Chris101
summicronia
Well, serious or not Nick has a point. Oh, and be sure to do your chopping at 100 or better yet, 300% enlargement. It's easier to get the pixel level detail that way.
JTK
Established
Get Lightroom before Photoshop (you may ultimately want both, but Lightroom is more photographer-intuitive).
Photoshop's fine, I use it, but it's no help for 90%, now that I have Lightroom.
Lightroom works incredibly efficiently, especially in B&W...makes excellent B&W conversions from color files (scan or DSLR) with one click...then you can control contrast, density etc with sliders. Intuitive.
Don't waste time and money faking film-look...if you've been working to avoid grain (I never have) you'll love digital (I do, when I want 1600iso without grain). If you love Rodinal (I do> Neopan 400@1000/1+200 stand) shoot film (I do).
Do both. And print your own (Epson 3800 costs about the same as a good prime lens and it comes with a tremendous amount of ink).
Photoshop's fine, I use it, but it's no help for 90%, now that I have Lightroom.
Lightroom works incredibly efficiently, especially in B&W...makes excellent B&W conversions from color files (scan or DSLR) with one click...then you can control contrast, density etc with sliders. Intuitive.
Don't waste time and money faking film-look...if you've been working to avoid grain (I never have) you'll love digital (I do, when I want 1600iso without grain). If you love Rodinal (I do> Neopan 400@1000/1+200 stand) shoot film (I do).
Do both. And print your own (Epson 3800 costs about the same as a good prime lens and it comes with a tremendous amount of ink).
Last edited:
kuzano
Veteran
Take a peek at the Canon G6
Take a peek at the Canon G6
7.1 Mp
4x zoom
2.0 - 3.0 aperture (2.0 at wide)
400 ISO (actual sensitivity 640)
RAW
Those are the features of interest to me. The later G series camera's either upped the largest aperture, or dropped RAW as in the G7. Prices fare similar to the f30/31, etc.
Here is a link to the conclusion page at Steves-Digicams on the G6
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/g6_pg8.html
The actual vs. indicated sensitivity is better explained at the DPreview site on this page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page14.asp
Take a peek at the Canon G6
7.1 Mp
4x zoom
2.0 - 3.0 aperture (2.0 at wide)
400 ISO (actual sensitivity 640)
RAW
Those are the features of interest to me. The later G series camera's either upped the largest aperture, or dropped RAW as in the G7. Prices fare similar to the f30/31, etc.
Here is a link to the conclusion page at Steves-Digicams on the G6
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/g6_pg8.html
The actual vs. indicated sensitivity is better explained at the DPreview site on this page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong6/page14.asp
Last edited:
peter_n
Veteran
Actually this is pretty accurate. If you set it up right you can get 6MB jpegs OOC that are nigh-on perfect, no need for any PS work. Just get a good Nikkor like the 17-55/2.8 and you don't need anything else...
This sort of sentiment is nonsense.
You all have "endless" time to post and twiddle on forums, to play with old cameras, to wait for film developing.
Just because you can't figure out Photoshop or stink at using computers is no reason for sour grapes.
You all have "endless" time to post and twiddle on forums, to play with old cameras, to wait for film developing.
Just because you can't figure out Photoshop or stink at using computers is no reason for sour grapes.
Couple of links:
http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/exposure_examples.aspx
http://www.alienskin.com/bokeh/examples.aspx
Nick is right: film is dead!*
*if you have endless spare time to twiddle with photoshop
Gumby
Veteran
mh2000
Well-known
>>Good plan on paper. Try it...
Yes, do... I tried it and have mainly gone back to film... both have their place of course, but for b&w especially, even I've gotten some great digital images, film is almost always better... for various reasons.
Personally, I would just get over it and buy a really nice DSLR... much much better output than any P&S. (Been there, done that... and P&S's lose half their value in a matter of months so when you finally figure out the limitations it is too late to get your money out).
Yes, do... I tried it and have mainly gone back to film... both have their place of course, but for b&w especially, even I've gotten some great digital images, film is almost always better... for various reasons.
Personally, I would just get over it and buy a really nice DSLR... much much better output than any P&S. (Been there, done that... and P&S's lose half their value in a matter of months so when you finally figure out the limitations it is too late to get your money out).
mh2000
Well-known
I find for real quality work it becomes a wash timewise, film vs. digital... for fast and lots and lots, digital is of course faster...
>>Nick is right: film is dead!*
*if you have endless spare time to twiddle with photoshop
>>Nick is right: film is dead!*
*if you have endless spare time to twiddle with photoshop
Ronald M
Veteran
All cheap digi cams have small sensors which take short focal length lenses. Blurred backgrounds are a non issue. You can`t do them.
Photoshop is your friend. Use the lasso tool to make a rough selection.
Go into quick mask mode and expand the the mask to cover the subject. Now blur the background.
Another way is to make a layer mask. Layer-layer mask-reveal all. Paint your subject with black to protect it. Blur the layer. Filter-blur- gaussian blur.
If you want to get really fancy paint with grey to get a partial effect
Photoshop is your friend. Use the lasso tool to make a rough selection.
Go into quick mask mode and expand the the mask to cover the subject. Now blur the background.
Another way is to make a layer mask. Layer-layer mask-reveal all. Paint your subject with black to protect it. Blur the layer. Filter-blur- gaussian blur.
