Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 10, 2005, 10:52 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3
Default

*What exactly is dynamic range and why is it better when it comes to film as*opposed to digital ?
croskuntrhkr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 12:02 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

umm.... how did you get that out of what i wrote...

i was just messin with ya... lighten up man..

dimagez1 wrote:
Quote:
Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
dimagez1 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
good luck!!!
Obviously, no lens is truly perfect! But, the closer you can get
to perfection, the better. I know that many primes have distortion,
chromatic aberration, etc. They will also blur highly contrasting
edges. However, it is usually to an extent that is less than that
of a zoom lens. Maybe I should have said "It should have very
little barrel or pincushion distortion, almost no chromatic
abberation, and very little light fall-off in the corners".


-Ted

hehe... i couldnt resist.. :lol:
What? I'm speaking in relative terms. I suppose you think a zoom
lens can match a prime lens any day? Give me a break!


-Ted
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 12:26 AM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Dynamic range refers to the total number of stops between the
brightest white and the darkest black that a medium can capture
within a single exposure. If the darkest blacks you can capture
are at 3 stops below gray and the brightest whites are at 3 stops
above gray, then you have a 6 stop dynamic range. If you need to
display all 6 stops, then you have no true exposure latitude.
However, if you have a 12 stop dynamic range, and you only need
to display 6 of those stops, then you will have a total of a 6 stop
exposure latitude. That is because you can selectively choose any
consecutive 6 stops out of the dynamic range for display.

Just in case you don't already know...a "stop" is a relative measure-
ment of light amounts. Every time one stop of light is added, the
actual amount of light is doubled. Every time one stop of light taken
away, the amount of light is reduced to half. So, if the brightest
whites that can be captured are 12 stops over gray, that means
there are 4096 times as many photons in the whites as there are
in the grays.

One of the reasons film has the ability to capture a larger dynamic
range is because of the fact that it uses varying sizes of film "grains".
The small "grains" capture highlights more effectively because they
are less sensitive. Large "grains" capture the shadows more
effectively because they are more sensitive.

Another reason, and the biggest one, is that film doesn't have a
linear response like an electronic sensor. Film "grains" have the
inherent ability to reduce the amount of density added to the film
as they receive more light. As they are bombarded by more photons,
they become less responsive as to how dense they should make
the film. This is why film never suddenly blows-out to complete
white (or black when looking at the negative). This is also why film
response curves are curves instead of straight lines. As an object
in an image is given more exposure, it's brightness quickly moves
it's way up the response curve at first, but then begins to slow
down and eventually level off. This means that the upper stops of
the dynamic range are actually more "compressed" into the density
of the negative itself than the lower stops are.

"Density" refers to how opaque or transparent the film is after
it has been developed.

Please note that all of my explanations above are in simple terms.
It was done that way in the hopes of making the concept easier
to understand. Not everything is mentioned for sake of avoiding
complications. For example, a film "grain" being hit with photons
doesn't directly and immediately produce the final density of
the film.


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 12:39 AM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
umm.... how did you get that out of what i wrote...

i was just messin with ya... lighten up man..
Sorry about that. At first, I couldn't figure out what it was that
you found to be so funny, so I figured it must be the way that
I sort of alluded to that ever-elusive, perfect lens. I later thought
that maybe you were laughing at my misspelling of "aberration".:-)


-Ted
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 12:44 AM   #25
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

dimagez1 wrote:
Quote:
Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
umm.... how did you get that out of what i wrote...

i was just messin with ya... lighten up man..
Sorry about that. At first, I couldn't figure out what it was that
you found to be so funny, so I figured it must be the way that
I sort of alluded to that ever-elusive, perfect lens. I later thought
that maybe you were laughing at my misspelling of "aberration".:-)


-Ted
humor is tough to convey over the internet.. no apologies necessary.. :lol:
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 4:22 AM   #26
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
That could easily be possible if you didn't know how to properly shoot film.
Undoubtedly true. I'm sure it was all my fault.



Quote:
Using cheap, consumer zooms is no match for L series prime lenses.
Gee ya think? Of course it's quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Unless of course I'm using cheap consumer zooms on the digital and getting better results.



