If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
One area film has it over digital
Robert Coe wrote in
: : The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background : wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot. Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a better job of rendering dark areas? Bob It wouldn't create the same horrific mottling or banding or other digital anomoly. The background would simply be dark. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
One area film has it over digital
Me wrote in :
On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote: : Robert wrote in : : : : On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), : wrote: :: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new :: gallery of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 :: ISO. I raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at :: the black background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled :: effect. It simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye :: simply washed away leaving the base of the film. :: (Typo corrected at no additional charge) : : Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of : your digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out : the highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what : you were trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level). : : Bob : : : The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the : background wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot. Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a better job of rendering dark areas? Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail recovery? Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor. The D800 has better DR/noise characteristics at ISO 800, than the 5D3 has at ISO 100. At ISO 3200, the D800 has about the same DR as a D200 at ISO 200. I was hoping to make the point without involving the Canon-Nikon feuds. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
One area film has it over digital
On 26/03/2012 4:12 p.m., Rich wrote:
wrote in : On 25/03/2012 4:36 p.m., Robert Coe wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:51:55 -0500, wrote: : Robert wrote in : : : : On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT), : wrote: :: Rendering of dark areas. This is a shot from Dpreview's new :: gallery of pre-production test images from the Canon 5DIII. 3200 :: ISO. I raised the illumination level 25% beyond theirs. Look at :: the black background. Film doesn't produce that ugly, mottled :: effect. It simply goes black, which means all the silver/dye :: simply washed away leaving the base of the film. :: (Typo corrected at no additional charge) : : Your favorite photo editor will let you blacken the shadows of : your digital images as much as your heart desires. And blow out : the highlights too, if that's what you want (e.g., if that's what : you were trying to achieve by jacking up the illumination level). : : Bob : : : The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the : background wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot. Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a better job of rendering dark areas? Why use a Canon DSLR in order to make a proclamation about shadow detail recovery? Canon's latest FF camera has two stops less dynamic range than the competition at base ISO due to read noise from the sensor. The D800 has better DR/noise characteristics at ISO 800, than the 5D3 has at ISO 100. At ISO 3200, the D800 has about the same DR as a D200 at ISO 200. I was hoping to make the point without involving the Canon-Nikon feuds. There shouldn't be a feud. There's no point arguing with people who prefer wishful thinking and flawed logic to hard evidence. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
One area film has it over digital
"Rich" wrote in message ... Robert Coe wrote in : : The highlights held fine. I can pretty much guarantee the background : wasn't pitch black to human eyes in that photo shoot. Then how does that square with your assertion (see above) that film does a better job of rendering dark areas? It wouldn't create the same horrific mottling or banding or other digital anomoly. The background would simply be dark. So what, select the dark areas in photoshop, fill with black if that's all you want! Trevor. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
One area film has it over digital | Ray Fischer | Digital SLR Cameras | 12 | March 26th 12 06:04 AM |
One area film has it over digital | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | March 25th 12 05:17 AM |
One area film has it over digital | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | March 24th 12 01:19 AM |
Looking for darkroom in LA area for graduate student film | per_of_vision | In The Darkroom | 7 | February 7th 05 12:07 PM |
Area of 35mm film | Frank Pittel | Film & Labs | 13 | September 21st 04 09:43 PM |