greater dynamic range than a flatbed. It also
allows you to scan directly from the film, rather than making prints and
scanning from them. Not only do you have higher quality scans, you also
save the money from making prints. All in all, if you value making good
prints from your film, a film scanner is a must. Scanners which are cheaper may offer slightly
lower resolution and D-Max range, but you will still be able to get pretty
outstanding images from them, especially for non-crucial applications.
Digital camera or scanner? What about digital
cameras? You might be asking, "if I want to go digital, I might as well
start with a digital image right from the camera".
Unfortunately, at the time of writing, digital cameras have not reached the quality of the best silver-halide films yet, at least not for the affordable models. Most consumer models have adequate resolution for Internet website images, but the lousy quality shows when you try to print images out from them, especially beyond 4X5 inches. The best of the consumer digital cameras, such as the Nikon Coolpix 995 and Canon S40 offer resolutions up to 4 million-pixels. They are probably good enough for images to be printed on photo paper at sizes not larger than 8X10 inches, but the quality still has some way to go before matching conventional film. These high end cameras cost around S$1400, enough to buy a semi-pro camera such as the Canon EOS 3 or Nikon F90X, with enough money left over to get a lens. The professional digital cameras such as the Nikon D1X or EOS 1D are probably beyond the budget of the non-professional users. These digital cameras offer near-film quality, but at astronomical prices. The Nikon D1X and EOS 1D will cost around (US$6000-6800). The reasons for getting a consumer digital camera will be:
- you do not need the quality of film images (e.g. low-res images for Internet)
Typical consumers
of digital cameras are salesmen (used cars and properties), yuppies, website
designers, holiday snapshooters and anyone else who wants fast low-resolution
digital images. By the way, you should note that digital cameras "suck"
the life out of batteries faster than Monica Lewinsky (sorry... cheap shot!).
So unless you are entertaining the thought of bringing a seperate haversack
for batteries and Compact Flashcards, bringing digital cameras for long
vacations is a bad idea.
Is this the time to go digital? There is absolutely no doubt that digital imaging has arrived, and it will be more pervasive than most people think. There are ethical considerations which accompany digital imaging, and those are important issues which photographers and editors must grapple with. But for most users like the common folks and photographers, digital imaging simply provides a venue for expressing their creativity. Digital imaging is not inherently a "evil technology" which will replace photography as we know it, but rather as a tool of photography. Digital photography
has come a long way from the pixilated and expensive digital cameras of
the earliest days. Flat bed scanners and hand-held scanners (remember those
gadgets?) which used to cost hundreds of dollars can now be purchased for
a couple of hundreds, and their quality have gotten better throughout the
years. PC memory used to cost much more than today, and 750MB hard-disk
seemed to be so large that it seemed like a lot of capacity. With improvements
in technology, new equipment have either gotten cheaper or better.
The time has come where it is possible to dabble with near-photographic quality digital imaging equipment, without breaking the bank. The humble computer (a Pentium III with at least 128MB) can perform the most basic digital imaging if equipped with a cheap flatbed scanner and inkjet printer, costing around US$300 to get starting in digital imaging. For the more serious enthusiasts, getting a flatbed scanner and photo printer, with 128MB of RAM will cost around US$1000. It's not exactly cheap, but you are getting a lot of power to manipulate the images before outputing to a near photographic printout. Of course, digital photography still has a long way to go before matching conventional photography in quality and cost. Nobody can tell when that will happen, but it certainly won't be in the near future. Meanwhile, however the quality/price balance of digital imaging products are getting very good, and thus it is a good time to get started into digital imaging. If you are waiting for digital to be as good and cheap before investing in them, I have some news for you - you are in for a long wait, and probably you are missing out on a lot of great things in the meantime! Just like digital documents have not eliminated the need for printed documents, conventional photography is still alive and very much kicking. Scientist and entrepreneurs had longed prophesied that digital books and newspapers will replace the printed versions, but most people will still agree that the day is still far away. The number of film-based 35mm cameras currently in circulation throughout the world adds up to millions, which means that film-based photography will not be replaced anytime soon. We enjoy holding and looking at printed materials rather than staring at a screen, and old habits die hard. Digital imaging is just a stage between the inital image and the final output of prints, and should be seen in the correct perspective. Rather than fighting
the wave of digital imaging, the efforts can be better spent trying to
understand the strengths and possibilities that digital can offer photography,
and use them to expand our visions. Our attitudes, not the technology itself,
will determine the future of digital imaging.
|
VS 
6
Olympus
Camedia C-2000 Zoom
