Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can Digital SLR replace my methods ?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 30, 2005 4:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail enough to
provide a structure on which to work, could someone please advise me on
whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this role, perhaps by
knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup would handle it.



I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi 25Mb
TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in and
editing of small details in photoshop.



Why go digital.desperately need to !.It takes 12 to 15 days to see the
results and Kodachrome 200 is only available in non pro and often comes back
with a slight magenta colour cast. For much that I do I need to see results
instantly as I am wasting time taking multiple shots and writing notes so
that I can perfect techniques. Storing slides, writing on them, sheer space
they take up is running out here.has run out in fact as I have past rolls to
mount and store and slide sleeves with dust flaps from Kenro no longer
exist. Need find another archival source. The cost of it all could go
overnight, sleeves and rolls of film £70 per 5 rolls in total. Then there
is the scanning in of slides and adjusting in Pshop. Desperate to break free
and save time but concerned that my non average methods are catered for as
soon as I take flash off camera.



I use a Canon AE1 body with three manual focus lenses

FD 50mm Canon F1.4 to f22 lens, depth of field lines and min focus 0.45m
(1.4ft)

Hoya 38 -70mm f3.5 to f22 minfoc 1m (3ft)

Tamron Adaptall 2 80-210mm f3.5 to f22 min foc 1m (3ft)



Min focus of 1m (3ft) on all but the 50mm is crucial as at indoor scale
model shows aiming down at a model is 3ft, but 1.5m would require steps to
climb up !



TheAE1 ..I always use on manual, preferring to meter on a Kodak grey card
for out of doors non model shots or use a wallace expodisc (frosted disc
attached to lens then aimed at light source and meter that) to give me my
correct settings. I always seem to be photographing non average subjects and
don't trust auto exposure on them but perhaps nowadays things are
intelligent enough to cope with this, .e.g. I am photographing the inside
face of a real aircraft wing, all dull darkish grey green and with ribs and
rivets, or it may be silver.



I use flashgun off camera for most of my indoor scale model photography at
model shows, (no studio facilities there ) often with two guns, one held 3ft
above subject by a willing volunteer and the other, a carboot sale Sunpak
fired via light sensor giving fill in flash 1 stop less than main. F16 is
minimum and f22 ideal for photographing such subjects from about 3ft to get
wingtip to wingtip in focus.

Flashguns are not dedicated connected, put out a set amount of light based
upon what power setting I set on them, a simple PC cord triggers gun and I
use a certain aperture for a certain distance based upon past results to
give correct exposure each time.

I also need to photograph down level with the aircraft for realistic views.
There can be a lot of frame around the subject which is airspace well beyond
the model and not knowing how auto will behave on such a difference in
distances, I use manual.again I know that if the main gun is 3ft above model
that's f16 so set lens to f16 and job done ! It may be that it will see the
foreground subject and stop the exposure just right, well it might if it was
a modern camera but AE1 not connected to the flashgun on dedicated cord and
doesn't have TTL for flash. Perhaps I could use auto sensor on the flashgun,
anyhow I need to go digital now !



I focus on nearest wingtip then farthest feature visible of the subject and
set the lens up using its depth of field lines so that these two distances
are between the aperture I wish to use, I get the hyperfocal distance, this
depth of field guaranteeing is crucial.



Sometimes circumstances mean mounting main flashgun on camera, here I use a
bounce shoe to angle the gun down over the camera lens trying to get the
light source as close to the lens body as possible without being seen
especially by the shorter lenses. This puts light under aircraft wings, a
ring flash gives the wrong lighting pattern , there needs to be some shadow
and ring flash gives zero !

Flash gives a harsh light but bounce flash no good, the aperture becomes f4
or 5.6 and d.o.f is too shallow. Tripod and long exposure is ok but often
impractical, many people and small aisles, a nuisance to carry and with
others taking flash shots, this ruins my exposure, though with digital I
could just try again I guess.







A camera shop suggested Canon EOS 300D and 550EX with slave 220, but then I
am told the 18-55mm lens with it is best replaced as its there just to look
good on the front ! Also told a FujiS3 is better for shadow detail, so are
current digital SLR's not good at shadow detail or am I ok if armed with
Pshop CS and its awesome shadow detail feature, but if data not there anyway
then that's no good ? I don't know what flashguns and lenses I could go
for in the case of the Fuji. I like quality feel and need min focus 3ft.

I see the Speedlite 550 head rotates opposite way to what one needs when
shooting portrait and read of Canon flashguns not as good as Nikon. Shop
recommendations need to be treated with caution then. Are flashguns for
digital ok yet I ask ?

I would have thought that 20yrs was long enough to 'design out ' flaws in
something like a flashgun , that's depressing as my National 388SW was a
great flashgun. I see the 580EX head zooms to suit image size, how would
that work for me with gun off camera,.but then I read that according to
Canon's website about the 580EX the zoom with consideration to sensor size
does not work on the 300D / Digital Rebel and 10D . That's just what I am
afraid of, spend many ££ yet still get problems having assumed all is rosy
by now in digital camera land. I am willing to change methods if there are
better now to suit my photographs, please advise.



I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing distances
and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest wingtip and have
camera work out correct distance for depth of field, tell both flashguns to
stop emitting light when correct exposure achieved, that would be great. Of
course with flashgun held above the subject it isn't the same distance as
the camera has just worked out for the subjects best point of focus for
depth of field.

Centre point auto focusing essential, or would I need manual focus, I use
split screen/crystal portion or the matt screen depending on subject, split
screen good on aerials and code letters. For wingtip probably use the matt
area.



At airshows can I trust the auto system to adjust exposure for the aircraft
in the picture ? Aircraft off centre with sunlit white clouds behind, will
the camera be fooled. I used to meter on the grass then use that setting
when aiming at flying subjects.

Any help appreciated

Thanks



Steve
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 4:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail enough to
> provide a structure on which to work, could someone please advise me on
> whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this role, perhaps by
> knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup would handle it.
>
> I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
> life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi 25Mb
> TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in and
> editing of small details in photoshop.
>
> Why go digital.desperately need to !.It takes 12 to 15 days to see the
> results and Kodachrome 200 is only available in non pro and often comes back
> with a slight magenta colour cast. For much that I do I need to see results
> instantly as I am wasting time taking multiple shots and writing notes so
> that I can perfect techniques. Storing slides, writing on them, sheer space
> they take up is running out here.has run out in fact as I have past rolls to
> mount and store and slide sleeves with dust flaps from Kenro no longer
> exist. Need find another archival source. The cost of it all could go
> overnight, sleeves and rolls of film £70 per 5 rolls in total. Then there
> is the scanning in of slides and adjusting in Pshop. Desperate to break free
> and save time but concerned that my non average methods are catered for as
> soon as I take flash off camera.

A DSLR will work, and you can use off-camera flash systems.
Alternatively, have you considered switching to a a modern
E6 film, even temporarily until you get digital?

>
> I use flashgun off camera for most of my indoor scale model photography at
> model shows, (no studio facilities there ) often with two guns, one held 3ft
> above subject by a willing volunteer and the other, a carboot sale Sunpak
> fired via light sensor giving fill in flash 1 stop less than main. F16 is
> minimum and f22 ideal for photographing such subjects from about 3ft to get
> wingtip to wingtip in focus.

The same should work well with digital. Consider, however,
the achilles heal of DSLRs: dust on the sensor. At f/8,
perhaps f/11 and faster, dust is not noticeable. At f/16 to
f/22 it is becoming a major issue. Dust a few microns in
diameter is very hard to control and eliminate. Once you clean
your sensor, and switch lenses, in many environments when
you change lenses, you will get dust again. Smaller pixel
size is worse in this regard. Different people regard this
as a different level problem. Some say they have little
problem, others a lot. I generally try to avoid smaller
apertures than f/11 and rarely have a problem.


