Popular Photography mag's "Film Vs. Digital"
VT
major feature article/section on "Film Vs. Digital".
Overall I (eventually) thought that the article/feature was pretty
well balanced.....
But - initially - when I first read the bit about film being more
convenient than digital - I thought they were either biassed or didn't
know what they were talking about....
However on further thought I realized that they were right.
Although digital photography is more convenient for _us_ - with
computers and photo printers, or on-line photoprocessing - a lot of
this is still kind of DYI.
But the for the average consumer a simple p&s or disposable camera
_is_ far simpler - all they do is drop the film off at their local
high street shop or even supermarket and on average they get a full
set of 6x4 prints back within a day.
I know that this local or low cost processing gets a lot of criticism
- but the resultant prints are normally on average excellent. (I
shoot both film and digital - I get film prints (from a local Best Buy
processing (Qualex)) that are (technically) superior in just about
every way than my digital prints.) -
I realize this is a matter of opinion (hot debate) - but the point of
all tis is that the average consumer gets good results using local one
day processing - and gets pretty "intstant" gratification all the way
to the end result - ie: prints.......
Anyway I thought the artical feature was well worth while - from a
major industry magazine.
The issue also has a test of 6 on-line photoprocessing labs.
I am really glad to see such a major industry magazine "embracing"
digital - afterall - it's photography - digital is just another way of
doing it.......
--
Vincent
vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
Daniel Pead
<vtVi...@prodigy.net> writes
>But - initially - when I first read the bit about film being more
>convenient than digital - I thought they were either biassed or didn't
>know what they were talking about....
Or maybe they were asking an ambiguous question! More convenient than
digital for what?
A lot of the things people on this newsgroup are doing (retouching,
sharpening, cropping, enlargements, panoramas etc.) would require a
darkroom (and a well equipped one at that) to replicate with film.
...and if you just want to go out and take a couple of shots & see the
results immediately (without wasting most of a film & paying a premium
for processing) digital kind of wins hands down.
Anyway, there's no reason why the "one hour" lab can't be replicated
with digital.
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus E10 & C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
VT
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Or maybe they were asking an ambiguous question! More convenient than
>digital for what?
>
>Anyway, there's no reason why the "one hour" lab can't be replicated
>with digital.
Quite correct.
Perhaps it's best if people read the article for themselves and reach
their own conclusions - instead of my "interpretation"/summary.
I thought it was well balanced and worthwhile.
J Greely
>Although digital photography is more convenient for _us_
Speak for yourself. :-)
Personally, I find film cameras much more convenient, long before I
ever get to the processing/editing/printing stages. I can carry the
equivalent of 50GB of media in one pouch of my camera case, and I can
fill it all up without a change of batteries. Best of all, I don't
have to spend any time dealing with that media before I'm ready to go
back out the next day. I just grab some more.
Slide scanner, Photoshop, and dye-sub, yes. Digicam, not really
practical for me right now. When my new studio is finished, I'll pick
one up for quick portfolio prints and as a possible replacement for or
supplement to Polaroids, but I'm more likely to invest in larger film
formats than in serious digital capture for some time to come. Now, if
the Foveon folks put three of their 4Kx4K sensors into a hand-holdable
package...
>I am really glad to see such a major industry magazine "embracing"
>digital
What, one of them has been rejecting it? Last time I checked, all the
consumer mags were jumping on the digital bandwagon as fast as they
could.
-j
Billy
J Greely wrote:
>
> Personally, I find film cameras much more convenient,
Faster responding, better controls, better viewfinder,
more resolution, better color capture (in daylight) - Yes.
More convenient? Not for me - not by a long shot since I
got a microdrive.
> I can carry the equivalent of 50GB of media in one pouch of my
> camera case, and I can fill it all up without a change of batteries.
(Assuming gigs and megs mean resolution, not file size)
50 gig?! Let's see, you use Velvia right? That's about
20 meg per image, 36 images per roll - 720 meg per roll.
I suppose you could fit 70 rolls of film in your camera
bag, but that's pretty good battery life!
> Best of all, I don't have to spend any time dealing with that
> media before I'm ready to go back out the next day. I just grab some more.
Well, I could say similar things about my microdrive
(I upgraded my A50 to an S10).
> Slide scanner, Photoshop, and dye-sub, yes. Digicam, not really
> practical for me right now. When my new studio is finished, I'll pick
> one up for quick portfolio prints and as a possible replacement for or
> supplement to Polaroids,
Careful with that. My digicam behaves differently than my
film cameras. I'd like to try a G1, or better yet, one of
the digital SLR's, but it seems that my S10 is something
like ISO 80, and uses really odd shutter speeds. Not
insurmountable problems, but not a nice 1:1 correlation.
I was going to use my digicam for proofs, but I think I'm
just going to get a better light meter. Perhaps a G1, 990,
or one of the digital SLR's would work better, I don't know.
> but I'm more likely to invest in larger film formats than in
> serious digital capture for some time to come.
Hmmm, well, er, I just got a Rolleicord and a Keiv-60.
I'm thinking that digital is great for a vacation/snapshot
camera, and I'll use MF for landscapes, portraits and the
like. IMHO, digital is better for snapshots and as a
'walk around with' camera, 35mm is better for sports and
astrophotography with a scope, or any time you need more
than 5 frames per second or instant shutter response.
Medium format is better for still subjects, and I'm not
sure what roll large format has. It's much easier to do
perspective correction in software, and how often do you
need to print 7 ft images that look good from 2 feet away?
I think photography (over the next few years) will polarize
between digital and medium format film. Digital can
already beat APS for about everything (due more to cameras
than film) and can compete with 35mm for print sizes up to
8x10. And with the new Nikons at 5 megapix, maybe even
more than that. One crucial piece that's missing is
a decent 120/220 scanner for under $1,500 USD. I also
think camera makers are missing a good opportunity to
migrate some 35mm features (auto-focus, auto-exposure)
to medium format cameras that cost less than the GNP of
many countries.
To try to be succinct:
Digital is great for getting folks interested in
photography. When they want to make larger prints,
medium format is a more natural, complimentary addition
to a digital system than 35mm.
> Now, if the Foveon folks put three of their 4Kx4K sensors
> into a hand-holdable package...
One thing that I got out of all the PIA (err, PMA) show
is that mfgr's seem to be looking at digital as a
replacement for APS. The new cameras are only 2-3
(and even 1.3) megapix. Nobody released a 5 megapix
camera in the consumer market segment. Maybe someone will
later this year, but camera makers are *finally* looking
more at 'camera' features rather than megapix. I'm very
encouraged by the Canon G1 and Pro90, and I'm waiting to
see what Nikon comes up with. Of course, any camera with
more than 5 megapix better support microdrives - storage
options get pretty limiting.
> >I am really glad to see such a major industry magazine "embracing"
> >digital
>
> What, one of them has been rejecting it? Last time I checked, all the
> consumer mags were jumping on the digital bandwagon as fast as they
> could.
Well, with digital camera sales up something like 40%,
I guess they're just following the crowd, or at least
their customers.
And with medium format sales *down* 9%....
--
-Billy e-mail - billy_rpd at yahoo dot com checked weekly
Look - RPD FAQ - http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
Please support descriptive subjects by ignoring generic
posts!
Peter Bell
The color negative print looked awful.
It turns out the film used was a "standard ISO 100 consumer color negative
emulsion." Sounds fancy, but it could be four-year-old Kodak film from a
drugstore, for all we know.
There is also no information on how the film was developed. It could have
been by a clerk at the local drugstore, for all we know.
That said, the D30 photo looked outstanding, with the S1 only slightly
behind. I just wish they had done a real comparison.
I was also LMAO when the previous article bragged about the 16MP Foveon
chip, then showed a print from it that was about 2"x2"! "Wow, looks great!"
Thanks,
- Peter
Bruno Fernandes
>(Assuming gigs and megs mean resolution, not file size)
>50 gig?! Let's see, you use Velvia right? That's about
>20 meg per image,
Wow, 20 megs is way off if you're speaking about an uncompressed image (ie. not
JPG and not a RAW dump from the CCD). 20MB is only approximately 3000x2250
pixels. That's not even close to the potential resolution of film.
> and how often do you
>need to print 7 ft images that look good from 2 feet away?
But isn't it nice to just be able to brag about it? :)
>And with the new Nikons at 5 megapix, maybe even
>more than that.
Holy step-backwards interpolation nightmare. No doubt their images will look
good though. Leave it up to Nikon for some fancy algorithmic footwork. They
should still have adopted a 6mp+ full-frame CCD though. They can't hold on for
as long as they did with the first D1.
>Nobody released a 5 megapix camera in the consumer market segment.
Minolta.
>Maybe someone will later this year
Be looking for ALL the major players to roll around to 5MP this year.
>but camera makers are *finally* looking more at 'camera'
> features rather than megapix.
Some features are no more than gimmicks. WHat really needs to be addressed in
the mid-consumer price point is processing horsepower and buffer memory. We
need faster onboard (S)DRAM and more of it. That along with some fast
integrated processors (some very nice projects being worked on with a StrongARM
core with new display capabilities that may lend themselves to all sorts of
applications, including digital cameras).
>Of course, any camera with
>more than 5 megapix better support microdrives - storage
>options get pretty limiting.
Increased storage capacity won't seem like such a big problem if you have to
deal with slow storage speed. Prices on Microdrives and static products is
dropping sharply, so it will be easier than ever to simply buy more of it. The
revolution in the industry will come not only from higher density, but increased
throughput.
>Well, with digital camera sales up something like 40%,
Growth this past calendar year was not as high as expected and down a bit from
the year previous I believe. I suspect we should see an increase toward the
second half of this year.
Bruno
VT
wrote:
>Well, it struck me as being somewhat bogus.
>
>The color negative print looked awful.
>
>It turns out the film used was a "standard ISO 100 consumer color negative
>emulsion." Sounds fancy, but it could be four-year-old Kodak film from a
>drugstore, for all we know.
>
>There is also no information on how the film was developed. It could have
>been by a clerk at the local drugstore, for all we know.
>
>That said, the D30 photo looked outstanding, with the S1 only slightly
>behind. I just wish they had done a real comparison.
>
I'm sorry, are you actually talking about the _same_ magazine?
the March, 2001 issue of "Popular Photography"?
I could not find the Canon D30 or the Fuji S-1 shots you were talking
about.
The film shot on page 52 clearly states it was shot on Fuji Superia
100 (with a tripod mounted Olympus Stylus Zoom 105) - the enlargement
clearly shows a lot more detail than the 3Mp digi-cam shot (a Sony
DSC-P1)
>> From: vtVi...@prodigy.net (VT)
>> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:43:50 GMT
>> Subject: Popular Photography mag's "Film Vs. Digital"
>>
>> The latest issue (March, 2001) issue of "Popular Photography" has a
>> major feature article/section on "Film Vs. Digital".
>>
>> Overall I (eventually) thought that the article/feature was pretty
>> well balanced.....
--
Vincent
vtVi...@Prodigy.Net
C.H.Ling
still far better than the current 3-4 Mp digital camera in resolution, there
is no argue necessary.
http://www.glink.net.hk/~digicam
C.H.Ling
"VT" <vtVi...@prodigy.Net> wrote in message
news:3a920bf3...@news.prodigy.net...
VT
wrote:
>I agree with you Vincent, anyone interest can check my web site, film is
>still far better than the current 3-4 Mp digital camera in resolution, there
>is no argue necessary.
>
>http://www.glink.net.hk/~digicam
>
Modern film is potentially capable of capturing a _lot_ of
information.
Just to give an idea of how much - by the numbers (here's that pixel
arithmetic again) - most modern films are capable of resolving well in
excess of 100lp/mm. But let's just be practical - since only very,
very good (35mm format) lens can reach 100lp/mm resolution - so let's
just stick with the 100lp/mm limit.