If you want to get really fancy paint with grey to get a partial effect
peterm1
Veteran
For absolute ages I put off going digital as I thought that the price to quality ratio was not yet there and because I enjoyed shooting my film based cameras. But eventually about 3 years ago I succumbed and got my first proper digital SLR a Nikon D70s (since upgraded to the D200.) At first I justified it to myself by thinking that all the extra shooting I would do and the immediate feedback would make me a more competent photographer. And its true. I think it actually has. Practice has made, if not perfect, then at least, better.
But the thing I was never prepared for was how digital workflow has changed the quality of my work and my enjoyment in photography. Previously I never had a photo lab in the film world. Towards the end of my film days I bought a reasonable flat bed scanner for digitising some of my better prints but until I started shooting lots of photos digitally I never realised just how MUCH difference post processing made and never putthat much emphasis into it. For me this has been the big lesson and big reward from going digital and at least 50% of the quality in my final images comes from the work I do after I shoot. Sometimes it would have to be closer to 70%. As this is a rangefinder forum I feel constrained to add that the gear freak in me will never let me sell my Leica film kit and of course I would love to buy an M8 - perhaps one day i will. But I cannot deny that far more important than what equipment I am using is what software I have to post process. (As sad as that may sound to traditionalists.)
But the thing I was never prepared for was how digital workflow has changed the quality of my work and my enjoyment in photography. Previously I never had a photo lab in the film world. Towards the end of my film days I bought a reasonable flat bed scanner for digitising some of my better prints but until I started shooting lots of photos digitally I never realised just how MUCH difference post processing made and never putthat much emphasis into it. For me this has been the big lesson and big reward from going digital and at least 50% of the quality in my final images comes from the work I do after I shoot. Sometimes it would have to be closer to 70%. As this is a rangefinder forum I feel constrained to add that the gear freak in me will never let me sell my Leica film kit and of course I would love to buy an M8 - perhaps one day i will. But I cannot deny that far more important than what equipment I am using is what software I have to post process. (As sad as that may sound to traditionalists.)
bmattock
Veteran
I am amazed that this thread is still being responded to as if Nick had posted in seriousness instead of in jest. Is everyone here humor-impaired? You really don't know when your leg is being pulled? Gadzooks.
Nick, old son, you've done well. You've managed to make nearly everyone respond to you taking the piss as if you had uttered a Papal Bull. Truly a mighty craic.
Nick, old son, you've done well. You've managed to make nearly everyone respond to you taking the piss as if you had uttered a Papal Bull. Truly a mighty craic.
Chris101
summicronia
Of course film is dead. If it were alive, could you, with a clear conscience stick it into toxic developer?
btgc
Veteran
back when Oly Mju were my only camera, in local shop I tried proprietary filter system (made by Cokin) - square filters are kept in front of lens by holder which is screwed into tripod mount.
Not useful for daily use, but if one needs orange or kind of FL% filters couple times of year...maybe.
When vintage camara from ebay costs less than holder and few filters, guess my choice.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
In a word, yes, many here ARE "humor-impaired". Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the Internet. Those of us who are very familiar with Nick's posts, get his sense of humor, while some others don't.
Good job Nick!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
it is so firmly in cheek, that tongue, it is almost superglued in there!
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Of course everyone is not humor-impaired. We_get/got_the_sarcasm, but obviously the oh-so-clever mr. trop has put much consideration into this gentle rant (I actually read the entire thing. most multi-paragraph posts on forums are unreadable, because they are either boring, poorly conceived or both). This was very well done. I enjoyed it, because it's a rationalization and realization that many of us know and have discovered. it's a well-beaten path. A struggle most of us here know quite well.
In that sense it's really no different content-wise from a hundred other threads here on RFF that bitch and moan about film <-> digital. All those have pages and pages of replies/discussions, and really aren't most forums just 'thrash and rehash'?. Kudos to Nick for a refreshing 'take' on a very tired topic. There are many ways to get a discussion going intentional or not.
For those who responded in "seriousness," I enjoyed your replies, and not for once did I consider you fools.
EDIT: oh, yeah. I almost forgot:
.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
EDIT: oh, yeah. I almost forgot:
.
That's why I stick to pie.
Yeah, pie. I like pie. Yeah, pie. Pie's good.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
That's why I stick to pie.
Yeah, pie. I like pie. Yeah, pie. Pie's good.
I like pie too. But I fear I can no longer tell where someone's online tongue is placed. And since this thread is dying: truthfully and without sarcasm, I like the nudes you posted on Flickr. Very tasteful (again with the tongue!).
.
totifoto
Well-known
After I read this thread I goggled Aliens skin, never heard of it before. I downloaded a trial version and I have to say I love it.
I love shooting film, developing it and do the print in my darkroom but I have been shooting digital most of my photography years. I started shooting in 2001 when the digital revolution kicked in. I started shooting film again about 2 years ago and ever since I have been trying to get the "film look" in my digital shots but never been happy with them. This little program does the trick though.
This was shot on my Canon 5D with a 35mm f2 lens, shot at ISO 1600 and f2.
Original, with minor levels adjustment.
And here it is after using the Tri-x 400 filter in the Aliens skin program.
I have to say I think it is very film like.
I love shooting film, developing it and do the print in my darkroom but I have been shooting digital most of my photography years. I started shooting in 2001 when the digital revolution kicked in. I started shooting film again about 2 years ago and ever since I have been trying to get the "film look" in my digital shots but never been happy with them. This little program does the trick though.
This was shot on my Canon 5D with a 35mm f2 lens, shot at ISO 1600 and f2.
Original, with minor levels adjustment.
And here it is after using the Tri-x 400 filter in the Aliens skin program.
I have to say I think it is very film like.