Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How far...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 10, 2005 12:30:36 PM

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

will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again keeps
the money flowing.
Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

More about : question

Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:30:37 PM

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

"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in message
news:MWiKe.78257$oJ.2252@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
> I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
> keeps
> the money flowing.
> Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

Pros?
Which pros?
Professional photogs that shoot 35mm SLRs are overwhelmingoly moving to
digital. any newspaper that can afford them use DSLRs. Sports and PJs use
digital. Huge numbers of those in medium format are moving too. This is
evidenced by the huge glut of cheap MF gear available used. I just bumped
into one such photog last week who was walking around with his 16.7MP Canon
1Ds Mark II DSLR. He stopped shooting medium format for all but a few
shoots once he got his new Canon. For him, it was (as he put it), "a
no-brainer" to buy the 1Ds Mark II.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:30:37 PM

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

Peter wrote:
> will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
> I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again keeps
> the money flowing.
> Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

My oldest son is a "pro". Been working as a full-time photojournalist,
first freelance and now for a local paper, since he graduated in '98.
He's been shooting with a digital Nikon for about 3 years now. Still
loves film, but it's purely an art form now. No paper worth a nickel
messes with film anymore. And when he interviewed a few years ago with
Reuters to get on the "list" of local photographers, they told him they
couldn't use him until he was fully digital. That's what prompted him
to find a way to go digital. Now he wants a Canon, since they've
surpassed Nikon in the digital arena.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 1:40:52 PM

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

Peter wrote:
> will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
> I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again keeps
> the money flowing.
> Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?
>
>
There are already focal planes that reach resolution of some films.
Films cover a wide range of resolution, so it is not a good idea to just
lump film together. It will be a long time before we reach microfilm
resolution, for instance, while we are already at 35mm ASA 1600 color.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 6:15:15 PM

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

In article <SWjKe.60365$Eo.53884@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote in message
> news:MWiKe.78257$oJ.2252@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
> > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
> > keeps
> > the money flowing.
> > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?
>
> Pros?
> Which pros?
> Professional photogs that shoot 35mm SLRs are overwhelmingoly moving to
> digital.

They may be pros, but they are not artists. :^P The main reason they
are moving to digital is the speed of sending the image to newspapers.

> any newspaper that can afford them use DSLRs. Sports and PJs use
> digital. Huge numbers of those in medium format are moving too.

Do you have any references for this? I am not saying I don't believe you
but I would just like to see the reference.

> This is
> evidenced by the huge glut of cheap MF gear available used.

Again, reference?

> I just bumped
> into one such photog last week who was walking around with his 16.7MP Canon
> 1Ds Mark II DSLR. He stopped shooting medium format for all but a few
> shoots once he got his new Canon. For him, it was (as he put it), "a
> no-brainer" to buy the 1Ds Mark II.

I hope one person was not your reference. And why did he admit he had no
brain? :^P

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 7:46:43 PM

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

On 10 Aug 2005 06:46:49 -0700, "salgud" <davegb@safebrowse.com> wrote:

>No paper worth a nickel
>messes with film anymore.

Not all photograpers shoot for rags.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 7:47:53 PM

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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:40:52 -0500, Don Stauffer
<stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:


>There are already focal planes that reach resolution of some films.
>Films cover a wide range of resolution, so it is not a good idea to just
>lump film together. It will be a long time before we reach microfilm
>resolution, for instance, while we are already at 35mm ASA 1600 color.

ASA 1600 is very grainy.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:08:46 PM

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

"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
> will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?

If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.

> I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
> keeps
> the money flowing.
> Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:08:47 PM

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

In article <ddcg82$msu$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
> > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
>
> If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
> since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
> not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.

If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go. And
forget about 8x10 negatives. Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
range of film in high contrast situations. Anyway, I think the look of
35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.

But what does "inferior subminiature" mean?

>
> > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
> > keeps
> > the money flowing.
> > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?
>
> Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P

>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:08:47 PM

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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:08:46 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:


>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
>since passed that watermark.

Bollocks.


