DSLR and Film Scan Comparisons
Steve Hoffmann
A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
Cheers, Steve
--
Remove NO if replying via email
http://www.sphoto.com
35mm and large format photography
landscapes, scenics, zoo animals, and
macro photographs of insects and flowers.
extensive photo tech tips and digital imaging content.
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
>1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
>scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
>
>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
>Cheers, Steve
Thanks Steve, nice comparison. I hope some of the film fanatics here
see it, and at the same time realize the many other benefits of
digital that go beyond mere resolution. Considering them and your
results, I see no valid reason to stick with film. I see many to
switch to digital.
Jim Davis
Nature Photography
http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
Leonhard Pang
>see it, and at the same time realize the many other benefits of
>digital that go beyond mere resolution. Considering them and your
>results, I see no valid reason to stick with film. I see many to
>switch to digital.
As you wish.
A conventional camera is cheaper. I don't have to worry about
breaking it. My Minolta 9xi is hanging from my harness and I don't worry
about banging it around, while I'm climbing.
I shoot slides, and I like them projected. There is at the moment no
adequate beamer, which could do the same. Of course, I could make slides
out of them... but then, where is the point?
I don't need to worry about the battery level. A lithium battery holds up
for many film. A replacement battery is light and small. I'm not that
dependent on external powersupply. You know, there are places where you
just don't have a plug coming out of somewhere.
I love wideangle pictures... projected they are awesome. But, you need a
fullframe sensor to achieve that... the price is just not right yet.
Film is cheap. 32 MB x 36 for couple euros, dollars or what ever.
Plus I have a redundant system. If I drop the camera, and it goes down the
wall, the lost of pictures wouldn't be total.
So far, I didn't need to worry, if my pictures are still readable.
I can scan in my picture to have them available digitaly.
And projected slides are just awesome.
Did I mention how awesome it is to watch the slides projected?
So just stop the war digital against film.
There is a point for film, there is a point for digital, and everybody has
to decide themselve, why she/he stays with that particular system.
So far, I'm not thinking about trading my Veliva/Provia with CompactFlash
or other memory cards.
-Leonhard
Leon Mlakar
"Jim Davis" <spam...@someisp.jp> wrote in message
news:bqus9v46pjjg3k7l3...@4ax.com...
Why do you have to put it as black and white situation? You probably see not
reason why to still use film, but others may for their own, just as valid
reasons.
Of course you see many switching to digital. If you open your eyes, you'll
see many using both, and if you look carefully, you'll see few returning
back to film. Thankfully the world is still colorful with a lot of variety.
Rodeo Clown
news:936080B24lp...@127.0.0.1...
> So just stop the war digital against film.
> There is a point for film, there is a point for digital, and everybody has
> to decide themselve, why she/he stays with that particular system.
>
The most sensible thing anyone has said in this thread so far
> So far, I'm not thinking about trading my Veliva/Provia with CompactFlash
> or other memory cards.
>
Agreed, but I can now see the day when an IBM microdrive supplements the
Fujichrome in my bag and an EOS 10D likewise the EOS 50E
M. Yehle
Hash: SHA1
Thus spoke Leonhard Pang <lp_dr...@bluewin.ch>...
>>Thanks Steve, nice comparison. I hope some of the film fanatics here
>>see it, and at the same time realize the many other benefits of
>>digital that go beyond mere resolution. Considering them and your
>>results, I see no valid reason to stick with film. I see many to
>>switch to digital.
>
> As you wish.
Jumping on to this line
> A conventional camera is cheaper. I don't have to worry about
> breaking it. My Minolta 9xi is hanging from my harness and I don't worry
> about banging it around, while I'm climbing.
My K1000 just needed a little rinsing off after landing in boulder creek...
It also goes climbing and has taken more out of rock faces than they've
taken from it...
> I don't need to worry about the battery level. A lithium battery holds up
> for many film. A replacement battery is light and small. I'm not that
> dependent on external powersupply. You know, there are places where you
> just don't have a plug coming out of somewhere.
Winter alpine climbing and CC skiing, I give up at -20f but both of my
film bodies work the same at that temp as room temperature. Even if they
fail, I can guesstimate without a light meter and most of the speeds in
the LX are mechanical.
> Film is cheap. 32 MB x 36 for couple euros, dollars or what ever.
> Plus I have a redundant system. If I drop the camera, and it goes down the
> wall, the lost of pictures wouldn't be total.
Film doesn't die when dropped in the aformentioned creek - Most any lab can
wash it out before processing with little ill effect.
>
> So far, I didn't need to worry, if my pictures are still readable.
>
> So just stop the war digital against film.
> There is a point for film, there is a point for digital, and everybody has
> to decide themselve, why she/he stays with that particular system.
Amen..
Mike Y
- --
"Giving money and power to government is like
giving liquor and car keys to teen age boys."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
myehle at wanadoo dot fr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+nrF2E8nsBQq/fBwRAodNAJ9+V/gYZ17SbwS5Io3PtHilywPUFQCfcp+S
WAJbjIrwSHyPZHTdIn1mQeI=
=DBF8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Dyer-Bennet
> Hello folks,
>
> A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
> 1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
> scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
Thanks for posting that link. While I doubt 4 comparisons will really
settle the issue in anybody's mind, I find the examples shown very
convincing. It probably helps that they exactly match my own
experience with scanned film vs. digital.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
Pierre L
stay with film simply because I enjoy it more in the long run, it's more
versatile, and I would rather experiment with different films and filters
than play with Photoshop much. Many times during the past year I've gone to
a camera store with the intent of actually buying a digicam, after a couple
of years of really wanting one, and every time but one, once I looked at
prices and compared, I came back with something for film instead (I ended up
getting an FM3a to replace my old Pentax). The one time I came back with a
Canon S45, it was returned within two weeks (not that the S45 itself doesn't
compare well with others in that class). These cams are just too limiting,
like glorified Polaroids, and you have to make excuses for them not being
able to do this or that. Digicams are just too much money for something with
the limitations they have, and that won't be current very long. I don't care
what some say about the digicam bought today still being good enough
tomorrow even if superceded within weeks by a better model with higher
resolution for the same price. With my film cameras, even my old entry-level
Pentax K1000, and SP1000 before that, I never once felt like I couldn't take
a professional picture if I really set my mind to it. With a digicam, you
know going in that it ain't ever going to be better than its resolution, and
that pros will always be using better ones for sharper pictures. With film
cameras, this really doesn't matter at all. If I want to shoot for maximum
resolution, I load a really fine grained film in there and I use a tripod,
and if I'm more concerned about content, I use a faster film. I can and do
switch brands often (among Fuji, Kodak, Konica, Ilford, Agfa), and switch
between colour and B&W, I can shoot nighttime existing light anytime I want
without fear of digital noise. Similarly, I have no concerns about purple
fringing when shooting bright, contrasty scenes, and I never, ever get any
jaggies no matter what I do. My photos are often amateurish, but,they sure
don't have that artifical look that so many digital photos seem to have (but
that is apparantly only visible to me, since nobody else seems to complain
about it). So, choose whatever you want, but you won't convince me that
digital replaces film. Maybe it complements it a little, especially for some
time-pressured commercial applications, but it doesn't even come close to
replacing the artistic value of film, nor the pleasure of using a fine
mechanical camera, no matter what the ultimate resolution is.
