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

[tsdh]

Originally posted by plainsman

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:

I also shooting with film, not digital, but it is not because I'm in love with film
My personal reasons are (just personal preference, may not applicable to others):
- In film, I can use different film to get desired characteristic, that's right in the sensor itself (the film). While in digital, I always have the same sensor as long as I use the same body, it generated the same raw data. To get the desired characteristic, that same raw data is manipulated thru firmware or external s/w. I still not so comfortable with this (unless there is an option for interchangeable sensor ....)
- In film I deal with grain, in digital; noise. As per my experience, grain is more acceptable to viewer than noise (for the same amount at the same kind of image).
- And last, in digital I will need a very expensive ultra-wide lens (wider than 14mm), to get a landscape shot of the usual 17mm.

But I envy to the small & light 40-320mm/f2.8-3.4 lens of Olympus C720UZ

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by sulhan
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.

Bad news time. The colour "white" is defined very specifically as a colour temperature index value and the same index value is used by all manufacturers as it's an international standard.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by tsdh


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.

I don't think you know how many times Jed, I and others have been baited by 'newbies' looking to make points by taking a shot at this forum (and others) resident professional photographers.

Such people who bait get the treatment they deserve.

:rbounce: do NOT feed the troll :rbounce:

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by tsdh
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, I'm seeing the word sorry, so I'll take that in the spirit it might be intended. Apology accepted. In return I too stick up my hand and say that I'm sorry and shouldn't have singled you out for using the "analog" term. I agree everyone uses it, so if you felt it unfair that it was you who received the brunt of the correction, then you have good reason to feel aggrieved.

But, now serious.

I'm not sure what to make of you. Honestly. Reading your apology closely I get the distinct impression of sarcasm. You are apologising because you hurt me by being "so impressed, and (finding yourself) so far away behind", yet it is very clear to me that you are far from impressed at all, in fact you think very little of me. See later in your response to Jason as well as your posts to this point.

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?

The same way you'd test dynamic range with a film camera. Now, the reason for the difference is that in these situations, what you are actually accomplishing with the digital camera is actually "push processing". Not increased dynamic range. The difference is that with film you need to accomplish push processing before looking at the pictures; once they're processed and arrive underexposed then there is nothing that can be done to rescue these details. With digital you are working with the original and if you "push" the shadow areas (or the whole shot if it is underexposed) then you can "push process" it to rescue detail. As with shooting film, it is not as good a solution as shooting and processing at the correct exposure, but it is a get out clause.

And then I get to your next post. Jason decides to defend me out of his own volition. Your reply, whether intended or not, is more hurtful to me than anything else I have come across in my forum life.

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe I have flared with emotion without due provocation. I have consulted several people throughout the entire life of this thread, and in particular yesterday before I "flared with emotion". I received warnings that tsdh was trying to bait me via ICQ even before I got online. I confirmed with several people that they got the same impression that I received, cautioning them that I am not the most objective under the circumstances given my emotional involvement. They all agreed with me.

Acknowledgement has come from Jason, not myself. And at what stage did I say I truly excelled?

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'

Certainly, I agree with this. I never said I was superior in everything. No one knows everything and I don't know all there is to know about a lot of things, sports photography included. But then again I don't bait forums trying to make a name for myself either.

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

This is what hurts the most. You think I don't have a correct attitude? Go asking people who know me. Times when most of them would just give up, I strive to remain politically correct. That's my catch phrase, and it's never far when I'm typing my replies. Newbies if they ask me questions always get straight and informative replies, ask the people on IRC, or otherwise. Go check out posts in Clubsnap, my replies are among the longest around. Hopefully I think they're informative too, but I wouldn't think of claiming so, and it's not just because of your little reminder.

The distinction in this case is in my signature.

So you're asking how come I haven't contributed a constructive answer to you. Well, you seem to know an awful lot. That bit on the white balance for example, you know where there are good articles. Why re-invent the wheel? Take a look at your own history, you've been in photography a long time. Your posts are dripping with sarcasm ("after all I'm just a newbie with a disposable cam").

Admittedly I don't have time to write lengthy replies to every newbie question in the forum. I have a day job. But if and when I do, go read them, they are long, and I try to fill them with facts and I'm always polite. It's those people who pretend to know a lot and don't... it's in the signature.

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.

So Jason out of the kindness of his heart decides to come to my defence and vouch for my experience. And you're disagreeing with him. So what am I supposed to take from that? You're basically suggesting that I am not a successful photographer because while I (might) have mastered my equipment, I don't understand people. I don't serve other people with the images I have captured, and I will be gone and forgotten.

