http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Apr 11, 7:43 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:35 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
> > IMHO, that's not the seminal question. 'Most' films are pretty
> > crappy in terms of color, contrast, and resolution.
>
> > The seminal question is what quality CAN be obtained
> > via reasonable means.
>
> > > When I was still shooting 35mm, my
> > > editors were delighted to get transparencies with an ISO of 200.
>
> > > You''re right about the DR. I figure another 2-3 years there.
>
> > > Actually, the reasons fordigitalphotography DO include quality of
> > > photos. I've got more 20x30 and 28x36 prints on my walls now than at
> > > any other time in my life, many shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD, and the
> > > rest on a 10MP Pentax K10D. The more than match the quality I used to
> > > get out a couple of Minoltas--and the damned autofocus actually works,
> > > which is more than I could ever say for one of my Minoltas.
>
> > What film were you using?
>
> Various films, including K64. All this vewrbiage about transparency
> color brilliance and small grain is true, but the only way to make it
> visible at a reasonable size is to have the slide run through to
> produce a dye transfer print, IIRC.
No, the best way is to project it. That is how slides were meant
to be seen, just like movies. After all, 35 mm photography originally
used leftover 35mm movie film.
Another way is to dupe the slides by copying them onto print film.
Vericolor was the standard for that, but I found that Ektar was
better
for landscapes.
.> Even then, it doesn't match the
> look of the original, and an 11x14 dye transfer print costs well up in
> the hundreds of bucks range, probably about half as much as I paid for
> my Epson 1800 printer--that only gives a top of 13x19, but does some
> wondrous things with 11x14. Affordability is another reason for the
> success of digital: My photos have improved more in the past decade
> than in something like 45 years of shooting before, for a simple
> reason:
That is one of the reasons (cost) why most amateurs I know shot slides
before converting to digital. Much cheaper than prints.
For 4 x 6 I had good results duping kodachrome slides onto Ektar
25 using a slide copier. No more Ektar though.
For black and white, I doubt that digital can hold a candle
to 2415 developed in Technidol.
But in terms of throughput, there is no doubt that you can
crank out hardcopy fast with digital, and for a low unit
cost too, after the equipment is paid for.
Those are factors I refer to as convenience, as opposed
to quality.
Folks at my photo club typically project their images to show
them to the club. Compared to Kodachorme slides, the
digital slides are dull as dirt.
> Neither I nor my clients had to front the costs for testing
> new films, different lighting set ups, different filter effects and so
> on. Now, I can test a camera, and get used to it, by shooting 500
> frames, if I feel it necessary. Before, that would have cost a
> fortune, or at least the film and processing costs on 14 rolls. Today,
> the cost is my time (which was a cost anyway), plus wear and tear on
> the camera (which was there anyway).
Yes. Once you've bought the equipment, you shoot a crapload
of photos cheap with digital.
--
FF
On Apr 5, 3:34=A0pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > =A0Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
> > purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
> > malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
>
> I want to get my granddaughter a digital camera when she graduated from 8t=
h
> grade. =A0Do you think this one will be OK for her?http://www.bhphotovideo=
.com/c/shop/6222/SLR+Digital+Cameras.html/atl/...
You don't 'buy' 'Blads, Ed.. you lease them.
On Apr 4, 1:20=A0pm, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well put ... proving one man's poi/poet is another man's poision, my fathe=
r
> could never understand my fascination/regard with the songwiters I conside=
r
> two of the real poets of my generation - Kris Kristofferson and John Prine=
.
>
> To this day he sees no value whatsoever in their "poetry".
>
A poet, writer, painter, sculptor expresses ideas, visions, thoughts,
and feelings.
Picasso didn't use much resolution/detail/colour in this 'sketch'
http://www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/007-14571/
Prine doesn't use big words to express himself.
A photographer can be a recorder of an image, or he expresses a whole
a lot more using an image.....
How cold he and others were on that rainy day.
You do not have to be able to count the rain drops to get 'the
picture'.
On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > jo4hn wrote:
> >> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>
> >> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in
> >> the aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come
> >> closer to your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others
> >> are
> >> more interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good"
> >> picture that is easily disseminated to friends and family on the
> >> internet.
>
> >> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
> >> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
> >> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow
> >> numbers
> >> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar
> >> noise. She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of
> >> her
> >> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents
> >> never
> >> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>
> >> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
> >> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I
> >> am quite happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy
> >> something that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my
> >> POS
> >> 20 YO Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
>
> > If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
> > same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
> > small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
> > to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
> > equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>
> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
> not do what I wanted.
>
Bullshit, Tim. You wrote you were using a "prosumer" grade DSLR of
10MP. State of the art DSLR today is 21 or 22MP in full 35mm frame.
On Apr 5, 12:30=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0And, BTW, over the years
> I shot a *lot* of 35mm with Nikon, Leica, Canon, Minolta, Pentax,
> etc. - If anyone wants to get rid of their old Leica, don't
> throw it away, throw it my way ;)
A friend of mine is a professional photographer and he also has an
enormous collection of documentary-type pictures he's shot over the
years for his own pleasure.
His formula was always the same Tr-X pushed to 600, from a bulk loader
and a Leica and a Nikon always fully loaded, ready to go. He'd reach
for one or the other, depending which one was handy, had whatever lens
on it, etc.
He has a pile of 8x10 , all the same paper, I'd hazard a guess, of
about 200 pictures he favours.
One day, back in early 1980, another friend and I were visiting there,
and somehow, we got talking about being able to tell the difference
between the Leica and the Nikon images. My buddy has absolutely no
experience in anything like photography, and yet, when he went through
the pile, he was right, better than 75% of the time, which was a Leica
shot, and which was a Nikon shot. Both my photographer friend and I
were totally blown away by that. We think it was high-light detail, or
something odd in the dynamic range in the high-lights...
Having said that, my little 885 Nikon ( 3MP) does better in some
subject matter than my H2 Sony at 6 MP.
But nothing comes close the a 85mm f2.8 German made Zeiss I had on a
Contax for insane dynamic range or sharpness... other than the same
type on a 'Blad.... just an opinion. For a 50mm lens, the Leica was
better, IMHO. especially at low light.
This is the photog I'm talking about:
http://www.ianmaceachern.com/index.html
r
On Apr 6, 3:43 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > The term 'prosumer' was coined
> > years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of
> > consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. It is the best of
> > former and the entry level of the later.
>
> I hope the term dies away quickly.
>
> Equipment is neither amateur nor professional. Marketing
> terms (by intent) don't convey the information about features
> that a purchaser needs and merely cloud the issue.
>
> E.g. what is an amateur table saw, a professional table saw,
> a semi-professional table saw or a 'prosumer' table saw?
>
> --
Lengthy.
Prosumer. The term was originally applied to what are now called
bridge cameras. (I agree: it made my skin crawl the first time I heard
it, and still does.) Oddly enough, no one makes them any more because
standard point & shoot digitals have caught up on some of the
features, and low end DSLRs have dropped in price to the point where
the "prosumer" is outmoded. I paid just under $1,000 about six or
seven years ago for a Minolta D7i 5 MP prosumer. I did two books with
that, and a couple of articles, but I was never happy with it--try
shooting a horse race with a camera that has the kind of shutter lag
P&S digitals are famous for. Car races are nearly impossible. So I
went to a Pentax *istD, not quite five years ago.It is a 6 MP, but can
turn out super 20x30 prints every time I get it right. I'm using that
and a K10D now, with a 10 MP sensor, which has been the main shooting
camera for my new book. I hope by year's end to see what Pentax's K30D
is like. Currently, they have a 14 MP K20D as top of the line. I don't
expect the new CMOS sensor to be changed, but there are a couple of
features I'd like to see improve before I drop another $1,500 or so on
a camera body (the K20D has just now dropped to about $1,150 at top
dealers; the K10D is under $600 in some places, which means I may buy
a back-up K10D body and sell my *istD).
