Board index Equipment Film Cameras My first hand on photography;)

Film Cameras

My first hand on photography;)

sharv
 
Posts: 11

My first hand on photography;)

Post Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:37 pm


http://www.pbase.com/sharv/root

Thsese are the some of the photos I took in my recent trek (Olympus 70G), I know these are in no comparison to digital ones..just felt sharing them:). Am thinking of going for DSLR (CanonRebel being the first option)
Any suggestions are welcome

!!!Happy New Year!!!
regards
sharv

castledude
 
Posts: 869


Post Thu Jan 01, 2004 5:23 pm


Great shots l61.JPG has a lot of great textures.

I know these are in no comparison to digital ones


Huh??? You do know that 35mm Film has better dynamic range and on a medium quality camera like the 70G about the same resolution. Film also has a random grain (since it is chemical) so it gives you an apparent higher resolution.

I would advise you consider taking the negatives you shot and having them professionally scanned in. Have them give them to you at a high bit depth 32 or 48. It will cost you about $2 per picture but will show you the capability of the film. You can then use the extra bits for compensation in Photoshop to get some really dynamic images.

Digital does have its advantages but quality is not yet one of them.
When done properly digital does approach film quality.

I have gone totally digital because of the advantages it has (low cost per picture, instant gratification, instant previews). I hope the next generation of cameras give us more dynamic range.

bobtrips
 
Posts: 292


Post Thu Jan 01, 2004 7:22 pm


castledude wrote:Huh??? You do know that 35mm Film has better dynamic range and on a medium quality camera like the 70G about the same resolution. Film also has a random grain (since it is chemical) so it gives you an apparent higher resolution.


Print film has more dynamic range than most digital cameras. The upper end digital backs, I believe, have more dynamic range. It has to do with photo receptor site size. Digital cameras have about the same dynamic range (maybe a bit more) than slide/transparency film.

I think you've got the 'apparent higher resolution' backward. In general digital images are considerably 'cleaner' than film images. The extra detail in film tends to be degraded by the grain patterns.

But all that aside, it's much more the photographer than the camera that makes the picture....

castledude
 
Posts: 869


Post Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:13 pm


Print film has more dynamic range than most digital cameras. The upper end digital backs, I believe, have more dynamic range. It has to do with photo receptor site size. Digital cameras have about the same dynamic range (maybe a bit more) than slide/transparency film.


Interesting to know about the upper end backs, gives me more hope in the 35mm front.

I'll give you that one to an extent. When I spoke dynamic range I was referring to the actual resolving ability of film color to color (that's why I talked about rescanning at 32 or 48 bits/pixel). I have noticed with my shots that in some areas I have to do completely different lighting to accentuate subtle changes (like getting the hair strands in a dark hair color). I can (and do) compensate. I only shot with low speed slide so this was true at that time.


I think you've got the 'apparent higher resolution' backward. In general digital images are considerably 'cleaner' than film images. The extra detail in film tends to be degraded by the grain patterns.


Nope I'll stick by my contention on this one. Look at what happens when you turn on ClearType in Windows or most other resolution tricks. The idea is to get rid of the "jaggies" by randomizing edges this makes your eyes fake a higher resolution (apparent resolution). Since the film has about 14-24MP (@35mm) of info in it you end up with both effects in film.


But all that aside, it's much more the photographer than the camera that makes the picture....


Well I definately agree with that one 8)

bobtrips
 
Posts: 292


Post Thu Jan 01, 2004 9:43 pm


I think it's best to look at measured noise. Here's a thread that you might want to read...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... ge=7059223

And if you'll go to the Pro Talk forum on the same site you see lots of people reporting that they are getting much better large prints from their 6 meg dSLRs than they've ever gotten from 35 mm film.

There's a trade-off between resolution and noise (digital or grain). Digital, being much cleaner, can be printed very, very large and still be very clear. Film reaches a limit and then goes downhill quite rapidly.

And try using good software for up-sizing your digital files. You may be very surprised at the results.


Board index Equipment Film Cameras My first hand on photography;)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot and 0 guests