Great. It's people like you that make me wonder why I bother contributing the little that I do. So go on then, does anyone at all find me a worthwhile presence, or does everyone agree with tsdh that I'm just full of myself? If so, then it's adieu to Clubsnap.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by sulhan
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)

Not quite. Depending on what you mean by "pulling a magic number". The number isn't completely random, it's usually determined reasonably accurately by some method or the other. Some cameras, for example the Kodak DCS series, use an external sensor that measures the colour temperature and tries to set the correct white balance. Others like the Nikon D1 series utilise information gathered from the 1005 pixel colour matrix meter to determine what the colour balance of a scene is and to set it properly.

Basically there is a bit of intelligent thought process being applied by the manufacturers/cameras, and hence, there is auto white balance in the same sense that there is automatic exposure in a conventional TTL exposure meter.

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.

Obviously I am not privvy to what actually goes on behind closed manufacturers' doors, but as Ian has pointed out already these are usually set values. Sunny, cloudy, shade, tungsten, incandescent, are all accepted as being certain points on the colour temperature scale.

Now this reply isn't meant as a character testimony for tsdh's benefit; ask around, usually when I do contribute my replies are all along the same lines, and usually they are more comprehensive than this as well.

 

[Jed]

Let me first say that I hear and acknowledge that these are tsdh's personal opinions. I am expressing my own in relation to them, READ: opinion, and I stress again that this reply has nothing to do with any previous run-ins.

Originally posted by tsdh
In film, I can use different film to get desired characteristic, that's right in the sensor itself (the film). While in digital, I always have the same sensor as long as I use the same body, it generated the same raw data. To get the desired characteristic, that same raw data is manipulated thru firmware or external s/w. I still not so comfortable with this (unless there is an option for interchangeable sensor ....)

If I may ask, why not? What difference does it make how the result is achieved as long as the result is achieved? Surely it's the image that matters, not if the image was "Velvia-ed" in Photoshop. Speaking of which, there are traditionalists out there who already think that Velvia is cheating, we should be as truthful as possible to the original colours in a scene. This is not my thinking, but it is a fairly popular point of view.

And while this may be a drawback as tsdh points out, it can also be a massive benefit. With that one sensor you get everything within a wide range of EI, the ability to tweak colour palette and saturation and white balance (in higher end cameras). For example the D1x/h cameras allow you to choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB, as well as to adjust saturation levels, and hue. The new D100 even has a green enhanced sRGB mode for landscapes (can someone say, Velvia?). The benefit of this is that you'll never be caught without the film you need. Shooting portraits and only have Velvia? You'd be stuck up the creek without a paddle. Shooting theatrical shots under ambient lighting and only have PanF, oh dear...

So it can be a bonus as well.

- In film I deal with grain, in digital; noise. As per my experience, grain is more acceptable to viewer than noise (for the same amount at the same kind of image).

True to a great extend with the first generation cameras. The newer cameras coming out (and I include the D1x/h in that list, and they are already 14 months old, grandaddies in the digital field) all possess noise that is remarkably like film grain. And in other cases, noise is also far more easier to remove than grain is.

- And last, in digital I will need a very expensive ultra-wide lens (wider than 14mm), to get a landscape shot of the usual 17mm.

This debate has been around for so long... Everyone who complains about the focal length multiplier in digital cameras has not used a digital camera for an extended period of time. Some owners may complain, but all will get on with it. The ones making the most noise on the Internet are those who don't have their own DSLR. Funny, but true from my observations. READ: just my gatherings, I'm not saying that they are correct, and I am not saying I am high and mighty and the sky above the sky.

Secondly, and more importantly, the focal length multiplier saves your wallet and your shoulders and back. If you built up a similar professional lens setup in 35mm equipment and in current digital equipment, you'd save $$ and KGs by having the focal length multiplier.

And without meaning to turn this into another film v digital debate, there are plus points to this focal length multiplier thing as well. Like only using the central portion of a lens' optics. Which means better images with less distortion, and much better performance when using lenses wide open.

Just trying to balance a point of view, that's all. That was not a response because it was tsdh who posted those views. Those of you who have been around Clubsnap will know that I normally do this as well.

Annoyed about all the disclaimers? Sorry, but from the last 48 hours, can you blame me?

 

[sulhan]

Hi Everyone ....good morning and good evening(to those over the other side of the world)

Well, just to elaborate on my point regarding the magic numbers, as we know in electronics image capturing world. I don't deny that there are universal international standards for color - ISO for example. I'm aware of things like the munsell Chart for color meeasurements, Color measurement tool to see what mix of RGB a color has using a Photospectometer.

As we can see, the image capture Sensor in digital cameras, only capture greyscale. The color filters -e.g bayer mosaic...etc, determines what is captured - R,G,B channels.

In a Digital camera, we know that there are some differnces in color responses among channels. However, these variations are minimised by means of calibration - right down at the factory when it is made. alibration based on ISO measurement standards.

