 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / June 2005Film versus digital.
Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have been a Ricoh KR-5 Super and a Pentax K1000, both 35mm, both manual, and both very reliable in the harshest conditions. The film - mostly slides - was expensive, and it had to be sent elsewhere for developing (I've always lived in the northwoods of Michigan). Still, I made do; all of the photos in my 5th book, "The Snowshoe Handbook" were shot with my 35s. Then, a year ago, I bought a Kodak CX4200 point-n-shoot that was on sale for $60 at a store in Sault Ste. Marie, MI. It was only 2 megapixel, but I'd been wanting to try digital, I needed a point-n-shoot, and it was priced within the reach of an impoverished outdoor writer. I immediately began publishing photos taken with the CX4200, not only in magazine articles, but in my last book, "The Encyclopedia of Tracks and Scats." Despite the camera's range and resolution limitations, these were among the best photos I'd ever taken, and I didn't have to drive 45 miles to the nearest developer. Even better, if I didn't like the lighting or color, I could manipulate pics with a software program - something no developer ever could or would do for me. Within 3 months I'd moved up to a really excellent Hewlett-Packard Photosmart 945, then added a Kodak DX7590, both 5.2 Mp units, and I'll never go back to film. I've had both out in temps down to less than -10 Farenheit, and while that does demand keeping the batteries warm, neither camera has so much as hiccuped. My HP even went underwater once when I ran into a 60 mph gale while kayaking the Tahquamenon River (could only happen to me); as I was trying to land the boat, the wind literally picked it out of the water, dumping me and the camera into the river. After thoroughly drying the HP, it worked as well as ever. My partner and I keep a small pack of full-blooded gray wolves that we employ for the purpose of public education (free of charge), and they attract a lot of visitors with cameras. Last summer we had an amateur photography club visit, and while all of them preached a litany of why film is better, every one of them was shooting a digital. Hmmm. I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a few specialized applications. Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer www.barnesandnoble.com > I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own > experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a > few specialized applications. > > Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer If it works for you great, that's why there's a diversity of mediums and equipment in photography. Digital photogaphy offers a lot of advantages over film, but I personally wouldn't declare it "obsolete in all but a few specialized applications." They each offer their own advantages and although many photographers have switched entirely to digital, many photographers find using both mediums useful and many find film is still the medium of choice. I for one use film exclusively for it's advantages, I don't want to sit in front of a computer, buy and learn new software packages, and resolve problems with print(er)s. I can enjoy more time in the field. In the end, it's simply the choices we make. I couldn't agree more! I like pro end fuji film and use a high end imaging lab. I'm not going to spend $$$ to get the same if not inferior quality. I like the new art form that Photoshop brings but it is becoming more about photoshop and less about composing a great shot!! Your comments pls. >> I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own >> experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >with print(er)s. I can enjoy more time in the field. In the end, it's >simply the choices we make. Pieces of sh.t cameras. Youy have no idea what the f.ck you are talking about. Why are you still breathing? > Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been > selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer www.barnesandnoble.com Why (1) are you using profanity? (2) are you being hostile, especially when the comment is not directed at you and the post to which you are replying is neutral in nature? (3) are you commenting at all on a medium that I seem to recall you have previously said you do not use - and so have no expertise in? Francis A. Miniter >Pieces of sh.t cameras. Youy have no idea what the f.ck you are talking >about. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > > Why (1) are you using profanity? > (2) are you being hostile, especially when the comment is not > directed at you and the post to which you are replying is neutral in nature? > (3) are you commenting at all on a medium that I seem to recall > you have previously said you do not use - and so have no expertise in? Ah Now I understand, why I did not see the off color post :-) > Why (1) are you using profanity? With respect, Francis, why are wasting your - and other people's - time trying to reason with this person? These numbskulls thrive on attention. The way to deal with such posts is to killfile the sender, delete the post and then forget you ever saw it. Roger > > Why (1) are you using profanity? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Roger This particular Troll is a special sort of nut case, and Francis wants to keep him straight ;-) Hi Len, Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end Canon gear, I've had plenty of work published using my CoolPix 950, a 2 MP camera! Oh, and forget about the one reply you received...some people probably put up a fight when photography changed from wet plates to film! Ken www.wyattphoto.com > Hi Len, > Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Oh, and forget about the one reply you received...some people probably put > up a fight when photography changed from wet plates to film! I wouldn't discount the other reply, I think it was well thought out and non biased. What your asking him to do is accept your version versus the other poster, if you had actually read the other poster you would understand his reply. I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix publishing experiences." Yes, the first reply was well thought out. I was referring to the following reply, which was VERY biased and not well thought out. Perhaps you missed it. :-) Quote: "Pieces of sh.t cameras. Youy have no idea what the f.ck you are talking about. Why are you still breathing?" Endquote. I didn't feel that comment was very constructive and didn't want Len to feel too bad about receiving it. By the way, I admit I stopped using the 2 MP camera several years ago and am using a Canon 1D-II these days. Regardless, the CoolPix recorded some pretty amazing images for it's time! Regards, Ken > > Hi Len, > > Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix > publishing experiences." > Yes, the first reply was well thought out. I was referring to the following > reply, which was VERY biased and not well thought out. Perhaps you missed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Regards, Ken Sorry; I must have that idiot in my kill file for the very reason. Thanks for qualifying your reply.... regarding current equipment. To say that film is 'obsolete' shows complete ignorance. Why are such morons allowed to live? > Yes, the first reply was well thought out. I was referring to the following > reply, which was VERY biased and not well thought out. Perhaps you missed [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix > > publishing experiences." Michael, I know you can do better. > To say that film is 'obsolete' shows complete ignorance. Albumen, cyanotypes and ambrotypes are all obsolete because silver film and FB paper are so much easier to use. That does not render them without value, however. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, I don't know, photography has again been made easier with digital cameras. Film is, therefore, "obsolete" by definition. That does not mean it will not continue to be produced. It is an art form separate from digital which has its own set of problems. > Why are such morons allowed to live? When you are in control of yourself, I know you regret remarks like these. The trick is not to let them go public in the first place. Francis A. Miniter I use still slide film. A lot of people get motivated by the cheap way of taking pictures but,just like record players, digital will not be here to last. Who wants to sit on the cmputer all day after spending a gorgeous day in the woods. Sorry, some things are just there because others get rich on it. The quality is not better. John >> Hi Len, >> Welcome to the world of digital! Although I currently use some high-end [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I also wouldn't call you an expert based on your "Cool pix > publishing experiences." >I use still slide film. A lot of people get motivated by the cheap way of >taking pictures but, just like record players, digital will not be here to >last. As Yogi Berra said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future. None-the-less, my crystal ball indicates digital is here to stay, and film will eventually be relegated largely to a niche/specialty market. And BTW, your record player analogy actually supports the "digital will eventually take over" theory. Record players were analog, which is comparible to film. Records have been replaced by digital technology (CD, MP3 players, etc.) except for in niche/specialty markets, where LP advocates claim the record provides better quality than a CD. The current trends very strongly indicate that film will go the way of its analog audio counterpart (the record) and be replaced (except in niche markets) by ever improving digital technology. > Who wants to sit on the cmputer all day after spending a gorgeous day in > the woods. Well, I'm not sure I'd want to sit there all day, but I thoroughly enjoy firing up the computer as soon as I get home, spending a few hours with the pictures, and then emailing the best ones to friends and family who would be interested in them. Plus I can play with the shots, touch up the odd dust specs which was on the lens, enhance the colors and contrast, brighten areas which are too dark, merge panoramic shot series into one large shot, etc. For trips which involved multiple people, I'll also burn CDs with all of my best shots on them and give them to the others. They are usually quite appreciative, can easily (and cheaply) get prints of any they want, and I've spent under a dollar a person to get them a stack of pictures. > Sorry, some things are just there because others get rich on it. The problem is, I spend a whole lot LESS money on photography now that I have a digital. And this is the norm. So, if tons of people are spending tons less money, then switching to digital will make the inductry as a whole much less money over the long haul. > The quality is not better. Depending on exactly what you are comparing to what, of course. > As Yogi Berra said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the > future. None-the-less, my crystal ball indicates digital is here to stay, > and film will eventually be relegated largely to a niche/specialty market. Cool. I've always liked being ina "niche" ;>)  SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org Yes, I agree. Being part of a niche/specialty market can be pretty cool, actually. I bet a number of the kids being born today will never use a film camera in their lives. But there will be some who will think it's pretty cool you're still using film 20 years from now, and be very impressed at the results you are able to get "without even editing it on the computer!" I bet there will even be a few of those who would love for someone like you to teach them how to work with film. You can also take heart that all Boy Scouts who are earning their photography merit badges right now are still required to know about film and film developing. One requirement explicitely specifies they shoot pictures with print film, another specifies slide film, and another leaves it up to the scout what type of medium (print/slide/digital/etc.) he wants to use. I still have much fondness for the trusty Minolata X-700 I used in high school, and I will certainly keep it for many, many years to come. I expect as I work with scouts on this merit badge I'll end up teaching most of them how to use it, as many will not have decent film cameras of their own. >> As Yogi Berra said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the >> future. None-the-less, my crystal ball indicates digital is here to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cool. I've always liked being ina "niche" ;>) Well, I just got back from a 3 week tour of a dozen national parks in the US Southwest. I took both my digital (A panasonic Lumix FZ3) and Analog (Nikon N80 and lots of Velvia and E100XS). This is my fourth trip to the area. I shot lots of things with both the digital and the nikon. Some observations: The quality of what I have isn't the same as the best of my slides, but it's probably as good as the average of my slides. (This is a 3.1Mpixel camera, a stopgap for me since I wanted to learn what I could do with the technology before making an investment, and in particular answer the question of whether I really wanted a digital SLR to take my Nikon lenses at $1K+, or go with a higher end all-in-one) On size, weight, and immediate availability the digital wins hands down. The capability to shoot some at ASA 400 just to get something captured when I don't have time for the tripod, plus the anti-shake technology in this particular model let me shoot some things I just couldn't get fast enough otherwise (especially animal shots). On quality and versatility of lens options the analog wins. I've got some wide angles and a 400MM and teleconverters for the Nikon, and these will get shots that I don't have the range for in my digital, and the Lumix is a lot better than most (12X zoom that tops out at 430MM equivalent). The ability to shoot a lot of pictures on a memory card without reloading is a win, but the need to haul a laptop and cables (or buy a lot of expensive memory cards), and camera battery charger (the Lumix uses a rechargeable and shoots something like 100-200 pictures on a battery) are a pain, especially when camping or staying in "quaint" lodgings with minimal electrical service. A freind described the problem of charging all those things on a cruise ship. The fact that "it's only bits" means I am more likely to take a lot of shots, bracket, fool with angles and perspectives, etc., and wind up with some more interesting shots to look at. The 12X zoom helps a lot here too since you don't have to muck around opening camera and lens cases just to get the shot you want. This makes me wonder about the SLR, at least for "hobby" shots. I'm sure the 35MM lenses are better, but better does you no good when it's locked in your backpack. The viewfinder on my digital is really crappy. Some of this may be the specific model, but some is probably a generic concern. Because it's a constructed image (lcd display, either on the camera or through the viewfinder), it's lower resolution than an optical viewfinder. The viewfinder LCD seems to have more limited range leading to problems with saturation and contrast. The fact that the image isn't continuous and instant (i.e. the viewfinder is only updated so many times a second) makes panning on wildlife and other moving objects a bit of a challenge. Maybe a better camera would update more often and have better range, but you are never going to beat the through-the-lens optical view of an SLR. Probably the big wins for the digital are cost (no cost just to shoot away), and