It takes a minimum of 2 pixel (rows) to resolve 1 line-pair so a full
36x24mm 35mm film frame has the equivalent of:
36*100*2 x 24*100*2 pixels = 7200 x 4800 pixels = 34.56Mp
That's just resolution - how about color gamut and dynamic range?
Film has been quoted as having about 20-bits/color depth - that's
60-bit color!!!/dynamic range.
BUT.....
what is "enough"??
It will vary for individuals -
for my usage probably "publishable" quality (300dpi) to A4 size (at
aspect ratio of 4:3) will be good enough - but even that is:
11.69*300 = 3507
aspect ratio 4:3 gives
3500 x 3500*3/4 = 3500 x 2625 = 9.19Mp
But "publishable" quality to a double A4-fold spread (ie: A3) would be
even better, but we are now talking about some 18.38 Mp........
Then true 36-bit color then would really be nice......
However as we know there are many who will tell you that 3Mp or so
will deliver results that are excellent......
so 3Mp will be good enough
...for now.....
.....until we are convinced that the next generation 5-6Mp digi-cam
has film beaten........
Billy
>
> Billy <Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote:
>
> >(Assuming gigs and megs mean resolution, not file size)
>
> Wow, 20 megs is way off if you're speaking about an uncompressed image (ie. not
> JPG and not a RAW dump from the CCD). 20MB is only approximately 3000x2250
> pixels. That's not even close to the potential resolution of film.
AHHHGGGG!! Not this again! Ok. First, I did state that I
was talking about 20 megs of resolution, not file size.
File size is dependent on too many variables, particularly
if you're talking JPG or RAW. The 20 meg I was talking
about is 5000x4000 pixels, which is about all you can
really get out of Velvia. Now, before anybody blows a
gasket, yes, I know that with high contrast subjects under
very controlled conditions that it's possible to get more
information onto film. However, tests have proven that the
effective limit for Velvia is 80 line pairs per mm for low
contrast subjects, and 160 lp/mm for high contrast
subjects.
So, Velvia ranges between 6 and 22 megapixels.
http://creekin.net/films.htm
Not only that, but when you put a lens in front of that
film, it generally has a limit of somewhere around 50 lp/mm,
once again, for low-medium contrast subjects.
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
In general, I agree with the 50 lp/mm limit that Robert
Monaghan details on his web site:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/limits.html
Sure, it's possible to beat 50 lp/mm with film, but regular
photographers with cameras costing less than $1,000 using
color film that they can buy at Wal-Mart snapping pics of
their kids at the beach and dropping their film off at the
drugstore can't beat 50 lp/mm.
> > and how often do you
> >need to print 7 ft images that look good from 2 feet away?
>
> But isn't it nice to just be able to brag about it? :)
Yup! Plus, you get to act like such an artiste and ramble
on about tripods, ball heads, and prime lenses when folks
ask 'how do you get such sharp pictures?'. It's *so*
mundane to say 'I use bigger negs'.
> >And with the new Nikons at 5 megapix, maybe even
> >more than that.
>
> Holy step-backwards interpolation nightmare.
Yeah, that's a head-scratcher.
> They can't hold on for as long as they did with the first D1.
Now that Canon and Minolta are firmly in the game, I agree,
Nikon better get moving.
> >Nobody released a 5 megapix camera in the consumer market segment.
>
> Minolta.
I thought the Dimage 7 had a MSRP of a few K bucks?
> >but camera makers are *finally* looking more at 'camera'
> >features rather than megapix.
>
> Some features are no more than gimmicks.
I think digital zoom is the unquestioned king of that
category.
> WHat really needs to be addressed in the mid-consumer price point is
> processing horsepower and buffer memory. We need faster onboard
> (S)DRAM and more of it.
If that will help shutter lag and shot-to-shot time,
I'm all for it! However, hot shoes - with TTL flash
support - is another thing missing from too many cameras,
along with remote shutter releases and a better preview
mechanism. Why not do histograms during preview, or
implement the little zoom thing in the LCD during preview?
There are many improvements that could be made to cameras
that are not gimmicks, and don't even seem that tough to
implement. For instance, what bone-head put the timer
and macro on the same button on the 950? Totally stupid
design idea, almost as bad as putting the flash right on
top of the lens. And, what's with plastic tripod threads?
Really, the list of improvements that could be made to
digicams is endless, yet these same mfgr's do a good job
designing 35mm cameras, what's up?
> >Of course, any camera with more than 5 megapix better
> >support microdrives - storage options get pretty limiting.
>
> Increased storage capacity won't seem like such a big problem
> if you have to deal with slow storage speed.
Err, you mean 'don't have to deal with slow storage speed'.
I agree - buffer 10 shots and I'd never notice if it was
taking 5 seconds to write each shot.
Billy
>
> Just to give an idea of how much - by the numbers (here's that pixel
> arithmetic again) - most modern films are capable of resolving well in
> excess of 100lp/mm.
Huh? Where are you getting this info? Most things that
I read say that on normally contrasty subjects you're
lucky to get 50 lp/mm, only really good films, or
moderately good B&W, can reach 100 lp/mm unless you're
talking about test target kind of contrast - not real
world subject contrast.
http://creekin.net/films.htm
> But let's just be practical - since only very,
> very good (35mm format) lens can reach 100lp/mm resolution - so let's
> just stick with the 100lp/mm limit.
Now, I realize that you're specifying a 'very very good'
lens, but - 100 lp/mm? Over the entire lens? At what
contrast ratios? I suppose if you're talking about the
center of some Lecia lenses you could get that from a
pretty contrasty subject.
(I'm sure I'll be proven wrong on this point....)
Certainly any zoom lens you can buy at the mall wouldn't
be anywhere near 100 lp/mm on a typical landscape or
portrait. Even though you specify 'very very good' I
think 50 lp/mm is a better general purpose limit.
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
- and -
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/limits.html
> It takes a minimum of 2 pixel (rows) to resolve 1 line-pair so a full
> 36x24mm 35mm film frame has the equivalent of:
>
> 36*100*2 x 24*100*2 pixels = 7200 x 4800 pixels = 34.56Mp
Actually, I think it's quite a bit lower than that.
If you search through the above limits link for John
Owlett's comments, he reaches the conclusion that:
normal amateur use of 35mm, you need 6 megapixels
meticulous use of Kodachrome, you need 12 megapixels
perfectionist use of Velvia, you need 22 megapixels
perfectionist use of Technical Pan, you need 35 megapixels
> That's just resolution - how about color gamut and dynamic range?
>
> Film has been quoted as having about 20-bits/color depth - that's
> 60-bit color!!!/dynamic range.
Once again, very dependent on the subject and other
factors.
The problem is that you're comparing a very complex analog
system with a digital medium. This is all very dependent
on which film, which lens, which subject, and general
shooting conditions. The analog medium changes drastically
depending on all these. Then you have to factor in the
developing, enlarging, and that end of the process. The
digital medium is not as much of a moving target.
It's the same kind of thing when comparing audio CD's to
vinyl. There is a point when the average person (or even
skilled person) cannot tell the difference, yet instruments
can measure what can be made to appear to be large
differences in quality. I think we're still at the point
where a 35mm SLR can make 8x10's that most people would
agree are better than digicam 8x10's - but not by much.
Giles Morris
news:3A92D5C2...@not.here.com...
> perfectionist use of Technical Pan, you need 35 megapixels
I'd been wondering about this, because I used to use TP, and found the
results to be astonishingly sharp. However... If the camera is operating in
B&W mode, should there not be (something like) three times the resolution
available because each sensor pixel is working in grayscale instead of being
masked R, G or B?
BTW: I wonder if there was a controversy like this when the Leica hit the
market and it was 35mm vs. 6x6cm.
Giles Morris
J Greely
>Here we go again......
That's just what I was thinking.
>Faster responding, better controls, better viewfinder,
>more resolution, better color capture (in daylight) - Yes.
And I wasn't even going to go into all of *those* advantages...
>More convenient? Not for me - not by a long shot since I
>got a microdrive.
I'd need about twenty of them for a day trip. That or use lossy
compression severe enough to introduce artifacts into 8x10 prints.
>(Assuming gigs and megs mean resolution, not file size)
I meant "equivalent storage capacity", using the amount of useful
image data I can *currently* extract from 35mm film. When I've sent
things out for drum scans, I've gotten even better results,
particularly for shadow detail that's too close to the noise floor of
a desktop CCD scanner.
>50 gig?! Let's see, you use Velvia right? That's about
>20 meg per image, 36 images per roll - 720 meg per roll.
Actually, I typically shoot with Astia, reserving Velveeta for dull,
overcast days where its excessive saturation helps rather than hurts.
Correcting your math, that's 50MB per image, or 1.75GB per roll.
Approximately 29 rolls of film, 20 if I had a better scanner or sent
them out.
>I suppose you could fit 70 rolls of film in your camera
>bag, but that's pretty good battery life!
Actually, my current body can hold three complete sets of batteries
internally at the cost of an extra ounce or two, which is sufficient
for at least 100 rolls. Enough spare batteries for another 100+ rolls
takes up about as much space as three rolls of film.
The only time I need lots of battery capacity is when I'm shooting
indoors with flash, and the power-pack for my Qflash lasts a good
eight rolls.
>>When my new studio is finished, I'll pick one up for quick portfolio
>>prints and as a possible replacement for or supplement to Polaroids,
>Careful with that. My digicam behaves differently than my
>film cameras.
So does my Polaroid. Neither is directly comparable to the film I'm
using, but either would be useful for lighting tests, quick approvals,
souvenirs for models, etc.
>I was going to use my digicam for proofs, but I think I'm
>just going to get a better light meter.
The best light meter in the world won't tell you if the model's hair
is casting a shadow across her eye, or if the metal chair in the
background needs a shot of dulling spray. My modeling lights aren't
100% reliable for that sort of thing.
>Medium format is better for still subjects, and I'm not sure what
>roll large format has.
Anyone who has ever seen a good print from LF knows the answer. Even
at 8x10 it's clearly better, and the difference becomes more obvious
the larger you go.
>It's much easier to do perspective correction in software,
If you start with more resolution than you need for your final output,
perhaps. And, as with many Photoshop techniques, what you get is
*similar* to the result of correcting perspective in the field, but
not identical. A lot of catalog work still relies on 4x5 view cameras
for precisely that reason. An increasing number of them use digital
backs instead of film, but they still need view camera movements.
>and how often do you need to print 7 ft images that look good from 2
>feet away?
Well, there's a reason the folks at Playboy still shoot centerfolds on
8x10 film. Even at the modest size the centerfolds are printed at in
the magazine, it makes a difference, and when they print up the wall
posters to sell to college students...
Right now, I'm trying to decide what to put over the mantle in my new
house, and I'm thinking a 30x40 print would work nicely. A nice sunset
beach shot somewhere along the Monterey Bay. I'll take the 35mm out on
the scouting trips, but when it comes time to get the shot for real,
I'll pull the 4x5 out of the trunk of my car and schlep it out to the
right spot. Then I'll drop the slide off at Calypso and have them scan
it in and make a LightJet print.
>I think photography (over the next few years) will polarize between
>digital and medium format film.
Oh, I actually agree with this, but I think that outside of the
consumer arena, we're still waiting on the affordable 24x36 sensors
with at least 2000x3000 resolution at 12 bits per channel.
>Digital can already beat APS for about everything (due more to
>cameras than film) and can compete with 35mm for print sizes up to
>8x10.
A few of the high-end pro digital cameras are becoming competitive
with 35mm at 8x10, yes. Consumer-grade stuff still has a long way to
go, as do most of the printers (the Olympus P-400 is a very pleasant
exception to that rule).
>One crucial piece that's missing is a decent 120/220 scanner for
>under $1,500 USD.
One of my fondest wishes. Of course, I want one that scans 4x5
as well...
>I also think camera makers are missing a good opportunity to migrate
>some 35mm features (auto-focus, auto-exposure) to medium format
>cameras that cost less than the GNP of many countries.