>
> A camera shop suggested Canon EOS 300D and 550EX with slave 220, but then I
> am told the 18-55mm lens with it is best replaced as its there just to look
> good on the front !

If you are shooting at f/8 and smaller, I bet you could not tell
the difference between that and a more expensive lens.

> Also told a FujiS3 is better for shadow detail, so are
> current digital SLR's not good at shadow detail or am I ok if armed with
> Pshop CS and its awesome shadow detail feature, but if data not there anyway
> then that's no good ?

First, most (all) modern DSLRs and many (most?) P&S digital
cameras are photon noise limited. This means they have a
much higher dynamic range than film, and with much higher
signal-to-noise ratio. See:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

The 300D has an excellent sensor, and is photon noise limited.
This means you are at the fundamental limit of physics.
The only way to get better is to have larger pixels.
The 300D has 7.4 micron pixels, and Fuji S3 must be
something like 7.6 microns, so essentially the same.
The difference is probably barely measurable and not
anything to be concerned about. Note: I have not seen
any real data for the S3, but I know of no way to go beyond
the laws of physics.

I couldn't fins any noise info on the S3, but check this
pre-review:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/fujifilms3pro
The "super CCD" has smaller sensors. There is a lot
of wasted space on the chip surface. I'm skeptical that
the super CCD actually has the performance and gets
around the "laws of physics" by some trick. If they
do the super CCD to extend dynamic range, they do so
at the cost of signal-to-noise elsewhere. This was
probably an interesting tactic before digital
camera sensors became photon noise limited.
If so, the camera store folks are selling you hype.

But in either camera, signal-to-noise will be much higher than
film.


> I see the Speedlite 550 head rotates opposite way to what one needs when
> shooting portrait and read of Canon flashguns not as good as Nikon. Shop
> recommendations need to be treated with caution then. Are flashguns for
> digital ok yet I ask ?

The 550 is used for film cameras too. I think saying this versus
that flash is better is getting into preferences and biases
between brands. Both will give you excellent results.
I do not understand where you are trying to rotate the flash.
I have a 550EX and fine it extremely flexible, more so than
all of Canon's previous flashes.

> I would have thought that 20yrs was long enough to 'design out ' flaws in
> something like a flashgun , that's depressing as my National 388SW was a
> great flashgun. I see the 580EX head zooms to suit image size, how would
> that work for me with gun off camera,.but then I read that according to
> Canon's website about the 580EX the zoom with consideration to sensor size
> does not work on the 300D / Digital Rebel and 10D . That's just what I am
> afraid of, spend many ££ yet still get problems having assumed all is rosy
> by now in digital camera land. I am willing to change methods if there are
> better now to suit my photographs, please advise.

Yes, with all the computers in cameras, be sure what you buy
is compatible. But check Canon's specs rather than a camera
store salesman. I do not have a 580, but I do have a canon 10D,
1D Mark II, some canon film cameras, and the 550EX. I did find
my flash cords from previous flash systems to not work
with the 550EX. Its an ETTL thing, I understand.


>
> I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing distances
> and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest wingtip and have
> camera work out correct distance for depth of field, tell both flashguns to
> stop emitting light when correct exposure achieved, that would be great. Of
> course with flashgun held above the subject it isn't the same distance as
> the camera has just worked out for the subjects best point of focus for
> depth of field.

Yes, the modern canon EOS cameras have depth of field modes.
Some simpler models may not. The 10D does. It must be a camera
function as the hyperfocal guides on lenses are gone on most
of them. You focus on the near point, then the far point,
then compose and shoot--very fast.
>
> Centre point auto focusing essential, or would I need manual focus, I use
> split screen/crystal portion or the matt screen depending on subject, split
> screen good on aerials and code letters. For wingtip probably use the matt
> area.

Yes, most cameras have this. On the canon cameras I own, it works
great and fast, and moving to any sensor point is fast and easy.

> At airshows can I trust the auto system to adjust exposure for the aircraft
> in the picture ? Aircraft off centre with sunlit white clouds behind, will
> the camera be fooled. I used to meter on the grass then use that setting
> when aiming at flying subjects.

Yes, modern metering is better, but still can be fooled.
The digital advantage is you can look at the histogram
and see the results immediately, make adjustments and redo
the shot very fast.

Also check the 20D. It is a step up from the 300D in
many ways.

Roger
Photography, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:12:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail enough to
> provide a structure on which to work, could someone please advise me on
> whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this role, perhaps by
> knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup would handle it.
>
>
>
> I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
> life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi 25Mb
> TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in and
> editing of small details in photoshop.
>
>
>
> Why go digital.desperately need to !.It takes 12 to 15 days to see the
> results and Kodachrome 200 is only available in non pro and often comes back
> with a slight magenta colour cast. For much that I do I need to see results
> instantly as I am wasting time taking multiple shots and writing notes so
> that I can perfect techniques. Storing slides, writing on them, sheer space
> they take up is running out here.has run out in fact as I have past rolls to
> mount and store and slide sleeves with dust flaps from Kenro no longer
> exist. Need find another archival source. The cost of it all could go
> overnight, sleeves and rolls of film £70 per 5 rolls in total. Then there
> is the scanning in of slides and adjusting in Pshop. Desperate to break free
> and save time but concerned that my non average methods are catered for as
> soon as I take flash off camera.
>
>
>
> I use a Canon AE1 body with three manual focus lenses
>
> FD 50mm Canon F1.4 to f22 lens, depth of field lines and min focus 0.45m
> (1.4ft)
>
> Hoya 38 -70mm f3.5 to f22 minfoc 1m (3ft)
>
> Tamron Adaptall 2 80-210mm f3.5 to f22 min foc 1m (3ft)
>
>
>
> Min focus of 1m (3ft) on all but the 50mm is crucial as at indoor scale
> model shows aiming down at a model is 3ft, but 1.5m would require steps to
> climb up !
>
>
>
> TheAE1 ..I always use on manual, preferring to meter on a Kodak grey card
> for out of doors non model shots or use a wallace expodisc (frosted disc
> attached to lens then aimed at light source and meter that) to give me my
> correct settings. I always seem to be photographing non average subjects and
> don't trust auto exposure on them but perhaps nowadays things are
> intelligent enough to cope with this, .e.g. I am photographing the inside
> face of a real aircraft wing, all dull darkish grey green and with ribs and
> rivets, or it may be silver.
>
>
>
> I use flashgun off camera for most of my indoor scale model photography at
> model shows, (no studio facilities there ) often with two guns, one held 3ft
> above subject by a willing volunteer and the other, a carboot sale Sunpak
> fired via light sensor giving fill in flash 1 stop less than main. F16 is
> minimum and f22 ideal for photographing such subjects from about 3ft to get
> wingtip to wingtip in focus.
>
> Flashguns are not dedicated connected, put out a set amount of light based
> upon what power setting I set on them, a simple PC cord triggers gun and I
> use a certain aperture for a certain distance based upon past results to
> give correct exposure each time.
>
> I also need to photograph down level with the aircraft for realistic views.
> There can be a lot of frame around the subject which is airspace well beyond
> the model and not knowing how auto will behave on such a difference in
> distances, I use manual.again I know that if the main gun is 3ft above model
> that's f16 so set lens to f16 and job done ! It may be that it will see the
> foreground subject and stop the exposure just right, well it might if it was
> a modern camera but AE1 not connected to the flashgun on dedicated cord and
> doesn't have TTL for flash. Perhaps I could use auto sensor on the flashgun,
> anyhow I need to go digital now !
>
>
>
> I focus on nearest wingtip then farthest feature visible of the subject and
> set the lens up using its depth of field lines so that these two distances
> are between the aperture I wish to use, I get the hyperfocal distance, this
> depth of field guaranteeing is crucial.
>
>
>
> Sometimes circumstances mean mounting main flashgun on camera, here I use a
> bounce shoe to angle the gun down over the camera lens trying to get the
> light source as close to the lens body as possible without being seen
> especially by the shorter lenses. This puts light under aircraft wings, a
> ring flash gives the wrong lighting pattern , there needs to be some shadow
> and ring flash gives zero !
>
> Flash gives a harsh light but bounce flash no good, the aperture becomes f4
> or 5.6 and d.o.f is too shallow. Tripod and long exposure is ok but often
> impractical, many people and small aisles, a nuisance to carry and with
> others taking flash shots, this ruins my exposure, though with digital I
> could just try again I guess.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A camera shop suggested Canon EOS 300D and 550EX with slave 220, but then I
> am told the 18-55mm lens with it is best replaced as its there just to look
> good on the front ! Also told a FujiS3 is better for shadow detail, so are
> current digital SLR's not good at shadow detail or am I ok if armed with
> Pshop CS and its awesome shadow detail feature, but if data not there anyway
> then that's no good ? I don't know what flashguns and lenses I could go
> for in the case of the Fuji. I like quality feel and need min focus 3ft.
>
> I see the Speedlite 550 head rotates opposite way to what one needs when
> shooting portrait and read of Canon flashguns not as good as Nikon. Shop
> recommendations need to be treated with caution then. Are flashguns for
> digital ok yet I ask ?
>
> I would have thought that 20yrs was long enough to 'design out ' flaws in
> something like a flashgun , that's depressing as my National 388SW was a
> great flashgun. I see the 580EX head zooms to suit image size, how would
> that work for me with gun off camera,.but then I read that according to
> Canon's website about the 580EX the zoom with consideration to sensor size
> does not work on the 300D / Digital Rebel and 10D . That's just what I am
> afraid of, spend many ££ yet still get problems having assumed all is rosy
> by now in digital camera land. I am willing to change methods if there are
> better now to suit my photographs, please advise.
>
>
>
> I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing distances
> and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest wingtip and have
> camera work out correct distance for depth of field, tell both flashguns to
> stop emitting light when correct exposure achieved, that would be great. Of
> course with flashgun held above the subject it isn't the same distance as
> the camera has just worked out for the subjects best point of focus for
> depth of field.
>
> Centre point auto focusing essential, or would I need manual focus, I use
> split screen/crystal portion or the matt screen depending on subject, split
> screen good on aerials and code letters. For wingtip probably use the matt
> area.
>
>
>
> At airshows can I trust the auto system to adjust exposure for the aircraft
> in the picture ? Aircraft off centre with sunlit white clouds behind, will
> the camera be fooled. I used to meter on the grass then use that setting
> when aiming at flying subjects.
>
> Any help appreciated
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>

