digital camera vs 35 mm film
Eliska
A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
Unless you have a minimum 8 megapixel camera you don't come close to the quality
Period.
Indisputable.
Even a low end scanner can scan a better image from a good photo than a digital camera can
take.
If you want to take photos of your art work, which I believe the original discussion was
about, a 35mm camera will do a better job.
Doesn't matter what the trend is. Trend doesn't mean quality. It means good marketing. In
this case it also means convenience.
Here's an example of digital photo vs scanning.
On my web site gallery, the photo of the little blonde kid kissing his grandmother was
scanned from the actual artwork.
The kid in the swimming pool was a photo taken w/a 3 megapixel camera. (too big to scan)
No comparison. The blonde kid image is superior. Even after having been reduced to 72dpi.
Eliska
http://www.ArtChiK.com
Portraits of Pets and People
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Eliska" <eli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8msqcvghlfgu9175u...@4ax.com...
> Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>
> A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>
> Unless you have a minimum 8 megapixel camera you don't come close to the
quality
>
how carefully the negative is scanned in. If you find your 35mm images on
the CD are of a poor quality then you may need to have them scanned in
again. Some scanners have low resolution modes and some have alignment
problems or, maybe, problems with dirt or similar technical problems. There
are some processors that I don't use as they scan at low resolution and
badly.
There is a good reason for this, of course, it takes longer to scan the
negatives in properly.
--
The American President is a coward who was at the head of a venal and
corrupt administration. This really is a completely unsupportable government
and I look forward to it being overthrown as much as I looked forward to
Saddam Hussein being overthrown. - Ken Livingstone
Eliska
>
>"Eliska" <eli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:8msqcvghlfgu9175u...@4ax.com...
>> Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>>
>> A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>>
>> Unless you have a minimum 8 megapixel camera you don't come close to the
>quality
>>
>That is true - you do have to be careful of one thing though, and that is
>how carefully the negative is scanned in. If you find your 35mm images on
>the CD are of a poor quality then you may need to have them scanned in
>again. Some scanners have low resolution modes and some have alignment
>problems or, maybe, problems with dirt or similar technical problems. There
>are some processors that I don't use as they scan at low resolution and
>badly.
>
>There is a good reason for this, of course, it takes longer to scan the
>negatives in properly.
Scan the print. You still come out ahead of a digital camera.
And if you're taking pictures of your artwork for portfolio purposes, slides are still
widely accepted and expected
Marc Sabatella
> And if you're taking pictures of your artwork for portfolio purposes,
slides are still
> widely accepted and expected
Expected to the point where nothing else is accetpable in most cases.
Yet you can have slides made from digital images as well. It will cost
more than doing it from slide film, assuming you shot them film
yourself, but then, with a digital image, you don't have to disassemble
the slide and physically crop the image with tape - convenience factor
in favor of digital. I'm sure the image quality will not be as good, of
course, but I've seen the results, and in the 10-30 seconds or so that a
juror is going to look at the slide, the difference isn't particularly
noticeable.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> On my web site gallery, the photo of the little blonde kid kissing his
grandmother was
> scanned from the actual artwork.
Well, yeah, that's yet another option, and in the cases where that is
viable (the work has to be smaller than your scanner, and not wet or
otherwise fragile), it will indeed probably produce the best results.
But there is no reason a print from film scanned and then scaled down to
72 DPI would be inherently superior to a digital image scaled to the
same resolution. It may well turn out to be, depending on the quality
of the respective cameras and the scanner and your skill with
photography, but none of the arguments given here provide any reason to
expect it to be so.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>
>A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>
>Unless you have a minimum 8 megapixel camera you don't come close to the quality
>
>
>Period.
>
>Indisputable.
>
I used to think this but its not quite so. There is another factor to
take into consideration in this difference.
In Film the grain is made up of only 3 colors. Digital is made up of
manby shades between colors. This has to be taken into account in
considering resolution.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Lauri Levanto
Mani Deli wrote:
Modern photo films have at least 4 layers, not only three. Each having its own grains.
The hue and intensity of color depends on the relative number of grains in a particular area.
The digital pixel is a mixture of three primaries as well, each having a value from 0 to 255.
This digital image itself is not visible. The output on screen or printer is another process
where 3 to 4 primaries are mixed for each point of picture.
The digital image has one advantage, however. The color values remain constant in the stored image.
It does not fade in sunlight.
-lauri
Seagull Manager
Excellent choice if you're planning to reproduce the image on a fairly large
scale, but for many other purposes, digital is cheaper and quicker (assuming
you already have both digital and film cameras).
If you want real quality, though. you need to spend money (medium format
camera, with or without digital back, plus a rigid set-up for holding the
work exactly parallel to the viewing plane, and/or super-high quality
scanner, e.g. Fuji FineScan 2750, which costs about as much as a small car).
Bob C
>
> The digital image has one advantage, however. The color values remain constant in the stored image.
> It does not fade in sunlight.
>
A print or slide, however, has the advantage that it will remain forever
compatible with all of the equipment needed to view it!
- Bob C.
Hans Phul
says...
>
>Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>
>A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Film that comes from cameras has NO pixels that
I'm aware of. You're trying to compare apples
and oranges. You can't have pixels until you
scan a photo - and then the pixels you're able
to generate are a function of the scanner's
resolution - AND a computer's ability to store
the data in the form of BITS and BYTES.
Going the other way, you can't have film-quality
photos unless the digital image has sufficient
resolution to produce the quality that a film
camera is capable of.
Dispute what I just wrote please!
Hans Phul
says...
>Scan the print. You still come out ahead of a digital camera.
You're dead wrong, but I'm not going to waste
more time trying to convince you.
>And if you're taking pictures of your artwork for portfolio purposes, slides
are
> still
>widely accepted and expected
You're correct 'for the most part' on that score.
HOWEVER, more and more you find galleries that
are able to view web sites and now use that method
of becoming acquainted with an artist's works.
Unfortunately, competitions seem not to have
adapted to that scheme, other than the few online
competitions one runs across. Slides are still
an important 'tool' for artists who need them for
competitive or commercial reasons. No argument there.
Eliska
>"Eliska" <eli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On my web site gallery, the photo of the little blonde kid kissing his
>grandmother was
>> scanned from the actual artwork.
>
>Well, yeah, that's yet another option, and in the cases where that is
>viable (the work has to be smaller than your scanner, and not wet or
>otherwise fragile), it will indeed probably produce the best results.
It definitely did. I wish the kid in the swimming pool had been smaller. Thinking about
painting nothing larger than 8 1/2" x 11" <g>
>
>But there is no reason a print from film scanned and then scaled down to
>72 DPI would be inherently superior to a digital image scaled to the
>same resolution. It may well turn out to be, depending on the quality
>of the respective cameras and the scanner and your skill with
>photography, but none of the arguments given here provide any reason to
>expect it to be so.
There is a reason. The better image you have to start with then the better image you'll
end up with, even when you reduce it to 72 DPI.
Eliska
Eliska
>"Eliska" <eli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> And if you're taking pictures of your artwork for portfolio purposes,
>slides are still
>> widely accepted and expected
>
>Expected to the point where nothing else is accetpable in most cases.
>Yet you can have slides made from digital images as well. It will cost
>more than doing it from slide film, assuming you shot them film
>yourself, but then, with a digital image, you don't have to disassemble
>the slide and physically crop the image with tape - convenience factor
>in favor of digital. I'm sure the image quality will not be as good, of
>course, but I've seen the results, and in the 10-30 seconds or so that a
>juror is going to look at the slide, the difference isn't particularly
>noticeable.
Au contraire. If an art director or jury is only going to see my work for 10-30 seconds, I
want them to see the most accurate image they can.
Again, comparing the two pictures on my web page is a good example. In person, the kid in
the swimming pool looks as crisp and clean as the kid kissing the grandmother. In the
scanned image of the blonde kid, that shows through; the digital image of the swimming
pool kid looks real muddy.
Believe me, I love my digital camera! And I eagerly await the day when the technology
catches up. But it just isn't there yet in an affordable format.
Mani Deli
and a set of polaroid filters
Chris
"Hans Phul" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ece...@news.zianet.com...
Hi Hans;
A pixel is (formally) "any of the small discrete elements that together
constitute an image " (Miriam Webster); as such, the small dots that make up
a photo can be considered as pixels.
Chris
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <8msqcvghlfgu9175u...@4ax.com>, eli...@tampabay.rr.com
>says...
>>
>>Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>>
>>A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>
>I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
>
>Film that comes from cameras has NO pixels that
>I'm aware of. You're trying to compare apples
>and oranges. You can't have pixels until you
>scan a photo - and then the pixels you're able
>to generate are a function of the scanner's
>resolution - AND a computer's ability to store
>the data in the form of BITS and BYTES.
You can make a comparison. The grain of the film is the counter part
of the resolution of the CCD chip, it's not that neatly arranged
ofcourse but it is a good indicator.
Here are some links comparing film vs CCD
http://www.uschold.com/pdf/Report%20SLR%20Public%2009.02%20N.pdf
http://www.dlynnwaldron.com/digitalcameras.html
http://www.tessier.com/1999/Life/digital.film/
What I read in them is that film still has the upper hand when it
comes to resolution but only when you use the finest grained films
that need long exposure (to photographing art this isn't too bad). The
digital way with CCD chips has better colors and is ofcourse more
convenient to use (you don't have to develop a film)
Paul Mesken
Yes, that's quite right. The term pixel itself means "PICture ELement"
but piXel sounds better than piCel.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>Unless you have a minimum 8 megapixel camera you don't come close to the quality
>
>Period.