If 6x4.5 is big enough for you, they're out there. They're still
pricy, but so are top-of-the-line 35mm cameras and lenses.
>When they want to make larger prints, medium format is a more
>natural, complimentary addition to a digital system than 35mm.
Considering that one of the primary reasons APS was introduced was to
deal with the incredible number of people who can't manage to load
35mm film correctly, medium format has a way to go in the usability
department. :-)
-j
VT
<Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote:
>VT wrote:
>>
>> Just to give an idea of how much - by the numbers (here's that pixel
>> arithmetic again) - most modern films are capable of resolving well in
>> excess of 100lp/mm.
>
>Huh? Where are you getting this info? Most things that
>I read say that on normally contrasty subjects you're
>lucky to get 50 lp/mm, only really good films, or
>moderately good B&W, can reach 100 lp/mm unless you're
>talking about test target kind of contrast - not real
>world subject contrast.
>http://creekin.net/films.htm
You missed the key word - _potentially_ capable.
I more than agree that for general photography - even so called
"critcal" viewing - we don't normally approach 100lp/mm.
BUT photography is not limited to just our type of general photography
- there are many, many applications that do demand much more critical
capture of information.
I still think film is _potentially_ capable of capturing information
that is far in excess of 35Mp. (some sources quote as high as 54Mp)
Look at any spec sheet of any modern film - they are spec'd to well in
excess of 100lp/mm - admittedly for high contrast targets -
but they are _potentially_ capable of capturing that kind of
information.
_We_ might not need that -
but that shouldn't limit other applications......
VT
<Giles....@SpammedOut.org> wrote:
>"Billy" <Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote in message
>news:3A92D5C2...@not.here.com...
>
>> perfectionist use of Technical Pan, you need 35 megapixels
>
>I'd been wondering about this, because I used to use TP, and found the
>results to be astonishingly sharp. However... If the camera is operating in
>B&W mode, should there not be (something like) three times the resolution
>available because each sensor pixel is working in grayscale instead of being
>masked R, G or B?
>
No, as you still have the same number of pixels (capture cells) in
black & white as you do in color.
What is interpolated is the color information - so that each pixel or
cell now has full color information -
- but the pixel count remains the same.
Billy
>
> You missed the key word - _potentially_ capable.
>
> I more than agree that for general photography - even so called
> "critcal" viewing - we don't normally approach 100lp/mm.
I've never done any critcal viewing, but I'm often
critical of some work. ;)
> BUT photography is not limited to just our type of general photography
> - there are many, many applications that do demand much more critical
> capture of information.
Sure, astrophotography for instance, they often use
B&W film for that very reason.
> _We_ might not need that -
> but that shouldn't limit other applications......
I agree. The problem (er, excuse me, 'issue') I have
with this argument is that often film advocates start
making wild claims about how good film is, when the
real question being posed is "What performance delta
can I expect between my cheapo film camera and a
x megapix digital camera", not "What's the absolute
best resolution you can get out of film".
Trevor
the dynamic range of color film, using only 20 Mega Bytes of storage space?
You are going to need at LEAST 14 bits per color, so minimum file size would
be 42/8 * 20,000,000 which is approx 100 Mbyte WITH a raw storage format but
without compression. Of course 16 bits per pixel would be necessary to
approach something like Velvia.
So it seems that you are both in agreement, it's just that one of you is
talking about M Bytes and one M Pixels.
Trevor.
"Billy" <Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote in message
news:3A92CC4F...@not.here.com...
Trevor
cameras, I really doubt that this was a "primary" reason. It would be nice
if they had developed an APS style format bigger than 35 mm though. Still
there were a lot of 110 format cameras sold, so many people do not require
any degree of quality what ever. Reducing the neg size allowed them to
reduce the camera size, the film manufacturing cost, and the film processing
cost. The last two do not benefit the consumer, but do increase profits.
Trevor.
"J Greely" <jgr...@corp.webtv.net> wrote in message
news:ynvbsrx...@corp.webtv.net...
Mike Russell
It's 1200 BC. Imagine you're an Egyptian bronze worker, and you've just
been shown the Hittite process of iron making. If the bronze worker is
human, I imagine he would react something like this:
Iron will never replace bronze because:
1) more heat required to make iron than bronze.
2) weird materials
3) the iron product is brittle. Would you rather be in battle with a broken
iron sword, or a bent bronze one.
4) the iron product won't take a polish. I can't imagine making a high
quality polished shield for the pharaohs annual state of the empire speech
out of this.
5) corrosion - iron rusts, bronze doesn't, so it's gonna make no kind of
tomb ornament, and that's 30 percent of our revenue.
6) an iron sword may cut a bronze one in half - but so what? In a battle
situation, the lightness, flexibility, and quality of the bronze sword is
what's going to matter, not the heavy blunt power of the iron sword. All
the really good swordsmen I know have stuck to bronze.
7) iron just sucks - if I really have to explain it to you then you are
obviously someone of low standards who just doesn't understand the superior
quality of bronze.
If you're still with me, my point is this: it makes no more sense to judge
iron as if it were trying to be bronze, than to judge digital as if it were
trying to be film. If you do, you will simply be overrun by the digital
equivalent of the Hittites.
Those who continue to judge digital strictly in terms of how well it
measures up to film are missing the point and the potential of digital.
Digital is another animal, and image quality is just one facet of it's still
emerging functionality, and we have not yet discovered all the ways in which
it is superior to film.
The fact is that still image photography wouldn't be able to make a living
at all right now were it not for digital scanners. The same is true of film
special effects, and in due time, when theaters realize they need digital
projectors to compete with home systems, the same will be true of normal
motion pictures.
Here's article that I wrote for this news group about a year ago, and I
think it still stands up well:
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/will_digital_replace_film.htm
--
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
"VT" <vtVi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a92fe89...@news.prodigy.net...
VT
APS was introduced for many reasons including a hoped for boost in
sales in photography.
I think APS has been generally more accepted in Japan and Europe (the
UK for example)
The full negative area is 30x17mm which is actually _potentially_
capable of the equivalent of:
using 100 lp/mm as an upper limit (note scaled down lenses of shorter
focal lengths are actually capable of higher resolution than full 35mm
format lenses - so this is actually quite realistic)
30*100*2 x 17*100*2 pixels = 6000 x 3400 pixels = 20Mp
Or more practically -- using 50 lp/mm as an upper limit -
30*50*2 x 17*50*2 pixels = 3000 x 1700 pixels = 5.1Mp
So digi-cams are fast approaching this and in some cases have
overtaken the resolution capablity of APS film.
Grant Dixon
to dpi times 6 and am I to assume it is the same for film. Or is it 2 times
for dpi, one for the line and one or the space to give resolution? In any
case if it is 6 times a 35 mm camera would be eequal to 7920 by 11880 dpi or
95 Mp and a file approaching 282 meg per frame. If only 2 times then 2649
by 3960 dpi or 11 MP with a file of 32 meg. Now from what I have seen with
drum scanners 35 mm slide film starts to reach a practical limith at around
35 Mp yealding files in excess of 100 meg. That is considering all files
are TIF format.
Now folks I don't want to add gas to a fire but we are talking apples and
oranges here. While I love my CoolPix and you would have to tear it from my
cold hands to seperate me for it .... the same can be said for my Nikon 90
cameras. They are different tools for different jobs.
Grant
VT
wrote:
>Those who continue to judge digital strictly in terms of how well it
>measures up to film are missing the point and the potential of digital.
How does one "correctly" judge the (technical) quality of a digital
image?
>Digital is another animal, and image quality is just one facet of it's still
>emerging functionality, and we have not yet discovered all the ways in which
>it is superior to film.
>
There is no doubt that digital photography will continue to improve
and there will be lots of aspect where it will clearly be "different"
or "better" than film - it is a fast emerming technology -
So what's the point of this?
Film photography is a good target to aim for, and hopefully surpass -
what else can we compare it to??
>The fact is that still image photography wouldn't be able to make a living
>at all right now were it not for digital scanners. The same is true of film
>special effects, and in due time, when theaters realize they need digital
>projectors to compete with home systems, the same will be true of normal
>motion pictures.
>
That statement doesn't make sense - nor is it logical -
Using that same logic -
There would be NO photography if it wasn't for "film"....
So where does that put us???
It's not an either/or situation -
it is just "photography" on different media - great artists will learn
to use the media to express themselves.
>Here's article that I wrote for this news group about a year ago, and I
>think it still stands up well:
>
Based on what......
and using what/whose criteria?
Was digital photography invented out of a vaccuum?
Does its quality surpass such as -
Ansel Adams
Minor White
Ernst Haas
Ray Man
Edward Weston
both in artistic and technical quality??
I think the "Popular Photography" (Mrach, 2001) article has got it
about right.
J Greely
>Considering the fact that most such people use autoloading 35 mm compact
>cameras, I really doubt that this was a "primary" reason.
At the APS introduction, Kodak specifically claimed that some absurdly
large number of 35mm rolls per year were misloaded, and that avoiding
this was one of the most important benefits of the self-contained
cassette. Certainly their advertising continues to stress the "easy
film loading" feature.
-j
J Greely
>Iron will never replace bronze because:
All we need to make this analogy truly useful is the digital
equivalent of *steel*. :-)
-j
Joe Doupnik
But don't forget that digital cameras fake much of the information
by interpolating the CCD Bayer patterns. So the digital stuff still has a
long way to go before reaching even APS capabilities. Emphasis on capability
because it seems many APS cameras have less than stellar optics.
Joe D.
Molly Bender
the film camera combination, but lens designers seem to feel that the
important qualities of a lens is the performance in the 10,20 and 40 lp/mm
regions. In most of the grading schemes that I've seen, no credit is given
for performance above 40 lp/mm and not a lot of credit for performance at
40p/mm. It seems that 5 million pixels with good contrast charactristics is
more important than the number of pixels in determining a picture's quality.
Highest resolution does not necessarily translate into highest picture
quality.
"VT" <vtVi...@prodigy.Net> wrote in message
news:3a9312e0...@news.prodigy.net...
J Greely
>I agree. The problem (er, excuse me, 'issue') I have
>with this argument is that often film advocates start
>making wild claims about how good film is,
That's okay, it goes nicely with the wild claims about how good
digicams and inkjet printers are.
>when the real question being posed is "What performance delta can I
>expect between my cheapo film camera and a x megapix digital camera",
If that's the only question being asked, the correct answer is "it
doesn't matter, because you use a built-in flash and your pictures
will all suck anyway". :-)
If you were in the habit of shooting ISO 400 print film in a zoom
compact and getting your (mostly 4x6) prints made at the local
one-hour photo, then the digicam/inkjet market has more than caught up
with your needs.
If you own a 35mm SLR, fixed-focal-length lenses, an external flash,
and a tripod, and you shoot ISO 100 film that you expect to enlarge to
8x10 or above, you're still better served by a slide scanner and a
dye-sub printer than by consumer digicams and inkjets.
-j
Mike Russell
> Was digital photography invented out of a vaccuum?
NO.
> Does its quality surpass such as -
>
> Ansel Adams
> Minor White
> Ernst Haas
> Ray Man
> Edward Weston
>
> both in artistic and technical quality??
I like to think of these people not as bodies of work, but as personalities
who would have some strong things to say today, were they still alive.
These were all innovators, and none of them would stand, in my mind, anyway,
intrinsically against digital photography. .
Ansel Adams would probably have loved digital photography, and the way the
image's response curve can be adjusted and tweaked arbitrarily. Archival
inks, and the ability to produce high quality, permanent originals with
better tonality, and less impact on the environment would have all tended to
attract him to digital.
I'm less familiar with Minor White's work. He invented the zone system, and
my guess is he would have probably had some interesting, very quantiative,
contributions to digital.