Quote:
Underexposing negatives is no match for properly exposing negatives.
Wow - good thing we've got this expert on hand to lead us through these complexities.

Quote:
In fact, you'll actually get significantly better results if you overexpose by about 1 stop.
Or maybe not - what on earth are you going on about? From a contradiction anything can be proved eh? Draw a truth table if you don't believe me.




Quote:
And of course, having an indifferent lab technician print your pictures isn't exactly going to produce snappy pictures like you see from your DSLR on your monitor. Those prints don't contain the entire contrast range, the exposure may be off, or the color correction may have been done improperly. Having a "digital" lab scan your negatives isn't going to produce anywhere near the best possible results either. Their scanner's resolution is typically inferior to a personal film scanner. The images they give you are already pre-corrected and do not give you the full contrast range, thus removing your ability to perform true exposure correction and accurate color correction. They may even use automatic correction junk that can wildly offset the color balance.
One of the advantages to digital - no? And precisely my point. This is how 99% of film is processed. To avoid this dreadful situation one must take extreme measures, travel far and wide, find a good lab technician and a good lab, blah blah blah - and in the end actually seeing the images you have shot takes such enormous time and effort that photography for the benighted amateur becomes no fun at all.




Quote:
1. Dust accumulation.
Yup - it takes me around 5 minutes every 2-3 months. Crushing disadvantage there. I feel faint from the blow.



Quote:
2. Extremely inferior dynamic range.
I agree more DR would be nice, but we have blending options, and with a decent raw converter the situation is nowhere near as bad as you pretend. And it will be addressed by future cameras.

And one of those links you dismissed without reading contests your assertion that digital has such a narrow range in the first place. Perhaps you could address the argument and the facts and let a poor misguided (even stupid at times) amateur know in what particulars the article was incorrect.

As to the point that you can wildly over and underexpose your film - this is very useful because it often takes days to find out what the pictures look like. With digital I can check it immediately. And even in bright African midday sun I don't have to struggle to see what's on the LCD - the histogram is white on blue and perfectly visible.


Quote:
3. Inferior resolution.
We have been lied to outrageously by the marketing people.

Accepting that my 8Mp is only 2-4Mp (depending on the circumstances). One can see why they don't market it that way though.

"Our new 2-4Mp-depending-on-the-circumstances sensor..." doesn't really trip off the tongue.

The counter claim is that film doesn't give you 10 TRUE megapixels. A very high proportion of that is noise/grain.

You may have evidence, even facts to back up your argument, but you have not presented them. You have simply made an assertion, and dismissed the links I pointed to as "biased" which is a fine trick for a politician, but not for an "expert".

So lets have the facts eh? I'm a bit stupid, it's true, but if I read them again and again something sometimes penetrates.


Quote:
4. Absolutely no sensor scalability...
Quote:
Anytime new film technology is released, the quality of the picture can be enhanced simply by buying the new film, and then using it like any other film.
Ah yes of course - how about those new Agfa films eh? Simply wonderful. By all means let us not forget the commercial realities driving the pace of development in film technology. So glad to get an expert opinion on this.



Quote:
For those of you are stupid enough to think film isn't advancing, consider this. Kodak and FujiFilm both recently released new motion picture film stocks which use a new technology that doubles the efficiency of the film.
*Raises hand* - over here - me me - I'm stupid. I have a question for you: How long till film stock disappears as the medium for movie-making? The commerical pressure for an end-to-end digital solution by the movie industry is enormous.

After that happens the pace of development will slow dramatically, and film will be relegated to very specialist uses. Also - once film cameras stop being manufactured (Kodak) and sold (Dixons) the demand for film will dry up. It's already happening, didn't Kodak recently close a film plant in Mexico? When the demand falls the film companies will no longer invest in making better film.

Of course that's just a stupid person's opinion. So it's probably better to ignore it.



Quote:
5. Crop factor. Causes a loss of usefulness in lenses.
How about that EF-S lens of mine, please explain how the crop factor has caused a loss of usefulness? And for those bird chaps who need the "enhanced" telephoto performance - how has that reduced the usefulness? Is a 50mm f1.4 prime more or less useful on a crop or full frame? Yes, your wide-angle lenses aren't as wide anymore. Is that all you mean? I'm beginning to lose patience with this drivel.