>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

That's because they are shooting for magazines and not photo art
galleries you silly boy.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:08:48 PM

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

I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question differently
in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you still
think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The film is
not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even know
if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally well
photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
Marcel

"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-149326.09493510082005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <ddcg82$msu$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
> > > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
> >
> > If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
> > since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with
645,
> > not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.
>
> If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go. And
> forget about 8x10 negatives. Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
> range of film in high contrast situations. Anyway, I think the look of
> 35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
> both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
> never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.
>
> But what does "inferior subminiature" mean?
>
> >
> > > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
> > > keeps
> > > the money flowing.
> > > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?
> >
> > Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
>
> And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P
>
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
>
> --
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:08:48 PM

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

CFB wrote:
> In article <ddcg82$msu$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
>>
>>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
>>
>>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
>>since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
>>not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.
>
>
> If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go.

You must mean 4x5. 4x5 Velvia is about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.

> And
> forget about 8x10 negatives.

About 1 gigapixel.

> Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
> range of film in high contrast situations.

Incorrect. This digital myth just doesn't seem to die. Digital
cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
See:
Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
a dynamic range limitation. Digital has more dynamic range in the
low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
in the high end. You must learn to expose differently with
digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
and print film differently.

> Anyway, I think the look of
> 35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
> both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
> never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.

I consistently produce higher quality digital prints up to
16x24 inches from 6 and 8 megapixel DSLRs whose sharpness has
surprised me, and those who bought them than I did with film. I use
Richardson-Lucey image restoration to improve resolution up to 2x.
That is possible because of the high signal-to-noise of digital images.
There is no longer a comparison between digital and 35mm film.
In all but very restricted circumstances, 8-megapixel digital
cameras outperform film, even low speed film. But this is true
only if you know how to post process digital files, which in itself
is an art form, much like darkroom printing is an art form.

See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
and follow the links to more specific articles. Note the
Apparent Image Quality factor, AIQ, I've developed. It shows
how DSLRs are challenging medium format, just as David Littleboy
indicated. For those who've seen but haven't viewed this page
recently, I've done a lot of updates to it, adding newer cameras.

>>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
>
> And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P

Statements like this only illustrate you don't know what
you are talking about.


Roger Clark
Large format, 35mm film and digital photos, digital info at:
http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 10:08:48 PM

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

"John Moore" <JM@nospam.here> wrote in message
news:088kf1hju8k1mtgtna383u1rpp8hkkj53i@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:08:46 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
>>since passed that watermark.
>
> Bollocks.
>
>
>>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
>
> That's because they are shooting for magazines and not photo art
> galleries you silly boy.

11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
film captures.
If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:26:23 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
>
>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
>
>
> If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low.


In that case, does anyone know what 35mm format might be "equivalent" to
in the digital camera realm? 3 MP? 4MP? 5?

Also, how is this determination made?




--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:26:24 AM

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:

> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
>>
>>> will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
>>
>>
>>
>> If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low.
>
>
>
> In that case, does anyone know what 35mm format might be "equivalent" to
> in the digital camera realm? 3 MP? 4MP? 5?
>
> Also, how is this determination made?
>
>
>
>
There is no "one" answer. See:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 4:38:02 AM

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

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:49:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
>film captures.
>If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
>

Bollocks. Show me the scientific data to back that up. You need
something in the range of 50mp to match medium format.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:04:42 AM

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

"John Moore" <JM@nospam.here> wrote in message
news:qf7lf1htp6028citjm4oplloltam02oc29@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:49:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
>>film captures.
>>If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
>>
>
> Bollocks. Show me the scientific data to back that up. You need
> something in the range of 50mp to match medium format.

Did you read what I wrote????
I said "it's now a question of COMPARISON with some medium formats."
Comparason...as in the 35mm comparison has been settled...and it's now
closing in on MF.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:29:51 AM

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

"John Moore" <JM@nospam.here> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:08:46 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
>>since passed that watermark.
>
> Bollocks.

Bollocks to you: there's no way 35mm can compete with 11 MP (and that's
getting to be ancient history), let alone 16.7 MP. Even 645 has trouble
competing with that.