Ray Man - referred to as "Man Ray" by normal people, would have been all
over digital like cream cheese over a Phili steak, doing all sorts of crazy
stuff. And his primary contribution was innovation. None of his
photographs were especially sharp, or even large format.
Weston was a friend and an insirpation to Ansel Adams. He might have been
less grumpy had he had PhotoShop's clone tool and not had to spend so much
time retouching negatives. He also complained about the ordeal of
physically standing in the dark for hours on end, and forified himself with
sunbathing - he would have loved digital. Because he did only contact
prints, it is assumed that he was a paradigm of quality. But many of his
photographs were not "optically sharp", none of his portraits, nudes or
peppers. Where's the "quality" in that? Yes, some of his pictures were
very sharp indeed, but composition, tonality and not resolution is the basis
of at over half the photographs he made. He used mucilage to mount his fine
art photographs (for which he charged his patrons double the going rate),
and they deteriorated within a decade of his death. My point is, if Weston
is your paradigm of quality, then digital surpassed it years ago with XGA
resolution and 740 dpi inkjets.
And there are other great figures such as Stieglitz, or Strand, and Atget.
In their day, an "action shot", of the sort that won photo contests, was
taking 20 second time exposures of a mounting thunderstorm, or a picture of
a moving cart - gasp - during a snow shower. Their work, too, from a
technical point of view, has long been overtaken by even the cheesiest of
digital technology.
The argument that digital photography has its roots in film photography, and
is therefore defined by it, belies the fact that photography had its roots
in painting. Photographic images are no more paintings than digital
photographs are film photographs.
All of my discussion about digital being essentially different from
photography are echos of Stieglitz's warnings made100 years ago, in which he
insisted that photography be judged on its own terms, rather than classified
as a hand-maiden of painting. His discussion of the "hand camera", which
took tiny 5x7 plates, is an excellent retort to those who today claim that
50 megapixels is necessary for something to be even called a photograph. I
think the same holds true today of digital versus film-based photography.
Ron Todd
VT wrote:
...
>
> the March, 2001 issue of "Popular Photography"?
>
> I could not find the Canon D30 or the Fuji S-1 shots you were talking
> about.
>
> The film shot on page 52 clearly states it was shot on Fuji Superia
> 100 (with a tripod mounted Olympus Stylus Zoom 105) - the enlargement
> clearly shows a lot more detail than the 3Mp digi-cam shot (a Sony
> DSC-P1)
>
...
I have not read the article yet. I will. IMHO: My only comment is that
most people don't view their prints through a 10x loupe. IAW, perfect
is not necessary to be sufficient. As for ease of getting prints, Ritz
tells me all I have do do is dump them off the CF card at their store,
prints in one hour. Standard caveats apply.
Billy
>
> Billy <Somewhe...@not.here.com> writes:
> >I agree. The problem (er, excuse me, 'issue') I have
> >with this argument is that often film advocates start
> >making wild claims about how good film is,
>
> That's okay, it goes nicely with the wild claims about how good
> digicams and inkjet printers are.
Touché
> >when the real question being posed is "What performance delta can I
> >expect between my cheapo film camera and a x megapix digital camera",
>
> If that's the only question being asked, the correct answer is "it
> doesn't matter, because you use a built-in flash and your pictures
> will all suck anyway". :-)
Well, I guess that covers a good bit of the market. At least
that bit about 'your pictures will all suck anyway'. ;)
> If you were in the habit of shooting ISO 400 print film in a zoom
> compact and getting your (mostly 4x6) prints made at the local
> one-hour photo, then the digicam/inkjet market has more than caught up
> with your needs.
Unfortunatly, given Canons recent release of a 1.3 megapix,
I think they feel that's where the consumer market ends. :(
If you recall, I used to feel that way, now - I'm reformed!
Gimme them pixels!!
> If you own a 35mm SLR, fixed-focal-length lenses, an external flash,
> and a tripod, and you shoot ISO 100 film that you expect to enlarge to
> 8x10 or above, you're still better served by a slide scanner and a
> dye-sub printer than by consumer digicams and inkjets.
I enthusiastically agree!
PJ
> think it still stands up well:
>
> http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/will_digital_replace_film.htm
I agree with what you say, and the article above is interesting.
It has one hilarious line though:
---- quote -----
When will this happen? Email me a copy of this in 5 years - it
will be sitting safely archived in deja.com.
---- quote -----
*Deja* eh? Who would of thought Google would be all over them and they'd be
dead?
At least Google's search technology is better - now if they'd only get the
damn site back up and running!
--
Philip Jones
Author of Toggler
Intelligently Manage your Caps Lock key and more!
http://www.siunits.com/toggler
J Greely
>using 100 lp/mm as an upper limit (note scaled down lenses of shorter
>focal lengths are actually capable of higher resolution than full 35mm
>format lenses - so this is actually quite realistic)
Say rather that you can reach that resolution with a smaller image
circle for a significantly lower price. You can get *fantastic* 35mm
lenses, they just cost too damn much. Digicam lenses have to be that
good just to get any resolution at all out of the tiny sensor.
That, to me, is the key to this particular argument. Anyone who wants
to argue about how the resolving power of the lenses limits 35mm film
to somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000dpi has to deal with the fact
that their digicam's image sensor has less than 1/8 the surface area of
that film, and the same optical limits apply.
If the 35mm camera's 24x36mm "sensor" is only delivering about 6MP,
then a digicam like the Olympus E-10, with a CCD sensor whose active
area is roughly 7x9.25mm, is going to have a tough time delivering its
claims of 3.5MP. Even assuming that its lens will deliver twice the
resolution of the 35mm camera will only get you to about 1.5MP
(roughly 1440x1080 by my calculations, which, by the way, is very
close to what Imaging Resource reports for their resolution test).
-j
VT
wrote:
>VT wrote:
>...
>
>>
>> the March, 2001 issue of "Popular Photography"?
>>
>> The film shot on page 52 clearly states it was shot on Fuji Superia
>> 100 (with a tripod mounted Olympus Stylus Zoom 105) - the enlargement
>> clearly shows a lot more detail than the 3Mp digi-cam shot (a Sony
>> DSC-P1)
>>
>...
>
>I have not read the article yet. I will. IMHO: My only comment is that
>most people don't view their prints through a 10x loupe. IAW, perfect
>is not necessary to be sufficient.
Fair comment and I'd be the first to agree -
However that bit was taken slightly out of context - since I was using
that as a reply to a responder who said the film print example was
terrible. (It wasn't in the magazine refered to)
VT
wrote:
>
>I like to think of these people not as bodies of work, but as personalities
>who would have some strong things to say today, were they still alive.
>These were all innovators, and none of them would stand, in my mind, anyway,
>intrinsically against digital photography. .
>
I don't think anyone was "against" digital -
certainly not me, and not as far I can see in the "Popular
Photography" (March 2001) feature/article, which I thought was well
balanced.
All you have managed to say is that the photographers would have
welcomed digital photography - of course they would - as most of the
people here......
That does not run against the grain (pardon the pun) of digital and
film being different media but with similar end results.
Taking those photographers as examples - they do not look for
technical quality for technical quality's sake - but their works do
demand a certain threshold of (technical) quality - and I believe that
these photographers used top of the line equipment and supplies for
their work - Ansel Adams wrote books about them
-- and with digital cameras we're not quite there yet.
Of course one can always agrue that one can judge artistic quality
even in newsprint - but would you really want to create your once in a
lifetime shot with newsprint quality???
Just to set the record staright I am not saying one can't take good
photos with the current digit-cams - of course we can - but are they
of sufficient (technical) quality? we're close to matching APS film
already -and for smaller prints 35mm format....
but we ain't quite there yet.
Just as an example -- I don't think Ansel Adams or Minor White or
Edward Weston or almost any of the other photographers could produce
their acknowledged masterpieces on any of the current digi-cams.......
Mike Russell
However, I stand by my original point, several posts ago, that attempting to
fit digital photography into the mold of film photography is missing the
point, and the future potential of digital photography.
Photography was hobbled, for many years and decades, by attempts to emulate
painting. Many photographers, aspiring to achieve artistic validity for
their new medium, attempted to emulate the work of Rembrandt, Goya, Raphael,
and other painters, much to the detriment of early photography. It was only
a select few of the early practitioners, notably among Americans Stieglitz,
who insisted that photography find its own way, in the sense of finding a
set of artistic and technical goals to be achieved that were unique to
photography and not derived from painting and other traditional graphic
arts. There was never any need to even attempt to produce a photographic
portrait comparable to an Ingres painting - though many tried and wasted
energy and careers doing so.
My point is that it is a similar error, with the digital age exploding
around us, to count pixels and compare resolution with our aged and ancient
ancestor, film photography, and a deeper error still, upon finding the
number of pixels smaller, to sit back complacently and say "Well, digital
hasn't made it yet". The "circle of confusion" thus derived is absolutely
misleading.
Imagine a new version of the f/64 club (there is one, actually, called f/0),
meeting in the present day, and vowing to devote their energies to promote
what digital photography can uniquely do, and not attempt to emulate film
any more than the original f/64 attempted to emulate painting, and you'll
get a sense of what I'm getting at.
Over and above that, film is becoming irrelevant even in the areas of it's
traditional dominance, much as oil painting lost its dominion over
portraiture. The proof of this is that, were it not for film scanners, it
would be impossible for any but the best fine-art still-image film
photographers to make a living.
And, although not central to my point, it is useful and fun to compare
technologies, but it is not the end of the discussion. Weston could have
done his pepper still-lifes perfectly well with a run of the mill consumer
digital camera and a 200 dollar printer.
"VT" <vtVi...@prodigy.Net> wrote in message
news:3a937082...@news.prodigy.net...
J Greely
>Photography was hobbled, for many years and decades, by attempts to emulate
>painting.
So photography should also stop emulating photography? How, exactly?
>My point is that it is a similar error, with the digital age exploding
>around us, to count pixels and compare resolution with our aged and ancient
>ancestor, film photography,
Makes perfect sense to me. I compare the tonal range and resolution of
cyanotypes to minilab prints and pinholes to Zeiss lenses, so why not
digital?
The only thing unique about digital that can't also be applied to film
is the initial image capture, and that's precisely the area where
counting and comparing pixels makes sense.
>and a deeper error still, upon finding the number of pixels smaller,
>to sit back complacently and say "Well, digital hasn't made it yet"
An even worse error is assuming that someone who says "it doesn't suit
my needs today" means "it's worthless for everyone".
>and not attempt to emulate film any more than the original f/64
>attempted to emulate painting,
Um, perhaps you should read up on them again...
-j
Daniel Pead
<grant...@home.com> writes
>'50 lpi' am I missing something here?" In printing a lpi usualy is equated
>to dpi times 6
Printers are talking about halftone screens and how much resolution you
need to render them on a typesetter - almost but not quite completely
irrelevant.
>and am I to assume it is the same for film. Or is it 2 times
>for dpi, one for the line and one or the space to give resolution?
That's more like it - although its vaguely less confusing to refer to
"pixels per inch" when talking about continuous tone images.
Ho hum. The world would be a much nicer place if people measured
resolution as an *angle* so it actually meant something.
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus E10 & C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
Daniel Pead
<vtVi...@prodigy.Net> writes
>How does one "correctly" judge the (technical) quality of a digital
>image?
1. Print it out.
2. Stick it in a frame.
3. Hang it on a wall.
4. See if anyone complains that its not a real photograph.
Joe Blow
>Ray Man - referred to as "Man Ray" by normal people, would have been all
>over digital like cream cheese over a Phili steak, doing all sorts of crazy
>stuff. And his primary contribution was innovation. None of his
>photographs were especially sharp, or even large format.
>
steak????? That's a SURE way to ruin it.
Joe Blow (from the home of the Philly cheese steak)
( You haven't a REAL Philly cheese steak unless you tried one from
Pat's)
VT
wrote:
>Photography was hobbled, for many years and decades, by attempts to emulate
>painting. Many photographers, aspiring to achieve artistic validity for
>their new medium, attempted to emulate the work of Rembrandt, Goya, Raphael,
>and other painters, much to the detriment of early photography.