Steve,

Buy yourself a used digicam, a 4 MP one, Olympus or Casio you can get
them quite cheaply on eBay. You'll find that they will do most things
that you've listed. If after using it for awhile you decide that digital
is for you, you can sell it and not lose much money and then with the
experience you've gained choose a more expensive make and model.

However I would bet that you will want to keep the first one you buy and
will buy a better one of the same make. In actual fact there is so
little difference between models and makes from the major manufacturers
it's hardly worth bothering with.

Jem
Related resources
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:17:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail
> enough to provide a structure on which to work, could someone please
> advise me on whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this
> role, perhaps by knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup
> would handle it.
> ...

The Canon 1D should do just fine. The 20D should do well for a lot
less.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
January 30, 2005 7:44:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hU6Ld.65893$re1.3815@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail
>> enough to provide a structure on which to work, could someone please
>> advise me on whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this
>> role, perhaps by knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup
>> would handle it.
>> ...
>
> The Canon 1D should do just fine. The 20D should do well for a lot
> less.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan

Hi there.

You are not really asking about Digital.

You are asking about fully automatic cameras. The latest Autofocus Film
Cameras have all the same sorts of controls over Exposure and Flash as the
Digitals do.

Will a modern Camera allow your way of working? Yes, it will when set to
Manual, (provided a cable controlled flash can be connected). Very few have
PC sockets, and some do not even have a Hot Shoe.

The Nikon D70 has the ability to control one or more Flashes remotely and
cordlessly, and so have some of the others. So your methods can continue,
but you will have a fairly steep learning curve until you are able to fully
understand the Automation, and get it to do what you want. Personally, I
still prefer to use my Flashmeter in Incident Mode.

What really worries me most is the fact that you seem to store every single
Slide you get back from Kodak. Are none of them duplicates? Are they all
great shots? Most of the really good photographers I know, say they are only
good because they are selective about what gets kept and what gets dumped.
One of them only keeps about 3 or 4 Slides from every 36, and he can still
submit enough slides every year to a Picture Library, to pay for his
photography.

If you move to Digital, you will take many more pictures, and if you keep
them all, you will soon be knee deep in CDs or DVDs.

Roy
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:44:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roy" <royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r98Ld.718$Yj.703@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hU6Ld.65893$re1.3815@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail
>>> enough to provide a structure on which to work, could someone please
>>> advise me on whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this
>>> role, perhaps by knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup
>>> would handle it.
>>> ...
>>
>> The Canon 1D should do just fine. The 20D should do well for a lot
>> less.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>
> Hi there.
>
> You are not really asking about Digital.
>
> You are asking about fully automatic cameras. The latest Autofocus Film
> Cameras have all the same sorts of controls over Exposure and Flash as the
> Digitals do.
>
> Will a modern Camera allow your way of working? Yes, it will when set to
> Manual, (provided a cable controlled flash can be connected). Very few
> have PC sockets, and some do not even have a Hot Shoe.
>
> The Nikon D70 has the ability to control one or more Flashes remotely and
> cordlessly, and so have some of the others. So your methods can continue,
> but you will have a fairly steep learning curve until you are able to
> fully understand the Automation, and get it to do what you want.
> Personally, I still prefer to use my Flashmeter in Incident Mode.
>
> What really worries me most is the fact that you seem to store every
> single Slide you get back from Kodak. Are none of them duplicates? Are
> they all great shots? Most of the really good photographers I know, say
> they are only good because they are selective about what gets kept and
> what gets dumped. One of them only keeps about 3 or 4 Slides from every
> 36, and he can still submit enough slides every year to a Picture Library,
> to pay for his photography.
>
> If you move to Digital, you will take many more pictures, and if you keep
> them all, you will soon be knee deep in CDs or DVDs.
>
> Roy
>
>
>
All AF film and digital SLRs have hot shoes, many have PC sockets, including
the top line Nikons and Canons. Not sure about Minolta, Olympus and Pentax,
but I think they do, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:59:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You do not need to change to digital unless you want to.
Unless you can spend $4-5k for a high end digital slr shooting film and
scanning will yield technically superior results.
I love the convenience of digital but current consumer digital slrs do not
approach the quality obtainable with film and scanning. Consumers dSLRs are
good enough for most uses but they are not as good as film.
You really should change the kind of film you use before you switch to
digital.
Kodachrome is hard to expose, inconvenient to develop and hard to scan.
Try shooting hi end color negative film (although there is not that much
difference between pro negative and upper end consumer negative film). This
will open up a world of exposure latitude and color manipulation you cannot
really experience with transparency film. Exposure calculations with digital
slrs are even more difficult than with finicky slide films like Kodachrome.
Many minor to moderate exposure issues can be fixed in Photoshop regardless
of whether the image originated on film or a digital sensor. You can make
regional changes to part of an image without having to make global changes
to the entire frame. I believe most digital shooters are so used to making
Photoshop adjustments they forget how far off the middle of the ideal
exposure curve too many of their digital images are to begin with.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:59:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bmoag wrote:

