pvdhaar
Peter
No, why would I say that?sitemistic said:
This is what it's about: film has a non-linear toe and shoulder response to brightness. The brightest parts of the scene get compressed in a rather graceful way instead of merely clipped. So what you have is a medium that captures a wider range of brightnesses than it passes to the scanner in terms of density range..
Irrespective of whether the scanner can read all the finesses in the density range on the neg, the preservation of highlights is there, and it's done by the film..
S
Socke
Guest
pvdhaar said:
Like this Kodak E100 shot in a Contax G2 with 35/2 and scanned with a dedicated Canon Slide scanner?
pvdhaar
Peter
My D50 would totally gag on a situation like that..Socke said:
It can't even handle this reflected light only situation with the berries..
The scene with the bridge is as far as I can push the D50, and it still does some really nasty things to the sky in the top center..
Attachments
moonwrack
Member
I have kept every negative and trasparency I have shot since 1950. Going back through them I have found one or two that have some pictorial merit, while most of the other have historical value now. If they had been shot on digital they would have disappeared long ago.
S
Socke
Guest
moonwrack said:
Why should they?
Uwe_Nds
Chief Assistant Driver
pvdhaar said:
Peter,
Were these shot in RAW or plain jpg?
Best regards,
Uwe
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Especially for B&W - different channels unrecoverably clipping at different points can produce, um, funky colours in recovered highlights. A very useful property, though.sitemistic said:
However, negative film's ability to record details in highlights that would unrecoverably clip on a digital sensor at the same EV is also useful. Those details are there and can be picked up by a scanner. Each technology has its pluses and minuses, but the fact that a scanner produces digital output in no way prevents it from picking up details that are on the film (though things like multi-scan/HDR might be needed, and some scanners are better than others).
...Mike
S
Socke
Guest
When I compare technology available to ME, a scanner isn't that much better.
A used Nikon Coolscan V ED is as expensive as a used Canon 30D dSLR.
A used 5000ED with feeder and Software is more expensive than a new Canon 40D.
I still use my five year old Canon D60 and six year old Contax G2 and the 9 year old Canon FS2710 scanner.
As I said before, I don't chase technology because I a) don't need the newest and b) can't afford it.
A used Nikon Coolscan V ED is as expensive as a used Canon 30D dSLR.
A used 5000ED with feeder and Software is more expensive than a new Canon 40D.
I still use my five year old Canon D60 and six year old Contax G2 and the 9 year old Canon FS2710 scanner.
As I said before, I don't chase technology because I a) don't need the newest and b) can't afford it.
pvdhaar
Peter
sitemistic said:
The scanner scans film but is never exposed to the scene itself. The brightness range in the scene has been compressed to a smaller density range on the neg. A digital camera gets to chew on the scene itself. When comparing two imaging chains, you can not point to the starting point in one, and halfway in an entirely different one and claim they're equal..
pvdhaar
Peter
Both jpg at settings fine and L.Uwe_Nds said:
Well, I didn't care about the berries, that's not a nice shot anyway. But I was definately gnashing my teeth when I got home and saw the morning scene in detail.. if only I had taken the plastic fantastic F75 along instead! And yes, I know they could have been shot in RAW.. and that it might have given more leeway than jpg.. But hindsight can not cure a (digital) picture.
To my defense though, I did watch the histograms and the highlight 'blinkies' and the camera showed them to be all right..
I've since shot RAW too on the D50. And my experience with this camera at least is that I do get better detail particularly in medium shadow (e.g. bird feathers), but I still can't tweak the shots so that I get the same nice highlight handling that I get with a $5 roll of Reala..
DCP
Member
And its back to the film vs digital debate...
Why dont you guys go out and shoot with film or digital instead of wasting time debating something you cannot do anything about?
Why dont you guys go out and shoot with film or digital instead of wasting time debating something you cannot do anything about?
marke
Well-known
sitemistic said:
Not to be argumentive, but are you saying that the dynamic range of a Fuji Frontier is less than that of a typical DSLR sensor?
DCP
Member
sitemistic said:
Yeah. A true photographer takes a camera and shoots with it.. regardless of whether its a rangefinder shooting on chemicals or receptors. At the end of the day, our satisfaction comes from the pictures we see... could we really care less about whether a bit of highlight here is blown or a bit of shadow detail is lost as long as we've captured the picture that we want? Don't you guys think its a bit overboard getting nitty gritty in something as an image? I seriously think you've all lost your love for photography and gone into some sort of scientific cult. The best images are ones captures the viewer's attention and stirs up emotions... not the ones with the most attention to highlights and shadows...
S
Socke
Guest
DCP said:
Because I have to sit in the office and pretend to work for another three hours
S
Socke
Guest
DCP said:
Shadow detail is overrated
Contax G2, 45/2, APX100 in Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
You don't know me at all. Occasionally, on a thread like this I'll say something like this:DCP said:
with at least some reasons to support that. Despite knowing it'll make not a bit of difference to the partisans.mfunnell said:
I take photos. I print them. (Rather more work on the latter recently.) Occasionally I need to know technical details to get the results I want. Condem me, if you like, for learning 'em but it helps me produce what I want so I probably won't care that much.
...Mike
pvdhaar
Peter
I don't care about capturing attention and stirring up emotions, I store or trash my pictures on whether they've got clipped highlights.. Now, what's wrong with that?DCP said:
pvdhaar
Peter
You're not alone..Socke said:Because I have to sit in the office and pretend to work for another three hours
Oh, and please stop posting these photos. I don't have the money to buy a G2..
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Couldn't agree more. Here's one for the bin:pvdhaar said:I don't care about capturing attention and stirring up emotions, I store or trash my pictures on whether they've got clipped highlights.. Now, what's wrong with that?
...Mike
DCP
Member
Ok! Now that we've all done chasing technology.. Does anyone have any experience having their prints done on Durst Labs? I've got a partner who's considering investing in one.. and since you guys are the first and foremost authority on image QC Hehe.. kind enough to spare any thoughts on them? Durst USA
This was one I thought didnt have enough shadow detail
Does anyone have any experience having their prints done on Durst Labs? I've got a partner who's considering investing in one.. and since you guys are the first and foremost authority on image QC Hehe.. kind enough to spare any thoughts on them? Durst USAThis was one I thought didnt have enough shadow detail
moonwrack
Member
Bailey says it
Bailey says it
In the Daily telegraph of 6 December, there is a quote attributed to David Bailey.In case anyone has not heard of him he is a very famous British photographer who established himself in fashion photography in the Sixties (Cf the film "Blow-up") and who is still practising. He is also notable for, at one time, being married to Catherine Deneuve, but I digress... Anway, he said "I've always thought digital photography is like socialism. It reduces everything to the same level."
Bailey says it
In the Daily telegraph of 6 December, there is a quote attributed to David Bailey.In case anyone has not heard of him he is a very famous British photographer who established himself in fashion photography in the Sixties (Cf the film "Blow-up") and who is still practising. He is also notable for, at one time, being married to Catherine Deneuve, but I digress... Anway, he said "I've always thought digital photography is like socialism. It reduces everything to the same level."