Quote:
6. Poor long exposure capability.
Even if we grant you your point. So what? The length of exposure you are talking about is simply irrelevant for most photographers.



Quote:
7. Initial costs. Call me crazy, but spending $1400 dollars on a crop body still sounds like a waste of money for an amateur.
Rubbish. Spending £1.00 per picture to get a decently processed shot is a waste of money for an amateur. My 20D has paid for itself 3 times in the last year. If I had taken as many shots on film the cost of stock and processing would have cost me much more than the camera. Over a 3-5 year period the digital camera is cheap by comparison. These economics don't just apply to professionals, it saves amateurs money too. And the way to get better is to take photographs and experiment, as the counter ticks up my photographs get better.

Oh yes and how much do those high-end film scanners cost? And how often do they need to be replaced?

And one more thing - how much is a sensible amount for an amateur to spend? Could you give us some guidance please? We amateurs are often irresposibly profligate spending our money, I'm a bit stupid about these things you see.



Quote:
8. Poor ease of shooting.
And yet I was too stupid to get good results from film, and seem to manage just fine with digital despite all those buttons. Of course my head did ache a bit for the first few months until I managed to understand what they were all for. But it's amazing what you can do if you persevere.

Does it really not bother you that you contradict yourself so readily?



Quote:
What is your definition of "quality" anyway?
Ah that's an easy one. A: How good the prints look.


Quote:
Kodak seems to be always lagging behind in the quality of their film. I find FujiFilm negative films to be consistently less grainy.
Aha, it all becomes clear to me now. I was stupidly using the wrong kind of film. I imagine the shop managers were saying to their assistants "Hide the good stuff today. We've got a stupid person coming in, better sell him the Kodak. Then we'll soon be able to sell him a DSLR because he'll get the daft impression that he can get better pictures from it. Sucker."


Quote:
It is always a good idea to buy a particular product from a company who has great experience making that type of product.
Wow, I'm just bowled over. I understand that people pay good money for this sort of advice. Have you considered consultancy as a career?


Quote:
Most commentators that I find credible believe the question was satisfied long ago, and believe that the FF35mm cameras of today are competing in quality with the old medium format film
Quote:
That's true, grain-wise anyway; and only when compared to the digital camera at it's lowest speeds.
What so I was right? Oh no, I see - it's only RESOLUTION that counts. And those links that you dismissed so readily are far more convincing that your self-contradictory nonsense.



Quote:
So, before anybody flings around the word "better" again, please make sure you actually know the full story and actually have the knowledge gained from true experience to back-up your claims.
I don't claim omniscience, the "full story" is apparently reserved for you. But, I get BETTER pictures from my 20D than I ever did on film, that is my true experience, and that of many others - including those sources you find so incredible.

Oops accidentally said "better" again. It's so hard to keep track when you're stupid, but it's so hard to find another word that accurately expresses what I mean. I'll go dig up a thesaurus for next time.



Quote:
I carefully study them and their limitations like any real photographer should.
One day perhaps I will be a real photographer. Can I get a badge? Or a certificate would be nice. Do you have a badge? can we see it - please, oh go on you know you want to.




Quote:
I don't blindly accept something just because it is new.
But didn't anyone tell you - NEW is best. It's always true. They put it on detergent boxes so that you can spot the good stuff. It even collocates with "improved". Is that a straw man I see?




Quote:
I don't accept a product based on what other people say unless I know for a fact that they know what they are talking about.
Sage advice indeed. But how can you tell? Is the ability to present a coherent argument important in deciding whether someone knows what they're talking about?

It's all so difficult. *Sigh*.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 8:18 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
LBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 661
Default

Peripatetic,
Its a hard one actually and then again its not really.

Basically film is better. That is if you're after a purist point of view about photographic quality. Though at a level that is only useful in certain situations.

But this is only one point, and there are too many factors in this case to bring it down to one point.

