wgerrard
Veteran
Many (most?) discussions about what it takes to produce a great photo assume that eventually someone will produce a print.
But, if your primary distribution method is going to be the web, when does an investment of time and money on creating a great print image begin to lose its rationale?
In other words, if I simply post my images to the web, at, say, 72dpi, when does the game of diminishing returns begin on the image creation side of the equation? There's only so much tone, so much color, so much contrast, so much sharpness, etc., that a monitor can display. I've got $4000 worth of toys, including a cheap digital P&S. My eyes perceive no difference between the web-hosted images created the P&S and web-hosted images created by its bigger, costlier brothers. For that matter, my eyes think the images scanned onto a $2 CD by the kid in the drugstore down the street look just fine on my monitor.
I'm deliberately ignoring the obvious differences in the original images produced by different cameras, as well as the skill of the photographer. But, I guess I'm asking if being displayed on a monitor levels the field by pushing all images down to a common denominator?
Or do I just have crummy, undiscerning, vision?
But, if your primary distribution method is going to be the web, when does an investment of time and money on creating a great print image begin to lose its rationale?
In other words, if I simply post my images to the web, at, say, 72dpi, when does the game of diminishing returns begin on the image creation side of the equation? There's only so much tone, so much color, so much contrast, so much sharpness, etc., that a monitor can display. I've got $4000 worth of toys, including a cheap digital P&S. My eyes perceive no difference between the web-hosted images created the P&S and web-hosted images created by its bigger, costlier brothers. For that matter, my eyes think the images scanned onto a $2 CD by the kid in the drugstore down the street look just fine on my monitor.
I'm deliberately ignoring the obvious differences in the original images produced by different cameras, as well as the skill of the photographer. But, I guess I'm asking if being displayed on a monitor levels the field by pushing all images down to a common denominator?
Or do I just have crummy, undiscerning, vision?
pizzahut88
Well-known
Well, there's more to resolution . . .
Well, there's more to resolution . . .
It's the way the lens draws the image.
The way each lens draws the image is different.
For example (a dramatic one):
The Nokton 35mm F1.2 produces images that are slight soft with lovely brokeh.
Concerning color:
Again there's no way digital P&S could match film color.
For film, Hues of dull red, violet and other colors are distinct.
Digital again can't quite match this.
From your post, I could tell,
(i) you might need to upgrade your home scanner. So you get the correct colors from your film. Start using 16bit at least.
(ii) Perpahs you should be more discerning in your choice of lenses?
For most of the good RF lenses, there are no equivalent in the digital or SLR domain.
For example:
Ultron 28mm F1.9
Heliar 12mm F5.6
Nokton Classic 40mm F1.4
Or how about the naughtylux 50/1,0
?
Remember, resolution is only but one of the factors in a great system.
Almost all crappy P&S can do 10 mega pixels nowadays.
They also have pinhole lenses that have distortion.
& the strength of your system is only as good as the weakest link in your workflow.
Scanner, perserving color, extracting it is equally important.
Well, there's more to resolution . . .
Well, it's not all about dpi.wgerrard said:
It's the way the lens draws the image.
The way each lens draws the image is different.
For example (a dramatic one):
The Nokton 35mm F1.2 produces images that are slight soft with lovely brokeh.
Concerning color:
Again there's no way digital P&S could match film color.
For film, Hues of dull red, violet and other colors are distinct.
Digital again can't quite match this.
From your post, I could tell,
(i) you might need to upgrade your home scanner. So you get the correct colors from your film. Start using 16bit at least.
(ii) Perpahs you should be more discerning in your choice of lenses?
For most of the good RF lenses, there are no equivalent in the digital or SLR domain.
For example:
Ultron 28mm F1.9
Heliar 12mm F5.6
Nokton Classic 40mm F1.4
Or how about the naughtylux 50/1,0
?Remember, resolution is only but one of the factors in a great system.
Almost all crappy P&S can do 10 mega pixels nowadays.
They also have pinhole lenses that have distortion.
& the strength of your system is only as good as the weakest link in your workflow.
Scanner, perserving color, extracting it is equally important.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
With respect, I think pizzahut88 might have missed the thrust of your question.
If I understand you correctly, you are right that images presented on the web are limited in their quality. Generally intentionally limited to no wider than 1024 (they could be much larger, of course, but most choose not to present images that can't be easily seen on most monitors) and 72 dpi or whatever it is.
Pluses and minuses. You may see no difference in quality between your cheap digicam and your best work when presented side-by-side on the web, but your cheap digicam did not have a lot of the flexibility your better camera did, so it is limited the sort of photos it can take. Once taken, yes, not much difference - if you intend to ONLY present them on the web.