>
>Indisputable.
This is probably more appropriate to rec.photo.equipment.35mm, where
there have probably been 10,000 posts on this over the last few years,
and it's a standard holy war.
There is no simple, indisputable answer. You leave out many important
factors, like film type, optics quality, and so on. A good quality 5
MP digital will be better than a film camera with cheap optics. A
crap scanner will make a hash of good negatives. Regardless,
technology marches on, and digital quality continues to improve
dramatically, while film quality has essentially plateaued for many
years.
There *is* one indisputable conclusion, which is that film gives much
better quality for the same money at this point in time. A well
chosen $300 film camera beats the pants off of any $300 digital, while
you could spend $2000 on, say, a Nikon F100 and a good lens that will
easily kick the butt of a $2000 digital in almost every way.
I'd take the F100 any day, but digital has its uses.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Erik A. Mattila
My only dispute is that this discussion counts pixels as a measure of
"quality." Counting is the right-hand of "quantity," isn't it?
Is bigger better? I don't know...photograhers have used all sorts of
devices - from textured paper to real and artificial film "grain" to
produce a superior image (in the aesthetic arena). And then there's
printing of digital images...interpolation, dithering, piezo tech, and
so on, resulting in an image "quality" that is a contender with other
processes.
Continuous tone film is right up there with the best of the digital
competitors, of course - especially if you have a camera with optics
sophisticated enough to exploit the advantage. So don't throw away your
old Nikons and Hasselblads, whatever you do.
(I was in a junk-store once and saw a Speed Graphic 4x5 in a case with
all the goodies that had sold for 50 bucks. If I had been there a day
or two earlier....)
Erik
>
>
Marc Sabatella
> I'm sure the image quality will not be as good, of
> >course, but I've seen the results, and in the 10-30 seconds or so
that a
> >juror is going to look at the slide, the difference isn't
particularly
> >noticeable.
>
> Au contraire. If an art director or jury is only going to see my work
for 10-30 seconds, I
> want them to see the most accurate image they can.
At some level this makes sense, but consider someone looking at a print
from digital versus a print from film for just a few seconds. The
differences aren't going to be all that noticeable without really
looking more closely. And if you don't have the film print to compare
the digital with side to side, chances are pretty good you could fool
someone into thinking the digital print was a print from film. Have you
actually tried doing this with slides? I have, and am impressed enough
with the results to find it beats the hassle of physical cropping.
> In the
> scanned image of the blonde kid, that shows through; the digital image
of the swimming
> pool kid looks real muddy.
I checked this out, and have to say, that's not really fair comparison,
because the digital photo doesn't strike me as a particularly *good*
one. The lighting in particular seems suspect. Your digital could
almost certainly have done a much better job than you are giving it
credit for. And in any case, this again isn't really a fair comparison,
because you are comparing against a direct scan of the artwork, not a
scan of a print of a photo of the artwork, which is what the discussion
is really about. As soon as you bring the film camera into play, you
are subject to the same lighting issues and other complexities.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my visual art:
http://www.outsideshore.com/marc/art/
Marc Sabatella
> It definitely did. I wish the kid in the swimming pool had been
smaller. Thinking about
> painting nothing larger than 8 1/2" x 11" <g>
Watercolor, of course, is also probably the single best medium for
direct scanning, because you don't have the surface texture issues you
have with oil, pastel. But it's also worth noting that while you can
expect great resolution from a scan of the artwork, the color matching
may or may not be as good as a digital camera.
> >But there is no reason a print from film scanned and then scaled down
to
> >72 DPI would be inherently superior to a digital image scaled to the
> >same resolution. It may well turn out to be, depending on the
quality
> >of the respective cameras and the scanner and your skill with
> >photography, but none of the arguments given here provide any reason
to
> >expect it to be so.
>
> There is a reason. The better image you have to start with then the
better image you'll
> end up with, even when you reduce it to 72 DPI.
For one thing, this isn't necessarily true. There is a point of
diminishing returns where the improvements from one input to another
will have no noticeable effect on the output. But still, you are still
assuming that the original full resolution scan of the print from film
is better in every way than the digital photo, when in reality, the only
aspect we know to be better is the resolution. In particular, there is
also the question of color matching. A digital photo has exactly one
color conversion that takes place, in the camera itself. A scan of a
print of picture from film has three: one when the image is converted to
negative, one when the negative is converted to print, and one when the
print is scanned. This of course affects a lot more than color, and it
is worth asking how much of those 8 million pixels are directly
attributable to the image and not to the photo developing and enlarging
process, but in my experience, it is color that is most likely to be
adversely affected. There is also a question of tonal range, or
sensitivity to light in the picture taking process - how much contrast
is the camera capable of representing accurately. Again, it isn't that
I am saying that digital is obviously and inherently superior - it
clearly isn't. Just that there is much more to it than counting pixels,
and when it comes to actually examing the resulting images, I don't find
the evidence supports the assumption that the film route is clearly
superior for this purpose.
Erik A. Mattila
> There *is* one indisputable conclusion, which is that film gives much
> better quality for the same money at this point in time. A well
> chosen $300 film camera beats the pants off of any $300 digital, while
> you could spend $2000 on, say, a Nikon F100 and a good lens that will
> easily kick the butt of a $2000 digital in almost every way.
>
> I'd take the F100 any day, but digital has its uses.
I was pretty astounded a couple of months ago when I saw that my Nikon
F4 HP, which is in showroom condition, has actually inflated in value -
it now sells for about 40% more that when I purchased it (for
photographing paintings) in 1986. Plus that, the Nikkor 55mm/1:28 (which
is perfect for shooting flat art) is no longer manufactured. But I just
bought a Nikon Kewlpix 5700, and I doubt very seriously it will hold its
value as well, if at all. But nevertheless, it's a great camera (the
5700) - I'm learning to love it.
Erik
Neil Maxwell
Yes, this is a big downside to digital cameras. A good film camera
holds its value very well, and high-end ones may increase as yours
did. A fine Nikon will be useful for the next 20 years, and will
stabilize in value quickly after the first hit of off-the-floor
depreciation. The best digital camera this year will be old news next
year and will be a fraction of its original price in 4 years, and will
never go up in value like a fine film camera. This may change, but
we're still in the iron age of digital cameras, I believe.
I like digital cameras just fine and have several of them, but I could
never spend big bucks on a camera I couldn't switch lenses on.
Eliska
>In article <8msqcvghlfgu9175u...@4ax.com>, eli...@tampabay.rr.com
>says...
>>
>>Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>>
>>A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>
>I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
>
I know.
>Film that comes from cameras has NO pixels that
>I'm aware of. You're trying to compare apples
>and oranges. You can't have pixels until you
>scan a photo - and then the pixels you're able
>to generate are a function of the scanner's
>resolution - AND a computer's ability to store
>the data in the form of BITS and BYTES.
>
>Going the other way, you can't have film-quality
>photos unless the digital image has sufficient
>resolution to produce the quality that a film
>camera is capable of.
>
>Dispute what I just wrote please!
My newreader has been down and since the time you posted this, someone else already has
The bottom line is, the statements that I am making are based on knowledge gained from
classes I have taken and corroborating research done on the net.
Eliska
>In article <qtuqcv0go38so1g3d...@4ax.com>, eli...@tampabay.rr.com
>says...
>
>>Scan the print. You still come out ahead of a digital camera.
>
>You're dead wrong, but I'm not going to waste
>more time trying to convince you.
Fercryinoutloud, I'm not wrong. I've quoted facts and statistics. You've speculated. Give
it up.
>
>>And if you're taking pictures of your artwork for portfolio purposes, slides
>are
>> still
>>widely accepted and expected
>
>You're correct 'for the most part' on that score.
>HOWEVER, more and more you find galleries that
>are able to view web sites and now use that method
>of becoming acquainted with an artist's works.
>Unfortunately, competitions seem not to have
>adapted to that scheme, other than the few online
>competitions one runs across. Slides are still
>an important 'tool' for artists who need them for
>competitive or commercial reasons. No argument there.
>
And it would be so wonderful if digital cameras become good enough to make that universal.
So much easier for all of us
Bob C
>
> Watercolor, of course, is also probably the single best medium for
> direct scanning, because you don't have the surface texture issues you
> have with oil, pastel.
Based on my one experience, it might be one of the worst. What I tried
to scan was a drawing done on cream paper which had been toned a dull
blue with a watercolor mixture of ultramarine and burnt sienna. The
scanner just barely registered any blue. Mostly it recorded the cream
color with a very slight purple-gray tint over about 2/3 of it. It was
clearly not an issue of the color gamut, so I'm thinking it had
something to do with the transparency of the watercolor.
- Bob C.
ECBush
digital camera like Nikon D1, etc.
I work with photographers a lot (since I'm a graphic designer to pay
the bills). We used to have to scan negatives or transparencies for
everything. The quality was not as good as what we get when the
photographers now use high-end digital cameras. You still need to
light the artwork correctly, which may be touchy with cream colored
watercolor paper. But with digital, you should be able to get the
detail so you can color correct and match the Photoshop file to the
original art.
I've found it's better if the digital photo comes out darker than
expected, because you can always lighten dark values. But if it's
washed out, there's nothing to work with.
Elise
Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3ECED854...@erols.com>...
ECBush
compare a cardboard disposal camera. For the kind of detail and
quality people talking about here, you need to use a high-end digital
like Nikon D1 or whatever their latest is. They cost several thousand.