For my type of pro use, the advantages of digital are obvious. I shoot
some vintage sports car races; I shoot many cars, vintage, hot rod and
custom; I shoot woodworking in several forms. I also fool around and
shoot pleasure shots around here, though not as often as I'd like. I
doubt I'll ever be able to justify anything larger than a 14 MP
camera. That's an APS-C sensor, not 35mm full frame. The 21 and 22 MP
full frame sensors are far too costly for my work, as are most of the
Nikon and Canon offerings, though some of their bodies would do better
shooting races than either of my Pentaxes. Of course, I was shooting
motocross back around '70 or '71 with a Canon F1 35mm, mostly using a
Canon 135mm lens, and Tri-X pushed to 800 on dull days. I used a motor
drive and bulk back with some frequency, and often shot more than 500
frames on a weekend. Now, I go to a race and shoot about 1,200 frames
a day. I don't have to endure the red glow and hypo stink of a
darkroom, making my already sore knees hurt worse. It takes me less
time to process and examine 2,000 shots on-screen than it ever came
close to doing developing 500 shots and printing out 14 or 15 contact
sheets, which then had to be examined minutely to see what was and
wasn't sharp--no AF in those days--and then have prints made, and on.
Now, I sit here, pop the images up on a viewing program, delete those
that didn't work, convert those that did to JPEGs (about a half second
process), and type in a short caption. That goes on a DVD or CD and
goes to the publisher. The mailing cost today for 50 photos to one
publisher is just about the same as the mailing cost back then was for
50 5x7 and 8x10 photos, but the envelope's a lot smaller and lighter.
Oh, yeah. If I blow a shot, get it a couple, three stops off, I can
work with it in Photoshop or Paintshop Pro. It can nearly always be
saved. Same if the color is off.
Another point: my lead camera (a K10D) offers ISO speeds from 100 to
1600. I can change 'film' speed with just a quick twitch or two, and
save some scenes that might otherwise not be possible at all in 35mm.
My *istD offers ISO speeds from 200 to 3200. Some of the more costly
new cameras are said to offer speeds upwards of ISO 25,000.
On Apr 5, 3:34 pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
> > purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
> > malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
>
> I want to get my granddaughter a digital camera when she graduated from 8th
> grade. Do you think this one will be OK for her?http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/6222/SLR+Digital+Cameras.html/atl/...
Too heavy. Try the new top of the line Canon...and the body is only 8K.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I dunno if the D40 has this feature, but the D80 has a really nifty
> option. You can set the camera in Program mode so that it makes most
> of the decisions for you. BUT, if you don't like the shutter speed/f-stop
> combo it selects, you can rotate a thumbwheel while still in P mode, and
> pick a different combo more to your choosing. This avoids having to
> go into Aperture- or Shutter- priority mode to get a particular
> setting where you like it.
The D40X has that thumbwheel, can't speak for the D40, but it's supposed to
be identical to the D40X aside from it being capable of a max 6mbit pixels.
Also noticed in your last message that you used the D80 as the boundary for
raw format images. The D40x which is one less on the scale also will save in
raw format. I'm guessing the D40 will also do the same thing.
Bought the D40X last summer and it appears that it's being phased out
already. The camera store I bought it from doesn't stock it anymore. Things
sure change fast in the digital world.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
My digital in on 'auto' 95% of the time. I have become a tourist....
and "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"
I understand completely. I had a Nikon FE before the 1mp camera. This
relatively new D40X gives me speed, the 4 gig SD card holds hundreds if not
thousands of zero cost high resolution images and the autofocusing 70-200mm
lens enables foolproof focusing. I'm almost ashamed to admit that low cost,
ease and of use really decent imaging has eclipsed all other considerations.
Charlie Self wrote:
> Various films, including K64. All this vewrbiage about transparency
> color brilliance and small grain is true, but the only way to make it
> visible at a reasonable size is to have the slide run through to
> produce a dye transfer print, IIRC. Even then, it doesn't match the
> look of the original, and an 11x14 dye transfer print costs well up in
> the hundreds of bucks range, probably about half as much as I paid for
I believe Kodak has discontinued dye transfer materials production.
There may be a few people still doing it with old stock, I dunno,
but it is pretty much the case the dye transfer is more-or-less done
and dead.
The color fidelity of K25/64 is inarguable, but it's pretty much
theoretical. You have to magnify and print it or project it
for others to see the image. At that point, a good many of the
Kodachrome virtues vanish, blemished by the magnification
process. I long ago gave up transparencies for this reason. In
practical use, C-41/RA-4 gave just as good/better results for a lot
less time/aggravation/cost. For me, this was never much of an issue
since I never much cared for color as an expressive medium. But I
have colleagues that shoot (did shoot) a LOT of color and they too
left the transparencies long ago (well, except for the pros using E-6
as preferred by some magazines and other publications).
> my Epson 1800 printer--that only gives a top of 13x19, but does some
> wondrous things with 11x14. Affordability is another reason for the
I do not shoot color for anything other than snapshots, but it is
interesting to me that the current crop of Epson and HP inks with
modern inkjet papers are now *more* archival than the best RA-4 papers
ever were. This is one area where digital is clearly better (at last)
than traditional chemical color prints.
> success of digital: My photos have improved more in the past decade
> than in something like 45 years of shooting before, for a simple
> reason: Neither I nor my clients had to front the costs for testing
> new films, different lighting set ups, different filter effects and so
> on. Now, I can test a camera, and get used to it, by shooting 500
> frames, if I feel it necessary. Before, that would have cost a
> fortune, or at least the film and processing costs on 14 rolls. Today,
> the cost is my time (which was a cost anyway), plus wear and tear on
> the camera (which was there anyway).
Not to mention that fact that you control your own workflow. One of
the great frustrations of color for me was the large variability in
color balance from lab to lab. Even the best pro labs I worked with
had a considerable variation in what they thought a neutral balance
should be. With digital color, I can calibrate my workflow from
beginning to end to give me consistent results. This is so satisfying
that - for the first time in decades - I am being drawn back into
shooting color for creative work.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Apr 5, 2:18=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To a certain extent, I've overstated things. When you view larger
> prints, you tend to stand further away from them - this allows you
> to get away with less final LPMs in the print because you are not
> viewing image detail as closely. That's why it is possible to
> produce acceptably sharp 16x20s from a Nikon because you're standing
> 4 or 5 feet away from the print. Even so, this is a losing game. If
> you want large, "sharp" prints you need large "sharp" negatives.
> Incidentally, this applies with equal validity to images produced
> digitally - the medium of information recording does not affect the
> laws of physics and human cognition.
>
So true.
I have seen a billboard from a 35mm Kodachrome which looked just fine
from the highway. The frame was even cropped a bit. For the same
reason, my 20-year old 28" Sony XBR Trinitron looks fabulously sharp
from across the office, where it hovers above both my 23" Sony
computer monitors. It is about 12 feet away, and appears to be the
same size as a quarter of my either of my computer monitors. I treat
it like a window which floats in space and has a WAY better resolution
(appears to have) than either of my Sony SDM 234's which are no
slouches.
About pixel density. I'm sure you have read some of this guy's stuff
on pixel density?
http://6mpixel.org/en/
r
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I still love the smell of hypo in the morning.
Junkie
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> The term 'prosumer' was coined
> years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of
> consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. It is the best of
> former and the entry level of the later.
I hope the term dies away quickly.
Equipment is neither amateur nor professional. Marketing
terms (by intent) don't convey the information about features
that a purchaser needs and merely cloud the issue.
E.g. what is an amateur table saw, a professional table saw,
a semi-professional table saw or a 'prosumer' table saw?
--
FF
On Apr 5, 10:55 am, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> jo4hn wrote:
> >>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>>>http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
> >> ...
>
> >>>> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
> >>>> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. ...
> >>> If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
> >>> same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
> >>> small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
> >>> to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
> >>> equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
> >> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
> >> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
> >> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
> >> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
> >> not do what I wanted.
>
> > The best consumer grade digital cameras have about half the
> > resolution of a Kodachrome 64 35 mm slide and no where near
> > the dynamic range. I doubt that any even approach the dynamic
> > range of high contrast consumer print films.
>
> > IOW, digital imaging is not yet as good as 35 mm.
>
> > OTOH, there is only one place on Earth that still processes
> > Kodachrome 64, Dwayne's photo.
>
> > The reasons for the changeover to digital photography do NOT
> > include the quality of the images.
>
> That may be true for the consumer grade stuff, but at the high end
> prosumer, and certainly at the full blown pro level of equipment
> this is arguably not the case. Subjectively, at least, at 10MP
> the Nikon D80 I'm using is the equal of 35mm
I don't see how, since a 35 mm Kodachrome 64 slide has
resolution roughly equivalent to a 25 Mp digital image. It is not
the
finest grained film available either, though Kodachrome 25 (no
longer made) may have been the finest grade _slide_ film made,
I don't the resolution of Kodachrome 25.