Dimagez1,


It's funny that while the obvious advantages to digital were previously never mentioned, you noted each and every one associated with shooting film. But in truth I think its a moot point actually because for each point there is an equal and opposite beneficiary in going digital. But the largest being- the laws of economics dictate technology; water will always take the easiest path, and so on, so on. Photography will be digital.

While I wouldn't disagree with any point you really have expertly made. Its obvious that you are extremely knowledgeable about photographic equipment and technique.I have noted a rather narrow perspective and lack of forward thinking. Everything evolves, and those animals that are not able to change and flow with the natural progression of things will eventually flounder and will find themselves extinct.

Ok. Even today there still exists fine cabinetmakers, and portrait oil painters. How many are left compared with say 100 year ago. They are dead professions. Do I compare furniture or images of today with those of yesteryear, - no. It's just different; these works of art stand alone in there own right. But lets not be mistaken, they are never coming back. Today things move faster, and it won't take another 10 years never mind 100 to see a similar thing in photography. Prudence for me dictated change a number of years ago despite the shortcomings then and even now with digital.

The blended avatar I have showing here is a reasonable example. From picking up the camera to sitting on this web page, producedin under one hour. I could have hadan A3 print in hand a further5 minutes later had I wanted haha. Complex imageryand complex technology+ simple user interface and execution= a time and cost effective solution. This is now, this is thefuture.

Photography is not going digital, it is already digital. The technology will further scoop up and devour film photography. At first allowing everything that is available on film to be done digitally. (Actually it can be already. Film dynamic range can be mimicked /replicated with any digital SLR in a number of ways, and these methods will become smoother with every new camera iteration) There are no showstoppers in your arguments and points. Digital is still relatively new and finding newer and better methods in less than a 10[suP]th[/suP] of the time of the history of photography itself. Secondly digital will change forever the type, method and conception of photography as we know it today. In much the same way if you take a cross section of photographs at the turn of the century, and compare them with style and method from those in say the 30's and than 70's. There are glimpses of these changes to me now in the works of so many new digital photographers, producing pieces of original art the likes un-witnessed in previous photography. Of course the road ahead is ultimately unforeseen, but it is truly an exciting time. Accepted that main elements like the lenses is something completely different and less changing – still the form and level of scope digital offers has changed photographic style in many ways and will continue to do so.

Again without listing them in a similar way as yourself, but looking at the bigger picture, the combined benefits of digital at this time greatly out way that of film hands down. This is reflected by not only the conversion of the majority of photographic industries to digital, but also by the sheer number of new recruits (amateur, semi and pro) to the world of photography. The single greatest thing since it was discovered that light in the form of a picture could be permanently imprinted on paper, is the emergence of digital technology. The drip feeding evolution of film technology or any other argument for film over digital for that matter could be likened to throwing a lollipop stick at a charging bull elephant.

Enyoy photography.....

LBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 6:31 PM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Digital advocates ALWAYS bring up the future when it has been
proven that their almighty digital technology isn't as good as they
thought it was. So what if digital gets better. THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE
FACT IS THAT ISN'T THAT GOOD NOW! Your camera isn't that good
now. If you want that "betterness" of tomorrow, you'll have to wait
until then; and when that time comes, you'll need to buy a new
camera body.

In reply to LBoy's message:
Quote:
Actually it can be already. Film dynamic range can be mimicked /replicated with any digital SLR in a number of ways, and these methods will become smoother with every new camera iteration
Where in the hell do you guys get these stupidly wild ideas that
digital sensor technology can just keep right on advancing? What
gives your pathetically uninformed minds the reason to think that
dynamic range can be so dramatically increased, for example?
Your dreams of a better technology for tomorrow are based off
of wishful thinking.

And oh yeah, taking multiple exposure of a scene is just so
convenient and practical, isn't it? Hah! That's only possible if your
talking still- life.