>>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
>
> That's because they are shooting for magazines and not photo art
> galleries you silly boy.

The 20D/1D2 stuff I'm seeing in the landscape (and other) magazines here is
better than the 35mm stuff, although it's not as good as the better MF work;
35mm turns to mush sooner than 8MP digital.

People showing in art galleries don't shoot 35mm, either. At least if they
want decent larger prints.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:29:52 AM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:29:51 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:


>Bollocks to you: there's no way 35mm can compete with 11 MP (and that's
>getting to be ancient history), let alone 16.7 MP. Even 645 has trouble
>competing with that.

You're a clueless idiot.


>The 20D/1D2 stuff I'm seeing in the landscape (and other) magazines here is
>better than the 35mm stuff, although it's not as good as the better MF work;
>35mm turns to mush sooner than 8MP digital.

Mag photos are printed at 300dpi or less you dumb cunt. Look at a mag
photo with a really big magnifying glass next time.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:32:43 AM

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

In article <GcWdnSU9uIVsj2ffRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:

> I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question differently
> in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
> If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you still
> think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The film is
> not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
> camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even know
> if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally well
> photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
> offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?

My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs. "reproduction
fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The idea
of comparing the two hurts my head.

I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
images. Preference.

Peace.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:45:25 AM

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

In article <look-BB94D9.21324310082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
CFB <look@u.com> wrote:

> In article <GcWdnSU9uIVsj2ffRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
> "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question differently
> > in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
> > If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you still
> > think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The film is
> > not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
> > camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even know
> > if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally well
> > photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
> > offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
>
> My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
> figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs. "reproduction
> fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
> film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The idea
> of comparing the two hurts my head.
>
> I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
> images. Preference.

You're entitled to your preference, of course. With a preference for
film photography, I just gotta ask, why do you bother reading the
postings in a newsgroup about digital photography?
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:22:35 AM

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

In article <42FA2B42.60508@qwest.net>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote:

> CFB wrote:
> > In article <ddcg82$msu$1@nnrp.gol.com>,
> > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
> >>
> >>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
> >>
> >>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
> >>since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
> >>not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.
> >
> >
> > If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go.
>
> You must mean 4x5. 4x5 Velvia is about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.
>
> > And
> > forget about 8x10 negatives.
>
> About 1 gigapixel.
>
> > Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
> > range of film in high contrast situations.
>
> Incorrect. This digital myth just doesn't seem to die. Digital
> cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
> See:
> Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
> and Comparison to Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

"Digital camera transfer functions, like that in the Canon 1D Mark II
camera, are similar to print film." That did not say higher, right?

And $9000 for a digital body is a lot to pay to get "close" to film's DR.

>
> Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
> a dynamic range limitation.

Hmm. Isn't blowout caused because of a small DR? Like if you have a very
contrast scene dark and light will suffer if you expose for the middle
range. Like comparing a DR of 1 stop to one of 5.

http://www.nature-photography-central.com/DynamicRange....

> Digital has more dynamic range in the
> low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
> in the high end. You must learn to expose differently with
> digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
> and print film differently.

That is just wrong.
http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/...

>
> > Anyway, I think the look of
> > 35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
> > both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
> > never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.
>
> I consistently produce higher quality digital prints up to
> 16x24 inches from 6 and 8 megapixel DSLRs whose sharpness has
> surprised me, and those who bought them than I did with film. I use
> Richardson-Lucey image restoration to improve resolution up to 2x.
> That is possible because of the high signal-to-noise of digital images.

Blah, blah, blah. You're not a photographer, you're a geek.

> There is no longer a comparison between digital and 35mm film.

There never was.

> In all but very restricted circumstances, 8-megapixel digital
> cameras outperform film, even low speed film.

What does "out perform" mean? Are your photographs better?

IE: Art is not dependent on mechanics.

> But this is true
> only if you know how to post process digital files, which in itself
> is an art form, much like darkroom printing is an art form.

Uhm, no.