These calibrations takes care of variations due to factors like noise, manufacturing specification shift etc. A process that will result in a sometimes unique - gain settings(these gains are then placed in the units memory and then used in processing of the images) - to compensate for the channel differences. As every pixel in the CCD sensor are not 100% equal, response to a preset gain settings may be different - over a pectrum of light intensity. In some cases, it may result in those HOT pixel in an ALL black test images.

The RGB channels makes up the "white" in an image and as you can see, any variation in any of these 3 channels will at the end of the day cause a "different from the expected" white.

Therefore, the reason for me to say that there are some magic number because - its all based on what number is used and how the number crunching is done on the image processing algorithm. It involves probability calculations, extrapolations....etc.....(Do need to be too technical here)

Else, If all the white balance are "following standards" we will not see complains of users of Digital cameras complaining on "blue cast"...."red Cast"...and so on.....

Anyway......I truely AGREE that using Photoshop....alll these White Balance issues could be solved....or else who will be using Photoshop.....juz kiddin...

Maybe...in the near future......all these issues are solved.......
TIll then,


Have agreat week ahead everyone.

Regards,
Sulhan

 

[David]

Actually I find the 1.4x or 1.6x multiplier in digital SLR can be an advantage. If you are into sports/wildlilfe/macro photography you probably know what I mean. I get shots I never thot possible b4. Yes, the downside is when you want to do wide-angle shots. That's also the reason why I carry with me my 35mm film SLR, among other reasons. For sweeping landscape shots especially, I still like my film SLR.

Well, in this IT and digital age, it's hard to define what an image is. (For that matter, is a dream a sequence of images also that only exists in your mind?) The essential difference between film and digital is the medium used to produce the image. At the end, an image is an image. Does it matter how you produce it? It's how you want to display them and for economical reasons (for eg: DSLR bodies too expensive for some? Films wastage too much to bear?) that some prefer films to digital and vice versa.

I know of pple who carry around laptops with them like their precious gems. Such pple tend to be IT savvy and digital appeals to them tremendously. Films to them are almost like a thing of the past...such a hassle, you got to develop, wait and then realize you don't get the results you actually wanted. So for all the nice features and feel of using a film SLR, like plainsman said, hearing the whirl of the film rewind, changing films, etc (I understand!) you also face the disappointment of realizing much later you can't repeat the shoot. Even if your shots turn out well, that's like what....1 in 5 on average, to be generous? Not to mention wasted prints and slides. And loads of albums on the book shelves that yellow with time.

To me, the best part about digital is the instant feedback that it gives me and I can change the ISO anytime I want in less than 2 seconds. Trust me, you wouldn't enjoy being on a scenic holiday and constantly having to do mid-roll rewind and subsequent reloading, and keeping tabs on what was the last frame number left off from the different films.

But then again, for those who want to do bulk printing, films may be the way to go. Some I know still don't like to view images on the computer screen. So when they travel, they still use films. Easy to pass around prints for friends and families to enjoy your travel shots too.

But like I said earlier, there are traditionalists and purists who just feel digital is too unreal and lack the technical "feel". You can't blame them. Afterall, photography is an art.

It really depends on what you want to do with the images as many have repeated many times...

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by sulhan
I don't deny that there are universal international standards for color - ISO for example. I'm aware of things like the munsell Chart for color meeasurements, Color measurement tool to see what mix of RGB a color has using a Photospectometer.

As we can see, the image capture Sensor in digital cameras, only capture greyscale. The color filters -e.g bayer mosaic...etc, determines what is captured - R,G,B channels.

Sulhan, while your answer is illuminating, it really evades the point being made, and that is that white balance is defined and it's up to the manufacturer to meet the respective criteria.

Spectral response curves have nothing to do with white balance per se. They merely indicate how efficient the CCD will be (ie it's quantum effeciency) at a given wavelength of light.

White balance is not defined by the ISO, the industry standards are currently based on the following publications,

(CIE 1971). Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage (CIE). Publication No. 15, Colorimetry, 1986, 1971.

(CIE 1986). Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage (CIE). Standard on Colorimetric Observers, CIE S002, 1986

Also the CIE publication from 1939 that originally defined the colour 'white' as being the light emited from a carbon arc lamp (5,500 deg kelvin)

Magic numbers by manufacturers are only required when shifting the white balance to suit different lighting conditions other than daylight!

An excellent simplified article regarding this matter can be found at Colour rendering of spectra

Have a good day

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Jed
This is what hurts the most. You think I don't have a correct attitude? Go asking people who know me. Times when most of them would just give up, I strive to remain politically correct. That's my catch phrase, and it's never far when I'm typing my replies. Newbies if they ask me questions always get straight and informative replies, ask the people on IRC, or otherwise. Go check out posts in Clubsnap, my replies are among the longest around. Hopefully I think they're informative too, but I wouldn't think of claiming so, and it's not just because of your little reminder.