I understand this - but and there is a big BUT
Digtial photography isn't as different from film photography as foim
based photography was from painting.
Of course there are some differences - and that in the hands of true
photographic "artists" can be turned to advantage.
Most of the process of capturing a photograph is basically the same -
post-processing however does give digital enormous "advantages" over a
traditional wet darkroom - BUT any film can be scanned and its image
have the same advantage as any digitally originated image.
Most of the professional work these days are still produced mainly on
film - yes, they are then scanned/digitized to be manipulated in the
digital domain.
I apprciate that there should be groups who will take advantage of the
differences between digital and film -
but we also have to recognize that there are probably far more
_similarities_ than differences between these two methods of capturing
images.
People are NOT slavishly trying to emulate film - if anything there
are film adherents who complain that digital is stepping outside of
the realms of "photography" (whatever that means)
- so where does that put your argument??
The point is that digital cameras aren't quite there yet for
(technical) quality - evidenced by most professional work still mainly
being on film - even the so called digital photography magazines use
more film photos than real digi-cam photos.
But as most people will say it won't be long now.......
In the meantime we can still enjoy the digi-cams we have for the
different applications that we use them for - like e-mailing snapshots
- posting on web sites - these's where digi-cams have already replaced
film, probably since we've had 640x480 digi-cams.....
However for a lot of people photography means prints or transparencies
or publication in print... we're not quite there yet for digi-cams -
but we merely have to wait...... and yes, one day digital will replace
film even for those - but how will we know when, unless we have some
quality standard to aim for?
VT
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a9316dd...@news.prodigy.net>, VT
><vtVi...@prodigy.Net> writes
>>How does one "correctly" judge the (technical) quality of a digital
>>image?
>
>1. Print it out.
>2. Stick it in a frame.
>3. Hang it on a wall.
>4. See if anyone complains that its not a real photograph.
>
Thank you for the sensible and practical reply -
you have just managed to reinforce my point -
item (4) what is that in comparison with?
a "real photograph" -
which for now means a film/chemical print.
So currently to judge the quality of a photograph -
the standard is still a film/chemical print.
The comparison is both practical and unavoidable.
Thanks
Billy
>
> >Here we go again......
>
> That's just what I was thinking.
Well, I haven't seen Rodger Carter around for a while,
so we have good odds of keeping things civil. ;)
> ...use lossy compression severe enough to introduce artifacts into 8x10 prints.
I've looked very carefully at my 8x10's, and there are
digital artifacts, but not JPG, at least as far as I
can tell. My S10 uses 3:1 compression.
The reasons that I think digicams are more convenient have
to do with the usual list of digicam advantages. Changing
color balance and ISO on the fly, no need to buy film
(just batteries), etc. As long as I don't decide I want
anything bigger than a grainy 11x14, I'm Ok.
> I meant "equivalent storage capacity", using the amount of useful
> image data I can *currently* extract from 35mm film. When I've sent
> things out for drum scans, I've gotten even better results,
> particularly for shadow detail that's too close to the noise floor of
> a desktop CCD scanner.
Very different problem than resolution or color depth.
I agree that digital does not have the dynamic range of
film.
> Correcting your math, that's 50MB per image, or 1.75GB per roll.
> Approximately 29 rolls of film, 20 if I had a better scanner or sent
> them out.
50? You mean 50 million actual pixels? Or a 50MB TIFF?
If 50 megapix, I always wonder about these kind of numbers.
According to my own rather informal tests, and reading
http://creekin.net/films.htm
and
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/limits.html
And of course, Roger Clarks page:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
I think 35mm film is somewhere between 6 and 20 megapix.
Yet, I've heard what I consider to be reliable sources
(I hope you don't mind if I include you in that group)
say that they get somewhere between 30-40 megapix. My
suspicion is that they can get more information from the
film, but it's not real photo detail, just film grain or
something. Of course, to find something that's
generated more discussion would require venturing over
to theological issues. ;)
> Enough spare batteries for another 100+ rolls
> takes up about as much space as three rolls of film.
I ended up building a belt pack with a 3AH gel cell, using
that, I had my S10 on for somewhere between 12 and 14 hours
one day, and I took about 200 photos. I haven't measured
it, but I'm gonna guess that my gel cell is somewhat larger
and heavier than 3 rolls of film. ;)
> The best light meter in the world won't tell you if the model's hair
> is casting a shadow across her eye, or if the metal chair in the
> background needs a shot of dulling spray.
Point taken. Hopefully I'll work those issues out with
a bit of practice. Of course, the clone tool can take
care of the shiny chair, but shadows across eyes are
more of a challenge.
> My modeling lights aren't 100% reliable for that sort of thing.
So, any recommendations for a decent light meter? I'm
looking at the Polaris by Shepherd. $200 and does flash,
incident, and reflective. Currently, I'm using two
modeling lights, one 300 watt and one 250 watt, with a
flash mounted just under each light and the usual white
cloth on a PVC frame as a diffuser and another one as a
reflector. The real reason that I think I need a better
meter is for flash metering. I cannot quite work out
how to set them, and it's real expensive to experiment.
I'd rather drop $200 on the front end and get more
consistent results.
> Anyone who has ever seen a good print from LF knows the answer. Even
> at 8x10 it's clearly better, and the difference becomes more obvious
> the larger you go.
This is another one of those comments that I wonder about.
Theory says the human eye can resolve something like
8 lp/mm under good conditions. Assuming a 50 lp/mm limit
for film/lenses, 6x6 should give you 3000x3000 line pairs,
which should give you a 14" sq image that's as good as
your eye can see. I've looked at some 16x20 or so prints
that I knew were made from some flavor of MF, and some
that were from some kind of LF, and I cannot tell the
difference.
I wonder if there's some perspective or contrast thing
happening that makes some LF prints seem better than MF
if you know what you're looking for?
> as with many Photoshop techniques, what you get is
> *similar* to the result of correcting perspective in the field, but
> not identical. A lot of catalog work still relies on 4x5 view cameras
> for precisely that reason. An increasing number of them use digital
> backs instead of film, but they still need view camera movements.
Interesting. I've seen some medium format lenses with
shift mechanisms, I wonder why they aren't used for these
kind of product shots? After all, MF film will have more
detail than a digital back. I wonder if it's a status
thing with photographers, i.e., 'For a really important
product shot - worth lot's of money - I'd better show up
with serious looking gear'.
> >and how often do you need to print 7 ft images that look good from 2
> >feet away?
>
> Well, there's a reason the folks at Playboy still shoot centerfolds on
> 8x10 film.
Sure, so they can look through the loupe for a few minutes
while they focus. ;)
> Even at the modest size the centerfolds are printed at in
> the magazine, it makes a difference, and when they print up the wall
> posters to sell to college students...
Whatever happened to the idea that magazines were printed
at 300dpi?
While at the casinos in Atlantic City recently, I took a
careful look at some of their restaurant poster/ads, I'm
pretty sure they were large format. They were about 3'x5'
with enough detail to look pretty good from a few feet
away. What really struck me was that the depth of field
was about an inch. The image was of a man and women at
a small table (typical table for two) with the usual
nice looking dinner in front of them. The wine glass in
the center of the table was in crystal clear focus (sorry),
but the people sitting at the table were out of focus.
Interestingly, the back of the man's head was in much
better focus than the women's face. I suppose doing those
kind of product shots is a field unto itself, and I bet
that shot was huge bucks.
> Right now, I'm trying to decide what to put over the mantle in my new
> house,
Yeah, I read on your site that you moved, congrats on the
new digs! Oh, also, sorry to hear about the e-Bay hassles.
> and I'm thinking a 30x40 print would work nicely. A nice sunset
> beach shot somewhere along the Monterey Bay. I'll take the 35mm out on
> the scouting trips, but when it comes time to get the shot for real,
> I'll pull the 4x5 out of the trunk of my car and schlep it out to the
> right spot. Then I'll drop the slide off at Calypso and have them scan
> it in and make a LightJet print.
That's one thing I've been reading about - getting large
prints made from my 120 negs. It seems that for any size
over 10x10 it's far cheaper to scan the negs and have
them printed. Getting 20x20 prints made from the negs
(using the old-fashioned wet process) is about $120
locally.
It turns out that getting 120 film scanned is a real niche
market. Locally, the highest rez I can get them scanned
at is 1200 dpi, and I can't see plunking down 2k for my
own scanner since I'm not making money off my photos.
> >I also think camera makers are missing a good opportunity to migrate
> >some 35mm features (auto-focus, auto-exposure) to medium format
> >cameras that cost less than the GNP of many countries.
>
> If 6x4.5 is big enough for you, they're out there. They're still
> pricy, but so are top-of-the-line 35mm cameras and lenses.
Pricey?! The only one I saw (Pentax I think) was over 2k
for the body, and all the lens price tags had comma's in
them. And I don't believe that price included a back.
> >When they want to make larger prints, medium format is a more
> >natural, complimentary addition to a digital system than 35mm.
>
> Considering that one of the primary reasons APS was introduced was to
> deal with the incredible number of people who can't manage to load
> 35mm film correctly, medium format has a way to go in the usability
> department. :-)
Yeah, I was kind of surprised to learn that 120 film is
just film on a spool (and not birthday kind of surprised,
more like stepping in dog crap kind of surprised). I'd
think that for as much as the camera's cost, and as long
as 120 film has been around, somebody would have decided
to at least put perfs along the edge of the film. I mean,
*anything* would improve the film handling. I'm really
nervous that I'll expose the film accidentally after I take
it out of the camera. I've got some plastic M&M (candy)
tubes that I taped up to hold the film. Not optimal!!
J Greely
> >and not attempt to emulate film any more than the original f/64
> >attempted to emulate painting,
> Um, perhaps you should read up on them again...
It occurs to me that I may have parsed you wrong on this one. My fault
for posting while restarting 500 servers in another window...
-j
Billy
>
> AAGGGHHHHH!!!!!! Who put's cream cheese on a Philly Cheese
> steak????? That's a SURE way to ruin it.
>
> Joe Blow (from the home of the Philly cheese steak)
>
> ( You haven't a REAL Philly cheese steak unless you tried one from
> Pat's)
Oh man!! Cream cheese!?! Gag!!
My wife likes cheese whiz on hers, I prefer provolone and
sweet peppers - you gotta have sweet peppers.
BTW, way back with I lived near Philly, I kind of preferred
the cheesesteak factory up in northeast, or Jim's, but
Pat's was good as well if it's the place on South Street
that I'm thinkin' of. It had a second floor with a big
window so you could watch the traffic while you ate.
Billy
>
> > Anyone who has ever seen a good print from LF knows the answer. Even
> > at 8x10 it's clearly better, and the difference becomes more obvious
> > the larger you go.
>
> happening that makes some LF prints seem better than MF
> if you know what you're looking for?
Ok, now that Google is working again, I went looking.
Here's an interesting article:
http://groups.google.com/groups?start=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=9e810e39f5ee665d&rnum=24&seld=995827596&ic=1
Here's a snipped excerpt in case this link dos'nt work,
and I added my comments in [brackets]:
In about 1990, for Camera & Darkroom magazine we did a
fairly extensive (but never quite completed) test of the
factors influencing perceived image quality with regard to
format.
In one test, we compared Ektar (now Royal Gold) 25 shot
with a tripod mounted Leica M6, vs. VPS (i.e., a faster
film of mediocre resolution) shot handheld with a Pentax 67.
In small print sizes (less than 8x10), the 35mm negatives
looked more brilliant and subjectively sharper. At 11x14
the 35mm negative was holding its own technically, but the
panel clearly preferred the 6x7 prints. At anything much
above 11x14, the larger negative frosted the smaller one in
most if not all cases. Obviously, since the test had been
biased in favor of the smaller format by design, it's
pretty clear that 6x7 overtakes 35mm at least by about the
8x10 image size, and then increases its advantage as
enlargement size increases.