Grain in film isn't as evenly distributed as pixels in a digital
image
so the resolution of film is 'uneven'. But with more than twice as
many grains as a digital image has pixels it is a fair bet that the
former would still capture finer detail.
I don't know what 'prosumer is'. What I call a consumer digital
camera costs less than $2000 and produces images up to 10 -
12 Mp resolution.
> generally up to
> about 11x14 (which is where 35mm fell apart for me anyway) and
> is arguably getting pretty close to K64 in range of light and
> contrast. I can provide jpegs if you'd like to see for yourself.
Since there aren't any computer monitors that have color
saturation, contrast and especially not dynamic range
even close to pretty much any slide film, even if that much
data were in a jpeg, it couldn't be observed.
Digital imagery has much better potential for color vermisilitude,
however.
>
> But, the issue for be was/is that it cannot yet replace medium-
> or large format because the CCDs do not yet capture sufficient
> detai. However, for what I wanted it for, the D80 is a fine
> instrument. Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
> purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
> malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
The other problem of course is storing that information.
Hence jpeg and other image modeling formats that
essentially smooth away the fine detail, typically producing
an image that looks good to the eye, but actually has much
less information than was captured on the CCD.
Incidentally, if you can set your digital camera to record a
bitmap and then print the bitmap without ever converting
to jpg, you might get better results with your large prints.
But the file sizes for the images may be up to 500 Mb!
GIF is a compressed bitmap format-it faithfully preserves
the pixel values that were downloaded from the chip (not
necessarily the same as the data numbers for those
pixels.). I _think _ that BMP and TIFF are too. FITS
certainly is.
Yes. it is 'good enough' for most consumers and
photojournalism, and much more convenient. I am
surprised at how long it has taken for digital to make
it over the hump to consumer dominance.
--
FF
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "jo4hn" wrote
>
>> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
>> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
>> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow numbers
>> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar noise.
>> She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of her
>> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents never
>> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>
> Well put ... proving one man's poi/poet is another man's poision, my
> father
> could never understand my fascination/regard with the songwiters I
> consider
> two of the real poets of my generation - Kris Kristofferson and John
> Prine.
>
Buy that man a beer! Two of the best critical voices of our times.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
J. Clarke wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>>>
>> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in
>> the aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come
>> closer to your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others
>> are
>> more interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good"
>> picture that is easily disseminated to friends and family on the
>> internet.
>>
>> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
>> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
>> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow
>> numbers
>> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar
>> noise. She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of
>> her
>> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents
>> never
>> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>>
>> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
>> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I
>> am quite happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy
>> something that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my
>> POS
>> 20 YO Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
>
> If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
> same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
> small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
> to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
> equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>
I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
not do what I wanted.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> One day, back in early 1980, another friend and I were visiting there,
> and somehow, we got talking about being able to tell the difference
> between the Leica and the Nikon images. My buddy has absolutely no
> experience in anything like photography, and yet, when he went through
> the pile, he was right, better than 75% of the time, which was a Leica
> shot, and which was a Nikon shot. Both my photographer friend and I
> were totally blown away by that. We think it was high-light detail, or
> something odd in the dynamic range in the high-lights...
Leica's have an especially beautiful out-of-focus look when
you are ouside the limits of depth-of-field. The Japanese
call this "bokah". They also have tack sharp optics and great
contrast. I hand an old Leica IIIf with a 50mm f/3.5 collapsable
uncoated Elmar. The thing shot fantastic pictures, even
in color. I regret having ever gotten rid of it.
> Having said that, my little 885 Nikon ( 3MP) does better in some
> subject matter than my H2 Sony at 6 MP.
>
> But nothing comes close the a 85mm f2.8 German made Zeiss I had on a
> Contax for insane dynamic range or sharpness... other than the same
> type on a 'Blad.... just an opinion. For a 50mm lens, the Leica was
> better, IMHO. especially at low light.
I have a HB 501C/M with several lenses. All of them, the 40
Distagon, 60mm Distagon, 80mm Planar, and 180mm Sonnar are
excruciatingly sharp and contrasty. The only 'Blad lens I ever
used that was soft was the 250mm Sonnar. That said, negative
size still matters more than anything. I have a bag full of
lenses for my 4x5 - a couple of which are the old Artars with
nowhere near the sophistication of optics and coatings of the
'Blads. But an image shot through an Artar onto 4x5 is noticeably
sharper and crisper than one shot with the 'Blad. (And either are
light years better than a 35mm.)
The interesting thing is that medium/large format lenses get away
with *less* resolving power than the lenses used on 35mm cameras
(and by extension, digital SLRs since they share lens families
with their film body counterparts). If you don't care why this
is, feel free to hang up now. Otherwise ....
THE MATH
========
Resolution is measured in Line Pairs Per Millimeter (LPM). To some
degree, what we perceive as "sharpness" is a matter of human
perception. There is no magic number at which things are absolutely
"sharp" just what we perceive things to be. This depends, in turn,
on the optical system which produced the image, AND the conditions
underwhich we view the image, AND the distance at which we view the
image, AND other factors such as contrast range evident in the final
image - We typically see higher contrast images as "sharper" even
though they don't actually measure that way. You can also resort to
clever techniques like Unsharp Masking to produce locally sharper
edges in the detail which makes the whole print seem much sharper
than it actually (as measured) is.
In the end, what ultimately matters is the resolution in LPM
present in the final medium, say a print. For an 8x10 print, the
general consensus seems to be that the print has to resolve 8 LPM or
so. Now then, what ends up on the print (all other things being
constant) is equal to the resolution of the optical system which
produced the negative (film, camera, lens, and processing) DIVIDED
by the magnification ratio needed to produce the image at the
desired size. (I'm ignoring the resolving power of the enlarging
system here. It is relevant in the sense that the final print will
be no better than the weakest link in the chain.)
To make an 8x10 print, you have magnify a 35mm negative about 7x. To
make the same print from a Hassy neg, you need a magnification ratio
just over 4x.
Let's pretend the camera, film, and development are lossless
(perfect) and that final resolution in the negative is entirely
dependent on the resolving power of the lens. This is a pretty
reasonable assumption for most practical situations, BTW. To get 8
LPM in our final print we need:
8 * 7 = 56 LPM resolution for the 35mm system's lens
8 * 4 = 32 LPM resolution for the Hassy system's lens
These numbers are well within the capabilities of both systems which
is why you can use even a lowly 35mm camera to make beautiful 8x10s.
THE POINT
=========
Because MF and LF cameras produce negs which need LESS magnification
to produce a given image size than an equivalent 35mm neg, these
larger formats can use lenses with LESS absolute resolving power to
produce the same "sharpness" results in the final print.
Manufacturers like Hassy know this (they employ one or two optical
experts, I suspect ;) and save weight and cost by not building in
unnecessary optical perfection in their lenses.
If you take a 35mm "chunk" out of a Hassy neg (and magnify it to
8x10, you may have LESS final resolution in the print than the 35mm
equivalent because you are now magnifying things 7x with a lens that
has less resolving power. To be more specific:
32 LPM (Hassy Lens) / 7x = 4.6 LPM in the final print
This will look less sharp than the 8 LPM we produced in the
35mm-derived print.
However, this is a little silly. Why spend all that money for an MF
and treat it like an overweight 35mm point-n-shoot?
You really start to see the advantage in MF when you make large
prints. Suppose you want a 16x20 - that's 14x for 35mm and 8x for
Hassy:
35mm case: 8 * 14 = 112 LPM required lens resolution
Hassy case: 8 * 8 = 64 LPM required lens resolution
64 LPM resolution is again typically within the range for a good MF
lens, but 112 LPM is doubtful for even the most prestigious 35mm
lenses. This is why you cannot get as apparently sharp large prints
from your Leica - In other words, there ain't no substitute for
square inches! If you make 20 x 24 prints you REALLY see the tiny
negative's limitations. I am also ignoring other factors like the
superior tonal rendering of a larger negative (it has more "bits" of
information than the smaller negative). In actual fact, for a high
resolution film/developer combination, the larger negs will produce
consistently better prints even at 8 x 10.
