What is "orton" with regards to digital photography?

Answer 1

Search using:

"orton effect" photography

and you will find over 2,000 hits. One article near the top that looks interesting is http://www.adobe.com/devnet/fireworks/articles/photo_effects.html

It starts out saying, " will demonstrate how to mimick the Orton Effect. The original technique, developed by Vancouver Island photographer Michael Orton, works by sandwiching two slides together─a sharply focused image and a duplicate that is deliberately blurred. The overall result is a dreamy, ethereal image, watercolor-like in nature." GO see the rest of the article or do the search as described and read a few more articles on this effect.

Answer 2

Dynamic range, colour accuracy (could be argued since digitals need to be calibrated - but at least they can be), noise/grain is better in digital. I think the only thing that digital hasn't achieved yet is high resolution. Yes, a 10MP camera beats 35mm negative, but it will be many, many years (if at all) before digital beats or even comes anywhere near matching an 8x12 transparency. But that said, no, there is no goal that I think digital should be striving for because I think it's already there. I never find myself thinking, "I wish digital could do this" etc. Answering your question litterally, 'Just like film' was never my goal personally. I really dislike scan dust etc :-) EDIT: Antoni speaks again without first doing the research. Digi has better dynamic range. Edit: To be honest, I think you've made a good point, Dr. Digital photography has branched out into its own entity. It has to be handled differently to film, for example: instead of exposing to the meter, it has to (mostly) be underexposed a stop or two to preserve the highlights as well as negative film does and then have the exposure increased later on to compensate. This isn't always necessary, but in high contrast situations it's needed. This is done easily because the dynamic range extends well into the shadow regions so there is a lot of information that can be extracted from the shadows but the highlights only extend to about two stops. So if a highlight is over two stops overexposed, they can't be saved. Of course, this all applies to RAW files. JPG's are a different kettle of fish where the highlights are virtually unforgiving. I should write a book to be honest...

Answer 3

Never heard of that, but Olympus raw files are .ORF