Pierre
Dennis O'Connor
it is no better than what the digital camera shows when viewed on a
screen... So, comparisons on the web showing digi photos versus scans from
silver originals are apples and oranges as comparison...
I use both digital and film... I just had some telephotos of the moon taken
with the F5 using Portra 160NC film, developed and the negatives scanned...
Unsurprisingly the digital scans have lost detail that is clearly visible on
the silver prints...
It all depends on what you are trying to achieve...
Denny
"Leon Mlakar" <leon....@hermes.si> wrote in message
news:3e9e9730$1...@news.perftech.si...
drsmith
> Hello folks,
>
> A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
> 1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
> scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
You know, I generally avoid such debates, but I'll make an exception
for the 1Ds.
I've been looking at this camera more and more lately, and I can't
argue that it has better resolution/image quality than 35mm. In fact,
if it didn't cost $8K, I'd probably own one right now(Even at $2k, I'd
probably have bought it by now).
The thing is - I don't handle my photos digitally even though I can.
I have the computer/scanner/etc. but everytime I consider shooting
digital against film, I first ask myself what I'm planning to do with
the image. Most of the time, I'm thinking of making an 11 inch or
larger print to hang on the wall for my own enjoyment and while some
digital can do that well, I wind up using film because I don't want to
spend my time printing/retouching/etc. The pro lab will happily spend
time adjusting the image to suit my needs and can usually do a better
job than I could do digitally. Very few of my images ever see the
internet either, so there again, digital isn't always the way to go.
The one exception is that I do carry a small digital camera with me
for snapshots that I find amusing or interesting when I'm not carrying
my full kit with me. For most of those digital is ideal becuase those
shots will either end up being my desktop wallpaper of the week or
they'll be sent to friends/family on the net.
Ok - so you must be wondering - what on earth would I do with a 1Ds
had I bought it? The only thing I can see going for it is flexibility
in cropping the final image. With the images you posted, it's clear
that I could easily leave half of the resulting image on the virtual
cutting room floor without sacrificing overall quality of the final
image. That means I can leave a 50mm prime on the camera and use
cropping to hit anywhere I want in the 50mm-100mm range without
resorting to lense changes. Maybe when the price comes down and the
resolution goes even higher, I'll be able to shoot with one lense and
one set of filters... (Well, I can dream anyway). For the time being,
medium/large format already has that feature well covered.
--drsmith
cconnaker
no way to tell what color the photos are supposed to be. With film
there is always a baseline. Yes I am aware of the color profiles used
to make up for this, but to me they are not good enough. Should a
digital shooter bring a film camera with and shoot the same photos
with both systems? Every viewing method for digital photos is
different.
Also, can you shoot ten frames per second for a whole roll of 36 with
any digital camera at any price? This feature is a must, I use it all
the time. I don't usually shoot a whole roll, but I do bracket and
shoot 9-12 frames.
Just an honest reply,
chris
Onepercentf
offer (with Buy it Now) at about £1600 and also nearer the retail price of
£4000+
My question is this - why such a price disparity, and is it really possible to
buy a canon 1Ds for under £2000?
regards, David
David Eppstein
ccon...@hotmail.com (cconnaker) wrote:
> A major problem I see with the digital photos is the color. There is
> no way to tell what color the photos are supposed to be. With film
> there is always a baseline.
Huh?
If you want to always use the same color balance every time, just like
with film, you can easily do that with a DSLR: just set the balance to
"daylight". Most photographers would prefer a color balance that better
matches the scene's actual lighting, though...
> Also, can you shoot ten frames per second for a whole roll of 36 with
> any digital camera at any price? This feature is a must, I use it all
> the time. I don't usually shoot a whole roll, but I do bracket and
> shoot 9-12 frames.
Sounds like the camera you want is the Canon 1D (not 1Ds).
But that sort of speed is only usually required for sports
photojournalism, so I'm a little confused why you want to mix it with
bracketing...
--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Gavin Cato
"cconnaker" <ccon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c9bbfbd.03041...@posting.google.com...
> A major problem I see with the digital photos is the color. There is
> no way to tell what color the photos are supposed to be. With film
I have no idea what you mean by this.
> Also, can you shoot ten frames per second for a whole roll of 36 with
> any digital camera at any price? This feature is a must, I use it all
> the time. I don't usually shoot a whole roll, but I do bracket and
> shoot 9-12 frames.
You can't shoot "any film camera, at any price" at 10fps either!
I thought the nikon f5/canon 1v were around the 8-9fps mark anyway.
The nikon d1h can do 5fps for 40 frames, though at only 2.7mp. The Canon 1D
can do 8fps at 4'ish mp, but for about 20 frames.