>
> See:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
> and follow the links to more specific articles. Note the
> Apparent Image Quality factor, AIQ, I've developed. It shows
> how DSLRs are challenging medium format, just as David Littleboy
> indicated. For those who've seen but haven't viewed this page
> recently, I've done a lot of updates to it, adding newer cameras.

Damn, all I see are a bunch of silly people thinking they are
photographers.

>
> >>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
> >
> > And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P
>
> Statements like this only illustrate you don't know what
> you are talking about.

Oh, OK. Maybe you could ask me what I meant by that?

By the way, I am not saying this as a gotcha, but you should spend more
time taking photographs and maybe then you will know what I am talking
about.

And dude, you can reference yourself all you want, but it's just you.

Peace.

>
>
> Roger Clark
> Large format, 35mm film and digital photos, digital info at:
> http://www.clarkvision.com

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:22:36 AM

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

CF wrote:

> In article <42FA2B42.60508@qwest.net>,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>>Incorrect. This digital myth just doesn't seem to die. Digital
>>cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
>>See:
>> Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
>> and Comparison to Film
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
>
>
> "Digital camera transfer functions, like that in the Canon 1D Mark II
> camera, are similar to print film." That did not say higher, right?
>
> And $9000 for a digital body is a lot to pay to get "close" to film's DR.

A transfer function describes the sensor/film response to the intensity
of light and has nothing to do with spatial resolution.

The 1D Mark II is a $4000 camera, not $9000. But if you read the tables at
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.t...
you will see many other DSLR have quite similar specifications.

>>Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
>>a dynamic range limitation.
>
>
> Hmm. Isn't blowout caused because of a small DR? Like if you have a very
> contrast scene dark and light will suffer if you expose for the middle
> range. Like comparing a DR of 1 stop to one of 5.
>
> http://www.nature-photography-central.com/DynamicRange....

No it is not. Blowout is caused by incorrect metering.

>> Digital has more dynamic range in the
>>low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
>>in the high end. You must learn to expose differently with
>>digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
>>and print film differently.
>
> That is just wrong.
> http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/...

No it is not. But the above page is correct too (claiming film has a
high dynamic range). The problem with the study on the above page, and
the characteristic curves from film manufacturers is that they average huge
film area in order to get the response at the low end. Go back to:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
and look at figure 10. The Kodak characteristic curve is plotted along with
constant and high resolution data for the same film (Kodak Gold 200).
The problem with film's dynamic range is not that it is not there,
but the image is lost in noise when you want detail at the same
resolution as brighter parts of the image.

DSLR, on the other hand, maintain high signal-to-noise ration into the
deep shadows, even when considering a single pixel. So if both film
and digital are put on the same playing field, examining data at
comparable resolution, digital wins by orders of magnitude.

>
>>>Anyway, I think the look of
>>>35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
>>>both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
>>>never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.
>>
>>I consistently produce higher quality digital prints up to
>>16x24 inches from 6 and 8 megapixel DSLRs whose sharpness has
>>surprised me, and those who bought them than I did with film. I use
>>Richardson-Lucey image restoration to improve resolution up to 2x.
>>That is possible because of the high signal-to-noise of digital images.
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah. You're not a photographer, you're a geek.

Thanks. Did you look at any images? I guess I better just take
my national and international prize winning photos and my images
hanging in galleries, tell people who are buying my photos
that I am not a photographer and go home.

http://www.clarkvision.com

>
>>There is no longer a comparison between digital and 35mm film.
>
> There never was.

You seem to have a problem with it.


>>In all but very restricted circumstances, 8-megapixel digital
>>cameras outperform film, even low speed film.
>
> What does "out perform" mean? Are your photographs better?

Higher spatial resolution, larger dynamic range, higher signal-to-noise,
giving better tonality.
>
> IE: Art is not dependent on mechanics.

It absolutely is. Example: 35mm is barely adequate for many photographic
applications (mine and many people's opinions). One must understand the
technology in order to get the most from it. I do large format
photography (with film), and I find it limiting too. I push my
equipment to their limits trying to get the best image I can, whether
4x5, 8x10, 35mm, or digital.