Cool down Jed your response will show who you are.
Just reply gently and wise, no need to express emotional feeling.

So Jason out of the kindness of his heart decides to come to my defence and vouch for my experience. And you're disagreeing with him. So what am I supposed to take from that? You're basically suggesting that I am not a successful photographer because while I (might) have mastered my equipment, I don't understand people. I don't serve other people with the images I have captured, and I will be gone and forgotten.
Great. It's people like you that make me wonder why I bother contributing the little that I do. So go on then, does anyoneat all find me a worthwhile presence, or does everyone agree with tsdh that I'm just full of myself? If so, then it's adieu to Clubsnap.

No need to defend right or wrong, I believe this club is not a judgement court. Nobody always right or wrong, just be there and keep calm, that's more respectable. If somebody hurt you, why worry so much? it would not change anything of you, it would not change the rest of your life. So why worry?
Get rid of those temperamental acts, I hope someday you will get your name printed in National Geographic.

 

[plainsman]

Originally posted by David
Actually I find the 1.4x or 1.6x multiplier in digital SLR can be an advantage. If you are into sports/wildlilfe/macro photography you probably know what I mean. I get shots I never thot possible b4. Yes, the downside is when you want to do wide-angle shots. That's also the reason why I carry with me my 35mm film SLR, among other reasons. For sweeping landscape shots especially, I still like my film SLR.
<save the bandwidth>

actually David, digital photography can also be a form of art. art, being free and boundless, always finds itself is some way, any way.

the so-called student/newbie digicam shots, out of focus, wrong perspective, funny angles, looking at nothing in particular sometimes have very nice colours and textures. look at a lot of modern design, pop art, sometimes they do include out-of-focus pictures, junky, trashy stuffs but put together comes across in a very interesting, alternative kind of way.

just like the music movement, photography ought to also expand and become vibrant in the times. i feel that film photography, the way the masters of the past and those of the present has its place, just like classical music.

but there will always be deviants (both of the good kind and bad kinds), there will be revolutionists (both accepted and rejected) and there will always be a fresh perspective (or maybe just a plain bad perspective )

photography? just enjoy!!! :bsmilie:

 

[plainsman]

Originally posted by Jed
Let me first say that I hear and acknowledge that these are tsdh's personal opinions. I am expressing my own in relation to them, READ: opinion, and I stress again that this reply has nothing to do with any previous run-ins.

hey Jed, you're a cool dude.. don't worry bout it lah, sometimes there will always be pple that will offhandedly say things that they may or may not mean that will imply things and so on.

sometimes its the nature of the person, not to say the person is right or wrong either. in a community, there is bound to be people who can't get along or have difference in thinking.

just keep doing what you do.

good day

 

[Vadim]

Originally posted by Jed
If I may ask, why not? What difference does it make how the result is achieved as long as the result is achieved?

Because there is no way for us to change digital sensor characteristics without switching to another camera body.

One example that comes to mind is infrared film. There is no way to manipulate RAW CCD data of let say D1X, neither in Photoshop nor using in-camera firmware, to extend sensor's spectral sensitivity to infra red band. On the other hand with film camera it is simply a matter of switching a roll of film.

There are other characteristics that you cannot simulate with consumer digital camera, like say 150+ lp/mm resolution of T-Max 100 cannot be faked with D1's 12-micron sensor.

Surely it's the image that matters, not if the image was "Velvia-ed" in Photoshop.

And while this may be a drawback as tsdh points out, it can also be a massive benefit. With that one sensor you get everything within a wide range of EI, the ability to tweak colour palette and saturation and white balance (in higher end cameras). For example the D1x/h cameras allow you to choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB, as well as to adjust saturation levels, and hue. The new D100 even has a green enhanced sRGB mode for landscapes (can someone say, Velvia?). The benefit of this is that you'll never be caught without the film you need. Shooting portraits and only have Velvia?

Please don't forget that Photoshop was around long before consumer digital cameras emerged, and all Photoshop manipulations are available to film users - all you need is a scanner. All Photoshop magic tricks are available to film users, including such as "Velviaing" one.

But why should I care about "Velviaing" image in Photoshop? With film camera, it sounds crazy to shoot all pictures on Kodak MAX, scan them and do the "Velviaing" in Photoshop, but it is possible. The point here is that with digital camera you are stuck with characteristics of a given image sensor.

Secondly, and more importantly, the focal length multiplier saves your wallet and your shoulders and back. If you built up a similar professional lens setup in 35mm equipment and in current digital equipment, you'd save $$ and KGs by having the focal length multiplier.

And without meaning to turn this into another film v digital debate, there are plus points to this focal length multiplier thing as well. Like only using the central portion of a lens' optics. Which means better images with less distortion, and much better performance when using lenses wide open.