[Wow, even against better film and a tripod, MF still
kicked butt]
We also compared 6x7 against 4x5, this time using the same
film (Ilford XP-2). What we found was that in the 11x14
enlargement size, most of the photographers in the panel
could pick out the 4x5 negative, particularly if they were
told what they were looking for, but none of the
non-photographers did so. Overall, the panel had no
preference for the larger negative at that enlargement
size. At 16x20 (actually 14x18 image size), the panel was
divided--the photographers preferred the 4x5 prints and
the non-photographers had no preference. We didn't take
the test to 20x24 because I got lazy and never made the
prints.
[Exactly my personal experience. I can't tell the
difference between LF and MF, and I'm not a pro
photographer. I wonder what it is? It almost has to
be contrast]
... a faster film in a medium-format camera has real
advantages over a slower film in 35mm cameras apart from
theoretical achievable resolution.
A related issue is that our panel of observers clearly
preferred edge sharpness and apparent sharpness over actual
higher resolution. Comparing 8x10 enlargements from 35mm
film, they preferred indoor shots taken in "available
darkness" with Kodak P3200 to tripod mounted shots taken
outdoors with Tech Pan!
[Personal opinion, I've observed this same phenomenon.
I much prefer a sharp print to one with more detail,
I suspect this is why folks say they prefer digital
prints to film prints, those mini-labs with the slightly
out of focus enlargers are killing film photography]
Finally, the photographer's convenience must be taken into
account. In this regard, a general rule of thumb is that
smaller cameras in the field are handier and more flexible,
and achieve a higher percentage of acceptable shots given
a range of different shooting situations.
[I also wonder if the smaller shutters in digicams help.
I've noticed that the shutter in my S10 only moves about
2mm, vs 36mm for my 35mm SLR, and 60mm in my Kiev, and
the shutter in my Rollei is tied to the aperture, but
it's never more than about 20mm. Does this smaller
shutter travel contriute to sharper images? And this
combined with sharper prints yeilds more images that look
better than my film prints?]
Our panel's de facto recommendation, however, was brutally
clear and surprisingly distinct: optimum image-quality /
film-speed / camera-size for general photography is
achieved by using 6x7 cameras with 100-200 speed film and
making enlargements somewhere in the general range of 9x12
to 14x18 or thereabouts.
Jim Dawson
"M-M" <mhm...@netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:mhmyers-ya0240800...@netnews.netaxs.com...
>
> Sorry, but sauce and onions go over a Philly steak. Philadelphia Cream
> Cheese goes on a bagel.
>
> :)
>
>
> -Michael
> --
jw&a
Billy <Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote in message
news:3A943582...@not.here.com...
> Billy wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone who has ever seen a good print from LF knows the answer. Even
> > > at 8x10 it's clearly better, and the difference becomes more obvious
> > > the larger you go.
> >
> > I wonder if there's some perspective or contrast thing
> > happening that makes some LF prints seem better than MF
> > if you know what you're looking for?
>
> Ok, now that Google is working again, I went looking.
> Here's an interesting article:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?start=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=9e810e39f5ee6
65d&rnum=24&seld=995827596&ic=1
the article was cool. thanks for finding it for us.
as a budding 4x5 photographer, i have found the resolution amazing. an 8x10
crop out of an 11x14 photo is tack sharp. i've got one here, and if you look
close you can see some umbrellas hanging inside a building (sculpture?).
they are maybe 2mm in the print. if you put a loupe on it you can see the
handles (as differentiated from the "rods) on one of the umbrellas you can
even tell where the release button is.
that's with 400 speed film.
bob
south carolina
Jim K
I felt the same way as you do until I got my first pro digital (D1) about a
year ago. It changed my life and the way I view digital. Theres no turning
back now. For me the only limitations I have with digital is at the wider
angles. It's great having a 1.6x lens factor on the longer focal lengths,
but sucks on the wider end. I'm using a Canon system now. A D30, EOS 3,
and a AE2 as a back up. Lenses include, 17-35, 28-135, 28-35, 70-210, 1.4x
adapter, and for macro the 65mm 1-5x, 550EX flash, and I'm set for just
about any shooting situation. In the spring I will go for the 100-400mm,
and 2x adapter.
For wide angle I simple switch to my EOS 3, and use the 17-35. For most of
my shooting I use the D30.
I will use this combination until Canon comes out with a full frame 6+
digital, and will then retire my film camera. Can't wait to be totally
digital because not only is the quality there, the instant gratification
there, more creative control there, but I also enjoy doing my own digital
darkroom work and printing!
I'm telling you VT, once you get a taste of this, film suddenly pales.
Regards,
--
Jim K
http://www.jimsphotopage.com
"VT" <vtVi...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a914825...@news.prodigy.net...
> The latest issue (March, 2001) issue of "Popular Photography" has a
> major feature article/section on "Film Vs. Digital".
>
> Overall I (eventually) thought that the article/feature was pretty
> well balanced.....
>
> But - initially - when I first read the bit about film being more
> convenient than digital - I thought they were either biassed or didn't
> know what they were talking about....
>
> However on further thought I realized that they were right.
>
> Although digital photography is more convenient for _us_ - with
> computers and photo printers, or on-line photoprocessing - a lot of
> this is still kind of DYI.
>
> But the for the average consumer a simple p&s or disposable camera
> _is_ far simpler - all they do is drop the film off at their local
> high street shop or even supermarket and on average they get a full
> set of 6x4 prints back within a day.
>
> I know that this local or low cost processing gets a lot of criticism
> - but the resultant prints are normally on average excellent. (I
> shoot both film and digital - I get film prints (from a local Best Buy
> processing (Qualex)) that are (technically) superior in just about
> every way than my digital prints.) -
>
> I realize this is a matter of opinion (hot debate) - but the point of
> all tis is that the average consumer gets good results using local one
> day processing - and gets pretty "intstant" gratification all the way
> to the end result - ie: prints.......
>
> Anyway I thought the artical feature was well worth while - from a
> major industry magazine.
>
> The issue also has a test of 6 on-line photoprocessing labs.
>
> I am really glad to see such a major industry magazine "embracing"
> digital - afterall - it's photography - digital is just another way of
> doing it.......
VT
wrote:
>I'm telling you VT, once you get a taste of this, film suddenly pales.
>
I post quite a bit on this newsgroup and anyone who cares to read my
"babbling" knows I shoot a LOT - the fact is that I am out every
single night shooting bands - sometimes more than two gigs per night.
To keep the record straight - I am not anti-digital - far from it - I
too shoot far more digital than film these days ....
Here's a very recent "published" example
I have just had 10 digi-cam shots posted on a musician's web site -
As well as having 5 digi-cam photos used on the CD cover of the
Apartment Projects' "Live at the Brandy House"
BUT I feel that one should know the limitations of one's equipment -
as well as, of course - oneself.
Jim K
Hi Vincent,
Of course I assumed you have not had a taste of digital, obviously I was
mistaken, so please forgive me.
I was merely trying to relay my own personal experence to you, not to
question your experience or judgement, but only to convey my personal
suprise.
I am not anti-film, but do strongley favor digital.
I agree totally with your ending statement...
> BUT I feel that one should know the limitations of one's equipment -
>
> as well as, of course - oneself.
Best of luck to you!
PJ
a
> year ago. It changed my life and the way I view digital. Theres no
turning
> back now. For me the only limitations I have with digital is at the wider
> angles. It's great having a 1.6x lens factor on the longer focal lengths,
> but sucks on the wider end. I'm using a Canon system now. A D30, EOS 3,
> and a AE2 as a back up. Lenses include, 17-35, 28-135, 28-35, 70-210,
1.4x
> adapter, and for macro the 65mm 1-5x, 550EX flash, and I'm set for just
> about any shooting situation. In the spring I will go for the 100-400mm,
> and 2x adapter.
Are all of these lenses compatible with other digicams? I ask because I own
a Kodak 4800 with a 43 mm lens adapter, and I was wondering if I'd ever be
able to use an array of lenses like this, or only the ones made specifically
for the 4800 from Kodak.
Can I use "regular" 35 mm camera lenses with the 43 mm adapter?
Thanks!
Jim K
news:cYZk6.1602$XZ6.1...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
No Philip, you need a SLR digital camera like the D1, S1, D30, or one of the
Kodak Pro DCS series nikons/canons. There may be some lens converters made
for your 4800, not sure.
Billy
>
> the article was cool. thanks for finding it for us.
Your welcome!
> as a budding 4x5 photographer, i have found the resolution amazing. an 8x10
> crop out of an 11x14 photo is tack sharp. i've got one here, and if you look
> close you can see some umbrellas hanging inside a building (sculpture?).
> they are maybe 2mm in the print. if you put a loupe on it you can see the
> handles (as differentiated from the "rods) on one of the umbrellas you can
> even tell where the release button is.
>
> that's with 400 speed film.
One of the main reasons that I started messing with medium
format is that I wanted to make decent looking 8x10's and
11x14's with 800 speed film. I'm beginning to realize that
camera shake is a *huge* deal when shooting with film.
It doesn't seem to bother digital cameras as much, as I
noted in a previous post, I think it's due to the approx
2mm shutter on my digital camera.
It seems that sharpness is one of the main factors in how
'good' a print looks (no big surprise) and camera shake
obviously kills sharpness. I suppose this is why Phil
Greenspun makes such a big deal about tripods. I'm hoping
that the combination of faster shutter speeds and less
enlargement will increase sharpness - at least, that's the
plan. I haven't shot enough to really start using the
cameras, I just got them a few weeks ago so I'm still
getting used to them and shaking out the entire 'system'.
I found local places to develop and print small sizes,
and I think I'm going to try West Coast Imaging if I
decide I want something larger, and I'll probably give
Dale Labs a try as well, but I don't think they do
scanning and I'm kind of addicted to editing, something
always needs tweaking. In the mean time, I've snapped the
shutter much more often without film than with it, I'm
thinking that by spring I should be able to use them
without constantly looking at the controls - and I should
be able to focus in less than a minute. ;)
Billy
>
> I find it interesting that I keep reading arguments about the resolution of
> the film camera combination, but lens designers seem to feel that the
> important qualities of a lens is the performance in the 10,20 and 40 lp/mm
> regions.
Also, check film specs. For normally contrasty subjects
most films can only do about 50 lp/mm. And there are
lots of other things that limit us to about 50 lp/mm.
See:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/limits.html
> In most of the grading schemes that I've seen, no credit is given
> for performance above 40 lp/mm and not a lot of credit for performance at
> 40p/mm. It seems that 5 million pixels with good contrast charactristics is
> more important than the number of pixels in determining a picture's quality.
Yes, contrast and sharpness are generally considered more
important than actual resolution. Even dynamic range is
considered more important for many photos. Given the
nature of film, it's often a conscious trade-off between
these characteristics. However, resolution is easier to
measure, quantify, and compare. Also, contrast and
sharpness - and to some extent dynamic range - are somewhat
adjustable in software. It's real tough to add resolution,
but that did'nt keep Fuji from trying. ;)
> Highest resolution does not necessarily translate into highest picture
> quality.
I doubt you'll get much argument from the digital
crowd on that point. ;)
Michael Caver
> camera shake is a *huge* deal when shooting with film.
> It doesn't seem to bother digital cameras as much, as I
> noted in a previous post, I think it's due to the approx
> 2mm shutter on my digital camera.
It has been a big deal to my digital camera. I started with
a handheld Kodak DC290. The photos look decent as snapshots,
but even as 1024x768 desktop wallpaper, you can see the
blurriness. So I spent a little on a cheap tripod. It helped
some, but it was too light, and since the DC290 doesn't
have a remote shutter release, my hand on the button shook
the camera enough to cause noticable blurriness. I have
now moved to the Olympus E-10, which has an IR remote,
and a sturdy Bogen tripod. Things seem to be ok now. As
with all digital images, though, use of an unsharp mask
photoshop filter is a necessity.