speed of "developing". I've been through my 1000 or so digital shots a couple of times now and would look at them during the trip. My slides are still showing up, even though they were mailed for development as I shot them. Now that would be better if you have a good lab with fast turn around you can bring the film to, but that tends to raise the cost substantially. I used the digital for some things I'd never use a film camera for -- as a telescope to identify birds, and as a memo taker to photograph things like maps and directions from phone books. It's not a strict replacement, but a different animal, especially with that big zoom lens. The light weight and small size (and the Lumix is one of the bigger non-SLR digitals) meant that I'd always carry it (and always had the full zoom range.) Not so with my SLR. There were many capabilities of the Lumix I never tried out -- motion, audio recording, custom white balance, etc. So, I'm waiting until my slides come back to make a decision on what comes with me on my next trip, but it's already the case that for my non-photography travel, where I'm more interested in tourist shots and snapshots, the digital comes along and the analog stays home. SignatureWarren Montgomery wamontgomery@att.net ( http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery ) > Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been > selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer www.barnesandnoble.com What lenses are you using on the film bodies? If they are Penatx A type or newer, you could get a Pentax digital SLR and use the lenses. There is a 1.6x teleconverter like factor due to the smaller sensor, but kit zoom helps cover the wider angles. The image quality from a dSLR is superior to that of the compacts. DSLRs typically deliver lower noise, higher speeds (ISO) with low noise, smoother, natural, less processed look than the compacts and improved dynamic range. If you like what your getting now, you'll love the dSLRs. The prices are falling! John Digital is the new revolution and it's the way to go in most cases, though I still like to use 35mm slide film(Velvia). Velvia produces "great" results. You can edit digital photos to get Velvia results, but it's still not the same. SignaturePost your pictures and discuss photography here: http://www.rickbakerimages.com >> Being an outdoor writer means being a photographer, so I've been >> selling photos for more than twenty years now. My main cameras have [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > you'll love the dSLRs. The prices are falling! > John I think digital is a lot more than the new revolution. It is the way things are, and will be. Just like when Film took over from using Glass Plates. Things change. My D2X files don't have to be edited to get Velvia results, they are much better than Velvia, right out of the camera. And believe me I shot a whole heck of a lot of Velvia, so I know what Velvia does and does not do. There are so many advantages to using a Quality Digital cameras, and using quality applications with those files, that I don't recommend anybody shooting slide film anymore. Especially if you shoot "RAW" digital files. And "Raw" is by far the best way to go. Digital just can't be beat. Heck, I never even go to my file cabinets of slides anymore. I prefer to reshoot things with my Digital camera, instead of using my previously shot slides. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/11/05 8:57 PM, in article jMLqe.88130$yV4.5344@okepread03, > "rbaker3" <rbaker3@cox.net> wrote: > Digital is the new revolution and it's the way to go in most cases, though I > still like to use 35mm slide film(Velvia). Velvia produces "great" results. > You can edit digital photos to get Velvia results, but it's still not the > same. > I think digital is a lot more than the new revolution. It is the way things > are, and will be. Just like when Film took over from using Glass Plates. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > reshoot things with my Digital camera, instead of using my previously shot > slides. And its the very mentality thats making photography as a historical account almost worthless. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. Care to expand on this? Or is that the best you have? I don't understand your point, "photography as a historical account." What the heck does that mean? SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/12/05 7:59 AM, in article > ShadezofPerceptionvanished-2CBBAE.08083212062005@news.verizon.net, > "Little Green Eyed Dragon" <ShadezofPerceptionvanished@someplace.com> wrote: >> In article <BED19980.E311%pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com>, >> PWW <pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > And its the very mentality thats making photography as a historical > account almost worthless. > Care to expand on this? Or is that the best you have? > > I don't understand your point, "photography as a historical account." What > the heck does that mean? No I don't care to. The truth is always the best to have. Its well documented, open your eyes. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. Have you compared large prints of the two? When I scan my slides, I get a 24 megapixel file. The best digital gives 16. And my scan is only 4000 dpi, not getting all the information available from a drum scan or a direct print (R print). So theoretically, there's better resolution with film, right? I know there are many advantages with digital, and it's improving fast, but does it really compare for resolution? -- - Alan Justice > I think digital is a lot more than the new revolution. It is the way things > are, and will be. Just like when Film took over from using Glass Plates. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You can edit digital photos to get Velvia results, but it's still not the > > same. > Alan Justice writes ... > >Have you compared large prints of the two? (35 mm vs 12 Mpix digital) I've compared 6, 8 and 11 Mpixel digital images to 35 mm film (typically Provia 100F), where ever possible shooting the same subject shot with the same lenses ... for prints up to 11x14" or 12x18" 6 Mpixels (Canon 10D) doesn't quite cut it compared to film, 8 Mpixels (Canon 1D Mark II ... the smaller sensor 8 Mpix bodies won't fare as well) is pretty much equal and I've been able to rez up some 8 Mpix files to print as large as 16x24" that were better than film at that size. At 11 Mpixels (Canon 1Ds) there is no doubt that digital files print better than 35 mm film. >When I scan my slides, I get a >24 megapixel file. The best digital gives 16. But the pixels aren't the same quality ... try it, you'll see. Most people who have acually used the 16 Mpix Canon 1Ds MII feel it's superior to 645 medium format images, for example. >I know there are many advantages with digital, and it's improving >fast, but does it really compare for resolution? Shoot and compare for yourself ... I've read probably a dozen comparisons of people running these types of tests with 11, 12 and 16 Mpix digital vs 35 mm and I've yet to see someone claim film gave better prints. >Many of us need to shoot film: Most magazines still prefer or >require slides. The last four magazines my wife and I have published in all wanted digital files. I guess it depends on the magazine ... if they get film then they have to scan it themselves anyway, so many magazines are realizing it's just a wasted step to insist on slides. >When they allow digital submissions, they want a hardcopy of each >photo. No, they accept large jpegs so all you have to do is send them a CD. Some will ask to see the original RAW file or ask for a tiff if they accept the work but again you just send in a CD. I've never been asked for a "hardcopy" (print?). Sending in a CD is much safer and easier than marking up slides and sending them in, hoping the editor doesn't damage or lose your originals. Almost every pro photographer I know has tales about damaged or lost slides from submissions to editors, including some of the best magazines in the country. >For magazines, digital resolution is sufficient, so someday all >magzines should make the switch. I would guess 80% already have? Bill > At 11 Mpixels (Canon 1Ds) there is no doubt that digital files print > better than 35 mm film. Then you need a better printer. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > > Alan Justice writes ... > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > At 11 Mpixels (Canon 1Ds) there is no doubt that digital files print > better than 35 mm film. Are you comparing digital pics to scanned 35 mm (4000 dpi, drum scan) or direct print (e.g., R print). You can't have a "fair" test if you don't get the best out of each medium. And I suppose the fairest way is to compare the same size recorder (e.g., 35 mm vs "full frame" digital sensor), which I believe you are. And how about at larger prints. I've done a few 16x20 or 24x36 from film. Is it fair to "rez up" digital, but not a film scan? If it's an R print, that's all you can get, but a scanned slide could also be rezed up. Genuine Fractal type? I understand the potential for this technology is amazing. But for now I'm talking about each original image. > >When I scan my slides, I get a > >24 megapixel file. The best digital gives 16. > > But the pixels aren't the same quality ... try it, you'll see. Most > people who have acually used the 16 Mpix Canon 1Ds MII feel it's > superior to 645 medium format images, for example. Please explain that "same quality" thing. A pixel is a quantal unit, unidimensional. Just a colored point, right? I could see one could be a better color or exposure (greater exposure latitude with digital?), but not resolution. > >I know there are many advantages with digital, and it's improving > >fast, but does it really compare for resolution? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mpix digital vs 35 mm and I've yet to see someone claim film gave > better prints. If I could compare myself, then I've already made the plunge into digital. I'm trying to figure out at what point I need to do that. Since the Canon 16 MPix camera cost more than I earned last year from my photography, I don't make that decision lightly. And as for this "in the long run, digital is cheaper," I don't think so. I'd save money on film & developing only. Just keeping up with the technology is megabucks (computers, storage, software, then newer format storage as the newer computers no longer support the old type, etc.). Maybe I should just chuck it all and do something simple, like brain research ;-) > >Many of us need to shoot film: Most magazines still prefer or > >require slides. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Bill And then there's color. My understanding is that there is still no "Velvia" setting on a digital camera. That has to be done post production. -Alan Justice Alan > On 6/13/05 1:15 PM, in article > jbjre.3770$jX6.1384@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, > "Alan Justice" <spam@spamspamspam.spam> wrote: > Are you comparing digital pics to scanned 35 mm (4000 dpi, drum scan) or > direct print (e.g., R print). You can't have a "fair" test if you don't get > the best out of each medium. And I suppose the fairest way is to compare > the same size recorder (e.g., 35 mm vs "full frame" digital sensor), which I > believe you are. I was comparing my Digital files to Nikon Coolscan 4000 Slide scans. There is no comparison. My D2x Digital images wins hands down > And how about at larger prints. I've done a few 16x20 or 24x36 from film. > Is it fair to "rez up" digital, but not a film scan? If it's an R print, > that's all you can get, but a scanned slide could also be rezed up. Genuine > Fractal type? I understand the potential for this technology is amazing. > But for now I'm talking about each original image. But with Photoshop and ACR 3.1 my D2X digital files are 4288 x 2848 pixels. That works out to 34.9 Megs for a straight 8 bit conversion. A 16 bit is 69.9 Megs. And here is the extra thing... I can uprezz these digital files right from the RAW files using PS up to 6144 x 4081 pixels and that equates to a 8 bit file being 71.7 Megs and the 16 bit being 143.5 megs. And this conversion is the very best possible using great PS RAW algorithms. They are great. > Please explain that "same quality" thing. A pixel is a quantal unit, > unidimensional. Just a colored point, right? I could see one could be a > better color or exposure (greater exposure latitude with digital?), but not > resolution. Hey I am not a scientist. I am a just a lowly photographer and all I can say there is a big difference. > If I could compare myself, then I've already made the plunge into digital. > I'm trying to figure out at what point I need to do that. Since the Canon [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > software, then newer format storage as the newer computers no longer support > the old type, etc.). But the Nikon D2x is less than 5 grand now. (5ยข less at B&H, lol) I did find it cheaper for one because I have the computers and hardware already and I am into the Mac. Plus Digital does allow for more creativity. With digital it doesn't cost anything to try this or try that. Whereas with slides you always need to be aware of where the end of the roll is and the costs of the film and processing. Plus the instant feedback of digital is very liberating and wonderful. I can set up a shot and see instantly what would be better , if I change this lighting or moved that prop. > And then there's color. My understanding is that there is still no "Velvia" > setting on a digital camera. That has to be done post production. I have shot thousands of rolls of Velvia. Want to see my file cabinets? My Digital files right out of the camera are much better than Velvia. I don't know who says this. If I could relate it to anything, it would be like changing from shooting prints to shooting slide film. Or Kodachrome 25 to Velvia. After both those jumps, it was hard to go back to the latter. The same goes for the jump to digital. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com I have a few Canons & the good lenses. I'd should consider the 1Ds Mk2 (16.7 MPix, $8k), which would pay for the film in a little over a year. But it only does 4 fps, not very good for my wildlife shots. The 1D Mk2 does 8.5 fps, but is only 8.2 mp. My printer will do 13x19". Do I need the 16.7 to get good images that size? What does your "uprezz" do? How does it work? Is it like on CSI where they have a video image of a perp and the face is about 4 pixels, so they "enhance" and can make a positive ID? -- - Alan Justice > Alan > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, > http://PhotoStockFile.com Alan I am not a Canon shooter, so I leave it to others to answer the type of camera. But my D2H made great 13x19 prints. And it is only a 4m camera. UpRezz. Upping the resolution. I don't watch CSI, but I don't think any software can make a face out of only 4 pixels. Look at http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html About half way down see CS2 Camera RAW: Take a close look at the new features in Adobe Camera RAW. He has some great movies explaining things. My D2H native resolution was 2464 x 1632, 4mp, but with Photoshop and CameraRAW I uprezzed them to 5120 x 3391 pixels and a 8 bit file size of 49.7 megs, for some of my clients. I did that all the time. It kind of pushed it so I don't necessary recommend that but everyone was happy with them, so far. My point is To start to get into Digital doesn't mean you have to get the biggest most expensive camera body out there. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/13/05 4:52 PM, in article > ammre.3838$jX6.141@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, > "Alan Justice" <spam@spamspamspam.spam> wrote: > I have a few Canons & the good lenses. I'd should consider the 1Ds Mk2 > (16.7 MPix, $8k), which would pay for the film in a little over a year. But [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > - Alan Justice >Is it like on CSI where they >have a video image of a perp and the face is about 4 pixels, so they >"enhance" and can make a positive ID? What they don't tell you is that the original picture is taken with two cameras; one is the video, with a wide lens, and the other is a DSLR with a 600mm lens. They show you the video frame first, then when they zoom in, they show you the DSLR shot, zooming from 1% to 100%. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > What they don't tell you is that the original picture is taken with two > cameras; one is the video, with a wide lens, and the other is a DSLR > with a 600mm lens. They show you the video frame first, then when they > zoom in, they show you the DSLR shot, zooming from 1% to 100%. I just don't know what photographers did prior to zoom lenses. Oh yeah, they used high resolution film and cropped the negative. Just ask the government. I think I'll get one for my 5x7. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org >> What they don't tell you is that the original picture is taken with two >> cameras; one is the video, with a wide lens, and the other is a DSLR >> with a 600mm lens. They show you the video frame first, then when they >> zoom in, they show you the DSLR shot, zooming from 1% to 100%. > I just don't know what photographers did prior to zoom lenses. Oh yeah, >they used high resolution film and cropped the negative. Just ask the >government. I think I'll get one for my 5x7. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with zoom lenses. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> What they don't tell you is that the original picture is taken with two >>> cameras; one is the video, with a wide lens, and the other is a DSLR [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What I said had absolutely nothing to do with zoom lenses. Even better. Digital zoom has even poorer resolution than optical Zoom lenses. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org >>>> What they don't tell you is that the original picture is taken with two >>>> cameras; one is the video, with a wide lens, and the other is a DSLR [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Even better. Digital zoom has even poorer resolution than optical Zoom >lenses. You've totally missed the context of my word zoom. NO ZOOMING was done, either optical or digital, at the time of capture. The zooming was done on a computer. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>>>> What they don't tell you is that the original picture is taken with two >>>>> cameras; one is the video, with a wide lens, and the other is a DSLR [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > on a computer. > -- And my point was that many early photographers "zoomed" the same way that digital does today. By cropping the image. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > I have a few Canons & the good lenses. I'd should consider the 1Ds Mk2 > (16.7 MPix, $8k), which would pay for the film in a little over a year. But > it only does 4 fps, not very good for my wildlife shots. The 1D Mk2 does > 8.5 fps, but is only 8.2 mp. My printer will do 13x19". Do I need the 16.7 > to get good images that size? Alan, I switched from 35mm film to digital a few years ago (I still do velvia in 4x5). If you haven't already been there here are my digital versus film pages: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html As others have said, digital pixels are "different" than film pixels. This mostly has to do with the MTF, grain structure, and signal-to-noise ratio of film versus digital. Film has a slow drop in MTF at higher spatial frequencies versus digital, the grain structure contributes to apparent noise, and digital with its much higher quantum efficiency has many times less noise. Here are comparisons of film and digital: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.6mpxl.digital.html Derived equations and trends in resolution versus film type and speed compared to digital: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html The trade point in film versus digital resolution is that ISO 100 speed film is equivalent to 6 to 8 megapixels. But digital has much higher signal to noise ratios, about 6 times, see: The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise It is the higher signal-to-noise that allows one to "uprez" digital more than film. When you increase the "resolution" you trade artifacts and signal-to-noise for the increase. Photoshop has only simple tools (the unsharp mask) that only gives apparent increases in sharpness, but is very quick. Better algorithms require a lot of computations. For example, see: Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1 I show factors of 2 increases in resolution without excessive increases in noise, so an 8-megapixel camera can give a 32 megapixel compared to film and still have lower noise. This propels all digital cameras in the 8-megapixel range well above even fine grained film. So, what camera to choose? If you want quality images, the size of the pixel and sensor are major drivers. See: Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter? Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter In your case, being a Canon user and wanting a DSLR, the 20D is a good entry point (8 megapixels). If you want ultimate quality, the then the pro bodies are for you. If you shoot action, then you'll want the 8-megapixel 1D Mark II at 8+ frames per second (I have this model). If speed is less important than total image quality, the the 1Ds Mark II would be astounding (its images are being compared to medium format. If you shoot iso 100 film (like provia 100F, you'll get similar out of camera 1D Marrk II or 20D resolution). If you shoot higher ISO speeds, the 8-megapixel digital SLRs will produce better images than you get with film. This is great for action photography. When I started scanning my film (home and drum scans) 9 years ago, I saw an immediate increase in print quality over traditional printing, both in control over the contrast and color as well as increase in print sharpness. With 8-megapixel digital, I can make nice 16x20s without too much effort, and larger with increasing computer efforts. But just like darkroom work is an art, so is computer image processing, each with a big learning curve. Finally, velvia from digital: easy, but requires processing. The "characteristic curves" of digital are close to print film. See Figure 8b at: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2 But with the high signal-to-noise of digital, you can change the characteristic (or transfer) curve to give a velvia response. The advantage of this is one can keep detail in the shadows unlike slide film. Digital Camera images allow much better control and flexibility than film, and digital covers a higher dynamic range (the is a big misconception about digital camera dynamic range, but the above page shows the major differences). But for landscapes, velvia in 4x5 is unmatched by any DSLR. ;-) Hope this helps. Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com > What does your "uprezz" do? How does it work? Is it like on CSI where they > have a video image of a perp and the face is about 4 pixels, so they [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] >>Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, >>http://PhotoStockFile.com Thanks, Roger. I'll spend some time studying all the sites you cited. I have 2 Canon 1V bodies and every lens I could need (except a tilt-shift and the 1-5x macro). Lately I've been de-emphasizing new image capture in preference to marketing (I find I'm earning more with local sales, and now some festivals, than I am from magazines). I recently got a Nikon 4000 dpi scanner and an Epson 2200, and love the control I have over the results. I have no specialty other than "nature," so I need to do landscapes and other non-fleeing subjects, plus critters. Apparently there is no digital equivalent of the 1V, which does it all. I know for certain that the day after I finally make the plunge and get a DSLR, a much better model will be announced. -- - Alan Justice > > I have a few Canons & the good lenses. I'd should consider the 1Ds Mk2 > > (16.7 MPix, $8k), which would pay for the film in a little over a year. But [quoted text clipped - 237 lines] > >>Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, > >>http://PhotoStockFile.com > Alan Justice writes ... > >I know for certain that the day after I finally make the plunge and get >a DSLR, a much better model will be announced. Alan, if you're seriously thinking about "making the plunge" then a couple of things will help avoid this problem (which has happened to me twice, though it took 4-6 months). Most of the new cameras are announced in Sept at Photokina or Feb at PMA so watch those carefully and be careful what you buy leading up to those conventions. You can kind of see it coming if a current model has price reductions and has been out a while, also if there is renewed competition from Nikon on that particular market segment. Right now most Canon models have been on an 18 month cycle (not writ in stone, some may take 2 years to get upgraded, others a year, but 18 months is about right). I assume you're lQQking at the Pro models so ... the 1Ds MII (16 Mpix) was announced in Sept 2004 and began shipping shortly after and was still in short supply (ie, backordered at B&H) until recently. A reasonable guess is that a replacement might be announced in Feb 2006, shipping later that spring, hopefully with 22-24 Mpix or so and still costing $8,000 since Nikon has absolutely no full frame solution right now, given the demise of the Kodak 14n. If the medium format backs drop in price quite a bit then the Canon 1Ds M III (just made that up, don't quote me on the name) might drop to $6,000 or whatever but the Pentax 645 18 Mpix body is supposed to go for $7,500 and the Mamiya ZD 22 Mpix body for $12,500 when they *finally* ship so there's not much price pressure right now. The 1D Mark II (8 Mpix, fast frame rate) is possibly due for a replacement model in Sept at Photokina since it was announced in Jan 2004, units were shipping by April and it was in relatively high volume by June 2004. The price on this model has dropped from $4,500 to $4,000 and now there's a $500 rebate so it's $1,000 less than at intro last year, always a sign a new model is forthcoming ... Nikon is finally shipping the D2x, which has a higher pixel count at slower frame rates (12 Mpix) and a mode to shoot as fast as the M II using just the center 6+ Mpix, so it's a very worthy challenger to Canon. It sells for $5,000 so that might explain why Canon dropped the price on the M II by a grand. Wouldn't be a big surprise to see a 1D M III with 12 or more Mpixels announced in Sept and shipping by Dec or so. Because the sensor is larger (1.3x instead of 1.5x for the D2x) Canon could fit more than 12 Mpix and still have a looser pixel pitch (ie, less noise) than Nikon's D2x but at some point Canon would start to eat into sales of the 1Ds with 16 Mpix, so who knows ... they almost need to intro a new 1Ds with higher pixel count at the same time to avoid an overlap in the product line. At any rate, the key is to buy early in the product life cycle if you want to avoid buying something that's soon obsolete ... or, if you know a product is 'good enough' for your needs, the value option is to wait until it's replaced and then buy it used ... the 1Ds (11 Mpix) sold for $8,000 a year ago for example but is around $4,000 used today and the images are as good today as they were a year ago, even though now two cameras have surpassed it (1Ds M II and Nikon D2x). Bill > . the 1Ds (11 Mpix) sold for > $8,000 a year ago for example but is around $4,000 used today and the > images are as good today as they were a year ago, even though now two > cameras have surpassed it (1Ds M II and Nikon D2x). Yeah but my RB is still safely out in front in terms of quality ;>) Mamiya RB67 - Introduced in 1969 6X7cm negatives Rotating/removeable film backs Swappable finders No batteries needed Some people need quantity and others need quality. Now you know where I stand. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org You forgot another important stand. Some people need BOTH quality AND Quantity Now you know where I stand. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/18/05 6:52 PM, in article 16f9te19r8bk0$.xtmvhuj8bxov$.dlg@40tude.net > "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: > Some people need quantity and others need quality. Now you know where I > stand. > You forgot another important stand. > > Some people need BOTH quality AND Quantity > > Now you know where I stand. Ah ! So you also have a RB ? SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org Uh, what does that mean? SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/19/05 8:36 AM, in article 15uxp05osh5n9$.1l3th6vhtwz8j$.dlg@40tude.net > "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: >> You forgot another important stand. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ah ! So you also have a RB ? >> On 6/19/05 8:36 AM, in article 15uxp05osh5n9$.1l3th6vhtwz8j$.dlg@40tude.net >> "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Uh, what does that mean? That since you value both quantity and quality, you must have invested in an RB67 which is known to be one of the most rugged and dependable cameras on the market and is also capable of delivering the highest image quality a roll-film camera is capable of. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > That since you value both quantity and quality, you must have invested in > an RB67 which is known to be one of the most rugged and dependable cameras > on the market and is also capable of delivering the highest image quality a > roll-film camera is capable of. But it is not ideal for photographing fast action photography, like wildlife and sports. Roger > But it is not ideal for photographing fast action photography, > like wildlife and sports. Shoot, I used it to shoot a lot of weddings Same diff except I used a 1.4X lens vs. the 8~10X you're probably using. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org >>But it is not ideal for photographing fast action photography, >>like wildlife and sports. > > Shoot, I used it to shoot a lot of weddings Same diff except I used a 1.4X > lens vs. the 8~10X you're probably using. Same diff? I guess you are pretty fast focusing on a bride coming at you in a fury at 1-meter per second! She must have been really mad at you. Clearly you do not know what fast action photography is. Try photographing a sprinter full frame charging at you. You can't manual focus. Try photographing a bird taking off: the acceleration with each beat of its wings changes velocity so fast even high end autofocus systems usually can't keep up, let alone a human. Examples: http://www.clarkvision.com/features/natures.best.win.2004 http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3 F0862.b-700.html Roger Roger I have come to to conclusion this guy, John - www.puresilver.org, is just a troll. 1: his posts don't have the point - counterpoint of a real discussion. His posts never really actually respond to any post except to jab at something on a different level. 2: Obliviously he either doesn't understand different types of photography and/or he can't understand the posts. 