But you can rent one! Check your local camera store. I have a
photographer friend who regularly rents a back-up digital for
photoshoots.
We've did experiments in quality and detail between her 35mm, medium
format and digital cameras. The D1 won - not only for detail but for
less hassles in getting a digital image. I'm sure a 4x5 camera is
still the best quality for a print. But if your final destination is a
digital image - rent D1 or higher and light the artwork properly.
Scanners are only doing the same thing that a digital camera does -
and it's one more step away from the original image.
Elise
Hans Klapeen
says...
>Hi Hans;
>A pixel is (formally) "any of the small discrete elements that together
>constitute an image " (Miriam Webster); as such, the small dots that make up
>a photo can be considered as pixels.
>
>Chris
Okay...NOW define what you mean by "small dots!"
If you're referring to the dots that show up
in a PRINTED image, which are there due to the
way images are 'screened' when printing, then
we're not referring to the photographic process
but to the printing process. (Ben-day dots, I
think they are called)
FILM and PRINT PAPER that is the positive
reproduction of the image on film do NOT use
have a 'dot' pattern. As someone else has
observed in this thread, FILM has GRAIN and
the FINER THE GRAIN the higher the resolution,
in photoraphic terms. Same goes for the
sensitized paper that is used to produce
positive prints from the film negative.
Sooooo, once again, one needs to understand
what one is talking about when discussing
technical differences in the various image
reproducing mediums.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Sooooo, once again, one needs to understand
>what one is talking about when discussing
>technical differences in the various image
>reproducing mediums.
Hey Chris, if I hold him, you can punch him :-)
Hans Klapeen
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>There *is* one indisputable conclusion, which is that film gives much
>better quality for the same money at this point in time.
Again you make a general statement here that has
to be reduced to some common denominator before
you can do a direct comparison. Are you talking
about the ultimate difference in a paper print
produced from digital vs film capture? If so, then
I would agree that film still bests digital in
the affordable camera range.
HOWEVER, this thread 'was' about the differences
between scanned-in photos and digital camera
captures, in which case I stand by my original
assertion that it makes no sense to use a film
camera, then scan in the printed image, when you
can just as easily use a digital camera that
will produce comparable results while eliminating
all the uncertainty of film development and the
need to scan the image.
Hans Klapeen
>My only dispute is that this discussion counts pixels as a measure of
>"quality." Counting is the right-hand of "quantity," isn't it?
Amen brother!
And a computer that uses 64-bit technology is
years removed from the 8-bit one your granddaddy used!
How does that have anything to do with photographic
quality - hell, I don't know...ask some computer nerd!
Hans Klapeen
>> Au contraire. If an art director or jury is only going to see my work
>for 10-30 seconds, I
>> want them to see the most accurate image they can.
>
>At some level this makes sense, but consider someone looking at a print
>from digital versus a print from film for just a few seconds.
The really ridiculous thing about this debate is that
MOST people who are looking at sheets of artist's
slides will simply hold them up to available
light to view whatever it is the artist is
presenting. I would be amazed if 'most' bothered
putting the slides into an enlarger, and even
more amazed if they used a projector. And, yes,
I'm speaking from experience here as one who has
been involved in both juried exhibitions that
judge the entries based on slides and galleries
that do the same thing. The rare time I've seen
slides enlarged or projected were those instances
where the initial 'screening' by holding the
slide up to available light revealed an artist
of unusual merit who 'merited' the extra trouble.
Hans Klapeen
ecb...@spiritone.com says...
>I've found it's better if the digital photo comes out darker than
>expected, because you can always lighten dark values. But if it's
>washed out, there's nothing to work with.
Excellent point.
I haven't seen (missed perhaps) a discussion of the
differences afforded by 'software and digital' vs
'darkroom and film.' I think in this one aspect
alone, digital has it all over film. Anyone who
has ever gone cover to cover through the exercises
in a Photoshop "Classroom in a Book" will understand
the vast superiority offered by computer software
over what one used to rely on darkroom manipulation
to accomplish.
Eliska
Actually the original comment was made, way back when, in another thread in reference to a
question about how much would one have to spend to get a digital camera that took as good
a picture as a 35mm.
My answer then was thousands of dollars. That is still the case.
Eliska
Digital manipulation sure is easier.
One common feature is that a washed out negative is also impossible to work with.
So underexposure (darker) is better than overexposure (lighter/thin negative).
Of course correct exposure is best : )
Hans Klapeen
says...
>Actually the original comment was made, way back when, in another thread in
refe
>rence to a
>question about how much would one have to spend to get a digital camera that
too
>k as good
>a picture as a 35mm.
I stand corrected! I'll go bake a crow
pie as soon as I log off...
My server doesn't preserve
threads indefinitely so it's not an easy matter
to backtrack, unless I go to the trouble of
using Google's archives, which I seldom do,
since I can't post from Google.
>My answer then was thousands of dollars. That is still the case.
Well, on that we can agree. But then the
discussion moved on to include 'scanned' images.
And you made some statements in that regard
that I have challenged.
Hans Klapeen
says...
>Of course correct exposure is best : )
For me, the interesting argument is one of 'truth'
in photography. One sees this argument put forth
when discussing the veracity of 'news photos.'
I think what is usually missed is that photos
have long been subject to manipulation in the
darkroom. We rationalize a B&W photograph as
being a true representation of our visually
colorful world. Those who are 'artistic photographers'
simply push the manipulation to the Nth degree.
NOW, with so much news photography originating
from digital cameras, the ability to manipulate
using Photoshop-type software is made so facile
that one can virtually 'create' a false image
that 'rings of truth' but in fact is nothing
but collage, or worse.
Eliska
>In article <f840dvcim3dh6f5a4...@4ax.com>, eli...@tampabay.rr.com
>says...
>
>
>>Actually the original comment was made, way back when, in another thread in
>refe
>>rence to a
>>question about how much would one have to spend to get a digital camera that
>too
>>k as good
>>a picture as a 35mm.
>
>I stand corrected! I'll go bake a crow
>pie as soon as I log off...
>
Yuk! Not necessary - have something delicious like lemon meringue
>My server doesn't preserve
>threads indefinitely so it's not an easy matter
>to backtrack, unless I go to the trouble of
>using Google's archives, which I seldom do,
>since I can't post from Google.
>
>>My answer then was thousands of dollars. That is still the case.
>
>Well, on that we can agree. But then the
>discussion moved on to include 'scanned' images.
>And you made some statements in that regard
>that I have challenged.
>
So lets smoke a peace pipe and get on with our art : )
BTW - thanks for the info on glucosomine - I've been taking it close to 3 weeks now and am
starting to notice an improvement - less stiffness and aches. I got the brand you
recommended.
Christian Tangoe
"the truth".
> For me, the interesting argument is one of 'truth'
> in photography. One sees this argument put forth
> when discussing the veracity of 'news photos.'
For a long time we have as reporters known, that journalism was in no
way nothing but a REFLECTION of the Truth.
Like in science, it is known, that nothing can describe the universe
but....the universe.
A description of Reality - in words or any other media - will always
be different than reality. It might een alter it (Planck).
In practical terms this means, that the point of view ( in mere
connotations)is important + context, biases, and who knows what.
Now the beauty of science and art is, that sometimes you can capture
reality better than other times, because you find a simple equation
with a strong output or an expression in art that - at least in a
certain epoque - really captures reality. This could be an aestetic
theory in itself, if one was to try to redefine aestetic science.
...'create' a false image
> that 'rings of truth' but in fact is nothing
> but collage, or worse.
First of all, Hans, as stated, there are nothing but "false images" in
the papers (and the news), but the downright manipulation - which
indeed is a debated problem - really puts the credibility of
news-photographers and editors to a test.
Secondly, as an artist you don´t really have to fear lawyers sueing
you for manipulation of the truth.
There could however be a very good reason for an artist to reflect
upon reality and make use of photography - including news-photography
- today.
The reason is - for me - obviously to draw attention to this very
reflection, that we are discussing. In a nicer put artistic statement
that reads: "To put a discussion of the reality postulated by the
stream of images we are presented with from the news in everyday life,
with the utmost intention of making the spectator conscious of this
relation, and eventually invoke an altered or expanded consciousness,
including the ablity of seein the beauty in non-aestetic
enviroments..."
That could actually be a statement of my own. I like to put it more
simple and say, that I use the photos and text-elements of news and
other sources to put up a incvestigation the connection between art -
as paiting with brush and knife - and reality.
Finally I don´t hope you induce something negative by the word
collage...life is a collage...at least the way my works show it...
My web www.popart.tv expands on this and shows samples on my work.
christian tangoe
Erik A. Mattila
> Digital manipulation sure is easier.
>
> One common feature is that a washed out negative is also impossible to work with.
> So underexposure (darker) is better than overexposure (lighter/thin negative).
>
> Of course correct exposure is best : )
Not neccessarily (to ride a dead-horse.) I used to run a
Brown-Commander in a photo-litho shop, and the best kind of "art" was a
low contrast photo - one that looked pretty "greyed-out" if it were
mounted and framed. It's just a matter of information - there's more
info in a low contrast (either film or digital, for that matter) and the
litho camera has more to work with to get the "perfect" halftone,
duotone or whatever. (Color work was another matter entirely, out of
range of the Brown-C).
But it all depends on what you're doing with the photo. Each end-use
scenario has it's own production strategies.
Mike Stengl
So what we neeed of course is News illustrators and painters. Once
again we must look to artists if we want to find the truth. Imagine
say, Andy Warhol war coverage...or the much talked about Pollock, that
might work quite nicely.