Quote:
Digital is still relatively new and finding newer and better methods in less than a 10th of the time of the history of photography itself
This is another typically stupid argument brought up by digital
photography nuts! Digital, as you so ignorantly put it, is based
off of the CCD or CMOS sensor, both of which have been around for
over 30 years! In some regards, an electronic sensor is more analog
than film due to the use of electric currents shifting each line of
pixels off the chip. The image isn't registered and truly fixed in one
unaltering place when it is actually captured. As for advancing, ha!
Yes, there was a time back in the 70's and 80's when it was truly
improving; but not now. Sure they're stuffing more "pixels" onto the
same chip, but they haven't truly made any significant advances in
the actual performance of each photodiode! The amount of noise
for any given pixel has been increasing on P&S digital cameras and
everyone knows it!

Quote:
The blended avatar I have showing here is a reasonable example.
I NEVER said film was "better" for everything! Of course, a digital
camera can be better for making an avatar or the like; when
resolution, dynamic range, power consumption, etc. aren't of any
concern.

Quote:
the combined benefits of digital at this time greatly out way that of film hands down
That obviously depends on your intended use and outcome. For
example, who cares to use film for photographing a murder scene?
What newspaper really cares about quality? Need I say more?


In reply to peripatetic's message:

Quote:
Undoubtedly true. I'm sure it was all my fault.
Judging by your obvious ignorance, it must be true.

Quote:
Or maybe not - what on earth are you going on about? From a contradiction anything can be proved eh? Draw a truth table if you don't believe me.
You mean, you don't know?!!! You have just proven my point!
You didn't ever know how to properly expose film! And where
in the @#$! is my contradiction?!!! The simple fact is that
underexposing film is bad, correctly exposing film is good, and
overexposing by 1 stop is best. My idea of "correct exposure"
is rating the film at the labeled speed. That however, isn't truly
best way to expose negative film.

Quote:
One of the advantages to digital - no? And precisely my point. This is how 99% of film is processed. To avoid this dreadful situation one must take extreme measures, travel far and wide, find a good lab technician and a good lab, blah blah blah - and in the end actually seeing the images you have shot takes such enormous time and effort that photography for the benighted amateur becomes no fun at all.
You've proven one of my points again! You apparently think that
prints must be made. That is not the case. Any decent lab will develop
and cut the film for you; but prints do not have to be made. Thus,
the cost is significantly reduced! My pictures are costing me a total
of $0.12 per frame. So for the 20D to pay off for me, I'd have to take
11,667 pictures with it! After all of that, I'd end up with what I consider
to be inferior pictures!

Quote:
Yup - it takes me around 5 minutes every 2-3 months. Crushing disadvantage there. I feel faint from the blow.
That is either an blatant lie, or you never change your lens! Anyone
who changes lenses often will have far more of a problem than that!
Besides, do you really feel comfortable having to deal with the heart
of the camera like that? You can't exactly replace it unless you send
it in to Canon or buy a new camera body!

Quote:
I agree more DR would be nice, but we have blending options, and with a decent raw converter the situation is nowhere near as bad as you pretend.
Again with the stupid blending method! And just on how many occasions
is that really practical?!!! And again with RAW! Do you really think RAW
mode actually increases the ACTUAL DYNAMIC RANGE of the image? And
even if it did, your talking RAW mode which isn't exactly the most practical
format to shoot in. I know many experts in this field who will argue that
RAW mode does NOT provide any significant advantages! Besides, the
only "exposure latitude" you'll ever have is for underexposure. Now guess
what! Correcting underexposure increases visibility of noise! So, basically,
at higher ISOs, you have no "latitude"!

Quote:
As to the point that you can wildly over and underexpose your film - this is very useful because it often takes days to find out what the pictures look like. With digital I can check it immediately. And even in bright African midday sun I don't have to struggle to see what's on the LCD - the histogram is white on blue and perfectly visible.
And what if you don't get the exposure right? You have to reshoot
it!!! That all too often isn't possible. "Excuse me, my three month old
daughter, would you please smile for me again?". Or what about those
action shots, eh? What then? Besides, many people don't know how
to read a histogram, and even for those that do, it can never truly be
as good as actually seeing the exposure on the screen. What if you
were taking a picture of a bright scene, and that picture was supposed
to show the brightness? You know the histogram should be shifted to
the right...but just how much should it be shifted? With negative film,
one can simply shoot without ever having to worry so much about
exposure.

