A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Other Photographic Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film vs. digital cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 21st 07, 04:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default Film vs. digital cameras

Robert Peirce wrote:

Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4-91d-800.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...44-9b-800.html

Roger
  #12  
Old May 21st 07, 02:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default Film vs. digital cameras

On May 20, 8:30 pm, Robert Peirce
wrote:


I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I think it IS up to medium or high speed color neg film, but not up to
slow transparency or slow B & W film yet. A good 8 to 10 Mp camera
has about the same resolution as the color films, and most all have
good dynamic range.

  #13  
Old May 21st 07, 04:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
David Ruether
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Film vs. digital cameras



"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in message ...
Robert Peirce wrote:


Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics


This is amazing!

and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4-91d-800.html


Huh??? A four-frame mosaic hand-held, of two ***ANIMALS***?!?!?!
NEAT!

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...44-9b-800.html

Roger


Interesting work, to say the least...! ;-)
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


  #14  
Old May 21st 07, 05:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Cats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Film vs. digital cameras

On May 21, 2:29 pm, Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote:
On May 20, 8:30 pm, Robert Peirce
wrote:



I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I think it IS up to medium or high speed color neg film, but not up to
slow transparency or slow B & W film yet. A good 8 to 10 Mp camera
has about the same resolution as the color films, and most all have
good dynamic range.


I scan Fujichrome in a Nikon scanner at 2,000dpi as I get quite good
enough results at that resolution. However the scanner will scan at
4,000dpi - since a 35mm negative or slide is (approx) 1" x 1.5", that
gives a 24mega-pixel file with the grain beautifully resolved.... I
can crop away at that kind of image and still be able to produce a
good A3 print. However I'm sorely tempted by one of the new Pentax D-
SLRs as it's on offer for £300....

  #15  
Old May 22nd 07, 03:10 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,818
Default Film vs. digital cameras

David Ruether wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in message ...
Robert Peirce wrote:


Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics


This is amazing!

and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...1-6c-1200.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...4-91d-800.html


Huh??? A four-frame mosaic hand-held, of two ***ANIMALS***?!?!?!
NEAT!


Oops. The zebra sunrise was done hand held, but the two zebras
(mother and colt) where on a Wimberly mount on a safari vehicle.
I have many mosaics of animals I'm working on, some dozens
of frames.

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...44-9b-800.html

Roger


Interesting work, to say the least...! ;-)


Thanks. Digital has opened up new worlds for me.
The other area where digital shines is low light,
high ISO, e.g.:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...27-v3-800.html
which was done from a light polluted city. Such
an image is impossible on film from a city and to get such an
image would require dark skies (no light pollution),
larger lens and longer exposure times.

Digital has higher signal-to-noise ratios than film,
and in higher ISOs much higher resolution. Here are
summary pages:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

and

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ensor_analysis

Roger
  #16  
Old May 24th 07, 08:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Robert Peirce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default Film vs. digital cameras

In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:

Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics


Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

  #17  
Old May 24th 07, 09:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
DBLEXPOSURE[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Film vs. digital cameras


"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:

Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics


Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]



Impressive indeed. From time to time one finds a jewel amongst all the NG
noise. Off to research Panoramic tripod heads, great, more gear to spend
$$ on.

Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com







  #18  
Old May 24th 07, 09:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default Film vs. digital cameras

On May 24, 9:43 am, Robert Peirce
wrote:
In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:


Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.


http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics


Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.


I would say more that the program you are using has trouble stitching
panoramas together,
no so much you. You might give PTGui a try, you can down load a free
trial version, I find this
program works very well.

A good panoramic head also does wonders.

It is more a matter of the right gear and software rather then a
matter of skill.

Scott




  #19  
Old May 25th 07, 12:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Film vs. digital cameras

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:

Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.
I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.

http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]



Impressive indeed. From time to time one finds a jewel amongst all the NG
noise. Off to research Panoramic tripod heads, great, more gear to spend
$$ on.

Patrick Ziegler
www.imagequest.ifp3.com


To potentially save some $$, then consider whether just positional
accuracy (ie rotating the camera around the entrance pupil of the lens),
or whether you need stability to prevent camera shake for longer
exposures as well as positional accuracy.
Something like the panosaurus head (google for it online) is quite
inexpensive, or it's not so hard to make your own.
Something to provide good stability as well, will be expensive and may
not be what you really need.
  #20  
Old May 25th 07, 08:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Cats
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Film vs. digital cameras

On May 24, 8:43 pm, Robert Peirce
wrote:
In article ,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:


Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.


I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.


http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics


Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.


My Canon A70 came with PhotoSttich software which does an excellent
job of stitching panoramas. Got 2nd with a print at the camera club
I'd made with it & the judge couldn't tell - when he found out what
the origins were he said he'd have given it 1st if he'd known, in
effect the software did too good a job! The originals were hand-held.

Suspect PhotoStitch comes with most Canon cameras - if panoramas are
something you are keen on, you could consider buying an old Canon on
ebay for the software! Of course check first that model comes with it
and the one you are buying comes with the original CDs....

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turning film cameras into digital cameras [email protected] Digital Photography 106 May 8th 07 06:03 PM
Turning film cameras into digital cameras [email protected] Other Photographic Equipment 68 May 7th 07 10:38 PM
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More Walmart General Equipment For Sale 0 December 17th 04 12:52 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? [email protected] Film & Labs 20 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.