To a certain extent, I've overstated things. When you view larger
prints, you tend to stand further away from them - this allows you
to get away with less final LPMs in the print because you are not
viewing image detail as closely. That's why it is possible to
produce acceptably sharp 16x20s from a Nikon because you're standing
4 or 5 feet away from the print. Even so, this is a losing game. If
you want large, "sharp" prints you need large "sharp" negatives.
Incidentally, this applies with equal validity to images produced
digitally - the medium of information recording does not affect the
laws of physics and human cognition.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Apr 10, 10:35 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 5, 7:55 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 7:14 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > IOW,digitalimaging is not yet as good as 35 mm.
>
> > > OTOH, there is only opne place on Earth that still processes
> > > Kodachrome 64, Dwayne's photo.
>
> > > The reasons for the changeover todigitalphotography do NOT
> > > include the quality of the images.
>
> > That was last year. But, then, I guess you're right when you state
> > "consumer grade."
>
> > There are probably a dozen DSLRs out there now that will match
> > resolution with a 35mm using most films. As an incidental point, how
> > many people shoot KX64 these days?
>
> IMHO, that's not the seminal question. 'Most' films are pretty
> crappy in terms of color, contrast, and resolution.
>
> The seminal question is what quality CAN be obtained
> via reasonable means.
>
> > When I was still shooting 35mm, my
> > editors were delighted to get transparencies with an ISO of 200.
>
> > You''re right about the DR. I figure another 2-3 years there.
>
> > Actually, the reasons fordigitalphotography DO include quality of
> > photos. I've got more 20x30 and 28x36 prints on my walls now than at
> > any other time in my life, many shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD, and the
> > rest on a 10MP Pentax K10D. The more than match the quality I used to
> > get out a couple of Minoltas--and the damned autofocus actually works,
> > which is more than I could ever say for one of my Minoltas.
>
> What film were you using?
>
Various films, including K64. All this vewrbiage about transparency
color brilliance and small grain is true, but the only way to make it
visible at a reasonable size is to have the slide run through to
produce a dye transfer print, IIRC. Even then, it doesn't match the
look of the original, and an 11x14 dye transfer print costs well up in
the hundreds of bucks range, probably about half as much as I paid for
my Epson 1800 printer--that only gives a top of 13x19, but does some
wondrous things with 11x14. Affordability is another reason for the
success of digital: My photos have improved more in the past decade
than in something like 45 years of shooting before, for a simple
reason: Neither I nor my clients had to front the costs for testing
new films, different lighting set ups, different filter effects and so
on. Now, I can test a camera, and get used to it, by shooting 500
frames, if I feel it necessary. Before, that would have cost a
fortune, or at least the film and processing costs on 14 rolls. Today,
the cost is my time (which was a cost anyway), plus wear and tear on
the camera (which was there anyway).
On Apr 5, 4:30 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >> tundra wrote:
> >> That may be true for the consumer grade stuff, but at the high end
> >> prosumer, and certainly at the full blown pro level of equipment
> >> this is arguably not the case. Subjectively, at least, at 10MP
> >> the Nikon D80 I'm using is the equal of 35mm
>
> > I don't see how, since a 35 mm Kodachrome 64 slide has
> > resolution roughly equivalent to a 25 Mp digital image. It is not
> > the
> > finest grained film available either, though Kodachrome 25 (no
> > longer made) may have been the finest grade _slide_ film made,
> > I don't the resolution of Kodachrome 25.
>
> How did you arrive at the 25Mp figure? Not arguing, just
> wondering.
IIRC, Wikipedia.
>
> K64 was, without doubt, a marvelous (almost perfect) color film. But
> slides always had the problem that they had to be projected or printed
> to be seen by others. In either case, a *lot* got lost in the
> conversion.
I use a backlit viewer to view them myself and project them for
others.
> Yes, if you were a National Geo photographer, shooting K64
> and bringing it home to a lab with almost no financial constraints was
> practical. For the rest of us it was not so easy. In effect, K64 was
> *theoretically* the best color film, it just didn't lead to practical
> results ... unless you could afford to do/buy dye transfer prints, now
> long gone.
The slides can be digitized, then printed. As you note, much is lost
when printing, so if you MUST make a print, the losses associated
with digitizing the slide are not significant.
The result is at least as good as a image that was digital straight
out of a camera.
The last time I talked with a National Geographic photographer
was in McCarthy, Alaska in June of 1993. He and all of his
colleagues relied almost exclusively on Fujichrome, pull-
processed. ISTR they all used Nikons too. I fell into a
meltpond with my N 8008s and had to go back to using
my Nikkormat for a day or so. He remarked that the
electronic cameras sometimes survived fresh water, but
never salt water. Mine recovered after a day or so.
> ...
> There's no question that film of a certain size blows away digital.
> And that's why digital cannot yet replace even a cheap old $100
> Mamiya C-3 negative.
>
> But, as I said, at least subjectively, at 10 Mp, I see no difference
> between 4x6 prints and those made from 35mm.
I'll buy that, if you work with consumer targetted print films
like the Kodacolor series.. I gave up on print films a long
time ago.
> ...
>
> > I don't know what 'prosumer is'. What I call a consumer digital
> > camera costs less than $2000 and produces images up to 10 -
> > 12 Mp resolution.
>
> You are alone in so defining it. Both Nikon and Canon's pro lines
> start well below $2000 (the new Nikon D300 body is about $1800).
> Nikon's top-of-the-line pro body, the D3, is a 12.1 Mp camera.
> Canon has analogous bodies in their pro line, though they do offer
> an EOS body now that has a 22 Mp sensor. By most definitions,
> these qualify as pro equipment.
I'm doubtful that many who make their living by taking pictures
(which I daresay is the most common definition of 'pro')
are using cameras that cost less than $2k.
>
> > Since there aren't any computer monitors that have color
> > saturation, contrast and especially not dynamic range
> > even close to pretty much any slide film, even if that much
> > data were in a jpeg, it couldn't be observed.
>
> I would suggest that slide film is a poor reference point. You
> don't actually ever look at slides - at least not critically.
I suggest that it is an excellent reference point because it is
all that I use.
> > ...
> > The other problem of course is storing that information.
> > Hence jpeg and other image modeling formats that
> > essentially smooth away the fine detail, typically producing
> > an image that looks good to the eye, but actually has much
> > less information than was captured on the CCD.
>
> > Incidentally, if you can set your digital camera to record a
> > bitmap and then print the bitmap without ever converting
> > to jpg, you might get better results with your large prints.
> > But the file sizes for the images may be up to 500 Mb!
> > GIF is a compressed bitmap format-it faithfully preserves
> > the pixel values that were downloaded from the chip (not
> > necessarily the same as the data numbers for those
> > pixels.). I _think _ that BMP and TIFF are too. FITS
> > certainly is.
>
> All modern pro digital cameras (the D80 is the boundary
> between consumer and pro for Nikon, hence "prosumer") can
> save images in either camera "raw" format
Does 'raw' format give you the actual data numbers read off
of the chip? Can you also get a dark current? (data numbers
in complete darkness) If so, the camera can be used for
photometry, which I would like.
> ...
> > Yes. it is 'good enough' for most consumers and
> > photojournalism, and much more convenient. I am
> > surprised at how long it has taken for digital to make
> > it over the hump to consumer dominance.
>
> If you live somewhere where this is practical, try the
> following:
>
> 1) Rent a prosumer/pro digital camera/body. Nikon
> D80/D300/D3 or an equivalent Canon EOS.
My shooting partner has the Canon. I'll be buying one
soon.
--
FF
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:37:07 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Leon" wrote
>
>>
>> What, no "Fity Cent" ???
>
>Nope, no second grade iambic pentameter allowed.
Fitty Cent has a 49,000 sq/ft home about 20 minutes from me.
Apparenty, being a moron pays very well!
The former owner of the home was Mike Tyson! <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
On Apr 4, 5:05 pm, "Colin B." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>
> Well I posted a long diatribe against his rant, and the webserver broke. :-)
> Here's the short version of it:
>
> Comparing *ANY* SLR to a view camera is pointless and misleading. Neither a
> 35mm SLR or a medium format SLR (or TLR) can compare to a view camera, and
> it has nothing to do with digital vs. analog. In time it will be possible to
> buy an affordable digital back for a 4x5 view camera, and life will go on.
Doh! If you use the same film in two different formats that yield two
different
sized negatives the larger negative will have more data.
