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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
5 Megapixels vs Velvia vs Kodachrome + Microscope Views
I tell you whats funny about those film images. The Velvia had alot of
grain. I have shot a ton of Velvia and for some reason my slides don't have that grain. Whether I print them or blow them up on a projector, you can't see the grain. I guess I just bought grainless Velvia. Everytime I see one of these comparisons, I always see the grain in the film so bad like it was intentionally exposed to make it grainy. Funny however. When I see images properly exposed on the net with Velvia, they don't have that sandpaper look. And, on the subject of Velvia having to be exposed under certain conditions, a proper photo made by a professional is going to be shot under certain conditions. Most amateurs I see shoot in mid day lighting. Of course you will have harsh shadows. My Velvia shots always come out great. Just my opinion. Roger "Jim Davis" wrote in message . ne.jp... On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:25:23 -0400, "Bowser" wrote/replied to: I was teasing, but since you brought it up, no, I never shoot anything at that speed. If I did, I'd re-evaluate the tools, of course, and take a long look at the 10D. It's a really nice piece of machinery. Yep, shooting even in bright sunlight, I'm often or usually at ISO 400 at a minimum, perhaps faster if I want to stop bird movements. But the most interesting light, and the light the birds are active in, is the early and late light. And with the 400 at f5.6, and effective 640mm meaning I should shoot at 1/125th minimum with IS on, you can see that as soon as the sun goes under a cloud, or the bird under a shadow, I'm cranking up ISO to 1600 most of the time. Can't do that with film. But I have shot Velvia and Provia, as well as Kodak 100G and a few others, and based on what I see, film captures more information than any 6MP digicam. This is not to say that the digicams are bad; not hardly. They're excellent. The problem usually comes in the method of comparison. All I've seen is a digital original compared to a *scanned* piece of film. Scanners, even the really good ones, can't capture all the detail in film. I did see the results from one scanner, an 8000dpi model, and it did a great job, but who can afford it (around $15K)? Ya, that's just it. It's very well and good to say film can capture such and such if I'm in perfect lighting and have a perfect tripod and technique, etc plus an excellent lens, etc. But in the real world this just doens't happen very often, at least not in my field of specialty. And if you're talking about a scanner that expensive, you might as well get an EOS 1Ds and be done with it. Running around buying film, processing, picking up, getting scans done, it's for the birds, heh heh, get it the birds! Jim Davis Nature Photography http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RemJet (was Q: processing Kodachrome 25 color slide to get B&W?) | David Foy | Film & Labs | 4 | September 30th 03 05:15 AM |