Fractal Photography? Film and formats, developers and converters.
Created | Updated Feb 7, 2007
There was a flap on one of the photo forums about a new camera and "banding" at high ISO performance.
We have now come far enough in digital to reach the next iteration of a common photographic conundrum - what film or developer do I use? It's just like when we would passionately debate the benefits of Dektol vs Rodinal, or other combinations. Different posters were using different RAW converters, and to make matters worse, the camera offers two RAW formats to choose from.
Use ACR, which is an Adobe standard, and use the DNG format,also an Adobe standard, test the camera at the highest ISO and dim lighting conditions. No problems. But DNG is openly documented, available to anyone, and Adobe's ACR already knows how to process the files. With other formats, such as NEF, CRW, PEF, ORF, etc, Thomas Knoll has to reverse-engineer the format before ACR will recognize it in each new camera model. The same with Bibble or Silkypix or Phase One converters. But DNG is an open format, it's out there for anyone to use (provided they don't change it or try to patent any part of it. Read the license).
So after checking, it turned out that the majority of the people who saw the problem had poorly calibrated screens, but there were a few genuine instances of color blotching at ISO 1600. It was then tested a known and documented format (DNG) in a dedicated converter (ACR), sort of like using T-Max developer with T-Max film
But others had shot a different RAW format (PEF) and converted with a variety of different applications, Bibble being the most common after ACR. If you shoot a PEF (or NEF, or CRW, or whatever) in a new camera you have to wait for the programmers to reverse-engineer the new camera's files to work with their software. DNG is already publicly documented, and if properly implemented requires no fancy dancing to get it to work.
So we've come to the point where we can go back to arguing over film types (RAW formats) and developers (RAW converters). Just like the good old days!
Once the engineers get hold of the "new" PEF files and set up their converters to handle them, the problem should go away. But every new camera, from Nikon to Pentax to Olympus to Canon, exhibits odd behavior in third party converters.
Thus, the choice of Leica, Phase One, Pentax, and (I think) Hassleblad to save their RAW files in the open and documented DNG format.
Anyone who deals with non-linear equations on the complex number plane (and we all do that for a hobby, don't we?) understands that the first few iterations of a formula can lead anywhere. But after a few cycles, the equation settles down into it's behavior for that particular attractor. It seems life imitates mathematics, which imitates life, which imitates mathematics - iteration after iteration. And on and on and on and on we go...........................
Self- similarity across scale is a quality of non-linear dynamic systems. So here we are again! It's all the same, only different.
We have now come far enough in digital to reach the next iteration of a common photographic conundrum - what film or developer do I use? It's just like when we would passionately debate the benefits of Dektol vs Rodinal, or other combinations. Different posters were using different RAW converters, and to make matters worse, the camera offers two RAW formats to choose from.
Use ACR, which is an Adobe standard, and use the DNG format,also an Adobe standard, test the camera at the highest ISO and dim lighting conditions. No problems. But DNG is openly documented, available to anyone, and Adobe's ACR already knows how to process the files. With other formats, such as NEF, CRW, PEF, ORF, etc, Thomas Knoll has to reverse-engineer the format before ACR will recognize it in each new camera model. The same with Bibble or Silkypix or Phase One converters. But DNG is an open format, it's out there for anyone to use (provided they don't change it or try to patent any part of it. Read the license).
So after checking, it turned out that the majority of the people who saw the problem had poorly calibrated screens, but there were a few genuine instances of color blotching at ISO 1600. It was then tested a known and documented format (DNG) in a dedicated converter (ACR), sort of like using T-Max developer with T-Max film
But others had shot a different RAW format (PEF) and converted with a variety of different applications, Bibble being the most common after ACR. If you shoot a PEF (or NEF, or CRW, or whatever) in a new camera you have to wait for the programmers to reverse-engineer the new camera's files to work with their software. DNG is already publicly documented, and if properly implemented requires no fancy dancing to get it to work.
So we've come to the point where we can go back to arguing over film types (RAW formats) and developers (RAW converters). Just like the good old days!
Once the engineers get hold of the "new" PEF files and set up their converters to handle them, the problem should go away. But every new camera, from Nikon to Pentax to Olympus to Canon, exhibits odd behavior in third party converters.
Thus, the choice of Leica, Phase One, Pentax, and (I think) Hassleblad to save their RAW files in the open and documented DNG format.
Anyone who deals with non-linear equations on the complex number plane (and we all do that for a hobby, don't we?) understands that the first few iterations of a formula can lead anywhere. But after a few cycles, the equation settles down into it's behavior for that particular attractor. It seems life imitates mathematics, which imitates life, which imitates mathematics - iteration after iteration. And on and on and on and on we go...........................
Self- similarity across scale is a quality of non-linear dynamic systems. So here we are again! It's all the same, only different.
