...looks like our film Camera is here to stay .....

[jasonpgc]

Quote tsdh
"CCD = narrow latitude, wrong. It is wider than negative film, some hi-end digital sensor can achieve up to 12 f-stop."


I think you would like to post one of your favourate 12 f-stop picture to impress the Canon & Nikon DSLR owners.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by tsdh
Regarding "analog", I said in my previous post: 'it is a term depicting traditional film photography'. So it is just a term, popular after digital come out. It is true that the traditional film photography suddenly called 'analog' because simply it is the opposite of 'digital', and have less words than saying 'traditional film photography'. Of course you can't find it in the dictionary.

Read my post, and CK's post. It's a fallacious term, just like irregardless isn't a proper word. Just because every sheep's jumping off the cliff doesn't mean you should join in.

Regarding the latitude of CCD, probably I'm wrong, but do check the Sinarback digital for view camera. It's sensor capture up to 12-stop as they write in the spec. How do they achieve it?

Okay, admittedly, you did say some high end digital cameras... but the discussion here was on the D1x and MF cameras. And if you want to pick that large format digital back, then I'll pick a large format black and white neg with a person well versed with the Zone system.

Altough I have to agree that not all digicam has a wide latitude, it depends on the sensor and electronic circuit. Nobody actually sure about the actual latitude, probably you may want to test?

Here we go. People have done so already. I know what the test results are, and I can tell you what they are, but I'm telling you in practice what the situation is. I'm glad to say I don't have to keep referring to them since I also don't have the time to spot metering every part of my scene to figure out the dynamic range necessary to capture a scene, but because I actually use my equipment extensively, both digital and film, from every format from 35mm through to 5x4, I have a good idea of what will work and what won't. I'm not discounting the importance of tests, but I'm saying it's not the be all and end all.

 

[Jed]

Yes, it does depend on the person behind the viewfinder, if he or she understands exposure. Do you, Jason?

And no, I don't think tsdh has a 12 stop pic to show you. For starters, it wouldn't look much different than any other picture you view except that it will have a wider contrast range than another shot might have captured. For seconds, he doesn't understand white balance, I struggle to see how he would be using a multi-thousand dollar digital back.

 

[David]

I think the issue is that some photographers still feel film cameras give them the expert or professional touch in their work. You have to make decisions without the benefit of immediate feedback. So you think more "in the present" if that makes sense. For eg, if you want vivid colors, you use a certain brand of film, like the Velvia. You want nice skin tones, u use films porpular for portraits. If you don't use the appropriate kind or worse, don't even have them at hand, you've had it. These kinds of decisions have to be made by the photographer himself. Color casts? Use filters! That's the challenge. Which one to use requires yet his expert decision. Not sure or want to be dead accurate? Use a color meter!

OTOH, digital seems too laxed or easy. Don't like the image. Delete. Retake. Want more vivid colors? No prob. Use Photoshop. Want more contrast? No prob. Use Photoshop. Want to create special effects? No prob. Use Photoshop. Image not sharp enough? No prob. Use Photoshop. A lot of the work is done post-processing (possibly more than the process of taking the digital shot itself!) and especially for "traditional" photographers who are not quite computer-savvy, this is a bit like cheating or to put it bluntly, cheap. One guy I read from the Internet b4 even claimed with digital, he could do away with his warming/polarising filters and such!

In other words, films (especially slides) is more of WYSIWYG kind of thing which speaks more of the skills of the photographer. You don't find film and digital photography co-existing under the same category in competitions. Cos they are really 2 different areas of photography. You don't really know what could have been done post-processing to enhance the digital image unless you have the raw image to look at. Not to say you can't post-process with films, but it's definitely more challenging (hassle?) in the real darkroom than a digital one.

But much said, I'm not saying digital photography is a dumb anyone can be good at thing. It's just an area which requires different photography skills and consideration. I don't think one is absolutely better than the other. It depends on the work you have to do. Films will no doubt still stay....

 

[David]

Point to add....no big flames pls. i'm just offering reasons why some MIGHT still prefer films to digital.

 

[Jed]

Not at all David, you're talking sense so I wouldn't worry!

