he heh... hot topic isn't it 
Nay, just take it as a chitchat. To each their own
BTW Jed, do you think I can disagree with you?
Nay, just take it as a chitchat. To each their own
BTW Jed, do you think I can disagree with you?
We've come a long way?
- Thread starter Jed
- Start date
- Status
tralala...
anyway the range of digicams in use here is quite big lor, the film grain vs ISO noise is more an issue with consumer digicams.
till now we are still struggling to meet the quality of the Kodak 660 even, while the D30's and etc simply look good at 100%.
So those 9 of whom I suspect I was one of (how many votes do we have), we dun have DSLRs. Clean ISO 400 is still nirvanain our case.
anyway the range of digicams in use here is quite big lor, the film grain vs ISO noise is more an issue with consumer digicams.
till now we are still struggling to meet the quality of the Kodak 660 even, while the D30's and etc simply look good at 100%.
So those 9 of whom I suspect I was one of (how many votes do we have), we dun have DSLRs. Clean ISO 400 is still nirvanain our case.
Yes of course you can disagree with me. But that means I can disagree with you too
But my bottom line is to advise you to give it a try, with all best interests at heart here. Otherwise your loss is my gain... if some people think digital's got at least five years to go before it catchs up with film (nothing personal Kelvin, just illustrative), then all the better for me because I've got a five year advantage, a five year cushion and a five year headstart.
About the only good reason not to go digital from the professional viewpoint as I see it is that some clients won't accept it, be it publishing houses or clients. The latter is easy to convince, once you can show the results possible. The former is a bit more of a pain, but... people are slowly coming around to the idea. And for every job the client might insist on film for (and I've got 35mm, MF and LF to cover this) there is a job only available to the digital photographer.
Another reason is, how much quality do you really need? Even if you take the line that say a D1x does not produce stuff as good as Velvia drum scanned. Fair enough. But do you really need more quality than the D1x offers? I don't, and I've had posters, murals, office wall decorations, press boardings, etc, done from D1 and D1x stuff. how much bigger do you need to go? And for people who suggest that to put film on an equal footing you must drum scan, (nothing personal Edwin, again just illustrative) my question is how often do people drum scan their film?
But my bottom line is to advise you to give it a try, with all best interests at heart here. Otherwise your loss is my gain... if some people think digital's got at least five years to go before it catchs up with film (nothing personal Kelvin, just illustrative), then all the better for me because I've got a five year advantage, a five year cushion and a five year headstart.
About the only good reason not to go digital from the professional viewpoint as I see it is that some clients won't accept it, be it publishing houses or clients. The latter is easy to convince, once you can show the results possible. The former is a bit more of a pain, but... people are slowly coming around to the idea. And for every job the client might insist on film for (and I've got 35mm, MF and LF to cover this) there is a job only available to the digital photographer.
Another reason is, how much quality do you really need? Even if you take the line that say a D1x does not produce stuff as good as Velvia drum scanned. Fair enough. But do you really need more quality than the D1x offers? I don't, and I've had posters, murals, office wall decorations, press boardings, etc, done from D1 and D1x stuff. how much bigger do you need to go? And for people who suggest that to put film on an equal footing you must drum scan, (nothing personal Edwin, again just illustrative) my question is how often do people drum scan their film?
:rbounce: this is ALWAYS a hot topic anywhere huh?
yes, i know not everyone has a digital SLR. What i meant was if i can show them the print, they wouldn't have voted that way
Originally posted by erwinx
I would particularly like to see landscapes by digicams particularly those with horizon/sky/clouds, whereby oversharpening effects can be easily seen in the sky
deal! will try to take some, weather and clouds permitting, and post some here
okay, i realise there are a lot of different digicams, and i only have experience with a G1 and a D30 where digicams are concerned. Speaking for the D30, i have found its low contrast and low sharpening settings produce VERY low contrast and relatively soft photos. The low contrast setting is very useful as it helps retain detail better in highlight and shadows, and the soft pictures with no in-camera processing allow me to sharpen to the way i like it.
note that a soft D30 image is not the same as
1) a soft photo as a result of a poor lens
2) a soft photo as a result of poor focus or motion blur
overly aggressive in camera sharpening will result in sharpening artifacts, and that happens mostly in consumer digicams, not the digital SLRs. Also, I don't sharpen with just plain unsharp mask. There are complex photoshop actions out there that sharpens images with no halo and gives natural sharpness.
the low contrast photos also allow to determine the amount of "punch" a photo should have versus concerns about retaining detail in highlight or shadow.
i must admit though, you do need more time to work in the digital darkroom to bring the best out of the pictures. But once done, it is my opinion digital images are every bit as good as their film counterparts.....