Andrew D
eli...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
[snip]
>Scan the print. You still come out ahead of a digital camera.
Only if the print is of very good quality. Most mini-lab prints fall well
short of being "good" with either all shadow detail being too dark or all
highlight tones being too light. There is usually a complete lack of
aerial perspective in the average "happy snap" printed at a 1 hour lab.
With a good digital camera, you can check your handy work there and then
and reset and reshoot if desired.
>And if you're taking pictures of your artwork for portfolio purposes,
slides are still
>widely accepted and expected
Too true. Some competitions also request slides for pre-selecting entries.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
eli...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
>Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>
>A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>
>Unless you have a minimum 8 megapixel camera you don't come close to the
quality
>
>Period.
>
>Indisputable.
Well, not quite indisputable. The professional photographer we use through
our ad agency resisted digital for years. Then he bought a 4Mp SLR and
hasn't looked back. A few months back he brought in some A3+ photo prints
from his new 6Mp digital and there wasn't a hint of pixelisation or even
any of the graininess you'd expect from a 35mm neg enlarged to that size.
There may be issues relating to colour depth or other things, but in order
to truly compare digital with film, you need to lay down specific ground
rules for the comparison.
I now use my new digital for shooting hundreds of landscape scenes with
absolute assurance that I get the shot I want because I can check it right
there on the spot.
...... and I'm not at the mercy of an auto-colour-correcting mini-lab
machine that ensures every print comes out in varying shades of grey.
Andrew D
<n...@this.address> wrote:
>"Hans Phul" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
>news:3ece...@news.zianet.com...
>> In article <8msqcvghlfgu9175u...@4ax.com>,
>eli...@tampabay.rr.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >Film captures, on the average 8-15 million pixels
>> >
>> >A good photo can have as much as 20 million pixels
>>
>> I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
>>
>> Film that comes from cameras has NO pixels that
>> I'm aware of. You're trying to compare apples
>> and oranges. You can't have pixels until you
>> scan a photo - and then the pixels you're able
>> to generate are a function of the scanner's
>> resolution - AND a computer's ability to store
>> the data in the form of BITS and BYTES.
[snip
>
>Hi Hans;
>A pixel is (formally) "any of the small discrete elements that together
>constitute an image " (Miriam Webster); as such, the small dots that make up
>a photo can be considered as pixels.
But with film, each of these dots (I assume you're referring to the
grains) has only two logical states - on or off.... doesn't it?
Each colour pixel in a digital photo has 256 possible states - varying
from fully off to fully on. When each of the RGB pixels is combined, this
gives a total of 256 x 256 x 256 (over 16.7 million) colour variations for
each screen pixel.
Erik A. Mattila
>>Hi Hans;
>>A pixel is (formally) "any of the small discrete elements that together
>>constitute an image " (Miriam Webster); as such, the small dots that make up
>>a photo can be considered as pixels.
>
>
> But with film, each of these dots (I assume you're referring to the
> grains) has only two logical states - on or off.... doesn't it?
I looked-up a couple of web sites about this the other day, out of
curiosity, and discovered that what you say isn't true (I thought it was
either on or off also.) As it turns out, the so-called "grain"
molecules change differently under varying light conditions, so there
are more than two states. I wish I could fine the url - I can't even
remember my search terms. It was pretty interesting.
Erik
keith o'connor
then assembled the digitised sections into one image, (the top comes off my
scanner).With a bit of luck the joins are not readily noticeable - after a
month of not looking at the graphics I have trouble finding the joins. I
normally scan at 300dpi then before assembly reduce each section by the same
proportion . On a large work I will filesave the sections before beginning
assembly as my machine sometimes hangs with the load.
Yes original oils are hard to scan
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Eliska" <eli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tr7scvo8ipnrh45sj...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 May 2003 20:51:15 -0600, "Marc Sabatella"
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> >"Eliska" <eli...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On my web site gallery, the photo of the little blonde kid kissing his
> >grandmother was
> >> scanned from the actual artwork.
> >
> >Well, yeah, that's yet another option, and in the cases where that is
> >viable (the work has to be smaller than your scanner, and not wet or
> >otherwise fragile), it will indeed probably produce the best results.
>
> It definitely did. I wish the kid in the swimming pool had been smaller.
Thinking about
> painting nothing larger than 8 1/2" x 11" <g>
> >
> >But there is no reason a print from film scanned and then scaled down to
> >72 DPI would be inherently superior to a digital image scaled to the
> >same resolution. It may well turn out to be, depending on the quality
> >of the respective cameras and the scanner and your skill with
> >photography, but none of the arguments given here provide any reason to
> >expect it to be so.
>
> There is a reason. The better image you have to start with then the better
image you'll
> end up with, even when you reduce it to 72 DPI.
Lauri Levanto
The light strikes off atoms of pure silver. More light, more silver.
Developing dissolves the chloride and oxidizes the silver black.
A grain is thus a pixel that can have several values of grey.
In color film the grainy structure is obscured, as the final color
is a separate chemical that has reacted with the silver.
-lauri
Hans Klapeen
ke...@tinmangallery.com says...
>
>I use paint shop pro and have scanned large artwork in (8.5x11 in ) sections
>then assembled the digitised sections into one image, (the top comes off my
>scanner).With a bit of luck the joins are not readily noticeable - after a
>month of not looking at the graphics I have trouble finding the joins.
Have you ever heard of "stitching" software?
If not, hie thee to the software sites and
look for same. I've never tried using mine
for scanned images but the software that
came as a bonus when I bought my digital
camera does an amazing job of creating panoramas
either in a vertical or horizontal direction
from individual overlapped photos.
ENROUTE IMAGING's - QUICK STITCH is what I have.
Hans Klapeen
>A grain is thus a pixel that can have several values of grey.
Now you've aroused my curiosity. I'm under the
impression that film grains are randomly oriented?
And size-dependent on other factors?
Whereas digital pixels are regimented due to
both the mathematical matrix scheme of computer
organization and the monitor's regimented display
of 'dots.'
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <3ED30E46...@netti.fi>, laur...@netti.fi says...
The problem is that you refuse to see the analogy. Ofcourse : the
grain of a film and pixels of a computer picture are not the same but
they are also similar because they are the smallest units carrying the
visual information and as such are the deciding factor for the
resolution.
Ofcourse it would have been correct to say : "A grain is thus _like_ a
pixel that....." but human communication can only be succesfull by an
effort from both sides which includes being not too anal about
language ;-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Hans Klapeen" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ed3...@news.zianet.com...
greater depth - unlike the 2-D screens.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>In article <uqmscvsfbe89p0ec2...@4ax.com>,
>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>
>
>>There *is* one indisputable conclusion, which is that film gives much
>>better quality for the same money at this point in time.
>
>Again you make a general statement here that has
>to be reduced to some common denominator before
>you can do a direct comparison.
I dunno, I think reducing it to subjective quality/$X spent is a
pretty common denominator. Gets right to the heart of it for me, at
least.
>Are you talking
>about the ultimate difference in a paper print
>produced from digital vs film capture? If so, then
>I would agree that film still bests digital in
>the affordable camera range.
>
>HOWEVER, this thread 'was' about the differences
>between scanned-in photos and digital camera
>captures, in which case I stand by my original
>assertion that it makes no sense to use a film
>camera, then scan in the printed image, when you
>can just as easily use a digital camera that
>will produce comparable results while eliminating
>all the uncertainty of film development and the
>need to scan the image.
I agree. You're better off scanning the negative than the print. To
make such decisions, the dynamic range comes into play, which is
unfortunately not well documented on consumer-grade devices. Most
digicams have much smaller dynamic range than negatives. Likewise, as
someone pointed out, fast-developer prints also have poor dynamic
range. Throw them in today's cheapo scanners, and you do have a
problem. However, you can get a decent scanner for under $200 that
will scan negatives at 2400 dpi with a dmax of 3.3, giving a 35mm
slide scan of 7.8 MPixels. Whether the dynamic range will give better
results than a digicam of equivalent Mp will depend on the equipment.
For somewhat more, you can get a slide scanner at 4000 dpi and dmax of
4.2, giving 21 Mp scans that will rival digicams costing far more.
However, developing and scanning are crafts in themselves, and for the
most part, digicams can be an effective replacement for film. You
mostly lose the subtleties in the shadows and highlights, which is
more important for some art than for other.
I would be surprised to find many professional art photos (for books,
say) taken with a digicam, unless it's a very expensive one. I
believe the day is coming, though.
Lauri Levanto
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> "Hans Klapeen" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
>
> > Now you've aroused my curiosity. I'm under the
> > impression that film grains are randomly oriented?
> > And size-dependent on other factors?
> >
> > Whereas digital pixels are regimented due to
> > both the mathematical matrix scheme of computer
> > organization and the monitor's regimented display
> > of 'dots.'
>
Sometimes it makes a difference. On your computer screen an almost horizontal
line appears stepped.
The grain size in film is a matter of sensitivity. Small grains give better
resolution, but need more light.
>
> Not only that but film grains are orientated in three dimensions giving
> greater depth - unlike the 2-D screens.
>
And what is this used for? It menas that some pixels are a bit out of focus.
A new question? What role hast the optics of ordinary digital cameras?
They have veryshort focal length, giving more depth of field.
On the other hand, the small size demands much higher precision.
A negative is usually 24x36 mm, while the digital cell may be 4x6 mm.
To the same print size, the enlargement factor is 6 times greater.
Whatever imperfections there are these are more pronouced in a digital image.
-lauri
>
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>A new question? What role hast the optics of ordinary digital cameras?