> You do not need to change to digital unless you want to.
> Unless you can spend $4-5k for a high end digital slr shooting film and
> scanning will yield technically superior results.
> I love the convenience of digital but current consumer digital slrs do not
> approach the quality obtainable with film and scanning. Consumers dSLRs are
> good enough for most uses but they are not as good as film.
> You really should change the kind of film you use before you switch to
> digital.
> Kodachrome is hard to expose, inconvenient to develop and hard to scan.
> Try shooting hi end color negative film (although there is not that much
> difference between pro negative and upper end consumer negative film). This
> will open up a world of exposure latitude and color manipulation you cannot
> really experience with transparency film. Exposure calculations with digital
> slrs are even more difficult than with finicky slide films like Kodachrome.
> Many minor to moderate exposure issues can be fixed in Photoshop regardless
> of whether the image originated on film or a digital sensor. You can make
> regional changes to part of an image without having to make global changes
> to the entire frame. I believe most digital shooters are so used to making
> Photoshop adjustments they forget how far off the middle of the ideal
> exposure curve too many of their digital images are to begin with.
>
>
I disagree strongly with this post.
OH NO, not another digital versus film thread!
But the technical details simply show high end
consumer DSLRs are superior to film, especially
200 speed film. This goes for spatial resolution,
dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. Now, if you
talk find grained high resolution film, like
velvia 50 or ektar 25 or kodachrome 25, then I
agree with the above. But the OP is using
higher ISO.

Note, in my other thread, I also suggested the OP
switch to a modern film.

Film versus Digital My Summary:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....

The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images
and Comparison to Film
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

The switch by the OP to a modern system will cost,
but he needs lenses too. Add to the camera body
compact flash cards (now getting pretty cheap).
He already has photoshop and digital experience,
so the learning curve should not be too great.
A DSLR like the 20D (or Nikon equivalent) plus lenses
and compact flash would probably cost less than
$3,000. But the OP is in England, and the costs
might be higher (from what we've read in this NG
by others in England).

Roger
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:59:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:25:41 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:


>I disagree strongly with this post.
>OH NO, not another digital versus film thread!
>But the technical details simply show high end
>consumer DSLRs are superior to film, especially
>200 speed film. This goes for spatial resolution,
>dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. Now, if you
>talk find grained high resolution film, like
>velvia 50 or ektar 25 or kodachrome 25, then I
>agree with the above. But the OP is using
>higher ISO.


What do you make of Fernando Carello's
comparison at the bottom of this page

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

(10D vs. 35 mm Velvia)

At least in this one test, the film
scan clearly resolves far more detail
than the 10D.

Me, I'm not dogmatic about it. I think
the differences are small for "most
practical purposes" and film scanning
is laborious. When all's said and done,
if I have to make a really big print
from a small-format image, I'd rather
work from a good 35 mm film scan than
a 10D capture -- even though the latter
involves far less effort.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:59:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:25:41 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I disagree strongly with this post.
>>OH NO, not another digital versus film thread!
>>But the technical details simply show high end
>>consumer DSLRs are superior to film, especially
>>200 speed film. This goes for spatial resolution,
>>dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. Now, if you
>>talk find grained high resolution film, like
>>velvia 50 or ektar 25 or kodachrome 25, then I
>>agree with the above. But the OP is using
>>higher ISO.
>
>
>
> What do you make of Fernando Carello's
> comparison at the bottom of this page
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> (10D vs. 35 mm Velvia)
>
> At least in this one test, the film
> scan clearly resolves far more detail
> than the 10D.

Yes, this is in agreement with my tests also.
The 10D has about the same resolution as velvia
on a square mm basis in my tests. But the 10D
is a smaller sensor than 35mm film.

> Me, I'm not dogmatic about it. I think
> the differences are small for "most
> practical purposes" and film scanning
> is laborious. When all's said and done,
> if I have to make a really big print
> from a small-format image, I'd rather
> work from a good 35 mm film scan than
> a 10D capture -- even though the latter
> involves far less effort.

Yes, I agree too, if I'm using fine grained film
like velvia. But when I do wildlife and need
higher speed film, then digital becomes a clear winner
in all ways in my experience. With 8-Mpixel
DSLRs, I find image quality superior to ISO 100
speed film like Fuji Provia, in terms of
spatial resolution, dynamic range, and signal-to-noise,
even when the DSLR is at ISO 200 and 400.

Roger
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:59:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:9l8qv091jkbrda8lgc8r8h0b8ecbj91rpe@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:25:41 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I disagree strongly with this post.
>>OH NO, not another digital versus film thread!
>>But the technical details simply show high end
>>consumer DSLRs are superior to film, especially
>>200 speed film. This goes for spatial resolution,
>>dynamic range, and signal-to-noise. Now, if you
>>talk find grained high resolution film, like
>>velvia 50 or ektar 25 or kodachrome 25, then I
>>agree with the above. But the OP is using
>>higher ISO.
>
>
> What do you make of Fernando Carello's
> comparison at the bottom of this page
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> (10D vs. 35 mm Velvia)
>
> At least in this one test, the film
> scan clearly resolves far more detail
> than the 10D.
>
> Me, I'm not dogmatic about it. I think
> the differences are small for "most
> practical purposes" and film scanning
> is laborious. When all's said and done,
> if I have to make a really big print
> from a small-format image, I'd rather
> work from a good 35 mm film scan than
> a 10D capture -- even though the latter
> involves far less effort.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The 10D isn't the 20D, and Velvia isn't Kodachrome 200. Roger said that
Velvia, among others, might resolve more detail than digital, but, again,
the OP was asking about 200 ISO film.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:37:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <aeroSPAMOFFgraphics@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail
> enough to provide a structure on which to work, could someone please
> advise me on whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this
> role, perhaps by knowing that their particular camera /flashgun
> setup would handle it.
>
> I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro
> giving true life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at
> max res so 300dpi 25Mb TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4
> size result, allows zoom in and editing of small details in
> photoshop.

I'm snipping most of the details; people can look them up in the
parent article if they're coming in late.

The quick answer is that sure, any of the digital SLRs will do
decently at what you're doing. That doesn't mean it will be a trivial
switch necessarily, and you may find some tradeoffs. Since you're
already scanning, you've got a very good start on the digital
techniques you'd use with the photos, which will help a lot.

The first surprise will be that you don't need as big a file to get as
good prints. Digital original pixels are "worth more" than scanned
pixels.

I'm not terribly familiar with the kind of aviation models you appear
to be photographing; is *resolution* the current limit on your ability
to enlarge, or does *grain* get out of control first? Then again,
since it's K200 instead of one of the slower modern slide films, the
digital really shouldn't have any trouble with resolution.

> Why go digital.desperately need to !.It takes 12 to 15 days to see
> the results and Kodachrome 200 is only available in non pro and
> often comes back with a slight magenta colour cast. For much that I
> do I need to see results instantly as I am wasting time taking
> multiple shots and writing notes so that I can perfect
> techniques. Storing slides, writing on them, sheer space they take
> up is running out here.has run out in fact as I have past rolls to
> mount and store and slide sleeves with dust flaps from Kenro no
> longer exist. Need find another archival source. The cost of it all
> could go overnight, sleeves and rolls of film £70 per 5 rolls in
> total. Then there is the scanning in of slides and adjusting in
> Pshop. Desperate to break free and save time but concerned that my
> non average methods are catered for as soon as I take flash off
> camera.

I own a Fuji S2. I've made some use of Canon 30D, 60D, and 10D
belonging to friends. I've also played with an older Nikon D1 a bit.
All of these behave like "real" SLRs. They're happy to let you have
manual control, the flash guns can be run manually, etc. From what
I've read, this should be true of *all* of the current DSLR offerings;
you should check details on anything before you buy it of course, but
when you get up to the DSLR level, these things behave pretty much as
you would expect a camera to behave (unlike some of their smaller
siblings!).

With nearly all of the digital SLRs (not the top-end Canon 1Ds with
the full-frame sensor) you get additional depth of field. For your
particular problems, that will be a benefit (sometimes, like for
portraiture, it's a problem instead).