I will say that I *can* see the difference between photos taken with a 'good' camera versus a cheapy (and believe me, I can appreciate a good cheapy). When I am looking over digital cameras with the intent to buy, I use Flickr's camera browser. Comparing the same camera in many user's hands gives me a good cross-section of what it possible and careful examination shows me that some models and makes are produce sharper images than others. Color may also be a factor, but I'm color-blind, colors mean little to me.
All that said - if I had a really nice little digicam that did what I wanted it to do, and I mostly took, say, photos for ebay or flickr or blogs and nothing else - then why not get a nice 'out-of-date' but high quality digicam of about 4 to 6 megapixels and call it a day? Should do fine for many things - probably not as well at more specialized things that a 'better' camera like an SLR or rangefinder might, but you have to decide if that tradeoff is worth it for you.
If I understand you correctly, you are right that images presented on the web are limited in their quality. Generally intentionally limited to no wider than 1024 (they could be much larger, of course, but most choose not to present images that can't be easily seen on most monitors) and 72 dpi or whatever it is.
Pluses and minuses. You may see no difference in quality between your cheap digicam and your best work when presented side-by-side on the web, but your cheap digicam did not have a lot of the flexibility your better camera did, so it is limited the sort of photos it can take. Once taken, yes, not much difference - if you intend to ONLY present them on the web.
I will say that I *can* see the difference between photos taken with a 'good' camera versus a cheapy (and believe me, I can appreciate a good cheapy). When I am looking over digital cameras with the intent to buy, I use Flickr's camera browser. Comparing the same camera in many user's hands gives me a good cross-section of what it possible and careful examination shows me that some models and makes are produce sharper images than others. Color may also be a factor, but I'm color-blind, colors mean little to me.
All that said - if I had a really nice little digicam that did what I wanted it to do, and I mostly took, say, photos for ebay or flickr or blogs and nothing else - then why not get a nice 'out-of-date' but high quality digicam of about 4 to 6 megapixels and call it a day? Should do fine for many things - probably not as well at more specialized things that a 'better' camera like an SLR or rangefinder might, but you have to decide if that tradeoff is worth it for you.
Ducky
Well-known
I have to agree with wgerrard, the web is the common denominator for 90% of today's digi-shooters. Most people I know distribute on the web. Some may print out 4x6s only because their camera/printer can do it as a team (pic-bridge) and then they just take them to the office to show around. Of all the camera owners I know, only one is a photographer who prints 8x10 and larger for framing. Maybe it's just the people I know.
I do know one fellow who got a Nikon DSLR because he had $$$'s in nikon glass but he still distributes almost all his stuff on the web in newsletters and organization websites.
I have cut way back on what I shoot just to keep off the web. I am on several sites that have weekly 'themes' or are a single subject flickr group. They get to be a compulsion and I can't keep up.
Some people have 1000's of photos on flickr or elsewhere. They dont need 10 megs, or even 5, and they dont have to shoot in RAW since it all get lost in the common denominator of the web where detail is lost and most people can't tell the diference anyway.
For those photographers who have learned what works on the web, I say amen. But for the average advanced amateur, the cost of a super camera, super scanner, super software does not, IMHO, justify the ends when the common denominator is clearly directed to the lower end of average..
Wow, I guess that's enough from me for now.
bmattock
Veteran
Ducky, I agree. Not to say a person should not buy what they please and invest in equipment that makes them happy and gives them the image quality and flexibility they wish - by all means, everyone should use what they like. But in general - one might 'consider the audience'. If I were invited to display a print in the Smithsonian (yeah, fat chance), I would put every cent I could into the best possible print that could be made. If I'm invited to hang something at the local coffee house, I'll still do my best to make a good showing, but maybe spending thousands to produce a print is a bit over the top. And if I am making images that I know I will only be pasting into scrapbooks or emailing to family or posting in my blog - well, if money is a factor and I don't need the extra flexibility, I can do quite well with a cheap digicam.
FWIW, my 'go everywhere' camera is a Kodak 530. No zoom, optical or otherwise. 5 MP. One f-stop (f/4.5), one focal length (38mm). It stays out in the car, baking in summer and freezing in winter. Cost something like $50 from Kodak as a refurb. When I find myself somewhere where I wish I had brought a camera, I grab this and stick it in my pocket.
FWIW, my 'go everywhere' camera is a Kodak 530. No zoom, optical or otherwise. 5 MP. One f-stop (f/4.5), one focal length (38mm). It stays out in the car, baking in summer and freezing in winter. Cost something like $50 from Kodak as a refurb. When I find myself somewhere where I wish I had brought a camera, I grab this and stick it in my pocket.