All these "multiplier advantages" are available to film users as well. You can save $$, save kgs, obtain better optical performance with film camera by cropping central part of the negative/transparency ;-)

But there is no way to do it in other direction - to enlarge CCD to cover a full frame. If you want to go wide, you are either out of luck, or have to spend extra $$, carry extra kgs of 14mm, 17mm lenses, and you still won't be able to go super wide.

By the way, with digital camera, you'll get better results if using unsharp lens with crapy resolution (limited to about 40 lp/mm for current DSLRs). This will serve as a low pass filter to limit aliasing. Take a look and Schneider's Digitar series of lenses, for example.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by Jed
If I may ask, why not? What difference does it make how the result is achieved as long as the result is achieved? Surely it's the image that matters, not if the image was "Velvia-ed" in Photoshop.

Yes. That's just my personal preference. To the public, they don't really care how a photographer do to achieve, as you said, it's the image which matters.

And while this may be a drawback as tsdh points out, it can also be a massive benefit. With that one sensor you get everything within a wide range of EI, the ability to tweak colour palette and saturation and white balance (in higher end cameras). For example the D1x/h cameras allow you to choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB, as well as to adjust saturation levels, and hue. The new D100 even has a green enhanced sRGB mode for landscapes (can someone say, Velvia?). The benefit of this is that you'll never be caught without the film you need. Shooting portraits and only have Velvia? You'd be stuck up the creek without a paddle. Shooting theatrical shots under ambient lighting and only have PanF, oh dear...

Right, it can be benefit, one tool for all. Like a swiss army knife. But so far, I always know what I will shoot. So I never end up shooting landcsape while the intention is portrait.
Well, I prefer a tool which optimised for one goal rather than a generic tool to do all things.

- And last, in digital I will need a very expensive ultra-wide lens (wider than 14mm), to get a landscape shot of the usual 17mm.

This debate has been around for so long... Everyone who complains about the focal length multiplier in digital cameras has not used a digital camera for an extended period of time.

of course, if someone already choose to use a digital camera, why should he complain? The people who complain about digital, will not buy digital in the first place.
The focal length mutiplier is a benefit to certain photographers (e.g.: sport, wildlife, or others who need long tele). But it is a drawback for landscape photographer who mostly use ultra wide lens. I am not the one who need long tele, but I need ultra wide, so digital is not giving me benefit at this focal length.

And without meaning to turn this into another film v digital debate, there are plus points to this focal length multiplier thing as well. Like only using the central portion of a lens' optics. Which means better images with less distortion, and much better performance when using lenses wide open.

This is another pro & cons, using only central portion of the lens means less distortion. But also exhibit more problem with dirt/dust, and wasted the lens size.
Jed, I want to ask you (not a bait... );
Is it true that DSLR has a problem with dust in its sensor?
Many said that after a short period of outdoor usage, dust will stick into its sensor and creating black dots on the image. And they have to send the DSLR to its service centre for cleaning.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Vadim
One example that comes to mind is infrared film. There is no way to manipulate RAW CCD data of let say D1X, neither in Photoshop nor using in-camera firmware, to extend sensor's spectral sensitivity to infra red band. On the other hand with film camera it is simply a matter of switching a roll of film.

You can still shoot IR with digital cameras, just need the appropriate filter. Yes, it may not be quite HIE, but you can still do it. Digital camera CCDs, if I am not wrong, is rather sensitive to IR "by detault", that's why they have the IR blocking "hot mirror" filter in fron of it. But they still let some remaining IR through. If you searched through the galleries, Jed has some nice IR shots from the D1.

There are other characteristics that you cannot simulate with consumer digital camera, like say 150+ lp/mm resolution of T-Max 100 cannot be faked with D1's 12-micron sensor.

While true to a certain extent, do you really need 150+ lp/mm? Are you going to be looking at negs under a microscope, or are you blowing up negs to more than 20 x 30" routinely? With some work, digital can still emulate B&W rather well. And you definitely need more than an Image -> Adjust -> Desaturate or Image -> Mode -> Grayscale for a good B&W.

Please don't forget that Photoshop was around long before consumer digital cameras emerged, and all Photoshop manipulations are available to film users - all you need is a scanner. All Photoshop magic tricks are available to film users, including such as "Velviaing" one.

But why should I care about "Velviaing" image in Photoshop? With film camera, it sounds crazy to shoot all pictures on Kodak MAX, scan them and do the "Velviaing" in Photoshop, but it is possible. The point here is that with digital camera you are stuck with characteristics of a given image sensor.

In-camera, you have the options of several colour spaces to choose from. Out-of-camera, if you take the RAW CCD output, you can alter the characteristics to suit your needs. Want more warmth? No problem. With film, you are pretty much stuck. Can't really de-Velvia shots on Velvia, can you?