>
>> But this is true
>>only if you know how to post process digital files, which in itself
>>is an art form, much like darkroom printing is an art form.
>
> Uhm, no.

Then clearly you do not understand.

>>See:
>>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
>>and follow the links to more specific articles. Note the
>>Apparent Image Quality factor, AIQ, I've developed. It shows
>>how DSLRs are challenging medium format, just as David Littleboy
>>indicated. For those who've seen but haven't viewed this page
>>recently, I've done a lot of updates to it, adding newer cameras.
>
> Damn, all I see are a bunch of silly people thinking they are
> photographers.
>
>>>>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
>>>
>>>And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P
>>
>>Statements like this only illustrate you don't know what
>>you are talking about.
>
>
> Oh, OK. Maybe you could ask me what I meant by that?
>
> By the way, I am not saying this as a gotcha, but you should spend more
> time taking photographs and maybe then you will know what I am talking
> about.

I would love to take more photos, but I have a backlog of thousands
already that I want to print. But you came into this thread with
an absolute mindset that film is best. All objective data says that
is not correct. Many many photographers are switching, and many care
strongly about image quality and would not switch from film unless the
quality was there. It is with digital for many situations, including
most 35mm work. Open your mind and be objective.

> And dude, you can reference yourself all you want, but it's just you.

Yep. Follow the references in the articles, and check my bio (link
on the home page). I stand by my research, which I do for myself, to
improve what I do. My original research was simply a comparison of
35mm film versus 4x5 film (before consumer film scanners) so I could
understand when I could use each at its best. I've been doing scientific
digital imaging for about 30 years.

When consumer digital came along, I started testing different
cameras to watch the technology. I did not switch until 6 megapixels
came along, and then only for high speed work. I used 35mm
and 6 megapixel DSLRs together for a while along with 4x5. Only
in the last year have I mostly stopped 35mm, using an 8-mpixel
DSLR and 4x5 film.

The next big step for me will be when I drop 4x5 for digital DSLR and
mosaicing multiple frames together to match the resolution of 4x5.
I've gotten some images, but I am not yet convinced it will work as well
in many situations. Until then, I'll lug both around (50+ pounds).
Can anyone out there see why it might not work? It has to do with
tilts and depth of field of a view camera. Another example of how
technical knowledge is critical in getting an image.
>
> Peace.

Peace.

Roger
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:40:32 AM

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

CFB,
Not to belabour the point, but you were originally talking about: "I think
the look of 35mm is more realistic". Realistic? Meaning what? In what way is
it different from Fidelity? Then you introduce "art". This is a nother
dimension. Art photography is more with rendering a mood, posing a question,
etc. It may have very little to do with replicationg the scene we see. Of
course, if you prefer the "looks" of film image... I have no more to say.
;-)
Cheers,
Marcel




"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-BB94D9.21324310082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <GcWdnSU9uIVsj2ffRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
> "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question
differently
> > in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
> > If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you
still
> > think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The
film is
> > not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
> > camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even
know
> > if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally
well
> > photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
> > offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
>
> My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
> figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs. "reproduction
> fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
> film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The idea
> of comparing the two hurts my head.
>
> I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
> images. Preference.
>
> Peace.
>
> --
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:55:46 AM

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

Of course. Then there are portrait phographers, wedding photographers...
etc.
The Karsh, Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doisneau, etc. however are not around
every street corners.
So, what are we left with? The "point and shoot" crowd, the semi-pros and
the journalists.
"Shooting for rags" is not exactly minimal. Many "shooter-for-rags" have
earned high distinctiuons. Remember the photo that was taken in Vietnam (?)
of the person who was shot in the head?
My 2 cents
Marcel


"John Moore" <JM@nospam.here> wrote in message
news:ae8kf1li6mfp4na755e9pq3h8k4v66o40q@4ax.com...
> On 10 Aug 2005 06:46:49 -0700, "salgud" <davegb@safebrowse.com> wrote:
>
> >No paper worth a nickel
> >messes with film anymore.
>
> Not all photograpers shoot for rags.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:50:29 PM

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

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
>>
>>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
>>
>> If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low.
>
> In that case, does anyone know what 35mm format might be "equivalent" to
> in the digital camera realm? 3 MP? 4MP? 5?
>
> Also, how is this determination made?

