Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

"Scott W" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Jan 24, 12:38 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"Scott W" skrev i en
...
On Jan 22, 11:07 am, "Max Perl" wrote:



"JimKramer" skrev i en
...
On Jan 22, 3:24 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:

"JimKramer" skrev i en
...

On Jan 22, 2:32 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en
...

On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
The 6MP DSLR camera seems to "create" its own "details"?
I can see patterns I can't find in the 4x5 crop........?

It is interresting to see how it should have looked
like......and
how
the
DSLR "manipulates" the real world :-)

"." skrev i en
...

http://www.widerange.org/resolution....idequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

"For this resolution comparison, I enlarged the D100 shot to the
same
width as the 4x5 shot, then cropped the same sized section from
both.
"

To me, that means the "extra details" were added long after the
camera
got done taking the picture and had more to do with Photoshop,
presumably, than the camera.
But would it really have been so much effort to at least take the
picture near the same time?
And at an F stop that wouldn't already be well in to the
"diffraction
damage zone" for a cropped sensor DSLR?
There were a number of, at least in my mind, questionable
photographic
decisions that did nothing to demonstrate the capabilities of
Nikon
D100, yet were very "normal" for a 4x5 shooter.

It is probably PhotoShop which did something........

But a brigwall test using a DSLR could be interresting and make a
100%
crop
of
an area and then a full frame macro shot of the same area to see
how
the
DSLR
handles the details it can't handle......or how should I
explain.......to
see if the DSLR
creates its own reality. It has probably been done many
times........-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes it has, but film does the same thing when your details are past
its resolving power (or worse the lens' resolving power.) "New"
technology same "Old" problem. Want to resolve more detail? Go to a
larger image format. A simple expensive solution.

Now if I could get up the courage (and funds) to get an 8x10" camera
and a drum scanner to go with it. :-)

Yes.....but it is quite heavy and it will be another kind of images
you
will
get
I assume.... :-)

With film the details seems to fade out a nicer way than with digital
which
is more
ugly in my opinon.

Maybe it is because I have so many nice old analog cameras I want to
use......e.g.
Voigtländer Prominent, Koak Retina IIIc, Contax II, Kiev 4a etc :-)-
Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ugly on a computer screen or ugly on a print? :-)

I think it was a the screen at 100% viewing. Text in digital images
looks ugly when it is at the limit what the sensor can resolve.......
Off course you can blur it in Photoshop etc.........

What you are most likely seeing in the digital images is aliasing,
and sadly simply blurring in PhotoShop after the fact does not help
much. This is a tradeoff every digital camera has to deal with, if
you put in a strong enough anti-alias filter to remove all aliasing
the image will have poor contrast at lower spatial frequencies and not
look sharp, but a weaker AA filter can lead to artifacts.

Of course I consider any visible grain in a film image as an artifact,
so film is not free from artifacts either. Film can often add texture
in an image where none was in the original scene, this bothers some
people more then others, it bothers me a fair bit.

Scott

Yes......but after I have used digital for a while and the digital world
has settled a bit......there are some years between the 11 MP Canon
EOS 1Ds and the 12 MP Nikon D3 and there are some improvements
such as lower high iso noise and frames pr. sec etc. But not as much
improvement as the first years.
So there is time to look back and we can see what digital has to offer
compared to film.
As a "non-pro" and "non-sports photographer" I still think film has a kind
of artistic
expression I like......so I will use both.....
Because of the AA filter digital images are a bit soft by nature.....and
they need to
be sharpened.....and I have seen many which has got far to much USM and I
am
a bit tired of these images......to make good USM is an art of its own. So
it can be
quite relaxing to see a good film based print...... :-) many digital
images has also
over saturated colors after my taste.....and the posibilities in Photoshop
are endless
working in many layes. I have seen to many "Lord of the Ring" images
now....
I know you can make something like this also with scanned film......but
not
quite as easy
as from direct digital capture......
I just miss the good old out of the box images.....and not these where
people has spend
days in Photoshop to get a ......what they think are a perfect image :-)

Your "Lord of the Ring" images is a good way of putting it, a style
that I don't like but many do.

I don't believe that digital is to blame as much as people going
overboard with the post processing. I use to participate in a weekly
photo contest, one that is just for fun, the images that tend to win
are the heavily processed image.

But to me a lot of film shots that I see have that over saturated high
contrast look, as in Kodachrome slides.

As 4x6 inch prints I doubt that you could tell my film prints from my
digital, at larger sizes the digital stand out for lack of grain.

Scott


I still like my D2x a lot and use it much......but I also enjoy using film
from time to time and found out some post processing is done already
when you push the trigger compared to digital raw.

The Photo contests here......it is also "Lord of the Rings" images which
wins.
Also when you look at the catalogs after af contest you see a lot of these
images.

Some of the older lenses have a bit lower contrast........and it gives a
plesant
look when used on film. But you can of course tweek the colors and contrast
in Photoshop to get the same look.

A projected 24x36 slide still looks very good when projeted to form a 2x3m
image
if you are in the right viewing distance.