3: he is a troll. 4: All the above. I vote "4" SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com >>> But it is not ideal for photographing fast action photography, >>> like wildlife and sports. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Roger > I vote "4" Have you ever heard the term "ad hominem" ? Well now you have. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org In article <42B63414.9050401@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > Clearly you do not know what fast action photography is. > Try photographing a sprinter full frame charging at you. > You can't manual focus. Auto focus is a problem too, I pre focus on stuff like that, at a given spot where I want the subject to be. So for me either camera would work. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > In article <42B63414.9050401@qwest.net>, > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > at a given spot where I want the subject to be. So for me either > camera would work. Actually, a runner, being constant velocity is pretty easy for predictive autofocus to track. My Canon 1D Mark II was designed for such things and does pretty well. Of course as velocity goes up then turning the lens focus would limit the system. But a runner should not be a problem. Where auto focus tracking has real problems is accelerating subjects, like birds taking off or landing, or a runner pushing off from the starting blocks. Roger In article <42B6BC34.3020805@qwest.net>, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote: > Where auto focus tracking has real problems is accelerating > subjects, like birds taking off or landing, or a runner > pushing off from the starting blocks. > > Roger It also has problems when the subject is monochromatic especially "black tuxedos" ;-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > Same diff? I guess you are pretty fast focusing on a bride > coming at you in a fury at 1-meter per second! She must have > been really mad at you. Well more lilely at the groom. Ya see he left the rings at home and the wedding was delay over an hour as someone had to drive back and get them. Wouldn't say the photos had good ambience either. She was positively glaring as she marched out of the church. > Clearly you do not know what fast action photography is. > Try photographing a sprinter full frame charging at you. > You can't manual focus. Prefocus and remember that the RB uses rack and pinion. Not the barrel focusing of 35mm cameras. > Try photographing a bird > taking off: the acceleration with each beat of its > wings changes velocity so fast even high end autofocus > systems usually can't keep up, let alone a human. Examples: > > http://www.clarkvision.com/features/natures.best.win.2004 Show off ! Jeez that is one awesome shot ! I'll take one for my wife the birder of the family. > http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3 F0862.b-700.html Not bad. Now just imagine how great a 16X20 would have been from a RB negative ! SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org >> Try photographing a bird >>taking off: the acceleration with each beat of its [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Show off ! Jeez that is one awesome shot ! I'll take one for my wife the > birder of the family. If you are serious, contact me off line. I think you'll be stunned at the quality. This image printed at 16x18.3 will be featured in a Denver gallery next month. It just might change your view of digital. The bottom of the page gives details of the print. >>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear/web/brown_bear.c09.07.2004.JZ3 F0862.b-700.html > > Not bad. Now just imagine how great a 16X20 would have been from a RB > negative ! No need. A 16x20 is stunningly sharp. With a 6x7 camera, I would have needed a 1500 mm lens to get a frame-filling image like the above. Nothing slower than 1/800 second could be done, so I needed my maximum aperture of f/5.6 at iso 400. An f/5.6 1500 mm RB lens does not exist, the clear aperture would be 268 mm (10.5 inches), would be over 12 inches in diameter, and probably weigh over 30 pounds. An incredible tripod would be needed to hold it steady, and it would be too large to easily push around to follow the action. Plus I would need sherpas to carry it. ISO 400 speed 6x7 film would be only about 19 megapixel digital equivalent, and 4 to 6 times lower signal to noise. See: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html (I scaled up the 6x4.5 numbers by the film area). With Richardson-Lucey image restoration on the digital file, I can improve the resolution of my 8 megapixel Canon 1D Mark II image to about 16 to 17 megapixels and still have higher signal-to-noise ratio than the iso 400 film. Thus, in this case (iso 400 film), the 8-megapixel digital image will produce a slightly better 16x20 inch print than would a 6x7 iso 400 film camera. Roger >Not bad. Now just imagine how great a 16X20 would have been from a RB >negative ! He's showing a downscaled image. You know nothing of what the full capture is. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< 2 Outstanding images, but the bear does it for me. How much for a decent sized print shipped to the U.K. ? Eddie >>>But it is not ideal for photographing fast action photography, >>>like wildlife and sports. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Roger I am sorry but your views and statements are just not that accurate. Keep shooting film in any camera you like, but don't try and tell me how superior it is to digital. It isn't. No matter how highbrow your statements are. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/19/05 11:49 AM, in article y67efimh1b7b$.oye9uwuf8qcp$.dlg@40tude.net > "John" <use_net@puresilver.org> wrote: > That since you value both quantity and quality, you must have invested in > an RB67 which is known to be one of the most rugged and dependable cameras > on the market and is also capable of delivering the highest image quality a > roll-film camera is capable of. > I am sorry but your views and statements are just not that accurate. Keep > shooting film in any camera you like, but don't try and tell me how superior > it is to digital. It isn't. No matter how highbrow your statements are. LOL ! Well I've seen plenty of digital and none of it compare to my RB at 11X14. BTW, if you ever need a good analog/digital lab, I recommend http://www.chromatics.com/ Their Lambda prints are wonderful. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org Apparently>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer" <LMwriter1@yahoo.com> Way back when wrote in message news:1111424450.780154.104030@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > I'm not trying to get a flame war going here, but based on my own > experiences as an outdoor photographer, film is obsolete in all but a > few specialized applications. > > Len McDougall, Outdoor Writer > I am sorry but your views and statements are just not that accurate. Keep > shooting film in any camera you like, but don't try and tell me how superior > it is to digital. It isn't. No matter how highbrow your statements are. Good ole "Len" there's a reason his original post was unseen by me initially,... he's been in my kill file for sometime for stirring up trouble. Twits go there keep it mind. SignatureI am a Fly in your oinkment, I am the one with real squeal appeal. > You forgot another important stand. > > Some people need BOTH quality AND Quantity > > Now you know where I stand. So, you use Hasselblads, too. ;-) SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com >> Now you know where I stand. > > So, you use Hasselblads, too. ;-) That little thing ? LOL ! I have used them (well the 500C anyway) but didn't find selling square prints to easy in my area. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > This propels all digital cameras > in the 8-megapixel range well above even fine grained film. To qualify, you ahould have said something like "This propels all digital cameras in the 8-megapixel range well above even fine grained film when used in small format/high enlargment situations." Yes, one really should not overly enlarge a APS film. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org >> This propels all digital cameras >>in the 8-megapixel range well above even fine grained film. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, one really should not overly enlarge a APS film. Yes. I did specify 35mm film in the first line, but I see I should have been more clear. All the statements in the post regarding film-digital comparisons were to 35mm film, not APS. Roger > Alan Justice writes ... > >Are you comparing digital pics to scanned 35 mm (4000 dpi, drum scan) >or direct print (e.g., R print). Compare them anyway you wish, the results are still the same. I don't like R prints but have compared with Ilfochromes (much sharper than Type R, with better colors) and also with drum scans (Tango drum, maybe a dozen images) and 4,000 dpi desktop scans (my Nikon 8000) printed on a laser (LightJet 5000) and on my Epson 4000. Most of my test scans are with the Nikon scanner since I don't care to pay $50 per drum scan, and most of my printing is done on the Epsons but I've printed a lot on the LightJet and took a three day course on LightJet printing at Calypso in Santa Clara. >And how about at larger prints. I've done a few 16x20 or 24x36 from film. >Is it fair to "rez up" digital, but not a film scan? Film scans don't rez up as well because they are grainy in comparison to direct digital capture. > ... a scanned slide could also be rezed up. Genuine Fractal type? I >understand the potential for this technology is amazing. "Amazing'? Have you ever used GF? I got a bundled copy with my film scanner and have tested it extensively on several images, you can do a better job with Stair Interpolation in Photoshop on every photo I've tried it on. Their marketing dept is a lot better than their software dept, I feel. >>> When I scan my slides, I get a >>> 24 megapixel file. The best digital gives 16. >>Bill wrote ... >> But the pixels aren't the same quality >Please explain that "same quality" thing. A pixel is a quantal unit, >unidimensional. Just a colored point, right? Wrong ... pixels vary widely in quality, depending on the source ... download 8 Mpix files from, say, the Sony 828, the Oly E-Volt and the Canon 1D M II (you can find samples on the net), all are 8 Mpixels but with tremendous differences in pixel quality due to the differences in sensor size and software. Compare them and you'll see. Now pick just one of them and compare a low ISO shot to a high ISO shot (especially from the small sensor models like the Sony or E-Volt) and again you'll see a big difference in pixel quality. Scanned film is much more grainy than direct digital capture from the large sensor cameras, like the Canon Pro models. >And as for this "in the long run, digital is cheaper," I don't think so. If you shoot 20-40 rolls a year or less you're probably right, but for the cost of say 150 rolls of Velvia or Provia 100F with processing you could buy a Canon 20D and 4 GB of memory cards and be set. It costs me around $12 for 35 mm Velvia with processing (I don't use the cheap lab, which I think gets this down to around $10) so you can do the math to see how many rolls it would take to pay off a 1D Mark II at $4,000 or a 1Ds MII at $8,000 ... you need to shoot a lot of film to pay for these but if you are already shooting a lot of film then it doesn't take too many months to cross over. >The 1D Mk2 does 8.5 fps, but is only 8.2 mp. My printer will do 13x19". >Do I need the 16.7 to get good images that size? You can download free 1D MII images from Canon, print them yourself and decide. I'll post the link if I can find it. That's what I did (print the sample images 12x18" on an Epson 2200) before I bought this body (two of them). I also have an 11 Mpix 1Ds, which prints even better but as you say isn't as suited for wildlife. >What does your "uprezz" do? How does it work? I think Paul was talking about doing the resampling using the Photoshop RAW converter. You can also do it later in the flow with Image/Image Size or with a Stair Interpolation algorithm. I've resized several 1D MII images to 16x24" @ 360 ppi to print on my Epson 4000, though this is definitely pushing the envelope. >If I could compare myself, then I've already made the plunge into digital. Buy a 256KB memory card and next time you're shooting somewhere and see someone with a Canon digital ask them if you can blast off a couple of test shots using your lenses. Shoot RAW, you can process them with Photoshop or get a free converter from C1 (trial) or RSE. That's the best way to do it. To just test for printing you can download the Canon samples and print them. Bill >You can download free 1D MII images from Canon, print them yourself >and decide. I'll post the link if I can find it. http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/eos1dm2_sample-e.html ... these are full sized jpegs, about 2 MB each, shot at various ISO settings. You might try printing these with your 2200 "as is", which will be about 195 ppi and see how the Epson driver does with resizing, and then resample yourself (if you have CS use 'bicubic smoother') to 240 ppi or 300 ppi and see how that prints. You can also find 1Ds MII samples and try those as well. Bill >Buy a 256KB memory card Make that a 256 MB card (not KB) and you'll actually be able to use it :) Sorry ... Alan I agree with the post by Bill Hilton. He said it much better than I could. On 6/12/05 1:43 PM, in article 1118598219.434493.31590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote: All I can add is there is really no comparsion between my D2x Raw Files and my Nikon coolscan 4000 files scanned of my slide files. The digital wins hands down. And I found it so even with my old D1x. And I mean better in so many ways. Not just the resoultion. But There are disadvantages to Digital; You need the computer power to work with the images. You need the knowledge of computers You need the pro graphics applications to work with the images You need to establish a very good back up system for the images You need a good software database application to find old images You need lots and lots of digital storage You need to establish a good workflow for the huge increase in images per shoot. I used to shoot about 7-10 rolls of 36 per day on a shoot, I can easly shoot that in a hour now. I have shot thousands of images in a single day for a batch of Little League Games. I never would have down that with film. But the advantages of digital, for me far outweigh any disadvantages. I love digital.... SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 6/12/05 12:16 PM, in article > QdZqe.3014$NX4.1273@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net > "Alan Justice" <spam@spamspamspam.spam> wrote: > Have you compared large prints of the two? When I scan my slides, I get a > 24 megapixel file. The best digital gives 16. And my scan is only 4000 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > - Alan Justice > But the advantages of digital, for me far outweigh any disadvantages. For your application. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org But you're comparing the original digital file to a 2nd generation image of film. And not a very good one. Drum scan? R print? I know I have to see this for myself, but since I don't have the digital camera to make these comparisons, I need others to convince me. I've seen excellent 11x14 from 6 MPix, but the color was flat. -- - Alan Justice > Alan > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > & |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message