>They have veryshort focal length, giving more depth of field.
Not only that, most digital camers have relatively small optical
components that are not replaceable and have lots of problems with
chromatic aberration, focal distortion, and such. There's a reason
the best lenses, costing thousands of dollars, are big and heavy.
Like most everything else, photography is full of compromises.
>On the other hand, the small size demands much higher precision.
>A negative is usually 24x36 mm, while the digital cell may be 4x6 mm.
>To the same print size, the enlargement factor is 6 times greater.
>Whatever imperfections there are these are more pronouced in a digital image.
My digital Grail is a 35mm TTL equivalent digital, with the element
the same size as a 35mm frame to preserve the optical characteristics
of the lens. It would need to accept all the standard accesories of a
standard line of 35mm cameras, such as Nikon. Basically, the
equivalent of a Nikon F100 in digital. Call me old-fashioned.
Digital is also very poor at rapid photo sequences and action
photography, compared to film, so that would need to be improved as
well.
Oh, it needs to be reasonably affordable, too. Say, equivalent to
said F100. I'll probably be waiting another 5 years for that.
Marc Sabatella
> Digital is also very poor at ... compared to film
>
> Oh, it needs to be reasonably affordable, too...
> I'll probably be waiting another 5 years for that.
This is a point worth emphasizing, though. Film photography as a
technology is pretty mature. We aren't see order of magnitude
improvements every few years, and prices have pretty much stabilized. A
film camera you buy for $500 today is more or less comparable to what
the same $500 (perhaps adjusted for inflation) would have bought 10 or
even 20 or more years ago, and probably what the same money will buy in
another 10 or even 20 or more years. Whereas clearly, this cannot be
said of digital technology. Regardless of where digital technology is
*right now* in terms of certain features or aspects of picture quality
or price/performance, it seems pretty clear that it won't be long before
this ceases to be the case. It will likely always remain the case that
there will be some things that film will always do better, or at least
different in a way that some folks will find that in subjective opinion
is preferably (kind of like how plenty of people find the distortions
inherent in analog audio recording to sound better than the distortions
inherent in digital audio recording), but the sort of specific arguments
being made in favor of the superiority of film are probably outdated by
the time the posts expire from the server.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Hans Klapeen
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>Digital is also very poor at rapid photo sequences and action
>photography, compared to film, so that would need to be improved as
>well.
Ummmm...are you including "video" cameras
in your assessment, above? I don't own a
video camera but have read or been told that
they also can 'freeze frame' so that in effect
you could use one as a stand-in for a digital
"still" camera. And I think somewhere I saw an
ad for a hybrid that was designed to do both,
take still photos as well as produce video.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>In article <3bn9dv0vc9fi5ovfk...@4ax.com>,
Photos from video cameras, either frame captures or hybrids, are
almost invariably poor quality for the money, with poor resolution and
slow equivalent film speed. There are gizmos that will average 2
consecutive frames for much better resolution, but it's still poor at
capturing motion and doesn't nearly match a decent $300 digital
camera, which doesn't nearly match a decent $300 film camera. I
never use my decent digital video cam for photos, because it sucks at
it.
There are 2 big problems with action photography using digital; one is
the slow equivalent film speed, resulting in blurred shots, the other
is the loooong auto-focus times (which inexpensive film cameras also
share) that cause the action to be elsewhere by the time your picture
is taken. Inexpensive film cameras can overcome the first with fast
film, while the second can only be solved with a non-auto-focus camera
or application of more money.
A minor problem is fast sequences of shots, which is admittedly a
niche application. A nice film camera can burn through an entire roll
of film in 3-6 seconds if desired, or take 1 picture a second (or
whatever) as long as you keep it fed. Higher-end digitals can keep up
for, say 5-10 shots, but then have to empty their buffers, so
everything grinds to a halt. Mid-range digitals make you wait after 3
or 4 shots.
Hadley
> Photos from video cameras, either frame captures or hybrids, are
> almost invariably poor quality for the money, with poor resolution and
> slow equivalent film speed. There are gizmos that will average 2
> consecutive frames for much better resolution, but it's still poor at
> capturing motion and doesn't nearly match a decent $300 digital
> camera, which doesn't nearly match a decent $300 film camera. I
> never use my decent digital video cam for photos, because it sucks at
> it.
Did you say video cameras are poor at capturing motion? As opposed to
what? Video cameras were made to capture motion, unless you're talking
about a still shot from motion footage. As far as taking stills from
video cameras, I think that you're not taking into considering the
post-production factor. It possible to take a still, deinterlace it in
photoshop, fix the anti-aliasing and have it look convincing enough to
delude someone into thinking that it was a photo taken from a digital
still camera or even a 35 mm camera.
> There are 2 big problems with action photography using digital; one is
> the slow equivalent film speed, resulting in blurred shots, the other
> is the loooong auto-focus times (which inexpensive film cameras also
> share) that cause the action to be elsewhere by the time your picture
> is taken. Inexpensive film cameras can overcome the first with fast
> film, while the second can only be solved with a non-auto-focus camera
> or application of more money.
Perhaps what you need to do is change the *shutter speed* on your
digital camera. That would probably solve the blurred effect. As far
as the *auto-focus* feature, on most cameras there's a feature to
*turn it off to manual focus*
> A minor problem is fast sequences of shots, which is admittedly a
> niche application. A nice film camera can burn through an entire roll
> of film in 3-6 seconds if desired, or take 1 picture a second (or
> whatever) as long as you keep it fed. Higher-end digitals can keep up
> for, say 5-10 shots, but then have to empty their buffers, so
> everything grinds to a halt. Mid-range digitals make you wait after 3
> or 4 shots.
Old school. Unless you're doing sports photography or action shots,
why would you want to burn through an entire roll in 3-4 seconds?
Hadley
Neil Maxwell
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<uivcdv85si9025gk8...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> Photos from video cameras, either frame captures or hybrids, are
>> almost invariably poor quality for the money, with poor resolution and
>> slow equivalent film speed. There are gizmos that will average 2
>> consecutive frames for much better resolution, but it's still poor at
>> capturing motion and doesn't nearly match a decent $300 digital
>> camera, which doesn't nearly match a decent $300 film camera. I
>> never use my decent digital video cam for photos, because it sucks at
>> it.
>
>Did you say video cameras are poor at capturing motion? As opposed to
>what? Video cameras were made to capture motion, unless you're talking
>about a still shot from motion footage. As far as taking stills from
>video cameras, I think that you're not taking into considering the
>post-production factor. It possible to take a still, deinterlace it in
>photoshop, fix the anti-aliasing and have it look convincing enough to
>delude someone into thinking that it was a photo taken from a digital
>still camera or even a 35 mm camera.
Yes, the topic is photos or stills, not capturing motion per se; "poor
at capturing motion" refers to a still of a moving subject. It is an
indisputable fact that a still taken from a video camera is of poorer
quality than a photo from a decent camera, whether digital or film.
If you've done the de-interlacing tricks, you'll be aware of the
quality problems, particularly if there's rapid motion going on.
Possibly the technology has advanced dramatically in the 6 months
since I've last done this, but in my video cam, the raw data just
plain isn't there. 70mm frames would be more effective, if you wanted
to spend that much, but this is big bucks.
>> There are 2 big problems with action photography using digital; one is
>> the slow equivalent film speed, resulting in blurred shots, the other
>> is the loooong auto-focus times (which inexpensive film cameras also
>> share) that cause the action to be elsewhere by the time your picture
>> is taken. Inexpensive film cameras can overcome the first with fast
>> film, while the second can only be solved with a non-auto-focus camera
>> or application of more money.
>
>Perhaps what you need to do is change the *shutter speed* on your
>digital camera. That would probably solve the blurred effect. As far
>as the *auto-focus* feature, on most cameras there's a feature to
>*turn it off to manual focus*
Heh! Are you saying a digital camera can equal the shutter/film speed
combination of a film camera? There may be some ultra-high-end pro
model that I've never heard of that will do this, but I know of no
digital camera that will hold a candle to a film camera this way,
regardless of shutter speed settings. Digital sensor elements just
plain don't have the sensitivity of film. I can only assume you don't
take action photos with your digital camera.
Turning off auto-focus for fixed shots can be effective, but for
action shots where the focus point is moving rapidly, predictive
auto-focus is your friend. A Nikon F100 (for example) will give quite
good auto-focus action shots, while an equivalently priced digital
will suffer. As usual, it takes spending 2-4x on as much on digital
for equivalent performance to film cameras. This may change in the
next 5 years, but it's the case right now.
I'm actually fond of manual-focus cameras for critical shooting. You
push the button, it takes the picture. No thinking required on the
camera's part, and if you miss the moment, it's your own fault.
>> A minor problem is fast sequences of shots, which is admittedly a
>> niche application. A nice film camera can burn through an entire roll
>> of film in 3-6 seconds if desired, or take 1 picture a second (or
>> whatever) as long as you keep it fed. Higher-end digitals can keep up
>> for, say 5-10 shots, but then have to empty their buffers, so
>> everything grinds to a halt. Mid-range digitals make you wait after 3
>> or 4 shots.
>
>Old school. Unless you're doing sports photography or action shots,
>why would you want to burn through an entire roll in 3-4 seconds?
Old school? I'm not sure what that means in this context. Do people
not need this capability any more? Somebody should tell the camera
companies, as they are working hard to incorporate similar features
into digitals, at substantial prices. You did note the "niche
application" comment, right?