You *could* use simple manual flashes like the old Vivitar 283 or 285,
or some Sunpak models, instead of the fancy dedicated flashes. It'd
be cheaper, and all of these can have a pc-cord connected for flash
sync (worst case via a hotshoe adapter). However, the

> I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing
> distances and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest
> wingtip and have camera work out correct distance for depth of
> field, tell both flashguns to stop emitting light when correct
> exposure achieved, that would be great. Of course with flashgun held
> above the subject it isn't the same distance as the camera has just
> worked out for the subjects best point of focus for depth of field.

Wouldn't we all. Not gonna happen, though, for anything this
complex.

> Centre point auto focusing essential, or would I need manual focus,
> I use split screen/crystal portion or the matt screen depending on
> subject, split screen good on aerials and code letters. For wingtip
> probably use the matt area.

The screen for manual focusing isn't very good, but they all let you
pick which focus spot they focus on, and they all let you focus and
recompose (focus lock). In paticular, there's no focus aid for manual
focus; though the auto-focus mechanism turns on a dot down in the
corner when it thinks you're in focus even in manual mode, so that's a
kind of focus aid. Most of the lenses have DOF markings, so if you're
scale-focusing, that's mostly okay too. The fancier zooms have the
least good DOF markings, of course. And the DOF markings are for 35mm
use, not correct for use on the subsize sensors (always excepting the
Canon 1Ds). (Oh, and the Olympus 4/3 system, where the lenses are new
and made for the subsize sensor so any DOF markings should be
correct.) You'll probably want a DOF table calculated to your own
specifications, which will be a bit of a hassle.

> At airshows can I trust the auto system to adjust exposure for the
> aircraft in the picture ? Aircraft off centre with sunlit white
> clouds behind, will the camera be fooled. I used to meter on the
> grass then use that setting when aiming at flying subjects.

Well, modern matrix metering may handle that some better than an old
AE1, but it's not a situation I'd trust to automated exposure systems
myself.

One of your big wins will be that you can tell immediately whether an
exposure is decent -- somewhat by eye on the LCD, and very accurately
by examining the histogram display (like the histogram photoshop shows
you; and from your experience seeing those, you probably already know
what overexposed and underexposed look like for various kinds of
subjects).

You'll save the film turnaround time, the film and processing cost,
and the scanning time for sure. I think you'll find that the preview
and histogram let you produce better camera-originals, so there'll be
less mucking around in photoshop later fixing your mistakes. Filing
will become a digital problem instead of a physical problem. Make
sure you come up with good archiving techniques. And you'll discover
that CDs are actually fairly small when archiving photos :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:54:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <9l8qv091jkbrda8lgc8r8h0b8ecbj91rpe@4ax.com>, rafeb@speakeasy.net
says...
>
>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:25:41 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>What do you make of Fernando Carello's
>comparison at the bottom of this page
>
>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
>(10D vs. 35 mm Velvia)
>
>At least in this one test, the film
>scan clearly resolves far more detail
>than the 10D.
>
>Me, I'm not dogmatic about it. I think
>the differences are small for "most
>practical purposes" and film scanning
>is laborious. When all's said and done,
>if I have to make a really big print
>from a small-format image, I'd rather
>work from a good 35 mm film scan than
>a 10D capture -- even though the latter
>involves far less effort.
>
>
>rafe b.
>http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Rafe,
Agreed that a 5000ppi drum scan will be superior to most digital cameras. But
drum scanning is hardly practical in production environment. This guy is using
K200 waiting 10-14 days to get back the film them it sounds like scanning every
slide at 2400ppi. A 6 or 8 mp camera will beat this hands down qualitywise and
speed his work flow considerably. Equivalent lenses are easy to find. Digital
also allows him to catalog his files to make them more accessible.

Tom
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:54:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 31 Jan 2005 02:54:51 GMT, tom@nospam.microlightphoto.com (Tom
Monego) wrote:

>In article <9l8qv091jkbrda8lgc8r8h0b8ecbj91rpe@4ax.com>, rafeb@speakeasy.net
>says...
>>
>>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:25:41 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>>to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>What do you make of Fernando Carello's
>>comparison at the bottom of this page
>>
>>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>>
>>(10D vs. 35 mm Velvia)
>>
>>At least in this one test, the film
>>scan clearly resolves far more detail
>>than the 10D.
>>
>>Me, I'm not dogmatic about it. I think
>>the differences are small for "most
>>practical purposes" and film scanning
>>is laborious. When all's said and done,
>>if I have to make a really big print
>>from a small-format image, I'd rather
>>work from a good 35 mm film scan than
>>a 10D capture -- even though the latter
>>involves far less effort.
>>
>>
>>rafe b.
>>http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>
>Rafe,
>Agreed that a 5000ppi drum scan will be superior to most digital cameras. But
>drum scanning is hardly practical in production environment. This guy is using
>K200 waiting 10-14 days to get back the film them it sounds like scanning every
>slide at 2400ppi. A 6 or 8 mp camera will beat this hands down qualitywise and
>speed his work flow considerably. Equivalent lenses are easy to find. Digital
>also allows him to catalog his files to make them more accessible.


This was not a drum scan, it was from a
Minolta SE 5400. $629 at BH Photo.

I'm not disputing the convenience of
digital capture or the pain of dealing
with film processing and film scanning.

I have compared many 35 mm scans of
Reala (a print film, ISO 100) against
10D captures. I've also made large
prints (20x30" and 24x36") from both.
I scan 35mm and MF film @ 4000 dpi.

In a pinch, I'll take the film scan,
still. If I could afford a Canon 1D
or 1Ds, my Nikons would probably
be retired for good.

If someone would like to send me a
sharp snippet from a 20D capture,
I'll be happy to post it among
my other "specimens." (There is
at least one other snippet from
the Minolta SE-5400 on my site.)



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
scan/digicam snippets:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 5:54:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:cbbrv0l3bl258hrr3ttlc65k7limvv243d@4ax.com...

> This was not a drum scan, it was from a
> Minolta SE 5400. $629 at BH Photo.
>
> I'm not disputing the convenience of
> digital capture or the pain of dealing
> with film processing and film scanning.
>
> I have compared many 35 mm scans of
> Reala (a print film, ISO 100) against
> 10D captures. I've also made large
> prints (20x30" and 24x36") from both.
> I scan 35mm and MF film @ 4000 dpi.
>
> In a pinch, I'll take the film scan,
> still. If I could afford a Canon 1D
> or 1Ds, my Nikons would probably
> be retired for good.
>
> If someone would like to send me a
> sharp snippet from a 20D capture,
> I'll be happy to post it among
> my other "specimens." (There is
> at least one other snippet from
> the Minolta SE-5400 on my site.)
>
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
> scan/digicam snippets:
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

Incoming!!! (I'm hoping this is a valid email, I just sent you a file from
my 20D.) By the way, a friend of mine has a 1D mkII, and we've compared
images. There's little to choose from between a 20D and his, both at 8mp
high res JPEGs. In fact, we can't tell the difference, and we've shot side
by side more than once.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:51:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:26:28 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:cbbrv0l3bl258hrr3ttlc65k7limvv243d@4ax.com...
>
>> This was not a drum scan, it was from a
>> Minolta SE 5400. $629 at BH Photo.
>>
>> I'm not disputing the convenience of
>> digital capture or the pain of dealing
>> with film processing and film scanning.
>>
>> I have compared many 35 mm scans of
>> Reala (a print film, ISO 100) against
>> 10D captures. I've also made large
>> prints (20x30" and 24x36") from both.
>> I scan 35mm and MF film @ 4000 dpi.
>>
>> In a pinch, I'll take the film scan,
>> still. If I could afford a Canon 1D
>> or 1Ds, my Nikons would probably
>> be retired for good.
>>
>> If someone would like to send me a
>> sharp snippet from a 20D capture,
>> I'll be happy to post it among
>> my other "specimens." (There is
>> at least one other snippet from
>> the Minolta SE-5400 on my site.)
>>
>>
>>
>> rafe b.
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>> scan/digicam snippets:
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
>
>Incoming!!! (I'm hoping this is a valid email, I just sent you a file from
>my 20D.) By the way, a friend of mine has a 1D mkII, and we've compared
>images. There's little to choose from between a 20D and his, both at 8mp
>high res JPEGs. In fact, we can't tell the difference, and we've shot side
>by side more than once.