The answer, is that 6MP dSLRs don't quite match 35mm, but that 8MP is very
close.

The 6MP being roughly 70% of 35mm is old news that has been determined
independently by everyone who looked seriously.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/eos1dsm2/index...

The problem, though, is that dSLR pixels are a lot better than small-sensor
consumer dcam pixels, and the above really depends on the low noise/high
dynamic range of dSLR images.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:01:41 PM

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

John Moore wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:49:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
>>film captures.
>>If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
>>
>
>
> Bollocks. Show me the scientific data to back that up. You need
> something in the range of 50mp to match medium format.

Hello, "John". Nice of you to drop in.

What sort of photography do you do?

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:43:57 AM

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

In article <srhi-6E35F8.01452511082005@news.giganews.com>,
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <look-BB94D9.21324310082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
> CFB <look@u.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <GcWdnSU9uIVsj2ffRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
> > "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question
> > > differently
> > > in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
> > > If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you
> > > still
> > > think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The film
> > > is
> > > not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
> > > camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even
> > > know
> > > if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally well
> > > photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
> > > offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
> >
> > My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
> > figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs. "reproduction
> > fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
> > film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The idea
> > of comparing the two hurts my head.
> >
> > I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
> > images. Preference.
>
> You're entitled to your preference, of course. With a preference for
> film photography, I just gotta ask, why do you bother reading the
> postings in a newsgroup about digital photography?

If you gave it more thought you might answer it for yourself.

HINT: I have a digital camera.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 4:50:09 AM

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

In article <q_mdnaADrbStpGbfRVn-3Q@rogers.com>,
"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:

> CFB,
> Not to belabour the point, but you were originally talking about: "I think
> the look of 35mm is more realistic". Realistic? Meaning what? In what way is
> it different from Fidelity? Then you introduce "art".


> This is a nother
> dimension. Art photography is more with rendering a mood, posing a question,
> etc. It may have very little to do with replicationg the scene we see. Of
> course, if you prefer the "looks" of film image... I have no more to say.
> ;-)

Yes, apologies, I do swing that around without explanation. Reality as
in having emotion, evoking a feeling, alive, yada yada more bullshit.

"the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist
independently of the mind."

But me does likes looks of pretty flower on the lighty box thingy.

>
> "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> news:look-BB94D9.21324310082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <GcWdnSU9uIVsj2ffRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
> > "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question
> differently
> > > in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
> > > If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you
> still
> > > think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The
> film is
> > > not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
> > > camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even
> know
> > > if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally
> well
> > > photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
> > > offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
> >
> > My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
> > figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs. "reproduction
> > fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
> > film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The idea
> > of comparing the two hurts my head.
> >
> > I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
> > images. Preference.
> >
> > Peace.
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 9:46:27 PM

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

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> "Peter" <Lopy@dj.com.au.> wrote:
>>>
>>>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
>>>
>>> If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low.
>>
>> In that case, does anyone know what 35mm format might be "equivalent" to
>> in the digital camera realm? 3 MP? 4MP? 5?
>>
>> Also, how is this determination made?

> The answer, is that 6MP dSLRs don't quite match 35mm, but that 8MP is very
> close.

> The 6MP being roughly 70% of 35mm is old news that has been determined
> independently by everyone who looked seriously.

Me too. For what it's worth, Hunt [1] also places 35mm colour
transparency film at about 8 Mpixels. So, AFAICS, if anyone wants
just one number, 8M is the right one.

Andrew.

[1] The Reproduction of Colour, R.W.G. Hunt, 6th ed., Wiley 2004
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:30:32 PM

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

"John Moore" <JM@nospam.here> wrote in message
news:qf7lf1htp6028citjm4oplloltam02oc29@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:49:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
>>film captures.
>>If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
>>
>
> Bollocks. Show me the scientific data to back that up. You need
> something in the range of 50mp to match medium format.