Max

"TH O" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In article ,
"Max Perl" wrote:

it can be
quite relaxing to see a good film based print...... :-) many digital
images has also
over saturated colors after my taste.....and the posibilities in
Photoshop
are endless
working in many layes. I have seen to many "Lord of the Ring" images
now....
I know you can make something like this also with scanned film......but
not
quite as easy
as from direct digital capture......
I just miss the good old out of the box images.....and not these where
people has spend
days in Photoshop to get a ......what they think are a perfect image :-)

I have to agree with this totally. While specific brands of film can add
their own unique style and color to an image, no film could change a
scene into some of the images we see modified through photoshop. The
Photo.net galleries are a perfect example. Many of the images are so
doctored that they are obviously not the least bit representative of the
actual scene (The "Lord of the Rings" reference by Max fits here).

People which creates these images are calling themselves photo artists but I
think they often "overdo" the images after my taste and it often look
unnatural.
It is ok to enhance some elements to express what you think you saw when
you took the picture......like Ansel Adams did?

How would his pictures look like if he still was alive?

"Max Perl" wrote:

People which creates these images are calling themselves photo artists but I
think they often "overdo" the images after my taste and it often look
unnatural.
It is ok to enhance some elements to express what you think you saw when
you took the picture......like Ansel Adams did?

How would his pictures look like if he still was alive?


I think he's probably spinning in his grave. ;-)

"Tony Polson" skrev i en meddelelse
...
"Max Perl" wrote:

People which creates these images are calling themselves photo artists but
I
think they often "overdo" the images after my taste and it often look
unnatural.
It is ok to enhance some elements to express what you think you saw when
you took the picture......like Ansel Adams did?

How would his pictures look like if he still was alive?


I think he's probably spinning in his grave. ;-)

He went from large format til Hasselblad? .....or at least used it for
some of his pictures.....so
he would probably also have gone digital?

"TH O" wrote in message
...


The photo.net images are definitely at the extreme. Even some recent pro
photos don't look realistic to me -- http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/ by
Marc Adamus comes to mind.

These are to photography what Thomas Kincaides are to painting.....Pushed
just over the edge of reality into the surreal. But it is surprising how
many people like this technique, and if you're trying to make a living
selling your stuff........

"William Graham" skrev i en meddelelse
. ..

"TH O" wrote in message
...


The photo.net images are definitely at the extreme. Even some recent pro
photos don't look realistic to me -- http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/ by
Marc Adamus comes to mind.

These are to photography what Thomas Kincaides are to painting.....Pushed
just over the edge of reality into the surreal. But it is surprising how
many people like this technique, and if you're trying to make a living
selling your stuff........


These images are not the worst I have seen. He has probably picked the right
time of the
day to take his images so the light was perfect. He uses long exposures to
smooth out the
water etc. Maybe his images are a bit to "warm" in the colors compared to
what it really
looked like. But I don't think he has copied new skies into the images etc.?

"Max Perl" wrote:

He went from large format til Hasselblad? .....or at least used it for
some of his pictures.....so
he would probably also have gone digital?


I have no doubt that he would - but he would be using a scanning back
on 4x5" and a 39 MP digital Hasselblad H3. He would find the limited
dynamic range of smaller digital formats quite frustrating.

I wish I could be guided through getting the best out of digital in
the same way that reading my large collection of Adams' books has
guided me through using film. I haven't yet found anyone with a
similarly thorough and methodical approach to the new medium.

"TH O" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In article ,
"Max Perl" wrote:

"William Graham" skrev i en meddelelse
. ..

"TH O" wrote in message
...


The photo.net images are definitely at the extreme. Even some recent
pro
photos don't look realistic to me -- http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/ by
Marc Adamus comes to mind.

These are to photography what Thomas Kincaides are to
painting.....Pushed
just over the edge of reality into the surreal. But it is surprising
how
many people like this technique, and if you're trying to make a living
selling your stuff........


These images are not the worst I have seen. He has probably picked the
right
time of the
day to take his images so the light was perfect. He uses long exposures
to
smooth out the
water etc. Maybe his images are a bit to "warm" in the colors compared to
what it really
looked like. But I don't think he has copied new skies into the images
etc.?

I agree about the timing and exposure. His bio claims that "WHEN DIGITAL
ADJUSTMENTS OR CORRECTIONS ARE MADE, IT IS ALWAYS LIMITED TO FINE TUNING
OF EXPOSURE, COLOR AND TONES. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THE IMAGES HERE ARE
COMPUTER GENERATED!" The color changes don't appear to be "fine tuning"
... they appear to be significant. Many of his skies appear very
unrealistic ... I suspect HDR and overdoing the adjustments.

Many of his images has a kind of soft dreaming look to them and some looks
like a painting.
But he travles 200 days at year and so he uses his whole life to take
pictures.....so of course he
hits some light other people maybe never experience :-) .....have to get
early op in the morning :-)
I am surprised if he does not do more in Photoshop than small
adjustments.....but if he says so.....we
must belive him......