Jed has already argued this point....i offer u another opinion here:
D30 Vs Provia 100
D30 vs Provia 400F
the tests are conducted using wat are possibly some of the best scanners.
again, it's best to see for yourself rather than reading something from somebody's website, BUT, it is a good reference, and this guy has extensive experience with cameras.
wat made his report all the more valid, is that he's still at heart very much a film person (shoots medium format a lot, as well as large format and black and white with his Leica rangefinders). But for all of his 35mm work, he is completely digital.
this has been an interesting and civil discussion so far - maybe one day we can all meet and compare prints etc.......and of course wat matters is whether u're happy with your current chosen format!
i suppose its good to have this discussion now because once the next generation is released, be it Sigma, Fuji S2 or Canon D60... i don't suppose we'll be having this discussion anymore Those who do not generate income from photography can probably wait to see what the X3 brings
Those who do not generate income from photography can probably wait to see what the X3 bringsOriginally posted by Red Dawn
Hi, talking about inkjet prints? Those same A4 sized inkjet printouts will look even better if there were shot digital in the first place, with a digital SLR. With the finest grain Provia compared to a D30 as an example, with the D30, you will get grain free and extremely clean images at the same equivalent ISO. After looking at a D30 printout, and then looking at the Provia output, you will immediately notice the difference. It's that dramatic.
Note that i'm not talking about sharpness or contrast here - i'm talking about color reproduction and the "clean" factor. You don't need a loupe to gauge color and the overall "look".
it's something you got to see for yourself - don't just take my word for it. it's true u can scan slides with much more megapixels and megabytes, but how many of those are actual detail, and not extra grain?
at the risk of getting flamed (not that i'm worried - it makes for entertaining posts: didn't someone say the forum is a bit dead?), i would even venture as far as to say, my D30 gives Medium Format a hard run for its money. A VERY hard run.
I shot a large group (20 or so) with my D30, on tripod, ISO 100 using studio strobes (a pair of studio lights with umbrellas), and ckiang setup the same shot with a Hassy. (department property!)
We took several different shots, small groups, large groups, and another colleague shot the same shots with a Yashica T5.
All shots were sent to the same lab using Fuji Frontier machine for prints (A4).
The Yashica T5 with its Carl Zeiss lens did pretty well, but the D30 prints blow it away. At A4 size, the D30 print and the medium format prints are very very close, in contrast, color and sharpness. There is however one difference. The D30 prints are cleaner, with not the slightest hint of grain.
I have no doubt the Hassy will start to show its true strength when we start enlarging the prints to say, 20" x 30" or even bigger. Afterall, that's wat medium format cameras are for right, large enlargements. However, looking at the prints, i'm confident the D30 will be able to hold its own up to at least 10" x 15", maybe even 16" x 20". There are pple in online forums who claim this is possible and they have done it, but of course i have to see it for MYSELF to believe that!
okay, there are lens differences, film differences, machine operator errors etc, so this is not a scientific test. Not by a long shot. No the D30 wouldn't kill of medium format - but it gets very close. it's not better than medium format quality, but close enough to warrant a serious look for film lovers (IF they can get off their pre-conceived prejudices
gosh...i'm trying very hard not to post any responses in this thread, and look wat i have done. okay, this forum is still alive and let the flames roll in :rbounce:
It's not a hassy (I wish it was). It's a humble Mamiya RB67.
Regards
CK
Originally posted by Red Dawn
Hi
i wonder who are the 9 pple that voted "At high ISO, film is better than digital". i wish i could show them my ISO 800 wedding portrait of a bride, at A3 size
I am surprised too. Those must be consumer digital camera users. My experience with ISO 800 film pushed to 1600 is not good. Grain is the biggest factor. And pushing as you know, increases that. And I get weird all-red or all-purple subjects with no detail under such coloured stage lights. I don't think digital has that problem. At least not from Red Dawn's D30.
Anyone wants to see a D30 ISO800 shot at 10x15" on a lowly Epson Stylus Photo EX?
Regards
CK
Originally posted by erwinx
I would particularly like to see landscapes by digicams particularly those with horizon/sky/clouds, whereby oversharpening effects can be easily seen in the sky
Digicams still seem overcontrasty to me (perhaps because of all that sharpening) so I would like to see how they deal with monochromatic and/or low contrast subjects.
well, it would be interesting to compare prints from digicams vs prints from scans. maybe at some future gathering in march/april, i could bring inkjet prints from scans and someone could bring prints from digicams.
Eventually digicams will get there, and eventually i will probably buy one, if only for the 1.5x multiplier
p.s. also for real comparisons, maybe i should have access to an ls-4000 if not a drum scanner.... but all i have is an ls-40
You will be amazed. The DSLRs are very, very good now. I was skeptical at digital output when doing detailed landscapes - that it will not be able to capture all the nuances of the different tones, details etc. So I asked the guy at my lab (who uses a Fuji S1Pro and extolling its virtues).
We are talking about the S2Pro, and he was saying that S2 Pro's 12 interpolated megapixels are overkill. The S1 Pro's 3 megapixels are more than enough, even for 10x15".
"So what about landscapes?", I asked.
He went into the office and brought out a folder of 10x15" pics he took. Then he showed me a pic taken from the top floor of Suntec city facing the stadium.
"Here, what do you think?" He said.