--
FF
On Apr 5, 7:55 pm, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:14 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> ...
>
> > IOW,digitalimaging is not yet as good as 35 mm.
>
> > OTOH, there is only opne place on Earth that still processes
> > Kodachrome 64, Dwayne's photo.
>
> > The reasons for the changeover todigitalphotography do NOT
> > include the quality of the images.
>
> That was last year. But, then, I guess you're right when you state
> "consumer grade."
>
> There are probably a dozen DSLRs out there now that will match
> resolution with a 35mm using most films. As an incidental point, how
> many people shoot KX64 these days?
IMHO, that's not the seminal question. 'Most' films are pretty
crappy in terms of color, contrast, and resolution.
The seminal question is what quality CAN be obtained
via reasonable means.
> When I was still shooting 35mm, my
> editors were delighted to get transparencies with an ISO of 200.
>
> You''re right about the DR. I figure another 2-3 years there.
>
> Actually, the reasons fordigitalphotography DO include quality of
> photos. I've got more 20x30 and 28x36 prints on my walls now than at
> any other time in my life, many shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD, and the
> rest on a 10MP Pentax K10D. The more than match the quality I used to
> get out a couple of Minoltas--and the damned autofocus actually works,
> which is more than I could ever say for one of my Minoltas.
What film were you using?
--
FF
On Apr 5, 12:20=A0pm, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk"
>
> > However, for what I wanted it for, the D80 is a fine
> > instrument. =A0Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
> > purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
> > malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
>
> Agreed. I bought a D40X this past summer and it's completely exceeded my
> needs and expectations for everything I want to do. It's my second digital=
> camera, much improved over the first one which was a 1 megapixel camera. A=
s
> my best friend describes the Nikon, "it's a fun camera". In fact we're bot=
h
> so satisfied with what it can do that neither of us have yet to take it ou=
t
> of auto mode. Maybe I bought more camera than I really need, but if the ti=
me
> comes I'm pretty sure all the expanded capabilities I'll need will be ther=
e.
Photography was a serious hobby for me for most of my life. The
processing, the frugal aspect of framing a shot, the whole ritual of
mixing the chemicals, the discussions amongst friends about the colour
integrity of the old Ektachrome (light reversal) or new stuff E-4
(chemical reversal) yadda, yadda, yadda. Kodachrome 25. CPS 4x5
plates which I processed myself. Cibachrome was grossly expensive.
Then I dragged along a little Nikon 885, just for fun, and realized I
was tired of dragging along a bag of lenses and managed to get a very
good price for my Contax system. (Kept an M4 and a Nikkormat for a
while) unloaded my Graflex and rubber tanks, enlargers etc.
The buzz of opening a new box of Ilford paper, has long since left me.
Now it's an H2 Sony with a Zeiss (as if) and I'm watching closely for
a credible SLR. I toss the Sony in a side pocket of the truck, $300 to
replace it, I no longer sweat the knowledge of a bag full of German
Zeiss on my shoulder.
My digital in on 'auto' 95% of the time. I have become a tourist....
and "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"
r
On Apr 4, 1:08 pm, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>
> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in the
> aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come closer to
> your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others are more
> interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good" picture that
> is easily disseminated to friends and family on the internet.
>
> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow numbers
> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar noise.
> She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of her
> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents never
> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>
> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of your
> photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I am quite
> happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy something
> that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my POS 20 YO
> Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
>
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
As I'm tone deaf, I won't comment on music, except to say most of what
has come out since about '75 makes me cringe.
As far as photography goes, if the poster wanted to do a comparison,
he might well have considered size to size, instead of the age old
bullshit of taking a 4x5 view camera and expecting a much smaller
sensor to match it, then bitching when it doesn't. Those sensors more
than match 35mm, which is the intent. A scanning back comes close to
the 4x5 quality, but is even less portable and ain't quite there yet,
though probably 95% of studio photographers now use a Phase II back on
Hassleblads for their work.
"Tim Daneliuk"
> However, for what I wanted it for, the D80 is a fine
> instrument. Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
> purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
> malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
Agreed. I bought a D40X this past summer and it's completely exceeded my
needs and expectations for everything I want to do. It's my second digital
camera, much improved over the first one which was a 1 megapixel camera. As
my best friend describes the Nikon, "it's a fun camera". In fact we're both
so satisfied with what it can do that neither of us have yet to take it out
of auto mode. Maybe I bought more camera than I really need, but if the time
comes I'm pretty sure all the expanded capabilities I'll need will be there.
Colin B. wrote:
<SNIP>
> Something I found telling about the article was that he was frustrated and
> ready to give up on the computer as an editing tool, because after recently
> getting into digital photography for the first time, he wasn't as competent
> at it as he was after 30 years in the darkroom.
Then you read it wrong - I am quite comfortable with the tools. The limitation
here is the camera itself.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> jo4hn wrote:
> >>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>>>http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
> >>>> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in
> >>>> the aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come
> >>>> closer to your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others
> >>>> are
> >>>> more interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good"
> >>>> picture that is easily disseminated to friends and family on the
> >>>> internet.
> >>>> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
> >>>> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
> >>>> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow
> >>>> numbers
> >>>> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar
> >>>> noise. She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of
> >>>> her
> >>>> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents
> >>>> never
> >>>> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
> >>>> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
> >>>> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I
> >>>> am quite happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy
> >>>> something that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my
> >>>> POS
> >>>> 20 YO Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
> >>> If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
> >>> same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
> >>> small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
> >>> to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
> >>> equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
> >> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
> >> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
> >> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
> >> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
> >> not do what I wanted.
>
> > Bullshit, Tim. You wrote you were using a "prosumer" grade DSLR of
>
> Why always such a potty mouth? The term 'prosumer' was coined
> years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of
> consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. It is the best of
> former and the entry level of the later.
>
> > 10MP. State of the art DSLR today is 21 or 22MP in full 35mm frame.
>
> And every pro uses only 22Mp? I don't think so. Nikon's highend
> full frame CCD camera (D3) is only 12Mp. Only Canon has a 22Mp
> camera in DSLR format ... well, that's not quite right if you
> consider the new Hasselblad.
>
Where did I state that every pro used a 21 or 22 MP camera? You made a
statement about a 10 MP being state of the art. That's nonsense. At
the moment, 21-22 MP is, in 35mm sized frame. APS-C champ is 14.2 MP
in the Pentax K20D. Medium format is about 39 MP, IIRC. AFAIK, only
Canon has bodies with sensors that exceed 20 MP. I'm not sure, why
Nikon chose to stop at 12, but I do know it has a 64 frame buffer, so
you can literally keep shooting until your card is full. Canon's big
shooter lets you change back to about a 12 MP level to get the immese
buffer. With a 16 GB card, that's a lot of shots. I get 976 raw+JPEG
out of my 10 MP Pentax. I don't bother to learn much more about
theCanons and Nikons, as they don't fit my plans, now or ever. They
are far too costly, and the lenses are almost as murderously expensive
as the bodies. Too, I'm still trying to figure out how they coordinate
the 51 AF points in the Nikon D3. Sometimes I wonder if maybe just
one easily movable point might not be better. Put it where you want
the focus and shoot. Startling. A great similarity to the old split
screen/microprism collar days, something I miss.
On Apr 4, 7:14 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > > jo4hn wrote:
> > >> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > >>>http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
> > ...
>
> > >> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
> > >> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. ...
>
> > > If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
> > > same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
> > > small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
> > > to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
> > > equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>
> > I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
> > state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
> > up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
> > more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
> > not do what I wanted.
>
> The best consumer grade digital cameras have about half the
> resolution of a Kodachrome 64 35 mm slide and no where near
> the dynamic range. I doubt that any even approach the dynamic
> range of high contrast consumer print films.
>
> IOW, digital imaging is not yet as good as 35 mm.
>
> OTOH, there is only opne place on Earth that still processes
> Kodachrome 64, Dwayne's photo.
>
> The reasons for the changeover to digital photography do NOT
> include the quality of the images.
>
That was last year. But, then, I guess you're right when you state
"consumer grade."
There are probably a dozen DSLRs out there now that will match
resolution with a 35mm using most films. As an incidental point, how
many people shoot KX64 these days? When I was still shooting 35mm, my
editors were delighted to get transparencies with an ISO of 200.