Gav
Tony Spadaro
ever reproduced all colours or even most colours accurately. There are no
two people in the world who would make exactly the same print from the same
negative (or even slide) without at least referencing the work of the
other - and even thern there will be differences. If you've found the
baseline pray let the rest of us in on the secret. If nothing else you will
end up making Bill Gates look poverty stricken.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"cconnaker" <ccon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c9bbfbd.03041...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
two years unless they get some equipment soon. I can print my own on inkjet
up to 17x22 or 16x24 (according to what paper I buy) or have the lab print
up to 40 inches with inkjet and/or similar sizes chemically printed from a
digital file. I could hand them a chip of film for this too, but without
taking the time to spot the image I certainly wouldn't want a large print
made from any 35mm film I shoot - or anyone else shoots for that matter..
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"drsmith" <drsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7c208d1.03041...@posting.google.com...
George Kerby
Cato" <wo...@spam.com> wrote:
> You can't shoot "any film camera, at any price" at 10fps either!
Gavin, I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that Canon made a special
version of the Pellex (the one without the normal bouncy mirror, it had an
in-place pellicle kind of mirror that would optically feed both viewfinder
and filmplane at the same time). It was offered to some pros at one of the
Olympics in the eighties, or the '92 Olympics. That camera was capable of 10
fps, I'm almost assured. Problem was that, in some instances and under the
right conditions, when pointed at the sun for a period of time (don't ask
why), the shutter curtain would have a hole burned through it!
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
DJC737
digitally now but wide angle scenes are still far better projected than
viewed on a screen. For printing to 12 x 18 either form produces great
results. Thus the Elan-7 travels with Provies 100F for those must project to
be appreciated images. When an affordable full frame DSLR comes along I may
find even those shots are digital at that point. Must wait to see. Dave
"drsmith" <drsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7c208d1.03041...@posting.google.com...
Lewis Lang
>My photos are often amateurish, but,they sure
>don't have that artifical look that so many digital photos seem to have
>(but
>that is apparantly only visible to me, since nobody else seems to complain
>about it). So, choose whatever you want, but you won't convince me that
>digital replaces film.
Right back attcha, Pierre, I couldn't agree more w/ you - also, I have for
quite some time been saying that digi has a "high res video plasticky look to
it" - I can see and feel the difference in their looks, others less attuned
visually (general public) would probably be able to subconsciously feel (if not
consciously notice) the difference between the "depth" of film and the flat
plasticky look of video, er, digital... I made a Freudian silicon (or CMOS)
chip, er, slip, there ;-) :-)
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Lewis Lang
> (I ended up
>getting an FM3a to replace my old Pentax).
Hi Pierre:
Why not just get an LX or some other Pentax 35mm SLR to replace your old Pentax
SLR? Why the move to Nikon?
Tony Spadaro
Pellex back in the 70s - they had obviously never opened the camera and
looked at the metal shutter. Just one of the many reasons I don't put much
faith in CR.
The tests that found one particular brand of 3 speed bike was safe and
another would flip over and kill the rider impressed me too. I ran a bike
store at the time and knew that the two bikes in question were actually
identical save for the brand stickers. The real problem was the idiots who
assembled and tested them. CU bought both bikes in the boxes and had their
professional staff of trained inspectors assemble and test them.
On the other hand I'd seen two Isuzu Tippers --- or was it Trippers,
lying upside down in the center of major highways before CU discovered there
might be a problem with them, so occasionally even a clock with a bent gear
may show the right time.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BAC4944A.2836%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
cconnaker
different on every monitor, or whatever your final output is. If I
look at my Velvia slides with any loupe on any 5000K lightbox, the
color will be exactly what is on the slide.
I shoot with a couple of EOS 1v-HS cameras that shoot 10 fps with the
correct battery pack. This means that when I bracket +1/3, 0, -1/3,
the camera will complete the 3 exposure bracket much faster than any
digital at any price.
Your suggestion that this kind of speed is only needed for sports or
photojournalism is way off. Try shooting big cats in the Maasai Mara.
Even though they may be still, they are in the position you may want
for less than one second. In that split second a Leopard looks at you,
it is nice to be able to take as many frames as possible.
Chris
cconnaker
the color will be different on evry montor you look at. If you use a
loupe and a 5000K lightbox to view a slide, the color will be the same
every time. This would establish a baseline of how the color is
supposed to look.
Also, your suggestion that I can't shoot 10 fps with any camera at any
price is completely wrong. I shoot with the Canon EOS 1v-HS with the
correct battery pack. Please do your homework before posting.
Chris
cconnaker
information. I shoot with the Canon EOS 1v-HS with the correct Canon
highspeed battery pack. This will shoot 10 frames per second.
Chris
David J. Littleboy
> Gav - How can you critically look at the color of a digital photo when
> the color will be different on evry montor you look at. If you use a
> loupe and a 5000K lightbox to view a slide, the color will be the same
> every time. This would establish a baseline of how the color is
> supposed to look.
Unless you used color balancing filters based on a measurement of the light
source when you shot the slide (do you even own a color meter<g>?), your
slide colors are simply wrong. But every digital camera has a built-in color
meter, so a manual color balance reading with a digital camera will mean
that the digital image will be correct _in the file_, and anyone with a
calibrated monitor can display it correctly. Besides, no one else can see
your slide: there are a lot more people with calibrated monitors than you
can get into your workroom.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
cconnaker
subject accurately and I would never argue about the print world.
Prints are only an "editorial" of a negative or slide.
I will use your own statement to answer your "WHAT is the baseline?"
question.
> "There are no
> two people in the world who would make exactly the same print from the same
> negative (or even slide) without at least referencing the work of the
> other"
You mention referencing the other (slide or negative) before making a
print look similar to another. If you take that into the digital
world, how can you ever reference anything to make a print, or any
other output medium, when you don't have a reference. Viewing a
digital photo on a ten different monitors will give you ten different
photos. If I look at a Velvia slide with 10 different loupes on 10
different 5000K lightboxes, I will get the same result everytime. This
result accurately depicts what is on the slide, not accurately depicts
what the subject looked like (although it may).