Hello Skip.

Yes, I have an image from you in this
morning's mail. The ideal snippet
would be 1/6 the total width, and 1/4
the total height of a full-frame
capture from the 20D.... as explained
at the top of the "snippets" site.

For an full frame image that has the
standard 2:3 ratio, it ends up being
a square snippet.

In the interest of "showing off the
camera's resolving power, the
snippet would show a lot of fine
detail

The snippet I'm looking at, from
you, does look clean. Very nice
tonality.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:28:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Steve,

Actually, the digital cameras that are out there today can do what you are
now doing with your film camera. The real question here is what you do with
your images once you have kept them and saved them. Do you use for shows,
printing, personal use, competition, >? The implication here is if it is
for some professional application etc. you will want to get the best camera
possible for the highest quality. The Canons offer some great digital
options for a good amount of money. You would get interchangeable lenses,
Flash synch options, and so on.

If you do not want to spend the extra money for one of these cameras, see
Nikon, Canon, Olympus, and more for details on their SLR type digitals.

If you are thinking about general use cameras then I would consider the
Kodak DX7590. It includes a lot of features that you would use as well as
full external flash. The camera does not offer special synch options for the
camera and a flash to work together, but it does provide the pulse to fire
the flash as any shutter aperture combination.

I would check these options before you buy, visit local dealers etc. for a
hands on review.

If your question is 'Does digital equal film just yet?' I suppose in some
ways, but I do not think so for general use cameras. Again it depends on
what your need and uses are going to be.

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




> If I describe my current non average photography methods in detail enough
to
> provide a structure on which to work, could someone please advise me on
> whether or not a digital SLR setup could take over this role, perhaps by
> knowing that their particular camera /flashgun setup would handle it.
>
>
>
> I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
> life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi
25Mb
> TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in
and
> editing of small details in photoshop.
>
>
>
> Why go digital.desperately need to !.It takes 12 to 15 days to see the
> results and Kodachrome 200 is only available in non pro and often comes
back
> with a slight magenta colour cast. For much that I do I need to see
results
> instantly as I am wasting time taking multiple shots and writing notes so
> that I can perfect techniques. Storing slides, writing on them, sheer
space
> they take up is running out here.has run out in fact as I have past rolls
to
> mount and store and slide sleeves with dust flaps from Kenro no longer
> exist. Need find another archival source. The cost of it all could go
> overnight, sleeves and rolls of film £70 per 5 rolls in total. Then there
> is the scanning in of slides and adjusting in Pshop. Desperate to break
free
> and save time but concerned that my non average methods are catered for as
> soon as I take flash off camera.
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:50:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:
>
> What do you make of Fernando Carello's
> comparison at the bottom of this page
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> (10D vs. 35 mm Velvia)
>
> At least in this one test, the film
> scan clearly resolves far more detail
> than the 10D.
>
I'm not at all sure I understand what the samples are showing me. A 512
x 512 pixel sample from a 10D, versus a 1250 x 1250 pixel sample of the
same target area scanned from velvia?

Both images are of the same section of a lens chart, but the velvia scan
is almost six times the pixels for the same area?

Given that the same lens was used (stated in the article), the images on
both film and sensor will be the same size, so where is the
justification for showing film at almost six times the pixel count? This
discrepancy allows the film sample to be shown advantageously on a 72
dpi monitor.

Also, I doubt the relevance of high-contrast lens charts to everyday
photographic subjects, where frequently the very fine detail available
in the shot is small in area, and usually nowhere near the contrast of a
lens chart, so the film MTF generally buries most of that detail in the
noise.

In ordinary operating conditions, the loss of such detail is usually
unimportant. As long as the image is sharp, very fine detail isn't
missed by the viewer - and digital cameras can produce sharp images.
Coupled with much cleaner images from digital, particularly when
compared with high-ISO films, the film advantage virtually vanishes.

Colin
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:50:16 +1300, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:


>Given that the same lens was used (stated in the article), the images on
>both film and sensor will be the same size, so where is the
>justification for showing film at almost six times the pixel count? This
>discrepancy allows the film sample to be shown advantageously on a 72
>dpi monitor.

There's an explanation at the top of that page.

In a nutshell: 512 x 512 pixels represents 1/24
of the total sensor area (and pixels) of a 10D
capture.

The film image was scanned at 5000 dpi, so
1250 x 1250 pixels represents 1/24 the total
area of film, and 1/24 the total pixels from
the film scan.


>Also, I doubt the relevance of high-contrast lens charts to everyday
>photographic subjects, where frequently the very fine detail available
>in the shot is small in area, and usually nowhere near the contrast of a
>lens chart, so the film MTF generally buries most of that detail in the
>noise.
>
>In ordinary operating conditions, the loss of such detail is usually
>unimportant. As long as the image is sharp, very fine detail isn't
>missed by the viewer - and digital cameras can produce sharp images.
>Coupled with much cleaner images from digital, particularly when
>compared with high-ISO films, the film advantage virtually vanishes.


In this I'm likely to agree with you.
However, digicams do suffer from aliasing
artifacts in the presence of very fine detail.
Even the 10D... as you can see in Fernando's
10D image.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 8:22:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:rndsv0t8l9t1boe1ire96i2v3s3adqj3o0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:26:28 -0800, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"rafe bustin" <rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>news:cbbrv0l3bl258hrr3ttlc65k7limvv243d@4ax.com...
>>
>>> This was not a drum scan, it was from a
>>> Minolta SE 5400. $629 at BH Photo.
>>>
>>> I'm not disputing the convenience of
>>> digital capture or the pain of dealing
>>> with film processing and film scanning.
>>>
>>> I have compared many 35 mm scans of
>>> Reala (a print film, ISO 100) against
>>> 10D captures. I've also made large
>>> prints (20x30" and 24x36") from both.
>>> I scan 35mm and MF film @ 4000 dpi.
>>>
>>> In a pinch, I'll take the film scan,
>>> still. If I could afford a Canon 1D
>>> or 1Ds, my Nikons would probably
>>> be retired for good.
>>>
>>> If someone would like to send me a
>>> sharp snippet from a 20D capture,
>>> I'll be happy to post it among
>>> my other "specimens." (There is
>>> at least one other snippet from
>>> the Minolta SE-5400 on my site.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> rafe b.
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>>> scan/digicam snippets:
>>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
>>
>>Incoming!!! (I'm hoping this is a valid email, I just sent you a file
>>from
>>my 20D.) By the way, a friend of mine has a 1D mkII, and we've compared
>>images. There's little to choose from between a 20D and his, both at 8mp
>>high res JPEGs. In fact, we can't tell the difference, and we've shot
>>side
>>by side more than once.
>
>
> Hello Skip.
>
> Yes, I have an image from you in this
> morning's mail. The ideal snippet
> would be 1/6 the total width, and 1/4
> the total height of a full-frame
> capture from the 20D.... as explained
> at the top of the "snippets" site.
>
> For an full frame image that has the
> standard 2:3 ratio, it ends up being
> a square snippet.
>
> In the interest of "showing off the
> camera's resolving power, the
> snippet would show a lot of fine
> detail
>
> The snippet I'm looking at, from
> you, does look clean. Very nice
> tonality.
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Thanks, I hope it's sufficient for your purposes...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 9:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <6L5Ld.2748$8B3.1672@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Steve <aeroSPAMOFFgraphics@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
>life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi 25Mb
>TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in and
>editing of small details in photoshop.
>
>Why go digital.desperately need to !.It takes 12 to 15 days to see the
>results and Kodachrome 200 is only available in non pro and often comes back
>with a slight magenta colour cast.