Boy, it was amazing. All the details are there. Shadow details hold up quite well. The S1 Pro's super CCD rendered everything, HDB windows, etc. The distant mountains are rendered nicely, you can see layers of colours. Even the Changi Airport control tower is visible. Has to be seen to be believed.
Then there's this 2 megapixel JPG file of Jeff Chang in concert he shot, blown up to 10x15". Forgot which ISO he shot at (1600 I think). And that's amazing too. I don't think ISO 1600 film can be printed that size without the grains showing up!
So there, digital has come a long way, and the quality is there already. All the bad things most people have about digital comes from consumer digital cameras. Even then, I think a good consumer digital camera can still beat the heck out of a compact film camera.
I am still largely on film though. Until the prices of digital SLRs drop to a more affordable level.
Regards
CK
Regards
CK
No no, I'm afraid you've got it wrong there. According to National Geographic, 3mp should only be enough for about an eighth of a page. Or approximately 3" x 4". Certainly not 10"x15".
:bsmilie: Tongue ;p IN
cheek.Originally posted by Jed
No no, I'm afraid you've got it wrong there. According to National Geographic, 3mp should only be enough for about an eighth of a page. Or approximately 3" x 4". Certainly not 10"x15".
Tongue ;p IN
lol!
Maybe. Just Maybe. The US versions of National Geographic subscriptions come with a free 10x Schneider Loupe to look at those images.
I always thought even high quality magazine photos are at most 200dpi....
Regards
CK
Yeah well that's what I thought too... but according to Mr McGeehan from that DPreview thread... apparently Nat Geo prints at 500dpi... you know where my tongue is again yes?
Originally posted by Jed
Yeah well that's what I thought too... but according to Mr McGeehan from that DPreview thread... apparently Nat Geo prints at 500dpi... you know where my tongue is again yes?
Right. And 300dpi goes into reproducing those halftone dots.
Regards
CK
The digital era had arrived no doubt abt it........however, I had tried shooting digital several times, somehow or rather,something is missing. Yeah u can have instant preview.......yeah u can adjust ISO........faster......blah blah blah. For the pros out there, digital is a great help if not a great leap forward. But for a hobbyist like me.......
IMHO I just feel more "special" when shooting film. The element of anticipation when u go collect the slides from the lab.......the moment when u put em on the lightbox. The whole process of creating an image when light contacts with chemical emulsion is to me fascinating and magical.
I will prob get a DSLR in maybe 3 to 4 yrs time, but my film based SLR will be by my side, always.
IMHO I just feel more "special" when shooting film. The element of anticipation when u go collect the slides from the lab.......the moment when u put em on the lightbox. The whole process of creating an image when light contacts with chemical emulsion is to me fascinating and magical.
I will prob get a DSLR in maybe 3 to 4 yrs time, but my film based SLR will be by my side, always.
One question I always have is, why do straight digital images give better results than expected?
Since I don't have direct experience with digital cameras, I can only guess.
My first guess is the lack of grain that allows easy enlargement. Grain makes an image hard to enlarge. People say that the enlargements remain sharp. Perhaps. But, how about details?
Also, I just read elsewhere why film+scanner, despite the scanner's high resolution, performs "badly". The reason given is contrast (micro-contrast, I think). The scanner is unable to resolve very fine details down to the pixel level. A fine line may be spread over several pixels. A digital camera, on the other hand, can do it.
And, I just checked the D60 specs. Its effective sensor size is 22.7 x 15.1 mm, giving 3072 x 2048 pixels. This gives a dpi of some 3437! That's pretty high.
Since I don't have direct experience with digital cameras, I can only guess.
My first guess is the lack of grain that allows easy enlargement. Grain makes an image hard to enlarge. People say that the enlargements remain sharp. Perhaps. But, how about details?
Also, I just read elsewhere why film+scanner, despite the scanner's high resolution, performs "badly". The reason given is contrast (micro-contrast, I think). The scanner is unable to resolve very fine details down to the pixel level. A fine line may be spread over several pixels. A digital camera, on the other hand, can do it.
And, I just checked the D60 specs. Its effective sensor size is 22.7 x 15.1 mm, giving 3072 x 2048 pixels. This gives a dpi of some 3437! That's pretty high.
Originally posted by nhyone
And, I just checked the D60 specs. Its effective sensor size is 22.7 x 15.1 mm, giving 3072 x 2048 pixels. This gives a dpi of some 3437! That's pretty high.
it's even higher for consumer digital cameras which have smaller sensors. the "dpi" here doesn't mean much. it's just the sensor array.....
Sometimes I feel that you cannot really compare digital and film, coz they are just different. It's like argueing that a painting is better or worse than a photo, now we have whether digital is better or worse than film. Even though a photo is probably more accurate and much faster than a painting, it doesn't neccessary make it a better experience. Different strokes for different folks. I just hope they don't wipe film out or push the prices up like black and white processing, coz I prefer to have a choice whenever I want and it will be a pity.
oh so very very true... heartily agree. traditional print media still having hard time working out a workflow to incorporate digital files. i've been trying my darnest to get them to switch, but they quite stubborn. think previous bad experiences with digital has turned them off...
- Status
Similar threads