Quote:
The counter claim is that film doesn't give you 10 TRUE megapixels. A very high proportion of that is noise/grain.
Another stupid argument from the typical digital advocate. Just because
you can see grain doesn't mean that's where the resolution suddenly cuts
off! The image below is a crop from a 10 megapixel film scan. It was shot
on 400 speed film rated at 200 speed. No grain reduction or sharpening
has been applied.
[img]attachment.php?id=42449[/img][img]attachment.php?id=42450[/img]
Quote:
By all means let us not forget the commercial realities driving the pace of development in film technology.
Quote:
*Raises hand* - over here - me me - I'm stupid. I have a question for you: How long till film stock disappears as the medium for movie-making? The commercial pressure for an end-to-end digital solution by the movie industry is enormous.
That you are! The "commercial realities" are the motion picture
industry for one! In spite of some propaganda you may have read
in some cheesy newspaper article (which was written by some idiot
who has no experience in any field but making companies sound
good in order to secure a good cash flow), the motion picture film
industry is alive and well! Unlike most still photographers, cinema-
tographers are more careful when it comes to choosing a medium.
Can anybody name some real movies of late that were shot digitally
(other than Star Wars)? Oh, by the way, the cameras that were
used to shoot Star Wars are now seen for the inferior medium that
they truly are. So much so, in fact, that many television producers
and cinematographers are choosing Super16mm film rather than go
with that digital camera. If you actually kept up in the actual cinema-
tography industry, as I do, rather than base your claims off of some
stupid propagandistic newspaper you read, you'd know that digital
cinematography isn't as successful as you thought! And you'd also
know why!

Quote:
How about that EF-S lens of mine, please explain how the crop factor has caused a loss of usefulness? And for those bird chaps who need the "enhanced" telephoto performance - how has that reduced the usefulness?
For anyone with a large selection regular EF lenses, a loss of usefulness
will be there! And I am sick and tired of hearing about "enhanced telephoto"!
It's a simple crop, for crying out loud! You can take a full frame body and
and do the exact same thing to it's images digitally. This "enhanced telephoto"
garbage is a typical excuse from people who are in denial that their crop
body is substandard! Yes, about that EF-S lens of yours, it is just that...a
single lens. I mean, isn't it just amazing how large of an extent of EF-S lens
there currently are? I believe there are currently---brace yourselves---4
lenses
. Wow! It's mind boggling!

Quote:
Is a 50mm f1.4 prime more or less useful on a crop or full frame?
It absolutely is less useful on a crop body if you need a "normal" focal
length high-speed lens!!!

Quote:
Even if we grant you your point. So what? The length of exposure you are talking about is simply irrelevant for most photographers.
My point is to point out more lies and propaganda! Every digital pundit
says digital is better for this purpose because it has no reciprocity failure.
Wrong again!!!

Quote:
Spending £1.00 per picture to get a decently processed shot is a waste of money for an amateur. My 20D has paid for itself 3 times in the last year. If I had taken as many shots on film the cost of stock and processing would have cost me much more than the camera. Over a 3-5 year period the digital camera is cheap by comparison. These economics don't just apply to professionals, it saves amateurs money too. And the way to get better is to take photographs and experiment, as the counter ticks up my photographs get better.
Who ever said slide film needs to be used or prints made?!!!
As I said before, my pictures are costing me a total of $0.12 per
frame. So for the 20D to pay off for me, I'd have to take 11,667
pictures with it! After all of that, I'd end up with what I consider
to be inferior pictures! What digital camera enthusiast has ever
been able to hold on to their camera for 3-5 years anyway? They
end up buying new ones within 2 years or so!

Quote:
Oh yes and how much do those high-end film scanners cost? And how often do they need to be replaced?
My "high-end" scanner costed $570. But that's because it has
DigitalICE, 5400DPI resolution, etc. A VERY decent scanner can
be had for under $300. And, as I've said before, a film scanner
isn't absolutely necessary to shoot and store your pictures. One
could get away with buying an $80 flatbed scanner with built-in
ability to scan film. The results wouldn't be anywhere near as
good as a real film scanner, but it would make a perfectly
acceptable image. Then, when the user is ready to pay for a
real film scanner, they can rescan their film to a higher quality.
I had an old film scanner that I bought back in 1999. Within
the last half of a year, I replaced it with a newer scanner only
because I wanted higher resolution, faster scan times, Digital
ICE, etc.