Even if you aren't taking action shots (which I do), try the simple
test of taking a shot every 10 seconds with a digital camera. Even
the cheapest film camera will support this without breathing hard,
while all but the most expensive digitals will soon bog down and force
you to wait. Too bad if something's happening that you wanted to
capture. Maybe if you had 3 or 4 digitals and could swap them as
necessary...
I'm pleased that digital cameras have no shortcomings for you, at
least. For me, I need both digital and film, depending on what I'm
doing. I also need to be aware of the shortcomings of each, and which
to use when, as some shots are impossible to re-take. YMMV.
Is it time to get back to art? This is a good topic for
rec.photo.equipment.35mm.
Hadley
> On 29 May 2003 23:21:36 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>
> >Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<uivcdv85si9025gk8...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >
> >> Photos from video cameras, either frame captures or hybrids, are
> >> almost invariably poor quality for the money, with poor resolution and
> >> slow equivalent film speed. There are gizmos that will average 2
> >> consecutive frames for much better resolution, but it's still poor at
> >> capturing motion and doesn't nearly match a decent $300 digital
> >> camera, which doesn't nearly match a decent $300 film camera. I
> >> never use my decent digital video cam for photos, because it sucks at
> >> it.
> >
> >Did you say video cameras are poor at capturing motion? As opposed to
> >what? Video cameras were made to capture motion, unless you're talking
> >about a still shot from motion footage. As far as taking stills from
> >video cameras, I think that you're not taking into considering the
> >post-production factor. It possible to take a still, deinterlace it in
> >photoshop, fix the anti-aliasing and have it look convincing enough to
> >delude someone into thinking that it was a photo taken from a digital
> >still camera or even a 35 mm camera.
>
> Yes, the topic is photos or stills, not capturing motion per se; "poor
> at capturing motion" refers to a still of a moving subject.
Pardon. You said video camera so therefore I thought you were talking
about video cameras. Anyway, it *seemed* as if you were referring to
video cameras at capturing motion but now that you have changed your
stance and was actually referring to *digital cameras* at capturing
motion, I can see the miscommunication. In film & video, one doesn't
say "poor at capturing motion" when referring to *stills*
> It is an
> indisputable fact that a still taken from a video camera is of poorer
> quality than a photo from a decent camera, whether digital or film.
> If you've done the de-interlacing tricks, you'll be aware of the
> quality problems, particularly if there's rapid motion going on.
> Possibly the technology has advanced dramatically in the 6 months
> since I've last done this, but in my video cam, the raw data just
> plain isn't there. 70mm frames would be more effective, if you wanted
> to spend that much, but this is big bucks.
Let's not use *quality* please. Some people couldn't take decent
photos on any camera, expensive, manual or otherwise. I think what you
mean is that *resolution* between 35mm and one from a digital is
different. Yeah, so what? I think it's an aesthetic. However, I think
it would be hard to blow up a low-resolution digital still to poster
size, but it can be done. I'll try it this week and let you know. ;)
Even if there were rapid motion going on in the background, I think
that would be relatively easy to fix in post. I mean, photoshop is
like magic.
> Heh! Are you saying a digital camera can equal the shutter/film speed
> combination of a film camera? There may be some ultra-high-end pro
> model that I've never heard of that will do this, but I know of no
> digital camera that will hold a candle to a film camera this way,
> regardless of shutter speed settings. Digital sensor elements just
> plain don't have the sensitivity of film. I can only assume you don't
> take action photos with your digital camera.
I think digital cameras and film cameras are essentially different
media. However, if we were to go through all the list of pros and cons
of both film camera and digitals, then by all means, I think shutter
speed would be at the end of the list. Let's remember that digital
cameras are also compact, light and not as cumbersome as film cameras,
while also being able to take photos under less than desirable
lighting conditions. In this regard, the film camera is handicapped.
However, what I like about my film cameras are their grainy texture
and the depth of field which digital cameras just don't have.
I don't really care for *action* photography, but for those, I prefer
to use one of those throw-away film cameras, lol.
> Turning off auto-focus for fixed shots can be effective, but for
> action shots where the focus point is moving rapidly, predictive
> auto-focus is your friend. A Nikon F100 (for example) will give quite
> good auto-focus action shots, while an equivalently priced digital
> will suffer. As usual, it takes spending 2-4x on as much on digital
> for equivalent performance to film cameras. This may change in the
> next 5 years, but it's the case right now.
I suppose you're just going for that popular aesthetic in which the
subject resembles being immobile while caught in action. I suppose
that's what's in all those Nike and sports ads anyway. I usually turn
my auto-focus off for most of my shots; call me crazy but I find it
annoying. It disrupts my thought processes.
> Old school? I'm not sure what that means in this context. Do people
> not need this capability any more? Somebody should tell the camera
> companies, as they are working hard to incorporate similar features
> into digitals, at substantial prices. You did note the "niche
> application" comment, right?
I don't think that would be too hard. I'm sure the digital camera
companies already have a team of engineering geeks to develop a
programme for a function which allows digital cameras to be able to
shoot consecutive shots in rapid succession similar to film cameras.
However who knows when they decide to release it in the market?
> Even if you aren't taking action shots (which I do), try the simple
> test of taking a shot every 10 seconds with a digital camera. Even
> the cheapest film camera will support this without breathing hard,
> while all but the most expensive digitals will soon bog down and force
> you to wait. Too bad if something's happening that you wanted to
> capture. Maybe if you had 3 or 4 digitals and could swap them as
> necessary...
You like to torture yourself, don't you?
> I'm pleased that digital cameras have no shortcomings for you, at
> least. For me, I need both digital and film, depending on what I'm
> doing. I also need to be aware of the shortcomings of each, and which
> to use when, as some shots are impossible to re-take. YMMV.
I'm a fan to technology. There are always pros and cons. as I said
before digital cameras are a different medium than film cameras.
Digitals can do what film can't and vice versa. I happen to love both.
Regards,
Hadley
max
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<t9uedvo5ck916b0dc...@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 May 2003 23:21:36 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the topic is photos or stills, not capturing motion per se; "poor
>> at capturing motion" refers to a still of a moving subject.
>
>Pardon. You said video camera so therefore I thought you were talking
>about video cameras. Anyway, it *seemed* as if you were referring to
>video cameras at capturing motion but now that you have changed your
>stance and was actually referring to *digital cameras* at capturing
>motion, I can see the miscommunication. In film & video, one doesn't
>say "poor at capturing motion" when referring to *stills*
You may want to go back and read the thread, or at least the thread
title. The post is a response to a reasonable question regarding
video cameras that also have still capture capability, and I threw in
the possibility of frame capture as well. If you're not aware of the
ability of stills to capture motion (conceptually speaking, of
course), you probably have a different approach to photography than I
do. I'm sure it allows you to save a lot of money on equipment.
>> It is an
>> indisputable fact that a still taken from a video camera is of poorer
>> quality than a photo from a decent camera, whether digital or film.
>> If you've done the de-interlacing tricks, you'll be aware of the
>> quality problems, particularly if there's rapid motion going on.
>> Possibly the technology has advanced dramatically in the 6 months
>> since I've last done this, but in my video cam, the raw data just
>> plain isn't there. 70mm frames would be more effective, if you wanted
>> to spend that much, but this is big bucks.
>
>Let's not use *quality* please. Some people couldn't take decent
>photos on any camera, expensive, manual or otherwise. I think what you
>mean is that *resolution* between 35mm and one from a digital is
>different. Yeah, so what? I think it's an aesthetic. However, I think
>it would be hard to blow up a low-resolution digital still to poster
>size, but it can be done. I'll try it this week and let you know. ;)
Again, this thread is about technical quality, not content, and this
part of it is about videocam capture quality. The earlier part of the
thread discussed the resolution issue in some detail. Much more can
be gleaned from the archives at rec.photo.digital or
rec.photo.equipment.35mm, where this is holy war material. You're
welcome to try the experiment for your own edification, but I know the
results already. You may be satisfied, though.
>Even if there were rapid motion going on in the background, I think
>that would be relatively easy to fix in post. I mean, photoshop is
>like magic.
Photoshop is very powerful for some things, but try fixing a blurred
photo with it. If you can do this, you have a fantastic career
potential.
>> Heh! Are you saying a digital camera can equal the shutter/film speed
>> combination of a film camera? There may be some ultra-high-end pro
>> model that I've never heard of that will do this, but I know of no
>> digital camera that will hold a candle to a film camera this way,
>> regardless of shutter speed settings. Digital sensor elements just
>> plain don't have the sensitivity of film. I can only assume you don't
>> take action photos with your digital camera.
>
>I think digital cameras and film cameras are essentially different
>media. However, if we were to go through all the list of pros and cons
>of both film camera and digitals, then by all means, I think shutter
>speed would be at the end of the list. Let's remember that digital
>cameras are also compact, light and not as cumbersome as film cameras,
>while also being able to take photos under less than desirable
>lighting conditions. In this regard, the film camera is handicapped.
>However, what I like about my film cameras are their grainy texture
>and the depth of field which digital cameras just don't have.
Sigh. It depends on what you're doing, doesn't it? For your uses,
shutter/film speed (ultimately, image capture sensitivity) seems to be
a low priority. This is not the case for everyone.
Both cameras capture still images as their raison d'etre. The
technologies each have their plusses and minuses, but the output is
the ultimate goal. Some digital cameras are compact, some are not.
Some film cameras are compact, some are not. I have yet to find a
digital that performs as reliably or predictably in difficult
lighting, but there may be some out there; I certainly haven't tried
them all. The only exception is extremely long exposures (another
niche application), where reciprocity failure is a curse for film.