Chris
Tony Spadaro
file a baseline. If you try to reproduce the film accurately you are simply
reproducing the colour inaccuracies of the film. If you wish to correct it,
you have a long involved process making test print after test print.
Since digital cameras have a white balance control one could, in fact,
argue that you are closer to having your baseline with digital - if you
guage the light correctly. The closest you can come to that in film is
tungsten slide film shot under fresh photoflood lights. Slow, hot,
expensive, and still a bit dodgy.
Most catalog work these days is shot digital since a calibrated monitor
can show the results instantly and accurately. It aint cheap to set-up and
takes constant fussing but has too many advantages over film to be ignored.
With a properly calibrated printer one can pretty much proof the final web
printed version in a matter of minutes. If the original capture cannot be
colour adjusted to the necessary degree of accuracy, a new shot can be taken
on the spot.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"cconnaker" <ccon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c9bbfbd.0304...@posting.google.com...
Gavin Cato
> Gav - How can you critically look at the color of a digital photo when
> the color will be different on evry montor you look at. If you use a
> loupe and a 5000K lightbox to view a slide, the color will be the same
> every time. This would establish a baseline of how the color is
> supposed to look.
Doesn't affect my prints. And any differences from monitor to monitor is
fairly marginal in my experience.
> Also, your suggestion that I can't shoot 10 fps with any camera at any
> price is completely wrong. I shoot with the Canon EOS 1v-HS with the
> correct battery pack. Please do your homework before posting.
Go stick your head in a sandpit. I said 8-9fps - excuse me for being 1fps
off! sheesh
I said "I thought the nikon f5/canon 1v were around the 8-9fps mark anyway."
i.e. "I thought" and "around". My statement was not unreasonable. You are
just a pretentious asshole.
Gav
Jason O'Rourke
>Go stick your head in a sandpit. I said 8-9fps - excuse me for being 1fps
>off! sheesh
>
>I said "I thought the nikon f5/canon 1v were around the 8-9fps mark anyway."
>
>i.e. "I thought" and "around". My statement was not unreasonable. You are
>just a pretentious asshole.
Actually, you wrote:
"You can't shoot "any film camera, at any price" at 10fps either!
I thought the nikon f5/canon 1v were around the 8-9fps mark anyway."
Does sound a lot better when you leave out the first sentence.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
MarkH
news:b7o7a1$ckt$1...@agate.berkeley.edu:
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that Gavin was saying that the statement "You can
shoot 10fps on any film camera at any price" would be completely false. I
don’t think that he was suggesting that no film camera could shoot at
10fps.
Of course I could be wrong, in which case it would seem that Gavin was
incorrect.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate"
Matt Clara
You should do your research, too. It was Gavin who made that comment,
George corrected him.
Don Stauffer
Both the digital camera, and images made by scanning film (or a print)
are sampled data systems. Folks over half a century ago determined,
from information theory, the requirements to faithfully sample and
record information. Nothing in digital photography today negates those
half-century old findings. If you sample with a grid commensurate with
the image information you are sampling, you will be able to accurately
reproduce that information. I have seen nothing in this thread so far
that negates that fact, concerning film scanning OR digital cameras.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Pierre L
news:20030417191354...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> BIG SNIPS
>
> > (I ended up
> >getting an FM3a to replace my old Pentax).
>
> Hi Pierre:
>
> Why not just get an LX or some other Pentax 35mm SLR to replace your old
Pentax
> SLR? Why the move to Nikon?
>
Hi Lewis,
I could have done that, and in fact I did consider getting a used MX (which
seem to be plentiful around here). The few LX's I saw were expensive even
though they looked pretty banged up, and what limited used Pentax lenses
there are out there are fairly expensive. For that matter, I could have just
kept my still-mint 1986 K1000. To be honest, until recently, I hadn't kept
up with the camera industry at all since that time, except seeing the odd
Canon or Nikon ad in waiting room magazines. I had wanted a digital camera
for the past few years though (even though I decided against it in the end).
There comes a time when you just want something new, and when I started
looking, I was disappointed to find that SLRs are mostly all plastic like
the cheap Kodak compact 35mm I bought at Disney World in the late 80's after
I realised I had left both my Pentax and my Polaroid SX-70 at home. I really
had no idea it had come to this. I considered and tried both a Pentax MZ-6
and a Nikon F80, but when I laid eyes on a chrome FM3a with a 45mm lens on
it, I just had to have it. And, I should add that, being on a disability
pension, this expenditure was pretty much a one-shot deal for me. So I spent
what I had while I had it, before it disappeared on sundries. Whatever I
picked, that would probably be my camera for the next 20 years, so I had to
pick wisely (hopefully). A camera that is obsoleted faster than I can walk
out of the store with it definitely was not in the cards, nor was one that
might soon need repairs - like a new shutter or something.
I actually ran some rolls of film through both the MZ-6 and the F80, using
their respective autofocus and multi-segment exposure modes. I never got so
many poorly-focussed and poorly-exposed pictures in my life. With the FM3a,
it's just like my old Pentaxes. Not one was what I would call a good
photograph, but from the get-go, not a single one was out of focus, and all
were fairly well-exposed (and I checked the actual negatives on my scanner).
My own eyes I can understand even though I know wear glasses to see, and I
also can understand pretty much exactly what a centre-weighted averaging
meter is doing. So far, I don't regret my sticking with a more traditional
camera. I guess I'm still just a 1970's guy living in the 21st century, and
I figured I should buy from the guys who still make a camera for people like
me :)
Pierre
Bill Martin
sharper than the digital images. For example the roof of the windmill in
the first carlsbad flower picture has more detail in the provira image
than does the digital picture ( see 90mm lens pictures ).
Jim Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:42:03 -0700, Steve Hoffmann <in...@NOsphoto.com>
> wrote/replied to:
>
>
>>A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
>>1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
>>scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
>>
>>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>>
>>Cheers, Steve
>
>
> Thanks Steve, nice comparison. I hope some of the film fanatics here
> see it, and at the same time realize the many other benefits of
> digital that go beyond mere resolution. Considering them and your
> results, I see no valid reason to stick with film. I see many to
> switch to digital.
