 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006Film & Digital -- Live Music Assignments
Popular Photography http://www.popphoto.com/ is running an article called Live Targets at its Website. It's This Weeks Highlights article #2 and it includes an image gallery. The author uses both film and digital for his live music shoots and the film, both color and B&W, looks better to me. The digital shots have the typical video frame look that makes me leary about moving to digital for my still-lifes. SW > Popular Photography http://www.popphoto.com/ is running an article called > Live Targets at its Website. It's This Weeks Highlights article #2 and it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SW Yeah, watch out for the "typical video frame look." I have no idea what you are talking about. At the size that the images are reproduced, the digital images look sharper and smoother (less grain) than the film images. The black and white film images are, in a way, more appealing to me, because the grain lends them a certain grittiness in keeping with the context. But that can be done in post to the digital images, too. I'm finding digital to be a great improvement over most film for my portrait work, but you may find otherwise.  SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Yeah, watch out for the "typical video frame look." I have no idea what > you are talking about. Many digital photos look like frame grabs from a video, two dimensional and thin with unattractive highlights. Compare the blown-out spotlight in image #3, digital, with the blown out spotlight in image #6, film. In the film image, there is a nice gradation from light to dark. The highlights in image #13, digital, are also unattractive. SW >> Yeah, watch out for the "typical video frame look." I have no idea what >> you are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > SW Not good examples. #6 appears to have smoke or dry ice diffusing the background and the light source itself is almost completely off frame, whereas #3 looks like much cleaner air, probably at shorter distance. Who can say what the 10D would have made of #6 if it was used then? The fact is once your exposure rolls off over the top of the characteristic curve for your recording medium, you get sudden blown out highlights, whether film, CCD, CMOS or CRT. It may well be that some (probably most) films have a softer rolloff at the ends of their characteristic curves, and this is just one factor you may consider when choosing your film. Of course a digital user doesn't have the advantage of being able to choose different characteristic curves for the given shoot, but trades that against the advantage of being able to switch ISO and colourimetry per shot. > It may well be that some (probably most) films have a softer rolloff at > the ends of their characteristic curves, and this is just one factor you > may consider when choosing your film. Of course a digital user doesn't > have the advantage of being able to choose different characteristic > curves for the given shoot, but trades that against the advantage of > being able to switch ISO and colourimetry per shot. With digital, you set whatever curve you want with the raw converter, just be careful not to blow the highlights more than desired. > With digital, you set whatever curve you want with the raw converter, > just be careful not to blow the highlights more than desired. So you believe a CCD or CMOS sensor has unlimited dynamic range? The fact that you can apply histogram curves to a captured image does not mean you can affect the limits of the sensor's characteristics. At the ends the curve still goes flat. I suspect that electronic sensors probably roll off more harshly which will give harsher edges to overexposed areas of a frame when compared to most films, and this can be affected by applying a soft rolloff filter to the image post-capture. This effectively compresses the dynamic range still more but less harshly, hence you need to "be careful not to blow the highlights more than desired", as you say. Typically, film has a greater dynamic range and softer characteristics at the limits. As soon as electronic sensors have greater dynamic range than film, I think there will be no argument about picture quality. >Typically, film has a greater dynamic range and softer characteristics at the >limits. As soon as electronic sensors have greater dynamic range than film, I >think there will be no argument about picture quality. Richard Clark has the most definitive answers on this topic but IIRC and in my experience... The exposure latitude of digital capture depends (among other things) on the area of each sensel. For a camera like the Canon 5D, the sensel area is large enough that the latitude exceeds most slide films. For a P&S that squeezes 8 Mpixels out of a tiny 1/2.5 sensor, the DR (latitude) is going to be much lower. From a few years' experience with a Canon 10D, I'd say its latitude is comparable to chromes, but less than C41 film (eg., Reala.) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> With digital, you set whatever curve you want with the raw converter, >> just be careful not to blow the highlights more than desired. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > at the limits. As soon as electronic sensors have greater dynamic range > than film, I think there will be no argument about picture quality. Digital generally does better in the shadows though, especially at high ISO. Roger Clark's data: <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/dynamic-range-tfcn-filmstop s-1.gif> from: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/ and http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html shows film only having the advantage around ISO 50 for detail & noise though yes the highlights clip so if you were intent on saving highlight detail, the advantage in the shadows might be lost. > Not good examples. #6 appears to have smoke or dry ice diffusing the > background and the light source itself is almost completely off frame, > whereas #3 looks like much cleaner air, probably at shorter distance. > > Who can say what the 10D would have made of #6 if it was used then? Image #13 is a better example, shot with a 10D. The scene has strongly side-lighted atmospherics, smoke from the birthday candles, and notice how the smoke appears unnatural around the edges. I think film shot with the same exposure might have held more detail in the highlights on the face and shirt, but there's no way to know for certain. > It may well be that some (probably most) films have a softer rolloff at > the ends of their characteristic curves, and this is just one factor you > may consider when choosing your film. If you are into curves, I'm sure you'll appreciate image #1. :) SW > Image #13 is a better example, shot with a 10D. The scene has strongly > side-lighted atmospherics, smoke from the birthday candles, and notice how > the smoke appears unnatural around the edges. I think film shot with the > same exposure might have held more detail in the highlights on the face and > shirt, but there's no way to know for certain. Yeah I suspect film really does give slightly better results. >> It may well be that some (probably most) films have a softer rolloff at >> the ends of their characteristic curves, and this is just one factor you >> may consider when choosing your film. > > If you are into curves, I'm sure you'll appreciate image #1. :) Indeed. Not unpleasant. >> Yeah, watch out for the "typical video frame look." I have no idea what >> you are talking about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > SW You can only compare images shot under the same circumstances, so it's hard to say what the 10D would have done with the more conducive circumstances of the film image. There's smoke, lens flare and reflections to be dealt with. And, remember, the D30 and 10D are 5 and 3 generation old, respectively. A lot has changed since those cameras were current. I shoot with a 5D and find none of the concerns you mention. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Popular Photography http://www.popphoto.com/ is running an article called > Live Targets at its Website. It's This Weeks Highlights article #2 and it > includes an image gallery. The author uses both film and digital for his > live music shoots and the film, both color and B&W, looks better to me. The > digital shots have the typical video frame look that makes me leary about > moving to digital for my still-lifes. > SW *yawn* Heard it before. "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." "Film is better." "Digital is better." >> Popular Photography http://www.popphoto.com/ is running an article >> called Live Targets at its Website. It's This Weeks Highlights [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Heard it before. "Film is better." "Digital is better." Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't. >> Heard it before. "Film is better." "Digital is better." > > Sometimes it is, sometimes it ain't. Well yeah. Is what I said, isn't it? > Popular Photography http://www.popphoto.com/ is running an article called > Live Targets at its Website. It's This Weeks Highlights article #2 and it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SW As said in another post, the 10D and D30 are older examples of digital cameras. Also, the contrast is quite a bit higher in the digital shots which is probably what makes you think 'frame grab'. Another easily missed point is that the film camera was fitted with an 80B filter, i.e. a tungsten to daylight conversion filter, while the Canons had no filter. You might think, with all the hype about white balance for digital cameras, that no filter was necessary, but in actual fact, for light that is grossly different from daylight, the response of the Bayer filter array would be the same as for film, i.e. reds overexposed and blues underexposed. With film you're stuck, but digital allows you to adjust the balance by altering the gain of the individual color amplifiers - to a point. Reds will be blown out in the highlights, while blues will be lacking in shadow detail, and noisy because of the greater amplification applied. The result can be rather unpleasant color. I have used an 80B filter on my 300D in such lighting conditions, with improved results over no filter. There's an exposure hit with the filter, the same as with film, but the results are worth it. Remember that the faster exposure without the filter is at the expense of unbalanced spectral response in the digital, just the same as with film. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Another easily missed point is that the film camera was fitted with an > 80B filter, i.e. a tungsten to daylight conversion filter, while the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > expense of unbalanced spectral response in the digital, just the same as > with film. Fascinating, thank you. I'd never considered the use of colour correction filters with a digital camera. It makes sense, particularly as, if I am correct, the sensors have lower dynamic range than film typically does. I'd really love to see some comparisons if you have them. >> Another easily missed point is that the film camera was fitted with an >> 80B filter, i.e. a tungsten to daylight conversion filter, while the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I'd really love to see some comparisons if you have them. Yes, I would if I could. The shots I mentioned were at a 21st party, and unfortunately went west when my system crashed earlier this year, along with a lot of other data. It's a long story, but briefly, I fitted a 200GB drive to my computer for backup purposes, and had all my images on that drive, with some earlier ones also backed up onto DVD as well. The 200GB drive developed unresolvable problems with the NTFS indexes, and chkdsk, automatically invoked by Windows on startup, completely mashed the drive trying to repair the indexes. Googling around to try to find what went wrong, I came across the fact that the largest drive that can be seen by an NTFS partition is 137GB, because NTFS uses 28-bit addressing. There is a Large Block Array function in the Registry which enables 48-bit addressing, invoked by Win 2000 SP3, and, I believe, XP SP1 (I use win 2000) - but the system, after putting the function there, leaves it turned off. So, I turned it on, reformatted the 200GB drive, and voila! no more corrupted indexes. Unfortunately, the lost data is gone forever {:-( Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> Another easily missed point is that the film camera was fitted with an >> 80B filter, i.e. a tungsten to daylight conversion filter, while the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I'd really love to see some comparisons if you have them. Pardon me for interjecting a comment here, but it would seem to me, with all the money they charge for those digital cameras, that they should have a "daylight-incandescent" switch that you could throw to adjust the color sensitivity of the CCD to compensate for incandescent lighting. - Of course, you can do this in Photoshop too, but not everyone wants or can run their photos through a Photoshop compensation adjustment. You should be able to point your camera at a white card in whatever lighting environment you are in, and press a "light compensation" button, and the camera should adjust the relative color sensitivity of it's CCD electronics so all the other pictures you take in that environment are correctly color compensated.....Otherwise, just what are you paying your two thousand plus dollars for? (just my 2 cents on the matter...:^) >>Colin_D wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>filters with a digital camera. It makes sense, particularly as, if I am >>correct, the sensors have lower dynamic range than film typically does. Not a lower dynamic range, very similar or even better. >>I'd really love to see some comparisons if you have them. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > compensated.....Otherwise, just what are you paying your two thousand plus > dollars for? (just my 2 cents on the matter...:^) The D200 lets you do just that and store 5 presets. You hold down the WB button & press the shutter to update or add (& some menu diving to switch apparently). >>>Colin_D wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > button & press the shutter to update or add (& some menu diving to switch > apparently). This is a good idea.....You might commonly be in unusual lighting environments, so these presets would come in handy....(Like if you commonly traveled to the planet Venus, where you would need a blue comp, or Mars, where you might need a red comp, or take pictures underwater, or some such thing....:^) >>I'd really love to see some comparisons if you have them. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > compensated.....Otherwise, just what are you paying your two thousand plus > dollars for? (just my 2 cents on the matter...:^) No, that's white balance. We're talking about the sensors' saturation levels being different for different colours, so using colour correction filters at the front end helps improve the appearance of areas at the extreme ends of the latitude. Refer back to the poster earlier who helpfully pointed out that you can apply different characteristic curves who also completely missed the point. > >>I'd really love to see some comparisons if you have them. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Refer back to the poster earlier who helpfully pointed out that you can > apply different characteristic curves who also completely missed the point. I have a tungsten to daylight filter so I gave this a quick try. I shoot under incandescent lights with the filter both on and off. Once the white balance was adjusted I could see very little difference in the two images. Note I was shooting at ISO 100, I can't imagine putting this filter on if you had to shoot at anything higher then ISO 100 as you loose a lot of light with it. Anyone who wants to take a look at the raw files they can be found here. http://www.sewcon.com/filter_test/ Under even lower color temp lights there may be more of a difference, I will try this tonight when it gets darker and I can use the dimmer. Scott > I have a tungsten to daylight filter so I gave this a quick try. I > shoot under incandescent lights with the filter both on and off. Once > the white balance was adjusted I could see very little difference in > the two images. Did you shoot high contrast scenes with blown out highlights? In context we were talking about shooting live rock music where the generally dark scene is punctuated by bright coloured lights. Apparently, as the sensor is designed to roll off evenly at the upper limit of its response curve in daylight, the response rolloff varies slightly across the spectrum when given a warmer light so that the reds and yellows blow out slightly before the blues. Correcting the colour in the traditional manner may be able to improve the look of the highlights, accepting that all recording media have their limits. > Note I was shooting at ISO 100, I can't imagine putting this filter > on if you had to shoot at anything higher then ISO 100 as you loose a > lot of light with it. Well under the circumstances you'd be typically shooting at much higher, say, ISO 800. > > I have a tungsten to daylight filter so I gave this a quick try. I > > shoot under incandescent lights with the filter both on and off. Once [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Well under the circumstances you'd be typically shooting at much higher, > say, ISO 800. If you are shooting at ISO 800 or higher putting on any filter that is going to block light is likely to be bad for the images. The filter loss was close to two stops, this means if I need to shoot at ISO 1600 with the filter I could drop back to 400 without the filter. So then the comparison should be between a ISO 1600 shot with filter compared to a ISO 400 shot without. Scott > If you are shooting at ISO 800 or higher putting on any filter that is > going to block light is likely to be bad for the images. The filter > loss was close to two stops, this means if I need to shoot at ISO 1600 > with the filter I could drop back to 400 without the filter. > So then the comparison should be between a ISO 1600 shot with filter > compared to a ISO 400 shot without. Yes. Remember that the filter blocks lots of light at the red end, but hardly any at the blue end, so it is not implausible that 1600 with filter might have a cleaner blue channel than 400 without. It would be interesting to test. I don't have a DSLR so I can't test it myself, but it would be interesting to know. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > > If you are shooting at ISO 800 or higher putting on any filter that is > > going to block light is likely to be bad for the images. The filter [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a DSLR so I can't test it myself, but it would be interesting > to know. I will leave that testing to someone else. I would seem that balancing the color makes sense but a quick test did not show any real gain, under normally lighting. I have been pretty amazed in fact how low in temp the light source and get and still get a good white balanced photo. I have shot down to the 2000 range and still the photos look good, and I don't think I could stand 2 stop of light loss when the light get that dim. Scott >>> If you are shooting at ISO 800 or higher putting on any filter that is >>> going to block light is likely to be bad for the images. The filter [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Scott The result would depend on the dynamic range of the subject. Reasonably flat lighting as in a room lit with incandescent light doesn't have the contrast of stage - or in my case party - lighting with colored spotlights giving bright spots of light among darker areas. The exposure hit is the same as with film, so if you're going to use film and a filter, digital and a filter is no worse. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Popular Photography http://www.popphoto.com/ is running an article called > Live Targets at its Website. It's This Weeks Highlights article #2 and it > includes an image gallery. The author uses both film and digital for his > live music shoots and the film, both color and B&W, looks better to me. The > digital shots have the typical video frame look that makes me leary about > moving to digital for my still-lifes. If you bring your film images to the cheapest lab in town you won't get decent prints. If you shoot raw and do proper raw processing (which is almost the same as proper darkroom work) you'll be able to get similar results. Although I've never seen digital black and white prints look as superb as tmax3200 on ilford paper and never seen any high iso color film image I really liked . SignatureJan Keirse - +32 (0)485/089.786 http://jankeirse.free.fr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.