I'll second the other suggestions about trying E6. Give some of the
Fujichrome fine grained emulsions a go (maybe Provia 400F for the speed),
you might like what you see and it should be much faster to process (same
day with most labs). If it works out for you, it'll be much cheaper than
spending a lot of money on digital, and if not, you won't have wasted more
than the cost of a few rolls of film + processing.
February 1, 2005 10:06:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks to all responding so far,

I have copy pasted parts out to respond to but left out who said what as
this has taken me time to doctor as it is, so apologies but you all no doubt
recognise what you said.



>A DSLR will work, and you can use off-camera flash systems.

>Alternatively, have you considered switching to a a modern

>E6 film, even temporarily until you get digital?



Cant really face another season with film, too much need of instant results,
I do actually keep most of my shots, I find lots worth photographing, I also
need many shots of my research subjects, and return field visits are
expensive so to see its in the can as they say is essential





Consider, however,

the achilles heal of DSLRs: dust on the sensor.

>shall change lenses sensor downmost and power off.





>> A camera shop suggested Canon EOS 300D and 550EX with slave 220, but then
I

>> am told the 18-55mm lens with it is best replaced as its there just to
look

>> good on the front !



>If you are shooting at f/8 and smaller, I bet you could not tell

>the difference between that and a more expensive lens.

Worth knowing,.what about f8 between lenses, is there a 'noticeable '
difference if pics enlarged to A4 size ?





>But in either camera, signal-to-noise will be much higher than

>film.

i.e I see more noise than with film ,.yes ?





>> I see the Speedlite 550 head rotates opposite way to what one needs when

>> shooting portrait and read of Canon flashguns not as good as Nikon. Shop

..>> recommendations need to be treated with caution then. Are flashguns for

>> digital ok yet I ask ?



>I do not understand where you are trying to rotate the flash.

Portrait orientation shot bounced off ceiling..guess I could get used to
right hand downmost ?







>

>> I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing
distances

>> and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest wingtip and have

>> camera work out correct distance for depth of field, tell both flashguns
to

>> stop emitting light when correct exposure achieved, that would be great.
Of

>> course with flashgun held above the subject it isn't the same distance as

>> the camera has just worked out for the subjects best point of focus for

>> depth of field.



Yes, the modern canon EOS cameras have depth of field modes.

Some simpler models may not. The 10D does. It must be a camera

function as the hyperfocal guides on lenses are gone on most

of them. That's what I thought, then Nikon say get a D series lens, manual
focus the two distances and use the dof lines, I am not sure there are any
dof lines ?

>You focus on the near point, then the far point,

>then compose and shoot--very fast.

Now this is something I need to be dead sure about, Canon rep reading from
manual had it that you compose shot, camera does focusing, dodgy that as how
does it know nearest item is near very top of viewfinder ????



If I use A-DeP mode and use flashguns, he is not sure at present, and if I
use manual focus, then it wont play ball at all.

Worried !!!!





>Also check the 20D. It is a step up from the 300D in

>many ways.

Yes, now its 20D or Nikon D70 choice.



>Will a modern Camera allow your way of working? Yes, it will when set to
>Manual, (provided a cable controlled flash can be connected). Very few have
>PC sockets, and some do not even have a Hot Shoe.



Good job two above have !

>The Nikon D70 has the ability to control one or more Flashes remotely and
>cordlessly, and so have some of the others. So your methods can continue,
>but you will have a fairly steep learning curve until you are able to fully
>understand the Automation, and get it to do what you want. Personally, I
>still prefer to use my Flashmeter in Incident Mode.

I am between devil and deep blue see I think, D70 flashgun setup best for my
two gun off camera method, unless 20D aslso able ?

But D70 no dof method that I have been certain of ?

>What really worries me most is the fact that you seem to store every single
>Slide you get back from Kodak.

>Are none of them duplicates?

I do sometimes bracket and chuck 2 keep 1, but time and money doesn't permit
3 for each, having a setup where f16 and 3ft go together gives instant
success most times, and I only take shots I want to keep, so yes keep most
results, there is a difference though with my subject matter, its not studio
female models but scale models and so I am not blasting away trying then
studying subtle differences for a magazine cover. Also 35mm film costs so I
cant afford to. Time disallows anyway. Other pics are in the field research
visits and make most of the occasion, many shots all of which useful.

>Are they all great shots?

Those kept are either best of three, or the only shot thus must keep, or if
research shots kept even if lousy as often prove invaluable and are
irreplaceable.


>If you move to Digital, you will take many more pictures, and if you keep
>them all, you will soon be knee deep in CDs or DVDs.

No , knee deep in money saved !!!

>I love the convenience of digital but current consumer digital slrs do not
>approach the quality obtainable with film and scanning. Consumers dSLRs are
>good enough for most uses but they are not as good as film.
>You really should change the kind of film you use before you switch to
>digital.
>Kodachrome is hard to expose, inconvenient to develop and hard to scan.
>Try shooting hi end color negative film (although there is not that much
>difference between pro negative and upper end consumer negative film). This
>will open up a world of exposure latitude and color manipulation you cannot
>really experience with transparency film. Exposure calculations with
digital
>slrs are even more difficult than with finicky slide films like Kodachrome.



I REALLY DESPERATELY MUST leave behind hassle of print and slide, don't even
get time to send the rolls off, return prints they haven't printed ok and so
on, really no time to explain without writing book about it. 15 days wait
to find need go back and do again.no way.

Weeks sepnt storing shuffling about slides, writing numbers on mounts and
so on. Scanning in,,,,, I want my life back, need gain lots of time !




>I'm not terribly familiar with the kind of aviation models you appear
>to be photographing;

imagine well researched models made over many months, 6 inches wingspan
through to2ft or so

> is *resolution* the current limit on your ability
>to enlarge, or does *grain* get out of control first?

>Then again,
>since it's K200 instead of one of the slower modern slide films, the
>digital really shouldn't have any trouble with resolution.



Probably grain, I rarely enlarge but yes grain is an issue when I do.



>With nearly all of the digital SLRs (not the top-end Canon 1Ds with
>the full-frame sensor) you get additional depth of field.

>For your
>particular problems, that will be a benefit (sometimes, like for
>portraiture, it's a problem instead).

Sounds good, yet Nikon said no difference to that at all ???

>You *could* use simple manual flashes like the old Vivitar 283 or 285,
>or some Sunpak models, instead of the fancy dedicated flashes. It'd
>be cheaper, and all of these can have a pc-cord connected for flash
>sync (worst case via a hotshoe adapter). However, the



I wish to know what was about to be said here ???

>> I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing
>> distances and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest
>> wingtip and have camera work out correct distance for depth of
>> field, tell both flashguns to stop emitting light when correct
>> exposure achieved, that would be great. Of course with flashgun held
>> above the subject it isn't the same distance as the camera has just
>> worked out for the subjects best point of focus for depth of field.

>Wouldn't we all. Not gonna happen, though, for anything this
complex.



That's what I was afraid of, what I am doing isn't exactly rocket science,
its good old photography methods, nothing wrong with it but those bods
designing cameras don't seem to be photographers if dof and flash setup isn
't possible.



>The screen for manual focusing isn't very good, but they all let you
>pick which focus spot they focus on, and they all let you focus and
>recompose (focus lock). In paticular, there's no focus aid for manual
>focus; though the auto-focus mechanism turns on a dot down in the
>corner when it thinks you're in focus even in manual mode, so that's a
>kind of focus aid.