You''re right about the DR. I figure another 2-3 years there.
Actually, the reasons for digital photography DO include quality of
photos. I've got more 20x30 and 28x36 prints on my walls now than at
any other time in my life, many shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD, and the
rest on a 10MP Pentax K10D. The more than match the quality I used to
get out a couple of Minoltas--and the damned autofocus actually works,
which is more than I could ever say for one of my Minoltas.
On Apr 6, 3:43=A0pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 1:49 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > The term 'prosumer' was coined
> > years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of
> > consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. =A0It is the best of
> > former and the entry level of the later.
>
> I hope the term dies away quickly.
>
> Equipment is neither amateur nor professional. =A0Marketing
> terms (by intent) don't convey the information about features
> that a purchaser needs and merely cloud the issue.
>
> E.g. what is an amateur table saw, a professional table saw,
> a semi-professional table saw or a 'prosumer' table saw?
>
> --
>
> FF
The General 550-T50 is perfect for that amateur who makes shelves for
the church auction.
And next time I am going to built 30 kitchen cabinets, a 8" table top
will do just fine.
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Fitty Cent has a 49,000 sq/ft home about 20 minutes from me.
> Apparenty, being a moron pays very well!
>
> The former owner of the home was Mike Tyson! <G>
Apparently beating the shit out of people can pay well too.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
Well I posted a long diatribe against his rant, and the webserver broke. :-)
Here's the short version of it:
Comparing *ANY* SLR to a view camera is pointless and misleading. Neither a
35mm SLR or a medium format SLR (or TLR) can compare to a view camera, and
it has nothing to do with digital vs. analog. In time it will be possible to
buy an affordable digital back for a 4x5 view camera, and life will go on.
Something I found telling about the article was that he was frustrated and
ready to give up on the computer as an editing tool, because after recently
getting into digital photography for the first time, he wasn't as competent
at it as he was after 30 years in the darkroom.
There's more crap out there in any field you could imagine, but there's
also probably more great stuff as well. There are talented artists and
musicians and writers and poets and craftsmen taking their fields in new
and interesting directions ALL THE TIME out there!
One thing to keep in mind: Cultural progress is a measure of the positive,
not the ratio between positive and negative. If the RIAA generates a
thousand Britney Spears clones, it won't change the fact that Sarah Slean
is out there, writing poetry and songs. Rocky LXVII, "Balboa Breaks Out"
won't diminish the impact of movies like Amelie, Howl's Moving Castle,
or (possibly) Pan's Labyrinth. Good is good, no matter how much bad there
is surrounding it.
Colin
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "jo4hn" wrote
>
>> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
>> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
>> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow numbers
>> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar noise.
>> She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of her
>> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents never
>> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>
> Well put ... proving one man's poi/poet is another man's poision, my
> father
> could never understand my fascination/regard with the songwiters I
> consider
> two of the real poets of my generation - Kris Kristofferson and John
> Prine.
What, no "Fity Cent" ???
On Apr 5, 1:40 pm, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:59:36 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Fitty Cent has a 49,000 sq/ft home about 20 minutes from me.
> >> Apparenty, being a moron pays very well!
>
> >> The former owner of the home was Mike Tyson! <G>
>
> >Apparently beating the shit out of people can pay well too.
>
> Tyson is also a moron. <G>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> **http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
> ---------------------------------------------
Dual qualifications. That's nice.
On Apr 11, 1:50 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 7:43 am, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 10:35 pm, Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > IMHO, that's not the seminal question. 'Most' films are pretty
> > > crappy in terms of color, contrast, and resolution.
>
> > > The seminal question is what quality CAN be obtained
> > > via reasonable means.
>
> > > > When I was still shooting 35mm, my
> > > > editors were delighted to get transparencies with an ISO of 200.
>
> > > > You''re right about the DR. I figure another 2-3 years there.
>
> > > > Actually, the reasons fordigitalphotography DO include quality of
> > > > photos. I've got more 20x30 and 28x36 prints on my walls now than at
> > > > any other time in my life, many shot on a 6MP Pentax *istD, and the
> > > > rest on a 10MP Pentax K10D. The more than match the quality I used to
> > > > get out a couple of Minoltas--and the damned autofocus actually works,
> > > > which is more than I could ever say for one of my Minoltas.
>
> > > What film were you using?
>
> > Various films, including K64. All this vewrbiage about transparency
> > color brilliance and small grain is true, but the only way to make it
> > visible at a reasonable size is to have the slide run through to
> > produce a dye transfer print, IIRC.
>
> No, the best way is to project it. That is how slides were meant
> to be seen, just like movies. After all, 35 mm photography originally
> used leftover 35mm movie film.
>
> Another way is to dupe the slides by copying them onto print film.
> Vericolor was the standard for that, but I found that Ektar was
> better
> for landscapes.
>
> .> Even then, it doesn't match the
>
> > look of the original, and an 11x14 dye transfer print costs well up in
> > the hundreds of bucks range, probably about half as much as I paid for
> > my Epson 1800 printer--that only gives a top of 13x19, but does some
> > wondrous things with 11x14. Affordability is another reason for the
> > success of digital: My photos have improved more in the past decade
> > than in something like 45 years of shooting before, for a simple
> > reason:
>
> That is one of the reasons (cost) why most amateurs I know shot slides
> before converting to digital. Much cheaper than prints.
Most amateurs around here shot negative film, but, then, it sometimes
seems as if shooting half a roll and leaving it in the camera a year
or two was the norm. Most of my editors, those who wanted color in
those days, wanted transparencies.
>
> For 4 x 6 I had good results duping kodachrome slides onto Ektar
> 25 using a slide copier. No more Ektar though.
>
> For black and white, I doubt that digital can hold a candle
> to 2415 developed in Technidol.
I'm trying to remember the ASA of 2415. I used to have charts on all
of those, but they went along with the darkroom gear.
>
> But in terms of throughput, there is no doubt that you can
> crank out hardcopy fast with digital, and for a low unit
> cost too, after the equipment is paid for.
>
> Those are factors I refer to as convenience, as opposed
> to quality.
>
> Folks at my photo club typically project their images to show
> them to the club. Compared to Kodachorme slides, the
> digital slides are dull as dirt.
Shouldn't be. They won't be as good as Kodachrome, but...
>
> > Neither I nor my clients had to front the costs for testing
> > new films, different lighting set ups, different filter effects and so
> > on. Now, I can test a camera, and get used to it, by shooting 500
> > frames, if I feel it necessary. Before, that would have cost a
> > fortune, or at least the film and processing costs on 14 rolls. Today,
> > the cost is my time (which was a cost anyway), plus wear and tear on
> > the camera (which was there anyway).
>
> Yes. Once you've bought the equipment, you shoot a crapload
> of photos cheap with digital.
>
In constant dollars, the $722 I paid for a Pentax K10D body last year
is well under what I paid for a Canon F1 in '70 or '71. In fact, so is
the price of today's K20D, currently at around $1,200 street. My *istD
cost, IIRC, about $1,700 someting like four years ago, but with a
16-45 lens that was pretty decent. If you jump on the top of the line
Canon offering today, the body costs about $8,000. That's probably
double what the F1 cost (I seem to have $415 banging around in my
memory, which may or may not be true) in constant bucks, but you also
don't have to worry about a bulk back and a motor drive, so, again,
digital is little more, if any, expensive even for the high end
gear...until you get into Hasselblads and Phase 1 backs, where it gets
rough enough to scare even GWB. I had both the bulk back and motor
drive eventually, but hated to use the back because it was so bulky
and added a loss of balance as well as weight. The motor drive was
fast enough to create a problem with rolls of film. Something under 10
seconds and reload. So it wasn't worth much without the back.
Loved that camera, got some great shots with it, but I don't miss ANY
of that.
On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > jo4hn wrote:
> >> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >>>http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
> ...
>
> >> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
> >> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. ...
>
> > If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
> > same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
> > small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
> > to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
> > equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>
> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
> not do what I wanted.
>
The best consumer grade digital cameras have about half the
resolution of a Kodachrome 64 35 mm slide and no where near
the dynamic range. I doubt that any even approach the dynamic
range of high contrast consumer print films.
IOW, digital imaging is not yet as good as 35 mm.
OTOH, there is only opne place on Earth that still processes
Kodachrome 64, Dwayne's photo.
The reasons for the changeover to digital photography do NOT
include the quality of the images.