Michael
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Caver 206.607.2928 voice
mca...@tenzing.com 206.607.2839 fax
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billy
>
> Iron will never replace bronze because:
Iron is a real b!tch to cast.
Ever see a cast iron bell?
> it makes no more sense to judge iron as if it were trying
> to be bronze, than to judge digital as if it were trying to be film.
So far so good...
Then you get wrapped around the axle with this line:
> we have not yet discovered all the ways in which
> it is superior to film.
Why superior instead of different?
Is medium format superior to 35mm?
How about large format?
Try shooting sports with your view camera.
> http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/will_digital_replace_film.htm
Great article, here's some sections I'll likely plagiarize
in the future, so line up the lawyers:
[I]ncompetent, slow, and expensive lab work - which I think
each of us has experienced at one time or another - may be
doing more to promote digital camera technology than any
amount of advertising by the camera manufacturers.
[G]iven the complacent bungling of many, perhaps the
majority of, film processors, it's no wonder digital
cameras are flying off the shelves as fast, or faster,
than they can be manufactured, even though very little is
being spent to advertise these cameras. IMHO, fine, the
sooner these knuckleheaded labs are out of the "picture"
the better.
---------------------------------------------
There's another line floating around that I can't seem to
find right now. Something like 'Digital will replace film
when we can simulate scratches, fingerprints, and dust on
our digital images'.
Michael Caver
> each of us has experienced at one time or another - may be
> doing more to promote digital camera technology than any
> amount of advertising by the camera manufacturers.
This is one of the main reasons I switched to digital. I had
several really good (IMO) rolls of film butchered by a lab.
It wasn't the first time, but it was the worst time. I bought
a digital camera the next week. I had already been considering
the switch, but that was the final straw. Now I have complete
control over the entire process, which I love. Not to mention
not having to wait a week to get your photos, and not having
to carry a bajillion rolls of film in the field. Granted there
are drawbacks, but for my goals the tradeoff is definately
worth it.
> There's another line floating around that I can't seem to
> find right now. Something like 'Digital will replace film
> when we can simulate scratches, fingerprints, and dust on
> our digital images'.
I'm surprised there's not a Photoshop plugin for this already. =)
J Greely
>The reasons that I think digicams are more convenient have
>to do with the usual list of digicam advantages. Changing
>color balance and ISO on the fly, no need to buy film
>(just batteries), etc.
The way I shoot, I *would* need to buy a lot of "digital film", and
plenty of batteries as well. I don't think I ever come home from an
outing with less than half a dozen rolls of 35mm film, unless I'm just
using the 35mm as an exposure meter for the 6x7 or the 4x5.
>50? You mean 50 million actual pixels? Or a 50MB TIFF?
If I had meant megapixels, I'd have written MP instead of MB.
>My suspicion is that they can get more information from the film, but
>it's not real photo detail, just film grain or something.
A common mistake people make is assuming that you stop getting useful
information as soon as you can detect grain. Not so; among other
things, film grains are not all the same size.
>Point taken. Hopefully I'll work those issues out with a bit of
>practice. Of course, the clone tool can take care of the shiny
>chair, but shadows across eyes are more of a challenge.
Actually, no, the clone tool won't necessarily fix that, because the
flare spot could affect something important, and if it's bad enough,
lower the overall contrast of the picture, especially if you were
using any effects filters. These are the sort of mistakes that are
best learned from immediately rather than the next day, so I think
quick review is essential for getting up to speed in the studio. When
I was working in someone else's studio and he offered me his
professional digicam for previewing instead of my Polaroid, I found
that the built-in LCD display wasn't good enough. We had to download
the pictures to a system with a big monitor, which is why I'm still
using Polaroids for now.
>So, any recommendations for a decent light meter? I'm
>looking at the Polaris by Shepherd. $200 and does flash,
>incident, and reflective.
I've got a pair of Minolta meters. I particularly like the one that
calculates precise lighting ratios for you. With a little practice,
you can quickly figure exactly how each light will contribute to the
overall balance.
>I wonder if there's some perspective or contrast thing
>happening that makes some LF prints seem better than MF
>if you know what you're looking for?
It's more tonality than resolution. An 8x10 print from anything only
has a certain amount of effective "resolution" no matter what the
source, but the contents of those "pixels" can vary dramatically in
quality. If you can detect grain or digital artifacts in an 8x10
print (as you usually will with 35mm or consumer digital), that means
that some of those "pixels" are being used to show it. The same print
made from a 4x5 has *no* such artifacts; all the "pixels" are devoted
to showing the subtle changes in color and brightness.
I think a test shot with skin or satin (or better yet, both :-))
would show this off well.
>Interesting. I've seen some medium format lenses with
>shift mechanisms, I wonder why they aren't used for these
>kind of product shots?
Mostly because shift often isn't enough. Look up "Scheimpflug rule".
>Sure, so they can look through the loupe for a few minutes
>while they focus. ;)
Having done so, with the same models, I find that you very quickly
forget how sexy your subject is until after the shoot is over.
>Whatever happened to the idea that magazines were printed
>at 300dpi?
If you ever have the chance to look over the German edition of
Playboy, they often print their centerfolds from 35mm instead of 8x10,
even when they're using the same photo shoot and have access to the
larger slide. They look really awful.
>Pricey?! The only one I saw (Pentax I think) was over 2k
>for the body, and all the lens price tags had comma's in
>them. And I don't believe that price included a back.
Yes, but you're talking to someone who regularly buys lenses whose
price tags have commas in them. :-)
>I'd think that for as much as the camera's cost, and as long as 120
>film has been around, somebody would have decided to at least put
>perfs along the edge of the film.
Actually, Fuji finally got around to adding barcodes for ISO speed and
special marks to allow autoloading in their newer cameras. Of course,
for it to be really useful everyone else has to agree to adopt another
company's standard, and you know how often *that* sort of thing works
out...
>I've got some plastic M&M (candy) tubes that I taped up to hold the
>film. Not optimal!!
Hey, I love the mini-M&M tubes for 120 storage. Buy enough and you
can color-code.
-j
J Greely
>Try shooting sports with your view camera.
Speed Graphic, zone focus, flashbulb. Responsible for many of the
best-known images of the twentieth century, including sports. Not that
it's *easy*, mind you...
-j
(Pete Cresswell)
>http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/will_digital_replace_film.htm
I wish I could write half that well.
Thanks for posting it.
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
J Greely
>>http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/will_digital_replace_film.htm
>I wish I could write half that well.
I wish he could write better. It reads more like the Mr. Cranky review
of _Coyote Ugly_ than a serious and thoughtful piece on the future of
film and digital image capture, the primary difference being that Mr.
Cranky is both more fun and more accurate.
-j
Billy
>
> The way I shoot, I *would* need to buy a lot of "digital film", and
> plenty of batteries as well.
The way I shoot, I did buy a lot of digital film, and
3 Nimh's, plus a monster gel cell battery.
> If I had meant megapixels, I'd have written MP instead of MB.
DOH! Product of public schools...
> >My suspicion is that they can get more information from the film, but
> >it's not real photo detail, just film grain or something.
>
> A common mistake people make is assuming that you stop getting useful
> information as soon as you can detect grain. Not so; among other
> things, film grains are not all the same size.
Yes, I expounded on this a bit in my response to VT in
another thread. Basically, I think a good approach to
take is to see how large a print you can make, see how
much larger it is than 8x10 (the largest digicam print I'm
comfortable with) and then eyeball the delta. Since 16x20
is 4x 8x10, I'm thinking that most half decent 35mm's
can do about 12 megapix, with some maybe getting up to
20 megapix.
> Actually, no, the clone tool won't necessarily fix that, because the
> flare spot could affect something important, and if it's bad enough,
> lower the overall contrast of the picture, especially if you were
> using any effects filters.
Didn't think of that. Seems that it would have to be pretty
bad flare, but I guess that's possible with a reflective
chair.
> ... he offered me his
> professional digicam for previewing instead of my Polaroid, I found
> that the built-in LCD display wasn't good enough.
I've said that pretty often, the LCD display is mainly
good for white balance and general composition
(e.g, 'what's in the frame') not much else.
> I've got a pair of Minolta meters. I particularly like the one that
> calculates precise lighting ratios for you. With a little practice,
> you can quickly figure exactly how each light will contribute to the
> overall balance.
Sounds pretty useful. I'll check into that sort of thing.
> It's more tonality than resolution.....
>
> I think a test shot with skin or satin (or better yet, both :-))
> would show this off well.
Similar to why some 35mm 5x7's look sooo much better than
a digicam shot, even though both have the same number of
'pixels'. Hmmm, gotta try that test on the wife;
'But dear, it's a photography experiment!'
> Mostly because shift often isn't enough. Look up "Scheimpflug rule".
Ah-ha!! Thanks J! You just answered a question that's
been bugging me. I saw some landscape photos that looked
kind of odd, cool, but odd. It was a stream and the rocks
and water in the foreground were kind of exaggerated.
Now I know how they did it:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0005VJ&msg_id=0005VJ
It's the 'looming foreground' effect. I thought it was a
fish eye lens that had been cropped somehow - nope, large
format.
> >Sure, so they can look through the loupe for a few minutes
> >while they focus. ;)
>
> Having done so, with the same models, I find that you very quickly
> forget how sexy your subject is until after the shoot is over.
Yes, and I expect having them look at you as an extension
of the camera doesn't help the mood any. ;)
> If you ever have the chance to look over the German edition of
> Playboy, they often print their centerfolds from 35mm instead of 8x10,
> even when they're using the same photo shoot and have access to the
> larger slide. They look really awful.
I'll take your word for it.
> Of course, for it to be really useful everyone else has to agree to
> adopt another company's standard, and you know how often *that*
> sort of thing works out...
Hmmm, yeah, Microsoft and Java, just for one example.
Also, that'd kill the used MF market. I have to admit,
having 50 year old cameras that use modern film does
have some advantages.
J Greely
>Didn't think of that. Seems that it would have to be pretty
>bad flare, but I guess that's possible with a reflective
>chair.
It's worst if you're using filters, or if it happens to be positioned
just "right" relative to your lights.
>It's the 'looming foreground' effect. I thought it was a
>fish eye lens that had been cropped somehow - nope, large
>format.
Two different things going on. You can get a "looming foreground" out
of a wide-angle lens on a fixed camera, but you will have trouble
getting both foreground and background in focus at the same time.
Tilting the front standard angles the focus plane to accomplish
that. Tilting the *back* standard, on the other hand, not only changes
the focus plane, but also exaggerates the perspective more than the
focal length of the lens would permit. I can't easily explain this in
words, but if you come across a copy of Steve Simmons' _Using the View
Camera_, compare the pictures on pages 59 and 60 (revised edition).
>Also, that'd kill the used MF market. I have to admit,
>having 50 year old cameras that use modern film does
>have some advantages.
Fuji got that much right, at least; their cameras gracefully handle
unmarked film, and their film works in older cameras. I respectfully
decline to continue the Microsoft/Java analogy, on the grounds that
Uncle Bill signs my paychecks.
...which reminds me to take my little folding Fuji 6x4.5 out for a
walk now that I'm getting everything unpacked at the new place.
-j
Dan Birchall
> ...and if you just want to go out and take a couple of shots & see the
> results immediately (without wasting most of a film & paying a premium
> for processing) digital kind of wins hands down.
>
> Anyway, there's no reason why the "one hour" lab can't be replicated
> with digital.
Indeed. My local Very Good Professional Camera Store (Francis)
accepts digital shots on all manner of media and prints 'em out
on a nice printer. Costs an arm and a leg, it does, but being a
Very Good Professional Camera Store, they are not known for being
cheap. :)
I actually wound up getting a digital at the advice of an employee
at one of the local one-hour places (Fromex). (Yes, I know Fromex
is better-known as a New York-area thing, but they're out here too.)