At any rate, I've elaborated on this issue before. Even if digital makes the photo taking process any easier, the question that must be asked is, does it matter? It never should. So what if I take a picture that took me two days to create in one way or the other, and you grabbed yours in two seconds? It doesn't make mine any better, the only thing that matters should be the picture. And if anybody is co-reading that other thread about book publishing, this is precisely what I mean about detaching emotional baggage.

As for competitions separating the two categories, there are no good reasons for this at all, since almost all preclude any form of digital manipulation anyway aside from basic adjustments such as contrast adjustment, etc, which are all a given for traditional photography, particularly in the black and white arena. The main reason for organisers doing so is the inertia of change, the same reason why it's taking stock libraries ages to accept digital submissions even though we've reached the point where magazines are happy to take digital pictures. Sure there is a particular hassle of converting systems for accepting pictures, but in the long run, a digital stock agency is far more streamlined than one working with trannies. The same reason why newspaper desks still have this idea that if they want a potential poster, they need to send the snapper out with a film body for the day. The photographers out there in the field working with the equipment know what they're working with and it's capabilities.

Personally I shoot predominantly digital, but I don't mess about with it in any way that I wouldn't do with my film. For me anyway it's just a different method of recording the image.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Jed


Read my post, and CK's post. It's a fallacious term, just like irregardless isn't a proper word. Just because every sheep's jumping off the cliff doesn't mean you should join in.

Agree with you, it is a fallacious term, and of course, not a proper word. But the word is short and simpler than its proper one, easier to express and people understand what it is refering to.

Okay, admittedly, you did say some high end digital cameras... but the discussion here was on the D1x and MF cameras. And if you want to pick that large format digital back, then I'll pick a large format black and white neg with a person well versed with the Zone system.

Sorry about that. I just want to let you know that the sensor in digital camera is not necessarily has a narrow latitude. So we should not always think that way about digital.

Here we go. People have done so already. I know what the test results are, and I can tell you what they are, but I'm telling you in practice what the situation is. I'm glad to say I don't have to keep referring to them since I also don't have the time to spot metering every part of my scene to figure out the dynamic range necessary to capture a scene, but because I actually use my equipment extensively, both digital and film, from every format from 35mm through to 5x4, I have a good idea of what will work and what won't. I'm not discounting the importance of tests, but I'm saying it's not the be all and end all.

Nice to hear that you're well versed in everything from 35mm to wide-format, from digital to film. Hopefully you would like to share your expertise by writing an article regarding the dynamic range (latitude) of digicam, so that we all can learn from your experience.

 

[tsdh]

And no, I don't think tsdh has a 12 stop pic to show you. For starters, it wouldn't look much different than any other picture you view except that it will have a wider contrast range than another shot might have captured. For seconds, he doesn't understand white balance, I struggle to see how he would be using a multi-thousand dollar digital back.

You're right, I would not have those kind of picture, can't afford to buy one of that equipment with sky high price. See my rating on the left, I'm just a newbie with a disposable cam, so what you expect?
If somebody seriously need that kind of equipment, he can request the sample pic from Sinar directly. Last time they put some sample on their website.

Dynamic range (or latitude) is not the most important parameter in photography. For long time, we know that slide has a narrow latitude than negative film, but yet it produce a more vibrant pic. Wider latitude will be needed only to capture more details in shadows or highlights. In the real life, usually only landscape or architectural photography require wide latitude. But in that kind of shooting, the use of tripod and long exposure is possible, which in that case, we still can do a trick with narrow latitude film by shooting several frames with different exposures then digitally combined to get a pic with a very wide dynamic range.
So simply said, it is not something which a photographer need everyday.

by the way, could somebody explain to me what is white-balance and how it works? pls take note, I'm just a newbie with disposable cam, so I need to learn more....

 

[jasonpgc]

Quote Jed
"Do you, Jason?"

Yes, I do. Thats just pretty simple stuff. The difficult thing is getting up at 4am to see the 1st light

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by tsdh

Dynamic range (or latitude) is not the most important parameter in photography. For long time, we know that slide has a narrow latitude than negative film, but yet it produce a more vibrant pic.

Huh? Vibrancy/colour saturation is in no way related to the exposure latitude and dyanmic range of the film or capture device! You can have wide dynamic range and enhanced colours as well, or you can have narrow dynamic range and muted colours.

by the way, could somebody explain to me what is white-balance and how it works? pls take note, I'm just a newbie with disposable cam, so I need to learn more....