>
> Jim Davis
> Nature Photography
> http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
drsmith
> And your lab can't print from a digital file? They will prolly be gone in
> two years unless they get some equipment soon. I can print my own on inkjet
> up to 17x22 or 16x24 (according to what paper I buy) or have the lab print
> up to 40 inches with inkjet and/or similar sizes chemically printed from a
> digital file. I could hand them a chip of film for this too, but without
> taking the time to spot the image I certainly wouldn't want a large print
> made from any 35mm film I shoot - or anyone else shoots for that matter..
>
Yes - they can make a print from a digital file. 2 problems, though.
The first is the print from the digital file is more expensive than
the print from the film - for some reason they market this as though
it's a custom service. The other problem is that I don't keep a lot
of extra CF cards around and if the card/cards is/are in the shop, I
can't use it/them to take pictures.
Just seems easier to hand them a film canister, pay the lower price,
and check the fridge once in a while to see if I need to order more.
Maybe I'll do a more thorough cost comparison in the future...
As for the size issue, I've got both MF gear and 35mm. I do my best
to guess which is the right one for the job - and there again is a
cost issue. 120/220 costs me more to have processed, so I'll be a
little more sure it's worthwhile before I reach for it.
--drsmith
Tony Spadaro
lab.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"drsmith" <drsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7c208d1.03041...@posting.google.com...
George Kerby
9c9bbfbd.03041...@posting.google.com, "cconnaker"
<ccon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> George - Please do your homework before posting inaccurate
> information.
You talkin' to me? You talking to me? You must be talkin' to me! I'm the
only 'George' here. SO ya' gotta be talking to ME!
Calm down, son! You must note that I stated that I "thought", I wasn't
stating it as the almighty truth. You need to lay off the caffeine.
SHHHESH!!!
BTW: We ALL know about your toys after constant repetition mantra of:
"I shoot with the Canon EOS 1v-HS with the correct Canon
highspeed battery pack."
George Kerby
e8Qna.236662$yn2....@post-03.news.easynews.com, "Matt Clara"
<no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote:
What he said!
Martin Riddle
makes the scan softer, especially at 2. I would have rather have seen the artifact of the film grain
than the lost resolution.
Cheers
"Bill Martin" <wcma...@vnet.net> wrote in message news:3EA01D7A...@vnet.net...
wally
>Hello folks,
>
>A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
>1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
>scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
>
>http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
>Cheers, Steve
When the Nikon LS-4000 came out I lost intrest in it because test scans I saw
posted had too much softening with ICE enabled so I went with the Canon FS4000
at a bit less than half the price.
I concluded long ago that for me 6 Mpixel would be about equal to film and a
lot more convienent, but I can't live with the 1.5X "magnification" factor so
I'm still waiting. If I could afford a D1s I'd have one.
I could stretch and go for a Kodak DCS 14N when it drops a bit to ~$4000 but
looks like it has noise problems that would likely keep me from speeding that
much.
--wally.
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>A conventional camera is cheaper. I don't have to worry about
>breaking it. My Minolta 9xi is hanging from my harness and I don't worry
>about banging it around, while I'm climbing.
>
>I shoot slides, and I like them projected.
Ok so you like cheap and you like to admire your slides.
Some photogs like to sell images and price is not the advantage either
way. Try pricing some drum scans.
Frankly slide shows are history. If that's your niche, stick with
film. If you just like sitting in a dark room admiring your own
slides, stick with film.
I'd love to be able to extract quickly and easily the quality I see in
my slides too. But in the big picture it is not the way to get my
images to sell, or to make prints to sell.
Jim Davis
<epps...@ics.uci.edu> wrote/replied to:
>> A major problem I see with the digital photos is the color. There is
>> no way to tell what color the photos are supposed to be. With film
>> there is always a baseline.
Ya really, is that Provia colour, Velvia colour, or Ektachrome colour?
I've never seen a film that can show realitic and vibrant colour like
a digital camera can. No way, no how.
>Huh?
>
>If you want to always use the same color balance every time, just like
>with film, you can easily do that with a DSLR: just set the balance to
>"daylight". Most photographers would prefer a color balance that better
>matches the scene's actual lighting, though...
Jim Davis
wrote/replied to:
>I will use your own statement to answer your "WHAT is the baseline?"
>question.
My baseline would be the colours I remember seeing an hour ago when I
shot the digital image, not three days ago when I shot the film.
Pierre L
"Jim Davis" <spam...@someisp.jp> wrote in message
news:lvb1avsckjm6la670...@4ax.com...
> a digital camera can. No way, no how.
>
You can say that again. If there ever was vibrant colour in photographs it's
got to be in digital - so vibrant it's totally unrealistic! Has everyone
gone colour-blind or something? Everybody seems to think unrealistically
punched up colour is normal these days, film or digital. Must be something
in the water.
Pierre
David J. Littleboy
> > <epps...@ics.uci.edu> wrote/replied to:
> >
> > I've never seen a film that can show realitic and vibrant colour like
> > a digital camera can. No way, no how.
>
it's
> got to be in digital - so vibrant it's totally unrealistic! Has everyone
> gone colour-blind or something? Everybody seems to think unrealistically
> punched up colour is normal these days, film or digital. Must be something
> in the water.
Dunno what you guys are talking about. Digital is whatever you want it to
be. I see a lot of flat/dull digital from the dSLRs. It's only if one is
careful about one's color spaces and sets/adjusts saturation that digital
coughs up anywhere near Velvia colors...
Steve Hoffmann
wa...@nomail.com says...
> In article <MPG.1907b4595...@news.west.cox.net>, Steve Hoffmann <in...@NOsphoto.com> wrote:
> >Hello folks,
> >
> >A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
> >1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
> >scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
> >
> >http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
> >
> >Cheers, Steve
> Good comparison, but I'd like to see the film with digital ICE and GEM off.