--
FF
Couldn,t agree more. If I hear another Pop singer
described as a genius I,ll throw up.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
jo4hn wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>>
> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in
> the aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come
> closer to your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others
> are
> more interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good"
> picture that is easily disseminated to friends and family on the
> internet.
>
> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow
> numbers
> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar
> noise. She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of
> her
> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents
> never
> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>
> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I
> am quite happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy
> something that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my
> POS
> 20 YO Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
>> purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
>> malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
>
> I want to get my granddaughter a digital camera when she graduated
> from 8th
> grade. Do you think this one will be OK for her?
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/6222/SLR+Digital+Cameras.html/atl/Brand_Hasselblad~Price_+33995+%3C=+100000/sortDrop/Price:+Low+to+High
Dunno--how is she about losing stuff?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
> purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
> malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
I want to get my granddaughter a digital camera when she graduated from 8th
grade. Do you think this one will be OK for her?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/6222/SLR+Digital+Cameras.html/atl/Brand_Hasselblad~Price_+33995+%3C=+100000/sortDrop/Price:+Low+to+High
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:59:36 -0500, "Upscale" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Fitty Cent has a 49,000 sq/ft home about 20 minutes from me.
>> Apparenty, being a moron pays very well!
>>
>> The former owner of the home was Mike Tyson! <G>
>
>Apparently beating the shit out of people can pay well too.
>
Tyson is also a moron. <G>
---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>> tundra wrote:
>> That may be true for the consumer grade stuff, but at the high end
>> prosumer, and certainly at the full blown pro level of equipment
>> this is arguably not the case. Subjectively, at least, at 10MP
>> the Nikon D80 I'm using is the equal of 35mm
>
> I don't see how, since a 35 mm Kodachrome 64 slide has
> resolution roughly equivalent to a 25 Mp digital image. It is not
> the
> finest grained film available either, though Kodachrome 25 (no
> longer made) may have been the finest grade _slide_ film made,
> I don't the resolution of Kodachrome 25.
>
How did you arrive at the 25Mp figure? Not arguing, just
wondering.
K64 was, without doubt, a marvelous (almost perfect) color film. But
slides always had the problem that they had to be projected or printed
to be seen by others. In either case, a *lot* got lost in the
conversion. Yes, if you were a National Geo photographer, shooting K64
and bringing it home to a lab with almost no financial constraints was
practical. For the rest of us it was not so easy. In effect, K64 was
*theoretically* the best color film, it just didn't lead to practical
results ... unless you could afford to do/buy dye transfer prints, now
long gone.
> Grain in film isn't as evenly distributed as pixels in a digital
> image
> so the resolution of film is 'uneven'. But with more than twice as
> many grains as a digital image has pixels it is a fair bet that the
> former would still capture finer detail.
There's no question that film of a certain size blows away digital.
And that's why digital cannot yet replace even a cheap old $100
Mamiya C-3 negative.
But, as I said, at least subjectively, at 10 Mp, I see no difference
between 4x6 prints and those made from 35mm. If I "enlarge" the
digital image on screen to size it to what would be 11x14", I see
something very close to 35mm quality. I'd have to do a lot more
rigorous testing (not that I intend to) to see how far apart they
actually are.
>
> I don't know what 'prosumer is'. What I call a consumer digital
> camera costs less than $2000 and produces images up to 10 -
> 12 Mp resolution.
You are alone in so defining it. Both Nikon and Canon's pro lines
start well below $2000 (the new Nikon D300 body is about $1800).
Nikon's top-of-the-line pro body, the D3, is a 12.1 Mp camera.
Canon has analogous bodies in their pro line, though they do offer
an EOS body now that has a 22 Mp sensor. By most definitions,
these qualify as pro equipment.
>
>> generally up to
>> about 11x14 (which is where 35mm fell apart for me anyway) and
>> is arguably getting pretty close to K64 in range of light and
>> contrast. I can provide jpegs if you'd like to see for yourself.
>
> Since there aren't any computer monitors that have color
> saturation, contrast and especially not dynamic range
> even close to pretty much any slide film, even if that much
> data were in a jpeg, it couldn't be observed.
I would suggest that slide film is a poor reference point. You
don't actually ever look at slides - at least not critically.
You have to magnify them or print them, and as I said, either way,
a lot gets lost in the process. More typically, the comparison
is between a traditional print and a digital image. These days,
the output from the newer printers is pretty spectacular. However,
I am old fashioned - I like the look of traditional silver-based prints,
even for my snapshots (which is what I use the D80 for). I have my
digital files printed on traditional color paper (Fuji) and *that*
is what I'm comparing to older, 35mm negative-based prints. In
that comparsion, the 10 Mp images from the D80 are easily the equal
of 35mm.
>
> Digital imagery has much better potential for color vermisilitude,
> however.
>
>> But, the issue for be was/is that it cannot yet replace medium-
>> or large format because the CCDs do not yet capture sufficient
>> detai. However, for what I wanted it for, the D80 is a fine
>> instrument. Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
>> purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
>> malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
>
> The other problem of course is storing that information.
> Hence jpeg and other image modeling formats that
> essentially smooth away the fine detail, typically producing
> an image that looks good to the eye, but actually has much
> less information than was captured on the CCD.
>
> Incidentally, if you can set your digital camera to record a
> bitmap and then print the bitmap without ever converting
> to jpg, you might get better results with your large prints.
> But the file sizes for the images may be up to 500 Mb!
> GIF is a compressed bitmap format-it faithfully preserves
> the pixel values that were downloaded from the chip (not
> necessarily the same as the data numbers for those
> pixels.). I _think _ that BMP and TIFF are too. FITS
> certainly is.
>
All modern pro digital cameras (the D80 is the boundary
between consumer and pro for Nikon, hence "prosumer") can
save images in either camera "raw" format and/or
Jpegs at various levels of resolution. For absolutely
best results, one edits the raw file - with something
like Photoshop or The Gimp. If I were serious about digital,
this is what I'd be doing. But - since it cannot replace
my medium- and large format film cameras - I use digital
as my "tourist" camera for snapshots and fun and to record
the day-to-day stuff I see. For that, raw is unnecessary.
> Yes. it is 'good enough' for most consumers and
> photojournalism, and much more convenient. I am
> surprised at how long it has taken for digital to make
> it over the hump to consumer dominance.
If you live somewhere where this is practical, try the
following:
1) Rent a prosumer/pro digital camera/body. Nikon
D80/D300/D3 or an equivalent Canon EOS.
2) Save the images as raw files as you shoot.
3) Edit them with The Gimp - it's free and does most everything
Photoshop does, or at least what you're likely to need anytime
soon. You need to do a slight bit of editing on every image:
clean up the levels/histograms for even distribution and
do a small bit of unsharp masking on the image.
4) Have them printed by a good digital->chemical printing house.
To my utter amazement (and delight), it turns out that my
local Sam's Club does this as well as the pro lab I use.
They have great quality control and the prints are very
inexpensive. Best of all, I upload them over the internet
and they're ready an hour later.
I think you may be shocked at how comparable digital is to 35mm.
I say this having worked with digital cameras from 2Mp, then 3Mp,
then 7Mp, and now 10Mp. At 7Mp it was hard to tell the 35mm
from the digital image. At 10Mp, I think it is more-or-less
impossible to tell the difference. And, BTW, over the years
I shot a *lot* of 35mm with Nikon, Leica, Canon, Minolta, Pentax,
etc. - If anyone wants to get rid of their old Leica, don't
throw it away, throw it my way ;)
However ....
I still love the smell of hypo in the morning.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"jo4hn" wrote
> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow numbers
> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar noise.
> She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of her
> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents never
> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
Well put ... proving one man's poi/poet is another man's poision, my father
could never understand my fascination/regard with the songwiters I consider
two of the real poets of my generation - Kris Kristofferson and John Prine.
To this day he sees no value whatsoever in their "poetry".
> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of your
> photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I am quite
> happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy something
> that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my POS 20 YO
> Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
LOL ... my sentiments exactly.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
<SNIP>
> Does 'raw' format give you the actual data numbers read off
> of the chip? Can you also get a dark current? (data numbers
> in complete darkness) If so, the camera can be used for
> photometry, which I would like.
I'm not sure, and I believe it varies somewhat by
manufacturer, each of whom has their own raw standard.