All these "multiplier advantages" are available to film users as well. You can save $$, save kgs, obtain better optical performance with film camera by cropping central part of the negative/transparency ;-)

You lose resolution by doing so. So much for 150lpm. With digital, you get the full res of the CCD still.

By the way, with digital camera, you'll get better results if using unsharp lens with crapy resolution (limited to about 40 lp/mm for current DSLRs). This will serve as a low pass filter to limit aliasing. Take a look and Schneider's Digitar series of lenses, for example.

You must be joking right? Good lenses actually matter more in digital. While most people look at film output in the form of 4R prints, slides via 4-8x loupes, projected and viewed from a distance, etc, you are looking at 3-6mp files at 100% on your monitor. Reveals everything. All the flaws.

Case in point: I have a colleague who bought a D30 when it's the hottest thing in town. For some reason, he paired it with a Tamron 28-300. Combined with the D30's inherent softness, output was horrible. Very, very soft. That guy sold it after a month because of this.

Another friend of mine (who's here in CS by the way) bought a D30 months later, and his first lens is a humble 50/1.8. The difference is amazing. Sharp images straight out of camera, and just a bit of USM is all it takes to bring it out.

Regards
CK

 

[sulhan]

Well...guys....

Hiee....Thanks for all the comments and the long thread of discussion on my 1st post .........

Did not mean to make this thread a debating corner and break us photographers up to two distinct cult.

Lets take a step back and enjoys the art together and appreciate both Digital as Well as Film Photography.

Personally, I use both of them - Digital and Film. And preference?....choice??? It's up to the individual.

Thanks, firefox13,plainsman,jasonpgc,tsdh,Ian,Vadim,Ckiang,Jed for sharing their knowledge and experiences.

Have a great weekend ahead to everyone and have fun on your next photography outing.......


Regards,
Sulhan

 

[Vadim]

Originally posted by ckiang
You can still shoot IR with digital cameras, just need the appropriate filter. Yes, it may not be quite HIE, but you can still do it. Digital camera CCDs, if I am not wrong, is rather sensitive to IR "by detault", that's why they have the IR blocking "hot mirror" filter in fron of it. But they still let some remaining IR through. If you searched through the galleries, Jed has some nice IR shots from the D1.

The point is - with film you have a lot more options. If you need IR - you can use IR film. If you want stylish grain - push T-Max 3200 to 6400. And there are reasons why people shoot T-Max 100 and other high-resolution film. And there are reasons why people lust for resolution of Zeiss 100/3.5 CFi or APO Symmar 110XL.

With digital - you are limited to characteristics of a given sensor.

With some work, digital can still emulate B&W rather well. And you definitely need more than an Image -> Adjust -> Desaturate or Image -> Mode -> Grayscale for a good B&W.

I cannot agree with you more on that. While it is as simple as doing Desaturate, emulating fine B&W is a task next to impossible.

In-camera, you have the options of several colour spaces to choose from.

Color space is not the property of a digital camera. You can do the same profile-to-profile conversions (converting from one color space into other) in Photoshop. By the way I trust accuracy of Photoshop color engine more then I would trust to any firmware.

But so can you convert scanned film image into any color space: Adobe 1998, BruceRGB that I favor most, CIELab, crapy sRGB, custom, you name it. What is your point with color spaces?

Out-of-camera, if you take the RAW CCD output, you can alter the characteristics to suit your needs. Want more warmth? No problem. With film, you are pretty much stuck. Can't really de-Velvia shots on Velvia, can you?

Yes, absolutely, I can do that. I can scan Velvia and then do any digital transformations in Photoshop. But with film, I rarely need to do that. I simply use a proper film (e.g. use Astia instead of de-Velviaing Velvia).

With digital - you are limited to characteristics of a given sensor. All the rest (digital manipulations) - are available to both film (after scanning) and digital camera users. Photoshop existed long before D1.

You lose resolution by doing so. So much for 150lpm. With digital, you get the full res of the CCD still.

D1 sensor has resolution of about 30-40lp/mm (due to 12 micron sensor). Many films have better resolution.

You must be joking right? Good lenses actually matter more in digital.

I am not joking, and neither Schneider is joking by offering (for lot $$$) UNSHARP Digitar lenses specifically designed for digital cameras.

Every electronics engineer knows that you must put low pass filter in front of any analog-to-digital converter to limit aliasing. The crossover frequency of that filter is governed by Nyquist theorem: 1/2 of sampling rate. For example, audio CD recorders (44,100kHz sampling rate) utilies 22kHz low pass filter. However 1/2 is a bare minimum, and audiophiles prefer 1/4 ratio: any audiophile will tell you that SACD (96kHz sampling rate) rules and CD sucks.