Good !



<Most of the lenses have DOF markings, >



This fact is puzzling me, I never see any ?

What is there for a D70 giving in old money s it were28mmm-70mm

And 70mm-300mm ? (min foc 3ft)


< The fancier zooms have the
<least good DOF markings, of course. And the DOF markings are for 35mm
<use, not correct for use on the subsize sensors (always excepting the
<Canon 1Ds).



Oh sod !



>(Oh, and the Olympus 4/3 system, where the lenses are new
>and made for the subsize sensor so any DOF markings should be
correct.)



Worth knowing



<You'll probably want a DOF table calculated to your own
specifications, which will be a bit of a hassle.>

Tooo right it would !



One of your big wins will be that you can tell immediately whether an
exposure is decent ...>snip ..... And you'll discover
that CDs are actually fairly small when archiving photos :-).

Oh Yes !!!!!



Thanks so far

Steve
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:06:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:

> Thanks to all responding so far,

Some more comments.
>
> I have copy pasted parts out to respond to but left out who said what as
> this has taken me time to doctor as it is, so apologies but you all no doubt
> recognise what you said.
>
>>A DSLR will work, and you can use off-camera flash systems.
>
>>Alternatively, have you considered switching to a a modern
>
>>E6 film, even temporarily until you get digital?
> Cant really face another season with film, too much need of instant results,
> I do actually keep most of my shots, I find lots worth photographing, I also
> need many shots of my research subjects, and return field visits are
> expensive so to see its in the can as they say is essential

Yes, and after using digital for a while, I can't face the
thought of scanning all those slides I've taken ;-) !


>>If you are shooting at f/8 and smaller, I bet you could not tell
>>the difference between that and a more expensive lens.
> Worth knowing,.what about f8 between lenses, is there a 'noticeable '
> difference if pics enlarged to A4 size ?

Of course this is lens dependent, but as a general rule, I would
say little to no difference except for a really bad lens.

>>But in either camera, signal-to-noise will be much higher than
>>film.
> i.e I see more noise than with film ,.yes ?

Yes.

>>> I see the Speedlite 550 head rotates opposite way to what one needs when
>>>shooting portrait and read of Canon flashguns not as good as Nikon. Shop
> .>> recommendations need to be treated with caution then. Are flashguns for
>>>digital ok yet I ask ?
>>I do not understand where you are trying to rotate the flash.
> Portrait orientation shot bounced off ceiling..guess I could get used to
> right hand downmost ?

The 550EX will point straight up.


> Yes, the modern canon EOS cameras have depth of field modes.
> Now this is something I need to be dead sure about, Canon rep reading from
> manual had it that you compose shot, camera does focusing, dodgy that as how
> does it know nearest item is near very top of viewfinder ????

On the canon cameras, you put the focus point on the far subject,
half press the shutter, the focus point blinks confirmation,
then you move the focus point to the second (near) point,
press the shutter half way, the camera then computes the
hyperfocal distance and aperture, sets it, you recompose and
shoot. All much faster than you just reading this explanation.
I modify that a bit if I'm using a tripod (which is most of
the time): before the final shot, I note the aperture it
chooses, then switch the lens to manual and camera to aperture
priority. The lens is fixed at the hyperfocal point, so I can
then spot meter and make sure I have the exposure I want, then
I can take the picture and bracket if I want.

>>If you move to Digital, you will take many more pictures, and if you keep
>>them all, you will soon be knee deep in CDs or DVDs.
>
>
> No , knee deep in money saved !!!
>
>
>>I love the convenience of digital but current consumer digital slrs do not
>>approach the quality obtainable with film and scanning. Consumers dSLRs are
>>good enough for most uses but they are not as good as film.

I think I said this before. ISO 200 film is inferior to
ISO 200 6-megapixel DSLR. See my summary at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....

> I REALLY DESPERATELY MUST leave behind hassle of print and slide, don't even
> get time to send the rolls off, return prints they haven't printed ok and so
> on, really no time to explain without writing book about it. 15 days wait
> to find need go back and do again.no way.
>
> Weeks sepnt storing shuffling about slides, writing numbers on mounts and
> so on. Scanning in,,,,, I want my life back, need gain lots of time !

Sounds like you will love digital. Just budget plenty for backups,
as computer hardware can fail at any instant.

>>>I would like to be able to point and shoot, not waste time sussing
>>>distances and apertures. Focus on nearest wingtip then farthest
>>>wingtip and have camera work out correct distance for depth of
>>>field, tell both flashguns to stop emitting light when correct
>>>exposure achieved, that would be great. Of course with flashgun held
>>>above the subject it isn't the same distance as the camera has just
>>>worked out for the subjects best point of focus for depth of field.
>
>>Wouldn't we all. Not gonna happen, though, for anything this
> complex.
> That's what I was afraid of, what I am doing isn't exactly rocket science,
> its good old photography methods, nothing wrong with it but those bods
> designing cameras don't seem to be photographers if dof and flash setup isn
> 't possible.

You might find the depth of field mode quite fast and with auto-bracketing,
get the shot you want very fast. So don't give up hope yet.

Roger
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:59:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
>life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi 25Mb
>TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in and
>editing of small details in photoshop.

If you're going through all the trouble of shooting and scanning
Kodachrome, you probably want the super results that that process
offers. I think you'll find that while prosumer dSLR cameras match
most traditional film/print combinations in terms of quality (and are
much better for putting images on the web), you will see a degredation
in quality if you switch to a purely digital process (or to consumer
print film).

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 5:29:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip Middleton notes:
" All AF film and digital SLRs have hot shoes, many have PC sockets,
including
the top line Nikons and Canons. Not sure about Minolta, Olympus and
Pentax,
but I think they do, too."

Add the Pentax *istD to your "Does Have" list for both PC and hot shoe.
Mine is sitting right behind me.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:21:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109413756.082686.18530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Skip Middleton notes:
> " All AF film and digital SLRs have hot shoes, many have PC sockets,
> including
> the top line Nikons and Canons. Not sure about Minolta, Olympus and
> Pentax,
> but I think they do, too."
>
> Add the Pentax *istD to your "Does Have" list for both PC and hot shoe.
> Mine is sitting right behind me.
>

I figured it did, but I hate to be called out on something like that. I
couldn't see Pentax leaving a feature like that off, even though Canon does
for their lower line DSLR and SLR bodies.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 8:35:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M responds:

"even though Canon does
for their lower line DSLR and SLR bodies."

Omit the PC, that is.

Yeah. That's the reason I bought the Pentax, which is a very satisfying
camera.

One helluva step up from my Minolta 7i.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 5:05:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <CsLTd.24237$E86.13908@fe08.lga>,
joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:

> >I currently shoot mostly transparency film (Kodachrome 200 pro giving true
> >life colours and good shadow detail). I scan it in at max res so 300dpi 25Mb
> >TIFF is my basic image for editing, gives A4 size result, allows zoom in and
> >editing of small details in photoshop.
>
> If you're going through all the trouble of shooting and scanning
> Kodachrome, you probably want the super results that that process
> offers. I think you'll find that while prosumer dSLR cameras match
> most traditional film/print combinations in terms of quality (and are
> much better for putting images on the web), you will see a degredation
> in quality if you switch to a purely digital process (or to consumer
> print film).
>
Using a DSLR will reduce the possibility of problems between exposure
and print. Except for dust and related problems on the sensor, the fact
there is no film - problems with dust causing tramlines, inadequate
storage, airport scanning etc as well as the scan process - film
flatness, water inpurities on the film, time involved in scanning all
point to a direct exposure - download - adjustment - print being
superior. However some have complained the average 8 megapixel pixel is
much larger than a typical colour 'grain', 'enlarging' quality may be
reduced.
Given the advantages I'd recommend at least trying out a higher-end
digital and seeing if the results are as satisfying as Kodachrome.
!