My experience indicates that without ICE and GEM, the 10D just blows
away Provia 100 film scans when both are printed to 12X18. I'm aware of
the slight softening of the image caused by these two post scan
processes but that loss is very minimal and doing without ICE and GEM
doesn't really help a Provia F scan compete with 10D output. Velvia,
which resolves more LPM than Provia, would have been a better choice to
produce sharper looking film scans.
>
--
Remove NO if replying via email
http://www.sphoto.com
35mm and large format photography
landscapes, scenics, zoo animals, and
macro photographs of insects and flowers.
extensive photo tech tips and digital imaging content.
Tony Spadaro
Photoshop tweaking. I'm of the opinion that a lot of men are somewhat
colourblind and don't know it. I have met very few female photographers who
like Velvia.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
"Pierre L" <pier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZV2oa.6938$uY.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Leonhard Pang
Just stop trying to persuade others. We are all grown ups, and we have
our own minds, our own budget, our own way to work, our own way to
watch the pictures. And there are reasons behind it. I guess most of
us, who uses film, are aware, that there is a digital way. And I guess
most of us did think about digital. But for some reason are still
sticking to film. As with most things, that may change in the future.
But everyone has it's own pace. And if you like digital, and are doing
your work digitaly, because you like it, your customer demands it, or
for what other reasons, I'm happy for you.
I, for my part, just don't think it's the right time for me to do it.
And since I'm not selling my pictures... picture taking is just a mere
pleasure for me... I stick with film... or as you may call it, I stay a
film fanatic.
As I said before, there is a point using film, there is a point using
digital. And both world do coexist peacefully.
Oh... and I'm glad for everyone, who is investing in DSLR, and are
helping to cover the development costs. So in the future, the price for
DSLR will sink further. =)
Happy shooting.
-Leonhard
Bill Martin
digital, I think it's great. I'm especially of the belief that digital
gives better latitude than film, more shadow detail and less highlight
blocking. The digital pictures I see are normally VERY impressive, and
if the cameras were reasonably priced I'd switch to digital in a
heartbeat. I don't even have a problem if the resolution's somewhat less
than that of film, I normally don't make a print bigger than 11 x 14,
and rarely make a 16 x 20. It seems to me that digital cameras hanndle
11 x 14 ok -- at least the ones with more megapixels. But I do think the
comparisons in this discussion favor film, as far as resolution goes.
Maybe it's just my 72-year-old eyeballs :>)
Martin Francis
5x4, here I come!
--
Martin J. Francis
"Lowering Standards Since 1982"
Lisa Horton
more than a bit distressed, to discover that the 10D clearly
outperforms my old Scan Dual. I verge on apostasy...
Lisa
Steve Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> A friend of mine and I decided to compare image quality between a Canon
> 1Ds, Canon 10D, Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi and 4X5 Velvia
> scanned at 1200 dpi. You can see the results at
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
>
> Cheers, Steve
jason mark
>
> Ok so you like cheap and you like to admire your slides.
Jim, there is a certain beauty and awe that can only be acheived with
slides. I understand that it may not be for all people but there's no
reason to be rude about it. I can appreciate the beauty of slides, in
the same way that I like seeing a movie in the theatre, as opposed to
on DVD.
Katie Piecrust
could do better than Provia, including B&W and color negative films. In
addition to that consideration, Minolta has what looks to be a very nice
5400 ppi film scanner coming out very soon (Scan Elite 5400) and I wonder
how it, combined with better film, would compare in the tests done here.
Partly why I ask is because I used to own a Canon D60, but the weight of the
debt I created to get it was too heavy for me, so with regret I sold it. I
still have my good old EOS 3 and am looking perhaps to buy the new Minolta
scanner when it comes out, so you can see why these tests really interest
me. Clearly, the EOS 1DS seems to beat Provia scanned on a 4000 ppi scanner,
and while I would love to own one this camera is way out of my price range.
And it looks like the D60/10D are about the same as a film scan on average.
From the other posts I've read here printing is what seems to really level
the playing field among all the options given, correct? Basically I'm hoping
someone will tell me that the new Minolta scanner with good film will be
sufficient for the next several years (I want to print up to 16x20) until
affordable 11+ megapixel cameras become affordable.
Thanks,
Katie Piecrust
"Steve Hoffmann" <in...@NOsphoto.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1907b4595...@news.west.cox.net...
Meryl Arbing
others. The problem with all of them is that they compare 1st generation
digital images from a DSLR to a 2nd (or third) generation scan of a film
image. When you look at the actual film photograph printed in the
traditional optical, analog fashion the digital image printed in the current
digital fashion pales.
"Katie Piecrust" <NoSpam!> wrote in message
news:vett399...@corp.supernews.com...
Steve Hoffmann
"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nGNHa.3646$9y3.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> These tests are always cropping (crapping??) up and some are better than
> others. The problem with all of them is that they compare 1st generation
> digital images from a DSLR to a 2nd (or third) generation scan of a film
> image. When you look at the actual film photograph printed in the
> traditional optical, analog fashion the digital image printed in the
current
> digital fashion pales.
You just hit the nail on the head. Film printed to paper is third
generation. In this workflow you have enlarging lens issues such as optical
abberations and field flatness. You also have to deal with film curvature in
the film holder unless you use a glass carrier, which introduces the
possibility of another problem called 'Newton's Rings'. Have you actually
compared a DSLR image printed on a good printer like LightJet or Chromira to
an optically printed photograph? I have, and I don't see where the digital
print 'pales' at all, quite to the contrary....:^) I think it is much easier
to get good results printing digitally.
Katie Piecrust
generation image? A film scanned image (second gen) and then digital print
would be third generation. Or perhaps I'm missing something here. You do
make some good points, but the problem is that I've found three sites
showing comparisons of upsampled 1DS images versus Provia 100F scanned at
4000 ppi (and in one case 4800 ppi), but absolutely no comparison of prints
made via both methods. Since I'm mainly interested in printing my images, I
would like some real evidence that one method is truly better than the
other. What I'm trying to say is; why should one buy an expensive DSLR (like
a D60 or 10D) if the final print looks pretty much the same as from a much
less expensive film scanner? Please don't get me wrong, I have nothing
against film or DSLR's. If the 1DS, which is clearly superior to film scans,
were to cost about the same as a good film scanner, I'd be buying one (3 to
4 years maybe?).