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/White_Balance_01.htm

Regards
CK

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by ckiang

Huh? Vibrancy/colour saturation is in no way related to the exposure latitude and dyanmic range of the film or capture device! You can have wide dynamic range and enhanced colours as well, or you can have narrow dynamic range and muted colours.

CK, Seems as you're misunderstood.
Surely you're right that vibrancy is nothing to do with dynamic range. That's the reason I explained the benefit of dynamic range: capturing details inside shadows and/or highlights. Probably I should explain further to avoid another misunderstanding:
Generally, people (public) will be more impressed on a vibrant picture rather than a dull one. From this point of view, then the capability of image capturing medium in recording vibrant colors become an important point. This is one of the reasons why many photographers stick to slide rather than negative film, beside its disadvantage of narrow latitude.
I highlighted the fact, that dynamic range or latitude is not the most important factor as compared to other factors.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/White_Balance_01.htm
Regards
CK

CK, thanks for the link. Actually I just wondering whether somebody will writing something on this subject. I notice there is a lot of people here who talk such as he knows everything and underestimate others, so may as well I learn from him if he is really that good.
For the white-balance subject, there are a better articles out there than the one in DPreview. Here one of it, in NikonDigital.org:

http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/white_balance.htm

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by tsdh
CK, thanks for the link. Actually I just wondering whether somebody will writing something on this subject. I notice there is a lot of people here who talk such as he knows everything and underestimate others, so may as well I learn from him if he is really that good.
For the white-balance subject, there are a better articles out there than the one in DPreview. Here one of it, in NikonDigital.org:

http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/white_balance.htm

Well very good. I see you've been trying to bait me all along. You know, if you really want to learn then fair enough, but dropping questions and trying to expose the holes in my replies for the sake of it? Great fun.

First you pretend to know nothing about white balance, making a completely newbie error. Then you ask for clarification, inviting me to write on the topic. CK proffers a link, and you still pretend to know nothing, yet now you can turn around and suggest a better white balance link for CK? Very good.

Taking multiplie different exposures and then combining them to "extend" the digital latitude is not the same as digital has more latitude at all. By the same token I can take several film exposures and do the same thing. Stop trying so hard to find little things to unsettle me, obviously you have something against me, as already people picked up earlier on before this latest round of posts.

Agree with you, it is a fallacious term, and of course, not a proper word. But the word is short and simpler than its proper one, easier to express and people understand what it is refering to.

Frankly, I don't know what act you're trying to pull. If you're wrong, admit you're wrong. Like on this issue you've been digging and digging away at a hole. All I did was say that analog is a fallacious term. Which it is. But no, every step along the way, you cannot stop, just shrug, you have to justify yourself, "yes, knew..."

For starters, irregardless is a longer word than regardless. And analog is a longer word than film. So what do you mean by "the word is short and simpler than its proper one"? Or is that more attempt to catch me out, accidentally catching yourself out as well.

How many times have I lost my cool here on clubsnap? About the same number of times that people have been out to personally attack me.

 

[Darren]

Originally posted by tsdh
by the way, could somebody explain to me what is white-balance and how it works? pls take note, I'm just a newbie with disposable cam, so I need to learn more....

There is another thread on "How to use White Balance effectively" - http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10131 - read my post there.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Jed

Well very good. I see you've been trying to bait me all along. You know, if you really want to learn then fair enough, but dropping questions and trying to expose the holes in my replies for the sake of it? Great fun.

Seems as somebody got emotional sorry, I'm not trying to create a friction, take it easy. I just can't resist hearing somebody declaring his broadest ability; well versed from 35mm to wide, from digital to film. I'm so impressed, and find myself so far away behind. my apology if that hurt you..

ok, now serious.
The white-balance and dynamic range, are two among many topics surrounding digital photography. The white-balance, sometimes neglected since it doesn't exist in film photography. And many photographers left their camera do the white-balance automatically, which mostly result with incorrect color cast in the image, and they start to blame their digicam. So it is important to bring this subject for people who shoot in digital.