Many digitals, even expensive ones, suffer from "stuck pixels" in the
same situation, so it's another tradeoff.
There is no easy answer and few indisputable rules, except that, in
general, a film camera will perform better than an equivalently priced
digital in virtually every respect, with a few exceptions like the
cost of film, the ability to take lots of shots cheaply, the ability
to preview shots, and such.
>I don't really care for *action* photography, but for those, I prefer
>to use one of those throw-away film cameras, lol.
In optics, as with most things, you get what you pay for. Disposable
plastic lenses, chromatic aberration, fringing... If you don't mind
the poor quality and lack of controls, it can save you tons of money.
Certainly, a $10 disposable makes better photos than a $100 digital.
>> Turning off auto-focus for fixed shots can be effective, but for
>> action shots where the focus point is moving rapidly, predictive
>> auto-focus is your friend. A Nikon F100 (for example) will give quite
>> good auto-focus action shots, while an equivalently priced digital
>> will suffer. As usual, it takes spending 2-4x on as much on digital
>> for equivalent performance to film cameras. This may change in the
>> next 5 years, but it's the case right now.
>
>I suppose you're just going for that popular aesthetic in which the
>subject resembles being immobile while caught in action. I suppose
>that's what's in all those Nike and sports ads anyway. I usually turn
>my auto-focus off for most of my shots; call me crazy but I find it
>annoying. It disrupts my thought processes.
You suppose wrongly, and it's a feeble attempt at a putdown
regardless. I have eclectic tastes in photography, as in all things.
I like flexibility in my equipment; that is, I like to control the
equipment, rather than it controlling me and my shots. YMM (and
obviously does) V.
>> Old school? I'm not sure what that means in this context. Do people
>> not need this capability any more? Somebody should tell the camera
>> companies, as they are working hard to incorporate similar features
>> into digitals, at substantial prices. You did note the "niche
>> application" comment, right?
>
>I don't think that would be too hard. I'm sure the digital camera
>companies already have a team of engineering geeks to develop a
>programme for a function which allows digital cameras to be able to
>shoot consecutive shots in rapid succession similar to film cameras.
>However who knows when they decide to release it in the market?
Heh! Not too hard? They do have such teams, and they release such
advances regularly, at considerable price premiums. The current
"affordable" best in digital is the newish Canon D10, which will take
9 consecutive shots at 3 fps, after which you have to wait for it to
clear the buffer. This is available for $1500 (body only), and is
quite a nice digital, roughly equivalent to a $350 (body only) Nikon
F80 film camera in many respects. Wide-angle is not a practical
option with it due to the focal length multiplier of the small digital
element, though.
>> Even if you aren't taking action shots (which I do), try the simple
>> test of taking a shot every 10 seconds with a digital camera. Even
>> the cheapest film camera will support this without breathing hard,
>> while all but the most expensive digitals will soon bog down and force
>> you to wait. Too bad if something's happening that you wanted to
>> capture. Maybe if you had 3 or 4 digitals and could swap them as
>> necessary...
>
>You like to torture yourself, don't you?
I'm afraid I don't get your comment. Please elaborate, or state your
solution for taking multiple shots in a short time with a digital
camera. If you have no need, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that a
solution is unnecessary for others.
>> I'm pleased that digital cameras have no shortcomings for you, at
>> least. For me, I need both digital and film, depending on what I'm
>> doing. I also need to be aware of the shortcomings of each, and which
>> to use when, as some shots are impossible to re-take. YMMV.
>
>I'm a fan to technology. There are always pros and cons. as I said
>before digital cameras are a different medium than film cameras.
>Digitals can do what film can't and vice versa. I happen to love both.
It's good that you're happy with your equipment choices, and can save
a lot of money at the same time.
Hadley
> You may want to go back and read the thread, or at least the thread
> title. The post is a response to a reasonable question regarding
> video cameras that also have still capture capability, and I threw in
> the possibility of frame capture as well. If you're not aware of the
> ability of stills to capture motion (conceptually speaking, of
> course), you probably have a different approach to photography than I
> do. I'm sure it allows you to save a lot of money on equipment.
So you admit you were talking about video cameras.
> Again, this thread is about technical quality, not content, and this
> part of it is about videocam capture quality. The earlier part of the
> thread discussed the resolution issue in some detail. Much more can
> be gleaned from the archives at rec.photo.digital or
> rec.photo.equipment.35mm, where this is holy war material. You're
> welcome to try the experiment for your own edification, but I know the
> results already. You may be satisfied, though.
I'm not into holy wars. People bore me when they say they want digital
to *look* like film. What it all comes down to not technical quality
but anal people who want everything to *look* exactly the same.
> Photoshop is very powerful for some things, but try fixing a blurred
> photo with it. If you can do this, you have a fantastic career
> potential.
It depends on how well you can "paint" Some people can take a blurred
photo, redraw layers onto it and make it look completely in focus. The
possibilities with photoshop are endless; I suppose it's all a matter
of trial and error.
> Sigh. It depends on what you're doing, doesn't it? For your uses,
> shutter/film speed (ultimately, image capture sensitivity) seems to be
> a low priority. This is not the case for everyone.
Actually, it's not a matter of priority. It's a matter of what I use
to its advantage. Let's take for example, a videocamera which has that
*blurred* effect you don't like but which some filmmakers for example
Hal Hartley purposely utilises for a certain visual effect. Then you
got the high production people with all the expensive equipment and
the "result" is oftentimes boring. Also as a matter of fact, some
friends of mine purposely did not choose to buy the high end Canon
videocameras because it didn't have the shutter speed to get that
"blurred" effect as in Sony cameras.
> Both cameras capture still images as their raison d'etre. The
> technologies each have their plusses and minuses, but the output is
> the ultimate goal. Some digital cameras are compact, some are not.
> Some film cameras are compact, some are not. I have yet to find a
> digital that performs as reliably or predictably in difficult
> lighting, but there may be some out there;
Fascinating. Which digital cameras have you been using? Of course, if
you're shooting mainly in candlelight, I can see why you would be
frustrated...
> I certainly haven't tried
> them all. The only exception is extremely long exposures (another
> niche application), where reciprocity failure is a curse for film.
> Many digitals, even expensive ones, suffer from "stuck pixels" in the
> same situation, so it's another tradeoff.
Perhaps if you had the camera on a tripod to avoid shifting the
exposure you would not have a problem with stuck pixels. Either that
or photoshop, again, if you're a good enough colourist to fix it.
> There is no easy answer and few indisputable rules, except that, in
> general, a film camera will perform better than an equivalently priced
> digital in virtually every respect, with a few exceptions like the
> cost of film, the ability to take lots of shots cheaply, the ability
> to preview shots, and such.
Oh yes, the money factor.
> In optics, as with most things, you get what you pay for. Disposable
> plastic lenses, chromatic aberration, fringing... If you don't mind
> the poor quality and lack of controls, it can save you tons of money.
> Certainly, a $10 disposable makes better photos than a $100 digital.
I disagree with you. I think that overall you are arguing for a
certain aesthetic. A good photographer can take great photos with
shytty equipment. A bad photographer takes shytty pictures with the
best equipment available.
> >> Turning off auto-focus for fixed shots can be effective, but for
> >> action shots where the focus point is moving rapidly, predictive
> >> auto-focus is your friend. A Nikon F100 (for example) will give quite
> >> good auto-focus action shots, while an equivalently priced digital
> >> will suffer. As usual, it takes spending 2-4x on as much on digital
> >> for equivalent performance to film cameras. This may change in the
> >> next 5 years, but it's the case right now.
> >
> >I suppose you're just going for that popular aesthetic in which the
> >subject resembles being immobile while caught in action. I suppose
> >that's what's in all those Nike and sports ads anyway. I usually turn
> >my auto-focus off for most of my shots; call me crazy but I find it
> >annoying. It disrupts my thought processes.
>
> You suppose wrongly, and it's a feeble attempt at a putdown
> regardless. I have eclectic tastes in photography, as in all things.
> I like flexibility in my equipment; that is, I like to control the
> equipment, rather than it controlling me and my shots. YMM (and
> obviously does) V.
Let's not be paranoid. If you sensed a putdown, it was your own
conscience talking to you. However, it seems obvious to me that you
like all your equipment to be exactly *the same* Appreciate digital
for what it is, it is not film.
> Heh! Not too hard? They do have such teams, and they release such
> advances regularly, at considerable price premiums. The current
> "affordable" best in digital is the newish Canon D10, which will take
> 9 consecutive shots at 3 fps, after which you have to wait for it to
> clear the buffer. This is available for $1500 (body only), and is
> quite a nice digital, roughly equivalent to a $350 (body only) Nikon
> F80 film camera in many respects. Wide-angle is not a practical
> option with it due to the focal length multiplier of the small digital
> element, though.
That's nice. Are you going to buy it?
> >> Even if you aren't taking action shots (which I do), try the simple
> >> test of taking a shot every 10 seconds with a digital camera. Even
> >> the cheapest film camera will support this without breathing hard,
> >> while all but the most expensive digitals will soon bog down and force
> >> you to wait. Too bad if something's happening that you wanted to
> >> capture. Maybe if you had 3 or 4 digitals and could swap them as
> >> necessary...
> >
> >You like to torture yourself, don't you?
>
> I'm afraid I don't get your comment. Please elaborate, or state your
> solution for taking multiple shots in a short time with a digital
> camera. If you have no need, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that a
> solution is unnecessary for others.
LOL. What I mean is you look first for what you *can't* do as opposed
to what you *can* do.