You do realize, don't you, that the Canon 1Ds Mark II produces 16 bit files
of thas size without up-sizing...
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 11:33:38 PM

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

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:boWdnSuwyf1maWbfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
> John Moore wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:49:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
>>>film captures.
>>>If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
>>
>>
>> Bollocks. Show me the scientific data to back that up. You need
>> something in the range of 50mp to match medium format.
>
> Hello, "John". Nice of you to drop in.
>
> What sort of photography do you do?

...........................................................................The
silence is deafening... :) 
Anonymous
August 15, 2005 11:59:49 PM

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

?



"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-A0CDE6.20500911082005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <q_mdnaADrbStpGbfRVn-3Q@rogers.com>,
> "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > CFB,
> > Not to belabour the point, but you were originally talking about: "I
think
> > the look of 35mm is more realistic". Realistic? Meaning what? In what
way is
> > it different from Fidelity? Then you introduce "art".
>
>
> > This is a nother
> > dimension. Art photography is more with rendering a mood, posing a
question,
> > etc. It may have very little to do with replicationg the scene we see.
Of
> > course, if you prefer the "looks" of film image... I have no more to
say.
> > ;-)
>
> Yes, apologies, I do swing that around without explanation. Reality as
> in having emotion, evoking a feeling, alive, yada yada more bullshit.
>
> "the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist
> independently of the mind."
>
> But me does likes looks of pretty flower on the lighty box thingy.
>
> >
> > "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> > news:look-BB94D9.21324310082005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > > In article <GcWdnSU9uIVsj2ffRVn-gQ@rogers.com>,
> > > "Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question
> > differently
> > > > in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
> > > > If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you
> > still
> > > > think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The
> > film is
> > > > not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens
and
> > > > camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't
even
> > know
> > > > if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally
> > well
> > > > photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would
both
> > > > offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
> > >
> > > My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
> > > figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs.
"reproduction
> > > fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
> > > film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The
idea
> > > of comparing the two hurts my head.
> > >
> > > I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
> > > images. Preference.
> > >
> > > Peace.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
>
> --
>
> http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 12:47:40 AM

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:59:49 -0400, Celcius wrote:


>>> CFB, Not to belabour the point, but you were originally talking
>>> about: "I think the look of 35mm is more realistic". Realistic?
>>> Meaning what? In what way is it different from Fidelity?
>>> Then you introduce "art".
>>
>>> This is a nother dimension. Art photography is more with rendering
>>> a mood, posing a question, etc. It may have very little to do with
>>> replicationg the scene we see. Of course, if you prefer the "looks"
>>> of film image... I have no more to say.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Yes, apologies, I do swing that around without explanation. Reality as
>> in having emotion, evoking a feeling, alive, yada yada more bullshit.
>>
>> "the conception that objects of sense perception or cognition exist
>> independently of the mind."
>>
>> But me does likes looks of pretty flower on the lighty box thingy.

> ?

Peeling away the obfuscation of Clueless_Foto_Boi's prattling will
yield little of value. And realize that he's only pleased with the
looks of pretty flower on the lighty box thingy because he thinks it
was made with filmy wilmy. :) 
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 5:00:47 AM

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

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:04:42 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:


>Did you read what I wrote????
>I said "it's now a question of COMPARISON with some medium formats."
>Comparason...as in the 35mm comparison has been settled...and it's now
>closing in on MF.
>
35mm is a long way off from medium format. A long way off.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 5:00:48 AM

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

"Praxiteles Democritus" <no@email.here> wrote in message
news:0635g1l3884fegevd2k9mq3lvpc03fmb3h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:04:42 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>
>>Did you read what I wrote????
>>I said "it's now a question of COMPARISON with some medium formats."
>>Comparason...as in the 35mm comparison has been settled...and it's now
>>closing in on MF.
>>
> 35mm is a long way off from medium format. A long way off.

Yes, 35mm is very far off from MF detail.
But high end DSLR sensors are closing in on MF detail rather quickly.
We were NOT comparing 35mm film to medium format film...
!