Coming back to digital cameras. Correct me if I am wrong, but D1 sensor has pixels of about 12-micron size. Which means D1 samples image at rate of about 80 samples per millimeter (1mm / 12 micron = approximately 80). Which makes Nyquist frequency to be 40 lp/mm. So for the best results you wish to have lens with MTF close to 0 at spatial frequencies 40 lp/mm and greater.

This doesn't mean that you'll get better results with Tamron 28-300 - this specific lens performs horrible at any spatial frequency (5, 10, 20 lp/mm). However, you would significantly lower aliasing and color moiré, if the lens performed great at 0-40 lp/mm, and performed poor at >40 lp/mm. It is not that easy to design such a lens, but Schneider does.

In my opinion, the main advantage of digital photography - is the convenience, especially if you want to keep, process and display images primarily digitally. On the other hand, digital photography has many limitations, which work for some photographers, but appear to be disaster for others. I am neither surprised that some pros convert back from digital to film, nor I am surprised that many people decide to go digital. Everyone chooses what works best for him or her. Anyway - it's just a tool.

 

[ckiang]

Hi,

Originally posted by Vadim
The point is - with film you have a lot more options. If you need IR - you can use IR film. If you want stylish grain - push T-Max 3200 to 6400. And there are reasons why people shoot T-Max 100 and other high-resolution film. And there are reasons why people lust for resolution of Zeiss 100/3.5 CFi or APO Symmar 110XL.

With digital - you are limited to characteristics of a given sensor.

IMHO, Carl Zeiss and Leitz lenses are quite overrated. At any given print size, your N/C/M/P lenses will probably do just as well. You probably need a microscope or a HUGE print to see any major differences.

I cannot agree with you more on that. While it is as simple as doing Desaturate, emulating fine B&W is a task next to impossible.

I did say it's NOT as simple as desaturation (I suppose you have a typo there). While emulating the specific grain structure of the various B&W films will prove to be a challenge, emulating the tonality is probably doable. That's why there are such things as the SilverOxide filters which emulate Tri-X.

Color space is not the property of a digital camera. You can do the same profile-to-profile conversions (converting from one color space into other) in Photoshop. By the way I trust accuracy of Photoshop color engine more then I would trust to any firmware.

But so can you convert scanned film image into any color space: Adobe 1998, BruceRGB that I favor most, CIELab, crapy sRGB, custom, you name it. What is your point with color spaces?

it's different. With the thing done in-camera, you choose the colour space to suit the subject you are capturing. Some colourspaces like AdobeRGB has a wider gamut than say, sRGB. It's quite akin to choosing different film.

Yes, absolutely, I can do that. I can scan Velvia and then do any digital transformations in Photoshop. But with film, I rarely need to do that. I simply use a proper film (e.g. use Astia instead of de-Velviaing Velvia).

What if you found that you needed to shoot portraits, and all you have is Velvia? Or E100VS? And it's still probably easier to Velviarize something rather than the other way. Contrast of Velvia, as you know, is rather high. And that loses some shadow/highlight detail while increasing colour saturation. So even if you reduce the colour saturation of a Velvia scan, it's not quite the same. With digital, you can shoot a neutral image, and up the contrast/saturation later. With film, you are pretty much stuck with what you have already captured (or not captured) on film.

D1 sensor has resolution of about 30-40lp/mm (due to 12 micron sensor). Many films have better resolution.

True, but most of that resolution is lost in grain. While even fine speed film probably starts having problems enlarging beyond say, 16 x 24, you can easily do that with a good digital file, even with a lowly 3 megapixel digital file. And with the proper tools, you can do a good print beyond 20 x 30.

I am not joking, and neither Schneider is joking by offering (for lot $$$) UNSHARP Digitar lenses specifically designed for digital cameras.

That's obviously some bullshit. Why would anyone want an unsharp lens when, like you said, people lust after the resolution of Zeiss and Leitz optics? Then we might just as well buy Koboron lenses instead of Canon Ls and the top range Nikon lenses. Or Leitz/Zeiss for that matter.

Every electronics engineer knows that you must put low pass filter in front of any analog-to-digital converter to limit aliasing. The crossover frequency of that filter is governed by Nyquist theorem: 1/2 of sampling rate. For example, audio CD recorders (44,100kHz sampling rate) utilies 22kHz low pass filter. However 1/2 is a bare minimum, and audiophiles prefer 1/4 ratio: any audiophile will tell you that SACD (96kHz sampling rate) rules and CD sucks.

I am an audiophile, and CDs do not suck. Not when you play them through a good CD player and good hifi equipment. SACD/DVD-A sounds better, obviously, but CDs definitely don't suck. You are right about the filter, and having it at 22kHz does have some unpleasant characteristics though.

The other reason why 24/96 sounds better is not just because of wider bandwidth. The typical 16/44 DAC's effective specs is probably not 16/44, but maybe 12/44, or maybe 14/44. A 24/96 can probably do 20/96. So the accuracy is better. But I digress.