"Steve Hoffmann" <NOmor...@sphoto.com> wrote in message
news:0ROHa.91373$hd6.67915@fed1read05...
Steve Hoffmann
<NoSpam!> says...
> Isn't film printed to photographic paper using traditional methods a second
> generation image? A film scanned image (second gen) and then digital print
> would be third generation. Or perhaps I'm missing something here. You do
> make some good points, but the problem is that I've found three sites
> showing comparisons of upsampled 1DS images versus Provia 100F scanned at
> 4000 ppi (and in one case 4800 ppi), but absolutely no comparison of prints
> made via both methods. Since I'm mainly interested in printing my images, I
> would like some real evidence that one method is truly better than the
> other. What I'm trying to say is; why should one buy an expensive DSLR (like
> a D60 or 10D) if the final print looks pretty much the same as from a much
> less expensive film scanner? Please don't get me wrong, I have nothing
> against film or DSLR's. If the 1DS, which is clearly superior to film scans,
> were to cost about the same as a good film scanner, I'd be buying one (3 to
> 4 years maybe?).
>
Yes, my math and concentration were out the window. Film to conventional
optical print is SECOND GENERATION. I can't think of any way you could
compare printed output on the web. I guess a person could scan prints
from a DSLR and optically printed 35mm film but then you WOULD have
THIRD generation stuff to look at...:^) In fact, I think I have seen
this sort of comparison on the web. Sorry, don't know where it was....
>
>
Katie Piecrust
methods. But as far as comparing printed output from the two at least they
would both be fudged up equally since they would have both been scanned on
the same flatbed with the same settings (or so I'd assume if the tester has
any iota of sense). ;-)
Anyways, I too have heard people claiming that prints from a camera like the
1DS are slightly sharper than prints from film (whether 2nd gen or 3rd
because of film scanning, I don't know). However, it's hard to believe such
claims without empirical evidence that I can study with my own eyes. Until I
see otherwise, I'll probably continue to believe that while a camera like
the 1DS is indeed slightly superior to film, with cameras like the D60 and
10D being approximately equal to film (talking scanned 4000+ ppi Provia 100F
of course), the prints from all these methods probably obscure any real
differences (depending on the size of the enlargement of course).
"Steve Hoffmann" <NOmor...@sphoto.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.195a31c2b...@news.west.cox.net...
Gordon Moat
> True, you would end up with slightly fudged up third gen prints from both
> methods. But as far as comparing printed output from the two at least they
> would both be fudged up equally since they would have both been scanned on
> the same flatbed with the same settings (or so I'd assume if the tester has
> any iota of sense). ;-)
>
> Anyways, I too have heard people claiming that prints from a camera like the
> 1DS are slightly sharper than prints from film (whether 2nd gen or 3rd
> because of film scanning, I don't know).
In camera sharpening, using Unsharp Mask in PhotoShop, or similar steps in any
editing software, can create an appearance of a sharper print. Regardless of
the source, many different methods can be used for similar results. The fact
remains that some time and decisions were needed to do the changes, with prior
experience often dictating what works best for each method of printing.
> However, it's hard to believe such
> claims without empirical evidence that I can study with my own eyes. Until I
> see otherwise, I'll probably continue to believe that while a camera like
> the 1DS is indeed slightly superior to film, with cameras like the D60 and
> 10D being approximately equal to film (talking scanned 4000+ ppi Provia 100F
> of course), the prints from all these methods probably obscure any real
> differences (depending on the size of the enlargement of course).
Consider that many comparisons are made from inkjet prints. Because of the high
dot gain of inkjet printing, there is a limit to display of apparent
resolution. A printing target used for commercial press runs (not newsprint)
would show the actual lack of fine detail resolution in the majority of inkjet
prints. Then you are left with judging the images based upon apparent
sharpness, which has much more to do with edge contrast than resolution.
Images printed on a commercial press are capable of greater spi (signatures per
inch), though will only display fine details if the original file contained
that detail. A good example of this from the world of scanning: take two files
of exactly the same size, with one as a drum scan, and the other as a CCD film
scan; and you would find that the drum scanned file gives greater edge
definition, and better rendition of fine details. The ability to discriminate
various hues is better with drum scanning, so the appearance result is finer
detail display, but only apparent with some types of printing. If you printed
both those same files on a desktop inkjet, you would likely see little to no
difference.
Basically, if your concern is to printed quality, you should find out the
limits of the printer first. All you need to do is match the capability of your
printer, or printing method. If you have more information in a file than what
your printer can display, then the extra information is wasted. It might even
slow your workflow down, since the file size could be larger than it needs to
be for the results.
Also, consider that any adjustments you do in most editing software are
destructive, similar to "generational" losses. There are software applications
for image editing that can maintain the majority of the information as intact,
but they are not as common as PhotoShop, and many are quite expensive. Anyway,
any steps you can do to a digital file direct from a camera could also be done
to any file from scanned film; it would be easy to "sharpen" either, and claim
one was sharper than another.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Meryl Arbing
image projected from a multi-media projector. The fact that you can get an
absolutely fantastic slide projector for $600 and you can only get a
mediocre digital projector for $6000 but at least both are '1st generation'.
"Katie Piecrust" <NoSpam!> wrote in message
Steve Hoffmann
> For a real eye-opener, try comparing a projected film slide to a digital
> image projected from a multi-media projector. The fact that you can get an
> absolutely fantastic slide projector for $600 and you can only get a
> mediocre digital projector for $6000 but at least both are '1st
generation'.
That is not a valid comparison. You are enlarging the image of the slide in
an analog fashion while the digital image is limited to monitor resolution.
The computer projector shows the image at the monitor resolution of the
attached computer, or about 70-90 PPI.