I do know that Adobe is promoting a standardized
"Digital Negative" raw format and trying to get
the hardware manufacturers onboard. You might look
into that.
>
>> ...
>>> Yes. it is 'good enough' for most consumers and
>>> photojournalism, and much more convenient. I am
>>> surprised at how long it has taken for digital to make
>>> it over the hump to consumer dominance.
>> If you live somewhere where this is practical, try the
>> following:
>>
>> 1) Rent a prosumer/pro digital camera/body. Nikon
>> D80/D300/D3 or an equivalent Canon EOS.
>
> My shooting partner has the Canon. I'll be buying one
> soon.
>
> --
>
> FF
My next experiment is going to be to figure out a way to
mount the DSLR body on the back of my 4x5 field camera.
There are such adapters made for Canon, at least for
some of the full blown view cameras, but I'd like to play
with the combination at my disposal...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>
It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in the
aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come closer to
your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others are more
interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good" picture that
is easily disseminated to friends and family on the internet.
I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow numbers
that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar noise.
She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of her
generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents never
quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of your
photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I am quite
happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy something
that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my POS 20 YO
Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
mahalo,
jo4hn
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>>>>
>>> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in
>>> the aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come
>>> closer to your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others
>>> are
>>> more interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good"
>>> picture that is easily disseminated to friends and family on the
>>> internet.
>>>
>>> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
>>> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
>>> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow
>>> numbers
>>> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar
>>> noise. She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of
>>> her
>>> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents
>>> never
>>> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>>>
>>> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
>>> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I
>>> am quite happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy
>>> something that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my
>>> POS
>>> 20 YO Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
>>
>> If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
>> same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
>> small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
>> to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
>> equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>
> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
> not do what I wanted.
Why are you comparing these? It makes no sense at all.
Take a 35mm SLR and put a digital back on it, and you've still
fundamentally got the same camera. Take a medium format and put a digital
back on it, and you've got a medium format. Take a 4x5 view camera, put a
digital back on it, and you've got...a really big credit card bill. :-)
Here's a handy comparison chart:
film point/shoot <-> digital point/shoot
35mm SLR <-> digital SLR
medium format film <-> medium format digital (Hasselblad H3D, for instance)
large format film <-> not much. The Sinar eVolution back _might_ be there
Digital wins clearly in the first scenario, without a doubt. It finally
beat out film in the 35mm pro realm a year or two ago. Medium format, it's
a tough fight between them right now. Large format just isn't there,
because the sensors are too expensive today. That'll change.
All this means is that the digital technology (especially from 120 film
upwards) isn't entirely mature. I don't know of anyone who claims it
is--not even the manufacturers.
Colin
Upscale wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> My digital in on 'auto' 95% of the time. I have become a tourist....
> and "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!"
>
> I understand completely. I had a Nikon FE before the 1mp camera. This
> relatively new D40X gives me speed, the 4 gig SD card holds hundreds if not
> thousands of zero cost high resolution images and the autofocusing 70-200mm
> lens enables foolproof focusing. I'm almost ashamed to admit that low cost,
> ease and of use really decent imaging has eclipsed all other considerations.
>
>
I dunno if the D40 has this feature, but the D80 has a really nifty
option. You can set the camera in Program mode so that it makes most
of the decisions for you. BUT, if you don't like the shutter speed/f-stop
combo it selects, you can rotate a thumbwheel while still in P mode, and
pick a different combo more to your choosing. This avoids having to
go into Aperture- or Shutter- priority mode to get a particular
setting where you like it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"B A R R Y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:37:07 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Leon" wrote
>>
>>>
>>> What, no "Fity Cent" ???
>>
>>Nope, no second grade iambic pentameter allowed.
>
> Fitty Cent has a 49,000 sq/ft home about 20 minutes from me.
>
> Apparenty, being a moron pays very well!
>
> The former owner of the home was Mike Tyson! <G>
Birds of a Feather...
Charlie Self wrote:
> Too, I'm still trying to figure out how they coordinate
> the 51 AF points in the Nikon D3. Sometimes I wonder if maybe just
> one easily movable point might not be better. Put it where you want
> the focus and shoot. Startling. A great similarity to the old split
> screen/microprism collar days, something I miss.
I dunno about the D3, but the D80 has the ability for you to decide
which of the focus points you want to emphasize (assuming you don't
want the camera to choose). You can also decide whether that
point is statically focused or whether the camera will follow
movement to keep a subject in focus as it moves across the frame
or you move the camera across the subject.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>>>> It depends upon one's requirements. You are obviously interested in
>>>> the aesthetics of fine photography and therefore are able to come
>>>> closer to your "minds eye" picture with analog equipment. Others
>>>> are
>>>> more interested in convenience and cost to get a "really good"
>>>> picture that is easily disseminated to friends and family on the
>>>> internet.
>>>> I once had a conversation with a young girl who lived with us for a
>>>> couple years regarding music. She asked me to listen to a CD of the
>>>> grunge band Nirvana, which I did. There were a couple of slow
>>>> numbers
>>>> that were melodic but the fast stuff was garbled words and guitar
>>>> noise. She told me that composers like Cobain were the poets of
>>>> her
>>>> generation. I guess I can accept that recalling that my parents
>>>> never
>>>> quite understood the existence of Chuck Berry and Hank Williams.
>>>> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
>>>> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. At the same time, I
>>>> am quite happy with an inexpensive digital camera and will never buy
>>>> something that requires film and chemicals. And yes, I dumped my
>>>> POS
>>>> 20 YO Craftsman CS in favor of a PM66. Progress definitely.
>>> If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
>>> same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
>>> small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
>>> to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
>>> equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
>> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
>> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
>> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
>> not do what I wanted.
>>
>
> Bullshit, Tim. You wrote you were using a "prosumer" grade DSLR of
Why always such a potty mouth? The term 'prosumer' was coined
years ago to signify equipment that lives at the high end of
consumer and/or at the low end of pro gear. It is the best of
former and the entry level of the later.
> 10MP. State of the art DSLR today is 21 or 22MP in full 35mm frame.
And every pro uses only 22Mp? I don't think so. Nikon's highend
full frame CCD camera (D3) is only 12Mp. Only Canon has a 22Mp
camera in DSLR format ... well, that's not quite right if you
consider the new Hasselblad.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Upscale wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I still love the smell of hypo in the morning.
>
> Junkie
>
>
It is wrong?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> On Apr 4, 4:01 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> http://heracletus.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/so-this-is-progress/
>> ...
>>
>>>> Is this progress or simply movement? I would certainly hang one of
>>>> your photos on my wall rather than one of mine. ...
>>> If you read the complaint it's basically that 35mm doesn't give the
>>> same results as medium format. All the rest is misdirection. If
>>> small format isn't "good enough" for him, then why was he even trying
>>> to use it? Seems to me that he doesn't really understand his
>>> equipment if he expected any different result from the one he got.
>> I believe you need to reread what I wrote. The comparison was between a
>> state-of-the art *digital* camera and medium format. The digital came
>> up short because - in my judgment - it ends up having the same performance
>> more-or-less as a 35mm film camera - something I long ago realized could
>> not do what I wanted.
>>
>
> The best consumer grade digital cameras have about half the
> resolution of a Kodachrome 64 35 mm slide and no where near
> the dynamic range. I doubt that any even approach the dynamic
> range of high contrast consumer print films.
>
> IOW, digital imaging is not yet as good as 35 mm.
>
> OTOH, there is only opne place on Earth that still processes
> Kodachrome 64, Dwayne's photo.
>
> The reasons for the changeover to digital photography do NOT
> include the quality of the images.
>
That may be true for the consumer grade stuff, but at the high end
prosumer, and certainly at the full blown pro level of equipment
this is arguably not the case. Subjectively, at least, at 10MP
the Nikon D80 I'm using is the equal of 35mm generally up to
about 11x14 (which is where 35mm fell apart for me anyway) and
is arguably getting pretty close to K64 in range of light and
contrast. I can provide jpegs if you'd like to see for yourself.
But, the issue for be was/is that it cannot yet replace medium-
or large format because the CCDs do not yet capture sufficient
detai. However, for what I wanted it for, the D80 is a fine
instrument. Digital *has* replaced 35mm for all intents and
purposes, and it has done so with a level of convenience and
malleability that far exceeds its film bretheren.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/