Coming back to digital cameras. Correct me if I am wrong, but D1 sensor has pixels of about 12-micron size. Which means D1 samples image at rate of about 80 samples per millimeter (1mm / 12 micron = approximately 80). Which makes Nyquist frequency to be 40 lp/mm. So for the best results you wish to have lens with MTF close to 0 at spatial frequencies 40 lp/mm and greater.

The thing is, in practice, things are often different from theory, where everything is ideal. To put up another audio analogy, while people are pushing 24/96 or even 24/192 recordings, low SNR ratios, etc, it's not just these specs that make a system sound good. LPs and Tube Amps are known to have low SNR, CDs are only 16/44, yet on a good equipment, they sound marvellous. A well recorded CD played on a good system, even if it has say a low SNR of 80dB, probably sounds better than SACD/DVD-A played through a poorly designed DAC/amp which has rated specs of 24/96 and 100dB SNR.

Similary, despite the seemingly low resolution of DSLR sensors compared to film, they are able to produce output that can easily surpass 35mm film. While film has higher resolution on paper, much of this is marred by grain.

This doesn't mean that you'll get better results with Tamron 28-300 - this specific lens performs horrible at any spatial frequency (5, 10, 20 lp/mm). However, you would significantly lower aliasing and color moiré, if the lens performed great at 0-40 lp/mm, and performed poor at >40 lp/mm. It is not that easy to design such a lens, but Schneider does.

I am no expert in optics, so I can't comment on this. But I maintain that it still does not make sense to have an "unsharp" lens. The lens is still one of the most important, regardless of whether it's capturing to film or to a sensor.

In my opinion, the main advantage of digital photography - is the convenience, especially if you want to keep, process and display images primarily digitally. On the other hand, digital photography has many limitations, which work for some photographers, but appear to be disaster for others. I am neither surprised that some pros convert back from digital to film, nor I am surprised that many people decide to go digital. Everyone chooses what works best for him or her. Anyway - it's just a tool.

Well said. At the end of the day, just choose the tool that best suit your needs.

Regards
CK

 

[Vadim]

Originally posted by ckiang
IMHO, Carl Zeiss and Leitz lenses are quite overrated. At any given print size, your N/C/M/P lenses will probably do just as well. You probably need a microscope or a HUGE print to see any major differences.

Well, I would not say that they are overrated. Rather overpriced, but that's another story. By the way, Hassy with several lenses costs as much as D1X alone ;-)

I am pretty sure that in 2010 or 2020 Hassy will still keep its value, although I'm not that much optimistic about D1X.

it's different. With the thing done in-camera, you choose the colour space to suit the subject you are capturing. Some colourspaces like AdobeRGB has a wider gamut than say, sRGB. It's quite akin to choosing different film.

This is off topic, but actually I do a lot of digital editing, and prefer to stick to one color space (BruceRGB that is) to avoid profile-to-profile conversions. Tonal and color adjustments are normally done with dedicated tools, not with profile manipulation.

What if you found that you needed to shoot portraits, and all you have is Velvia? Or E100VS?

It has to happen to me yet ;-) However I'd pull process to reduce contrast - Velvia handles pull very well. Then color compensate if needed.

That's obviously some bullshit. Why would anyone want an unsharp lens when, like you said, people lust after the resolution of Zeiss and Leitz optics? Then we might just as well buy Koboron lenses instead of Canon Ls and the top range Nikon lenses. Or Leitz/Zeiss for that matter.

With film - yes, you can take full advantage of Zeiss optics. With digital sensor, D1 specifically, any details finer that 40lp/mm will cause aliasing. What is the purpose of projecting finer than 40 lp/mm details on CCD sensor if it only results in aliasing and moiré?

As to the Digitars you can check Schneider website.

Similary, despite the seemingly low resolution of DSLR sensors compared to film, they are able to produce output that can easily surpass 35mm film. While film has higher resolution on paper, much of this is marred by grain.

There are ways to overcome grain - either use finer film, or use a larger frame. With digital - you have to wait for technology to advance.

 

[Vadim]

Regarding color spaces / profiles. You have to choose profile adequate to your output devices. Never do color adjustments by manipulating color profiles.

If you output images to quality CRT monitor and RBG printer - than you'd better stick to Adobe 1998 or similar profiles (BruceRGB is better IMHO).

Otherwise, if you choose wider profile, like a wide gamut, then you are wasting a color space, by allowing colors that neither your monitor nor printer can reproduce and hence reducing the number of reproducible colors.

If you choose smaller profile then you will be limiting yourself to too small color space. That means some colors, that monitor or printer can show will be clipped out. For example, sRGB clips a lot of green tones that quality monitor can display, and clips lot of cyan tones that printer can print. sRGB is a very poor profile for digital images, as it is designed for budget, low quality, uncalibrated CRT monitors.