I'd been considering switching from 35mm to APS, and asked which
camera they'd recommend. At that point in time, APS film wasn't
being developed on-island, but shipped to the mainland, which ruled
out one-hour. (I'm not sure whether it's developed on-island now,
and for obvious reasons, I no longer care.) The employee told me
to just get a digital, since the price difference between a decent
APS zoom and, say, an entry-model Canon or Olympus digital zoom
wasn't all that much.
I'm definitely looking forward to more one-hour labs, drugstores
and whatnot in my area getting equipment to print digital photos.
It should bring the prices down here.
-Dan
--
Dan Birchall - Palolo Valley - Honolulu HI - http://dan.scream.org/
Peruse my opinions, at http://dbirchall.epinions.com/user-dbirchall
Corporate Holidays 2001 - http://208.184.171.20/articles/262573.htm
My addresses expire... take out the hex stamp if your reply bounces
Bruno Fernandes
>> >(Assuming gigs and megs mean resolution, not file size)
>> > ... Velvia right? That's about 20 meg per image,
Resolution of digital media is expressed along two axis. It is not expressed in
terms of how much data will fit into a fixed measured square area unless you are
talking in more detail and with a specific output in mind (print for example).
>> Wow, 20 megs is way off if you're speaking about an uncompressed image (ie. not
>> JPG and not a RAW dump from the CCD). 20MB is only approximately 3000x2250
>> pixels. That's not even close to the potential resolution of film.
>
>AHHHGGGG!! Not this again! Ok. First, I did state that I
>was talking about 20 megs of resolution, not file size.
They are related. "Resolution" in any use, cannot be accurately expressed with
a measure of "megs" without another attribute such as dimensions. "Megs" also
means absolutely nothing because one will not know if you are talking about
bytes or bits. Or even PIXELS as you seem to be (no one outside of marketing
people should even be talking in terms of AREA of PIXELS)
>File size is dependent on too many variables, particularly
>if you're talking JPG or RAW.
File size is only relevant for media storage considerations. RAW CCD data size
and RAW Image size are however fixed for any specific digital image resolution
at a specific bit depth.
>The 20 meg I was talking about is 5000x4000 pixels,
Then you are using your terminology incorrectly. A 5000x4000 pixel image could
never be considered 20 megs. It can only be considered 20MegaPixels (MP for
short). So that's where the mistake was made. A 20MP image is a lot more than
20MB. :)
The original poster was talking about raw image size in terms of computer
storage. He wrote specifically 1GB - 1 GigaBYTE. Your 20MP image above is just
a hair over 57MB stored as a RAW 24bit image. Assuming a 12bit CCD, then it's
RAW CCD size is 28.6MB (then you'll have to interpolate that up to 57MB for
display in true colour.)
BTW one of the ultimate purposes of digital media is not only to match film, but
to beat it. The resolving power of most lenses is no where close to the
capabilities of good 35mm film. And then you have to deal with your output
medium as well (if you're not staying digital in presentation).
>I thought the Dimage 7 had a MSRP of a few K bucks?
I haven't seen anything with a specific price point nor an official press
release. It's in a consumer body, along with its lower-end sibling.
>I think digital zoom is the unquestioned king of that
>category.
Especially when it's done with pure multiplication. No bilinear or other
filtering applied. May as well just do a quick crop and upsample in Photoshop
or other application for far better results.
>> What really needs to be addressed in the mid-consumer price point is
>> processing horsepower and buffer memory. We need faster onboard
>> (S)DRAM and more of it.
>
>If that will help shutter lag and shot-to-shot time,
>I'm all for it!
It "can" - won't say it "will," simply because of different design
considerations implemented by different engineers. It should though, becuase
those are the goals. Shot-to-shot would improve without question with faster
processors and faster memory access. More memory and well designed multitasking
operating systems will also allow multiple image buffering and simultaneous
write and acquisition operations. Shutter lag could also be reduced with faster
autofocusing systems, but it can also be slowed with added features/computation.
>However, hot shoes - with TTL flash
>support - is another thing missing from too many cameras,
>along with remote shutter releases and a better preview
>mechanism.
Not needed in a typical point and shoot, but would make very nice additions to
the top crop of consumer models.
I think we are missing an entire product segment here. I'd like to see the
consumer segment expanded to cameras that can take the SLR accessories for the
different manufacturer's 35mm lines. Lesser bodies than the current models
aimed at the pro segment, but something like a digital Pronea for example. Of
course I'd like to see more products some out like the Fuji S1 at an even more
attractive price point (they did just lower the price along with adding a free
1GB Microdrive).
>There are many improvements that could be made to cameras
>that are not gimmicks, and don't even seem that tough to
>implement.
And so much of it can be done to the cameras we all have today, with nothing but
software upgrades. However, this does cost a lot in terms of development, and
the direct financial pay-off is almost always NIL. So as consumers, we just
have to keep looking at newer models for these features.
>> Increased storage capacity won't seem like such a big problem
>> if you have to deal with slow storage speed.
>
>Err, you mean 'don't have to deal with slow storage speed'.
No, I meant exactly what I said. I mean that you won't be complaining about
lack of storage space if your images take minutes to record. You won't want to
bother with taking a full card of pics at that speed. :)
Bruno
mopi
<mypo...@hybrid8.com> wrote:
>Billy <Somewhe...@not.here.com> wrote:
>
>>The 20 meg I was talking about is 5000x4000 pixels,
>
>Then you are using your terminology incorrectly.
must be the night air - I knew he meant 20mp from the beginning
>
>BTW one of the ultimate purposes of digital media is not only to match film, but
>to beat it.
I'm not privy to the ultimate answers; or questions for that matter;
but to be fair Bruno not even 35mm cameras can match 35mm film - as
you say yourself...
>The resolving power of most lenses is no where close to the
>capabilities of good 35mm film. And then you have to deal with your output
>medium as well (if you're not staying digital in presentation).
>
as most people accept p&s prints rather than upgrading (?) to an SLR
or even non-zoom p&s, one must assume that the 'ultimate' dcam will
just have to beat the print quality of a decent zoom p&s to win mass
acceptance (cheaply & cutely of course).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul O'Mara Limerick, Ireland
Yeap there is an FAQ ==>> http://rpdfaq.50megs.com
www.photo.net www.digitalkamera.de >> www.deja.com/usenet <<
Billy
> >fish eye lens that had been cropped somehow - nope, large
> >format.
>
> Two different things going on. You can get a "looming foreground" out
> of a wide-angle lens on a fixed camera, but you will have trouble
> getting both foreground and background in focus at the same time.
Not only that, but there's the fish-eye kind of distortion,
which was not visible in the images that I was looking at.
E.g., straight lines were *straight*, etc.
> Tilting the front standard angles the focus plane to accomplish
> that. Tilting the *back* standard, on the other hand, not only changes
> the focus plane, but also exaggerates the perspective more than the
> focal length of the lens would permit. I can't easily explain this in
> words, but if you come across a copy of Steve Simmons' _Using the View
> Camera_, compare the pictures on pages 59 and 60 (revised edition).
There's a pretty good (IMHO) web site that explains it:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/index.html
Go down to the section 'About FOCUSING the VIEW CAMERA'
and it describes the process pretty well. And there's an
animated GIF and Quicktime movies on
http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/HMbook18.html
that shows the relationship, and that page explains in
excruciating detail the relationship between the Hinge Rule
and the Scheimpflug Rule.
> I respectfully decline to continue the Microsoft/Java analogy, on the
> grounds that Uncle Bill signs my paychecks.
So what are you doing using Emacs? Or is it the fabled NT
version that I've heard about?
> ...which reminds me to take my little folding Fuji 6x4.5 out for a
> walk now that I'm getting everything unpacked at the new place.
I think my next MF camera will be a Fuji folder, if I can
find one I can afford. TLR's are too restrictive, and
SLR's are just too big and heavy.
Speaking of taking cameras out for a walk...
I'm trying to think up an excuse to take my kids to the
Baltimore Aquarium for the day - I think it'd be the
perfect place to try out the macro tube for my Kiev. They
just opened a new exhibit about sea horses, their previous
exhibit about spiders and other venomous critters would
have been nice as well. The only thing I'm worried about
is the lighting. It's generally *really* dark, with lots
of glass that pretty much precludes getting decent shots
using a flash. That's one good thing about the digicam,
no little 'Ka-ching' noises every time I press the
shutter. Although with MF, it's 'KA-CHING'. ;)
Also, color balance is tough. They use all kinds of
lights; some of the aquarium lights are bluish, some are
more orange, and they use a mix of tungsten and fluorescent
in the hallways. I was thinking of just using Fuji NHG II
(daylight ISO 800 film) and meter as though it were 640.
I understand that film works better if it's slightly
overexposed. I know that a 'real photographer' would use
filters to correct for the light, but I don't have any
except a 80A, and that knocks about 2 stops off the lens.
Since I doubt anyone will notice if the colors on the
critters are a bit off, I'll try it and see what I get.
Did you ever try correcting color balance in software?
This software is mentioned sometimes:
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/derCurveMeister/index.htm
I might give it a shot if I can't get Photo Impact to
do it using their color adjusters.
r...@nicholson.com
VT <vtVi...@prodigy.Net> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:00:45 +0000, Daniel Pead
><d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <3a9316dd...@news.prodigy.net>, VT
>><vtVi...@prodigy.Net> writes
>>>How does one "correctly" judge the (technical) quality of a digital
>>>image?
>>
>>1. Print it out.
>>2. Stick it in a frame.
>>3. Hang it on a wall.
>>4. See if anyone complains that its not a real photograph.
>>
>
>Thank you for the sensible and practical reply -
>
>you have just managed to reinforce my point -
>item (4) what is that in comparison with?
>a "real photograph" -
>which for now means a film/chemical print.
When I look at a photo on a wall (say enlarged from a 35mm film
negative), I don't "compare" it to a hypothetical large format contact
print of the exact same subject matter. Nor do I put it under a
microscope to measure its greatly inferior lpmm resolution, nor under a
reflectometer to measure the papers poor dynamic range when compared
with a projection of the same image, nor do I compare it with a 35mm
movie which captures the motion of the subject matter, etc. Much less
do I compare it to as if I was looking out a window at the subject
matter itself. The photo still looks like a "real" photograph because
of what the artist was trying to communicate using some form of image
capture, even given the severe limitations of the still 35mm film medium.
YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson r...@nicholson.com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
J Greely
>Not only that, but there's the fish-eye kind of distortion,
>which was not visible in the images that I was looking at.
>E.g., straight lines were *straight*, etc.
That just comes from having a well-corrected lens. You know, the sort
with commas in the price. :-)
>There's a pretty good (IMHO) web site that explains it:
>http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/index.html
It's a bit weird to have someone refer to himself in the third person
while describing his own books, but most of the people I know who've
made it through them have found his work solid but not necessarily
practical. Everybody loves the web-site animations, though!
>>I respectfully decline to continue the Microsoft/Java analogy, on the
>>grounds that Uncle Bill signs my paychecks.
>So what are you doing using Emacs?
No comment. Don't ask me what manufacturer's servers are most common
in my data center, either.
>I think my next MF camera will be a Fuji folder, if I can
>find one I can afford.
The supply seems to be stable enough to keep the price reasonable,
although you really need to check the bellows out before buying. That
and the relative rarity of the lens hood are the two primary drawbacks
to this camera.
>Did you ever try correcting color balance in software?
Yeah, every time I accidentally hit "auto levels" in Photoshop. :-)
Seriously, all I usually do is apply a gentle warming effect,
sometimes more than once if I think the image can take it. This is
separate from the time I've spent fighting with color calibration; at
one point the easiest way to get my old color printer to match my
screen was to add a bunch of yellow and a touch of cyan.
-j