> It's good that you're happy with your equipment choices, and can save
> a lot of money at the same time.
Nope, I'm greedy. I like to buy as much equipment as possible in all
price-ranges. Enjoy your low resolution pixel camera while its here.
Someday, it might be the equivalent of the pixel-vision camera that
some film freaks are trying to bid for on e-bay.
Hadley
Neil Maxwell
different directions. It's good that you're not finding any
limitations in your gear. Alas, I run into them all the time.
I'll post a few followups, and you're welcome to the last post, since
we'll clearly not agree on many of these (off)topics.
On 2 Jun 2003 01:27:14 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>max <maxi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n5ekdvs6qg2tfl3ok...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> You may want to go back and read the thread, or at least the thread
>> title. The post is a response to a reasonable question regarding
>> video cameras that also have still capture capability, and I threw in
>> the possibility of frame capture as well. If you're not aware of the
>> ability of stills to capture motion (conceptually speaking, of
>> course), you probably have a different approach to photography than I
>> do. I'm sure it allows you to save a lot of money on equipment.
>
>So you admit you were talking about video cameras.
I've never stated otherwise. Again (as stated in the paragraph
above), we were talking about video cameras with still picture
capability, and using that capability, rather than capturing video per
se. Simple question, simple answer.
>> Again, this thread is about technical quality, not content, and this
>> part of it is about videocam capture quality. The earlier part of the
>> thread discussed the resolution issue in some detail. Much more can
>> be gleaned from the archives at rec.photo.digital or
>> rec.photo.equipment.35mm, where this is holy war material. You're
>> welcome to try the experiment for your own edification, but I know the
>> results already. You may be satisfied, though.
>
>I'm not into holy wars. People bore me when they say they want digital
>to *look* like film. What it all comes down to not technical quality
>but anal people who want everything to *look* exactly the same.
Umm... You want the image to look like what was in the viewfinder,
right? If you want it to look different than what you pointed the
camera at, the computer is a useful tool, regardless of the image
source. Does anyone sell a camera that claims to not accurately
capture the image in the viewfinder?
>> Photoshop is very powerful for some things, but try fixing a blurred
>> photo with it. If you can do this, you have a fantastic career
>> potential.
>
>It depends on how well you can "paint" Some people can take a blurred
>photo, redraw layers onto it and make it look completely in focus. The
>possibilities with photoshop are endless; I suppose it's all a matter
>of trial and error.
Give it a try. It will answer the question easily enough.
>> Sigh. It depends on what you're doing, doesn't it? For your uses,
>> shutter/film speed (ultimately, image capture sensitivity) seems to be
>> a low priority. This is not the case for everyone.
>
>Actually, it's not a matter of priority. It's a matter of what I use
>to its advantage. Let's take for example, a videocamera which has that
>*blurred* effect you don't like but which some filmmakers for example
>Hal Hartley purposely utilises for a certain visual effect. Then you
>got the high production people with all the expensive equipment and
>the "result" is oftentimes boring. Also as a matter of fact, some
>friends of mine purposely did not choose to buy the high end Canon
>videocameras because it didn't have the shutter speed to get that
>"blurred" effect as in Sony cameras.
But the result is content, not equipment, as you stated yourself.
Still, if there's a special need for special results, it would be
foolish not to use the right equipment, right? We set our priorities,
and make our choices. It's simple if you use logic.
I'll admit that I prefer not to buy optical gear that blurs things on
purpose, though gear with appropriate controls can be made to do such
if you desire. It's still a matter of priority, as your friends'
priorities are for blurriness rather than clarity. Different strokes,
I guess.
>> Both cameras capture still images as their raison d'etre. The
>> technologies each have their plusses and minuses, but the output is
>> the ultimate goal. Some digital cameras are compact, some are not.
>> Some film cameras are compact, some are not. I have yet to find a
>> digital that performs as reliably or predictably in difficult
>> lighting, but there may be some out there;
>
>Fascinating. Which digital cameras have you been using? Of course, if
>you're shooting mainly in candlelight, I can see why you would be
>frustrated...
I use several of them, from multiple 2 MP point'n'shoot models to a
more modern Olympus C2500 SLR model that I mainly got for macro work.
I frequently photograph people working with fire and pyrotechnics at
night, and digitals are quite poor for this, IME. I have much better
luck with film. I've only been photographing this type of thing for 8
years or so, but I try to keep learning. Maybe the latest digitals
are better this way, but I can't buy everything that comes out. My
oldest manual film camera does the job very well, and has been paid
for over 20 years now. I prefer it over my newer auto-focus cameras
for this, as it's reliable, simple, easy to use in the dark, and
consumes very little power. It never lets me down, and the digitals
frequently do.
>> I certainly haven't tried
>> them all. The only exception is extremely long exposures (another
>> niche application), where reciprocity failure is a curse for film.
>> Many digitals, even expensive ones, suffer from "stuck pixels" in the
>> same situation, so it's another tradeoff.
>
>Perhaps if you had the camera on a tripod to avoid shifting the
>exposure you would not have a problem with stuck pixels. Either that
>or photoshop, again, if you're a good enough colourist to fix it.
This is not a tripod issue (these shots are always taken on tripods),
but a basic capture array physics issue. It is fixable in Photoshop,
and is very basic, but very tedious. Again, it's just a tradeoff.
There is no perfect solution at any price.
>> There is no easy answer and few indisputable rules, except that, in
>> general, a film camera will perform better than an equivalently priced
>> digital in virtually every respect, with a few exceptions like the
>> cost of film, the ability to take lots of shots cheaply, the ability
>> to preview shots, and such.
>
>Oh yes, the money factor.
>
>> In optics, as with most things, you get what you pay for. Disposable
>> plastic lenses, chromatic aberration, fringing... If you don't mind
>> the poor quality and lack of controls, it can save you tons of money.
>> Certainly, a $10 disposable makes better photos than a $100 digital.
>
>I disagree with you. I think that overall you are arguing for a
>certain aesthetic. A good photographer can take great photos with
>shytty equipment. A bad photographer takes shytty pictures with the
>best equipment available.
Indeed. You can disagree, but they are facts nonetheless. They might
not be important to you, but it does not make them untrue. Again, I
like to not be limited by my equipment. I've taken some fine photos
with disposables and point'n'shoots, but at times, I prefer the
sharpness, clarity, and control of a more flexible camera with big,
heavy, expensive glass. Different strokes, again. You're quite
welcome to your preferences, but to argue that mine are invalid is
pointless.
>> >I suppose you're just going for that popular aesthetic in which the
>> >subject resembles being immobile while caught in action. I suppose
>> >that's what's in all those Nike and sports ads anyway. I usually turn
>> >my auto-focus off for most of my shots; call me crazy but I find it
>> >annoying. It disrupts my thought processes.
>>
>> You suppose wrongly, and it's a feeble attempt at a putdown
>> regardless. I have eclectic tastes in photography, as in all things.
>> I like flexibility in my equipment; that is, I like to control the
>> equipment, rather than it controlling me and my shots. YMM (and
>> obviously does) V.
>
>Let's not be paranoid. If you sensed a putdown, it was your own
>conscience talking to you. However, it seems obvious to me that you
>like all your equipment to be exactly *the same* Appreciate digital
>for what it is, it is not film.
Ah. Paranoid. "That popular aesthetic", "that's what's in all those
Nike and sports ads" is not a put-down? Please. The "conscience"
crack is another attempt. Do you think I'm stupid?
What seems obvious to you is incorrect, and you make many incorrect
assumptions based on no data. All of my equipment is different. I
only ask that it capture what I see in the viewfinder with reasonable
accuracy, whether it's digital or film. Beyond that, it's a matter of
control, subtlety, and usability. Many people don't care, and that's
OK with me. I prefer to control my equipment, rather than vice-versa.
>> Heh! Not too hard? They do have such teams, and they release such
>> advances regularly, at considerable price premiums. The current
>> "affordable" best in digital is the newish Canon D10, which will take
>> 9 consecutive shots at 3 fps, after which you have to wait for it to
>> clear the buffer. This is available for $1500 (body only), and is
>> quite a nice digital, roughly equivalent to a $350 (body only) Nikon
>> F80 film camera in many respects. Wide-angle is not a practical
>> option with it due to the focal length multiplier of the small digital
>> element, though.
>
>That's nice. Are you going to buy it?
No. Too much money for not enough camera, and it doesn't do anything
better than what I already have. Maybe next year, when it's old news
and there's something even better... Digital is far from a mature
technology.
>> >You like to torture yourself, don't you?
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't get your comment. Please elaborate, or state your
>> solution for taking multiple shots in a short time with a digital
>> camera. If you have no need, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that a
>> solution is unnecessary for others.
>
>LOL. What I mean is you look first for what you *can't* do as opposed
>to what you *can* do.
You have no clue how I make my decisions. I select gear based on both
what it can do and can't do. I have a specific need in specific
situations, and digital cameras won't fill it. It would be foolish of
me to buy one without being aware of that. I have other needs in
other situations, and my digitals work quite well there. You can make
your own choices, of course.
>> It's good that you're happy with your equipment choices, and can save
>> a lot of money at the same time.
>
>Nope, I'm greedy. I like to buy as much equipment as possible in all
>price-ranges. Enjoy your low resolution pixel camera while its here.
>Someday, it might be the equivalent of the pixel-vision camera that
>some film freaks are trying to bid for on e-bay.
I'll be looking forward to hearing about your experiences. Be sure to
post your de-blurred blowups from your disposable camera action shots.