Dave Martindale
>"Meryl Arbing" <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> For a real eye-opener, try comparing a projected film slide to a digital
>> image projected from a multi-media projector. The fact that you can get an
>> absolutely fantastic slide projector for $600 and you can only get a
>> mediocre digital projector for $6000 but at least both are '1st
>generation'.
>That is not a valid comparison. You are enlarging the image of the slide in
>an analog fashion while the digital image is limited to monitor resolution.
>The computer projector shows the image at the monitor resolution of the
>attached computer, or about 70-90 PPI.
Once the image is projected by the digital projector, you're lucky if
the image is 10 PPI on screen. The PPI value that the computer monitor
would display it at is irrelevant.
The real problem is lack of pixels, which results in lack of resolvable
detail. A projected 35 slide has a resolution equivalent to at least
3072x2048 (6 megapixels), possibly much more depending on camera and
projector lens and film choice. A typical digital projector is about 1
megapixel, and completely inadequate for showing the detail in a 4 or 6
megapixel digital image.
Even HDTV equipment, still horrendously expensive, is only 2 megapixel
(1920x1080).
For the moment, if you want to project high-quality digital photographs,
there's not much choice other than recording them back onto film and
projecting the film.
Dave
Gordon Gekko
> I
> still have my good old EOS 3 and am looking perhaps to buy the new Minolta
> scanner when it comes out, so you can see why these tests really interest
> me. Clearly, the EOS 1DS seems to beat Provia scanned on a 4000 ppi scanner,
> and while I would love to own one this camera is way out of my price range.
> And it looks like the D60/10D are about the same as a film scan on average.
> From the other posts I've read here printing is what seems to really level
> the playing field among all the options given, correct? Basically I'm hoping
> someone will tell me that the new Minolta scanner with good film will be
> sufficient for the next several years (I want to print up to 16x20) until
> affordable 11+ megapixel cameras become affordable.
The Minolta scanner looks VERY promising, not only does it have 5400
dpi resolution, it also has hardware based grain reduction. Too bad
I'm stuck with the lousy Canonscan FS4000US that makes all film
emulsion bubbles show up as dark black specks :(
Leonhard Pang
<ZFkIa.92212$hd6.58930@fed1read05>:
[sniped comparing slide-projector with beamer]
>That is not a valid comparison. You are enlarging the image of the slide
>in an analog fashion while the digital image is limited to monitor
>resolution. The computer projector shows the image at the monitor
>resolution of the attached computer, or about 70-90 PPI.
It's a totaly valid comparison...
if your intention is to project your pictures.
-Leonhard
Michael Stevens
> ... why should one buy an expensive DSLR (like a D60 or 10D) if the
>final print looks pretty much the same as from a much less expensive
>film scanner?
1. No film cost. Sure the camera is three times more expensive but it
eventually pays for itself, especially if you shoot alot. I shot over
3600 pictures one weekend for an AVP event. Using the cheapest film it
would have cost me around $200 for film alone.
2. No developing cost. Sure, you need a computer but who doesn't have
one nowadays. If you are a photographer you surely have the tools
already. The aforementioned AVP outing would have cost me a minimum of
$400 in developing cost.
3. No developing wait. Shoot ... go home ... download ... view. I can
be viewing pictures in as little time as it takes to get home. If I'm
shooting film it's a bare minimum of 1 hour, not including time to get
to and from the lab.
4. No sitting by a scanner for hours on end scannind images. I've got
a Nikon 4000 and I know that it's full resolution scans are not really
quick, especially if you need one of the ICEł components. I've found
that dust & scratch removal is almost always necessary and that
doubles scan times. Add in grain reduction for a high speed film and
it's tripled.
Just that one AVP shoot would have cost me a little under 1/2 the
price of my 10D. So, that camera has almost half paid for itself in
savings over one weekend. Too bad I've also got a 1D so I've got alot
of shooting to do to pay for both of them ... and all my L glass.
Sure, I know there are alot of other variables but all in all and over
time a digital camera will be cheaper to use and quicker to get photos
from.
Mike
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Lewis Lang
>From: Michael Stevens bigmikeatbigmikesdotorg
>Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2003 6:45 PM
>Message-id: <nok6fvoghbsikeo8h...@4ax.com>
>
>On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:00:37 -0600, "Katie Piecrust" <NoSpam!> wrote:
>
>> ... why should one buy an expensive DSLR (like a D60 or 10D) if the
>>final print looks pretty much the same as from a much less expensive
>>film scanner?
>
>1. No film cost. Sure the camera is three times more expensive but it
>eventually pays for itself, especially if you shoot alot. I shot over
>3600 pictures one weekend for an AVP event. Using the cheapest film it
>would have cost me around $200 for film alone.
>
>2. No developing cost. Sure, you need a computer but who doesn't have
>one nowadays. If you are a photographer you surely have the tools
>already. The aforementioned AVP outing would have cost me a minimum of
>$400 in developing cost.
Mike, what is an "AVP" event and how are you printing your pictures; 4x6"
chemical prints, inkjets or dye subs done on spot or later/after the event by
you at home/office?
TIA
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
Michael Stevens
wrote:
"Association of Volleyball Professionals" It's the USA's Pro Beach
Volleyball Tour.
Any pictures that I want personally I print on my Epson 1520
(hopefully soon it'll be a 2200). For the shots that some of the
contestants bought I uploaded them to Adorama's print lab and had them
do it so I know they'll be lightfast and will last.
If you're interested:
www.wideopenphotography.com/photos/avp/avp_index.html
As it is, there are over 1800 pictures on that link, after deleting
all the "missed shots". I posted them all because I got many requests
from players asking "how to get them" so I figured if I'm gonna sell
them I'll give them all the pictures to choose from.
Look through "The Good Shots" links to see all the quality photos.
When I eventually get around to it I'll take some of the good ones and
make a gallery, combined with a bunch of my other "good ones" and
actually develop the site. But, I can't seem to find the time ...
Lewis Lang
>From: Michael Stevens bigmikeatbigmikesdotorg
>Message-id: <b5refv8mkdldh5tck...@4ax.com>
Thanks for the explanations and the URL, MIke :-)