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 » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 22nd 08, 10:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Max Perl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement


"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.html-Hidequoted text -


- 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.........

I've seen plenty of ugly pictures either way, but the newer print
shops with the digital printers are set to print at the lowest
possible resolution for speed and turn out consistently worse stuff
then they did 15 years ago. A good scanner and printer will make you
look at your films a different way then optical printing will allow
and makes pretty digital prints much easier. I was less then happy
with anything I ever did in the darkroom, but the same films scanned
are truly lovely.

I have reused many of my slides by scanning them and printing them.
6x6 and 6x9 looks great. But my PC has a hard time if I scan at 4000 dpi
and use layers in Photoshop.

Just keep using the cameras; don't let them get too dusty. :-)

Yes.....it is hard to explain what it so fun using these old cameras. I have
a
12MP DSLR but I still like using old rangefinders. A Vitomatic IIa with
Ultron 50/2 is not bad either.....or a BessaII with Color-Heliar. These can
still make nice photographs........



  #12  
Old January 24th 08, 08:20 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Max Perl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement


"Yoshi" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Max Perl" wrote in message
k...

"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.html- Hide quoted text -

- 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........

What exactly is a "brigwall"?


It should probably be in two words......brig wall ....a wall made of
brigs. Like this:
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo...82247258BOSMKd

It has a lot of fine details so often used as test object to compare
lenses......


  #13  
Old January 24th 08, 08:26 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
JimKramer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 762
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

On Jan 24, 2:15*pm, "Yoshi" wrote:
"Max Perl" wrote in message

k...





"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.html-Hide quoted text -


- 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........


What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


He means brick, i believe.
  #14  
Old January 24th 08, 08:38 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Max Perl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement


"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "Yoshi" wrote:
"Max Perl" wrote in message

k...





"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.html-Hide quoted text -


- 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........


What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


He means brick, i believe.

Yes....that is correct!
A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better write
in danish next time......


  #15  
Old January 24th 08, 09:40 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
JimKramer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 762
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

On Jan 24, 2:38*pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en ...
On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "Yoshi" wrote:





"Max Perl" wrote in message


. dk...


"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
....
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.html-Hidequoted text -


- 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........


What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


He means brick, i believe.

Yes....that is correct!
A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better write
in danish next time......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That would leave most of us in the dark. :-) I'd take a good stab at
German or Spanish though.
  #16  
Old January 24th 08, 10:14 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

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.html-Hidequotedtext -


- 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
  #17  
Old January 24th 08, 10:18 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Max Perl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement


"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Jan 24, 2:38 pm, "Max Perl" wrote:
"JimKramer" skrev i en
...
On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "Yoshi" wrote:





"Max Perl" wrote in message


. dk...


"JimKramer" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.html-Hidequoted text -


- 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........


What exactly is a "brigwall"?- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


He means brick, i believe.

Yes....that is correct!
A google search on "brick wall" and everybody will know.......I better
write
in danish next time......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That would leave most of us in the dark. :-) I'd take a good stab at
German or Spanish though.

"brick" in danish would be "mursten" and "wall" would be "væg" .....but we
have a lot
of words we put together without spaces in between so "brick wall" will be
"murstensvæg".
The extra "s" is some danish gramma........ :-)


  #18  
Old January 24th 08, 11:38 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Max Perl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement


"Scott W" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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.html-Hidequotedtext -


- 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 :-)


  #19  
Old January 25th 08, 11:50 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Max Perl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement


"That Rich" skrev i en meddelelse
...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:38:38 +0100, "Max Perl"
wrote:

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 :-)



Excellent post Max. My feelings exactly.

Thank you. I'll bet it sounds twice as nice in Danish

Cheers,

RP©


It sounds a bit funny in Danish. We have many brick walls in Denmark and you
just
have to write "mur" in danish......then "in between the lines" people often
understand it
as a brick wall as many houses are build using bricks to build the
walls......

Yes.....relaxing to use a film camera......e.g. a good quality rangefinder
in the city.....and
let the lens do the job instead of PhotoShop........ :-)


  #20  
Old January 26th 08, 02:12 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Scott W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default Nikon D100 vs 4x5 field camera side-by-side enlargement

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
 




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
Kenya - Belgium New November 2007 Travel Pictures side by side BoBi Digital Photography 0 November 18th 07 11:12 AM
Nikon D40 vs Nikon D50 vs Pentax K110D Side by Side Comparison dslr_shooter Digital Photography 7 December 15th 06 10:56 PM
Kenya - Belgium New November 2006 Pictures side by side BoBi Photographing Nature 0 November 12th 06 01:40 AM
Kenya - Belgium New October 2006 Pictures side by side BoBi Photographing Nature 0 October 27th 06 07:39 PM
Arsat-Kiev/Zeiss-Rollei side-by-side fisheye photos Jim Hemenway Medium Format Photography Equipment 25 May 6th 04 10:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 AM.


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.