While dynamic range, known and predictable in film, but seems as vary widely in digital. This one I still don't really know much here. Many of my friends reported in surprise that their grossly underexposed pictures in digital are still well usable. Which according to their experience, if that happen with film, the image will be useless. I still need to gather more information to explain that. Do you have any suggestion how to test the dynamic range of a digicam?
I'm thinking of using a greyscale test target, then gradually overexpose and underexpose it until reaching its recordable limit.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by tsdh
While dynamic range, known and predictable in film, but seems as vary widely in digital. This one I still don't really know much here. Many of my friends reported in surprise that their grossly underexposed pictures in digital are still well usable. Which according to their experience, if that happen with film, the image will be useless. I still need to gather more information to explain that. Do you have any suggestion how to test the dynamic range of a digicam?
I'm thinking of using a greyscale test target, then gradually overexpose and underexpose it until reaching its recordable limit.

Your method will work but it won't be that accurate. As far as I'm aware the only effective method to work out the dynamic range of a CCD and it's associated conversion from photonic energy to a digital equivalent of film density is via a long and complex method that runs roughly as follows.

In otherwords we are talking about knowing the Quantum effeciency of the CCD to start with

Firstly calculate the well depth of the pixels in electron volts.

Secondly calculate the noise level produced by the preamp of the CCD as electron volts/second.

Once you have these figures you can calcualte the dynamic range in dB and convert that to a 'bit' depth which is equivalent to the number of steps the CCD can record from low to high.

Needless to say this measurement is beyond all but very well equipped labs.

Besides it's all pretty much a waste of time for the average photographer as the limiting factor isn't the camera in most cases, but rather the print media which the image is printed on and of course the Mk.I eyeball.

 

[sulhan]

Hiee...

True that the white balance controls (buttons) only exist in digital photography and not in Film camera. Some cameras (mid and high end ones) allow user to set a rwhite balance of their choice and set it(over-ride).(Auto white balance????Err...i'm not sure about that - in this case auto means they pull a "magic number" into their image processing algo)

However, most digital camera manufacturers have their own sets of standards(based on their own research) and that goes into "look-up tables" in their cameras as preset "white light","yellow light" ,sunny , cloudy and so on.

This normally goes in their firmwares - which are normally send out as fixes after the cameras are released to consumers -after receiving user complians etc... Hence variations on response comparing different cameras (brands and even models). DON'T BE SURPRISE ,same brand cameras but different models may give different white balance - resulting in blueing color cast...yellowish skins etc.

In digital cameras, generally the variations in image capture lies in areas such as CCD sensor(minimal), filter used (RGB or CMY- manageable) on CCD(as these do give different response), Image processing algorithm etc...,

I personally use a Canon powershot S10 and is "tuned/designed" to the whiter skin tones (I'm not trying to be racist here). The pre focus metering is 99% correct for lighter skins but not for the latter.

I'm not at a position to say which camera is better than the other, but i think each camera has its operating intended limits suitable to the potential users and environment.

.....
:embrass:

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by sulhan
True that the white balance controls only exist in digital photography and not in Film camera.

actually to be a bit anal, white balance controls does exist in film cameras, only not in the camera body but in the film you use. e.g. most films are daylight-corrected, while there are the tungsten-balanced ones. so in that sense, you 'control' white balance in film cams by the choice of film used.

like i said, just being a bit anal-retentive.... ;p

 

[plainsman]

Originally posted by David
Point to add....no big flames pls. i'm just offering reasons why some MIGHT still prefer films to digital.

yeah im absolutely in love with film, with exposing the film to light, wif loading the film into the camera, hearing the click and the advancement of the next exposure, the smell of a newly opened roll of film, yes yes yes!!!! :bsmilie:

 

[jasonpgc]

Jed, Sometimes it don't pay to offer your generous help

tsdh, Jed knows his stuff pretty well if you happen to miss his posts.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?threadid=5997

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by jasonpgc
Jed, Sometimes it don't pay to offer your generous help

tsdh, Jed knows his stuff pretty well if you happen to miss his posts.

The heavier the load, the lower it bent. Somebody who really excel, will humble himself in the front of a stranger and not easily flare with emotion. Acknowledgement come from other people, not from ourself.
There is nobody superior in everything, doesn't matter how good you're, there will be somebody else better than you. An old saying says: 'there is another sky above the sky'

Somebody who excel and mature, shall give example to the newbies with a correct attitude, not just his technical prowess.

sorry Jason, but I still believe that a successful photographer is not just mastering his equipments, but also understand people. He is serving other people with images he captured, he may be gone and forgotten, but his images stay longer than him.