Quote:
And yet I was too stupid to get good results from film, and seem to manage just fine with digital despite all those buttons. Of course my head did ache a bit for the first few months until I managed to understand what they were all for. But it's amazing what you can do if you persevere.
Do you really think having more buttons, options and inherent
limitations on a camera isn't going to slow you down during
actual shooting?
Quote:
Does it really not bother you that you contradict yourself so readily?
It would if I did contradict myself. You'll notice that I said "poor
ease of shooting"; the key word there being "SHOOTING".

Quote:
Oh no, I see - it's only RESOLUTION that counts. And those links that you dismissed so readily are far more convincing that your self-contradictory nonsense.
That's funny, I don't recall saying that... And again with the claims of
contradiction! Are you truly so inexperienced that you think that at the
moment you can see grain, that's were the resolution cuts off?

In closing this message:
Yep, that's the world nowadays. Let's rush EVERYTHING, and blame
someone or someTHING else for our mistakes.

I must say, you have very poor arguments!!!


-Ted
Attached Images
 
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 8:41 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Wow!!! I can't comment on any of the info stated by Dimage. I realize that in many instances film will yield better quality and more dynamic range. I learned photography on an old completely manual Ricoh 35 mm camera. I've recently gone completely digital, although I still have my trusty N80 as a backup (it wouldn't be worth my time to sell it!!!) All I know, is that Digital has allowed me to become a better photographer. The instant feedback and limitless shooting at little expense allows me to take more pictures. Practice makes perfect (or at least closer to it). I realize that you don't have to make prints, but come on, what is the purpose of photography but to view and share images. Not making prints is just not acceptable for me or most amateur photographers. I also don't own or have access to a darkroom, nor do i have the expertise to do my own selective developing. I do have a quality printer (two in fact) and software that gives me the ultimate control to create images the way I envisioned them. Truth is, digital does give me better results, that I have complete conrol over, that I can access instantly. Film just cannot compare in this regard.

I (nor do most of the others here I assume) appreciate being called stupid, ignorant or other deragatory adjectives simply because we do not agree with your opinion. Technically, you may be correct...I admittadly do not know all the ins and outs of how and why cameras work. I do know what works for me...and with all your expertise, you could not possibly know what is right for me. It is one thing to present the facts. It is another thing to ridicule, insult and degrade others because they do not agree with you. You refer to digital enthusiasts as pathetic and stupid and wishful thinking. I don't think your nuts for being a film supporter and enthusiast...I think your nuts for being rude and arrogant. There is a way to express your opinions without being insulting.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2005, 9:13 PM   #30
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
All I know, is that Digital has allowed me to become a better photographer. The instant feedback and limitless shooting at little expense allows me to take more pictures.
I completely agree with you on that! I myself have become a better
photographer thanks to digital cameras. They have allowed me to
experiment in ways that wouldn't have been practical with film. Once
I have it right digitally, I can take my new knowledge and apply it to
film.

Some people seem to think that it is evil or impossible to use the two
formats together. The two formats can really complement each other.
For example, I can use a digital camera to verify the exposure before
shooting a picture on slide film. That is an especially good idea when
shooting larger format slide film.

Quote:
I realize that you don't have to make prints, but come on, what is the purpose of photography but to view and share images. Not making prints is just not acceptable for me or most amateur photographers.
My point was to say that you don't have to have a lab create
prints for you. The only thing the lab needs to do is develop the
film. You then take it home, scan the pictures and print the ones
you like.

Quote:
I (nor do most of the others here I assume) appreciate being called stupid, ignorant or other deragatory adjectives simply because we do not agree with your opinion.
I do humbly apologize. I wasn't my intent to call everyone "stupid,
ignorant, other deragatory adjectives"; and even at that, I really
shouldn't have said it at all. Sometimes, I become quite frustrated
by people trying to ignore or write off the advantages of film; and
that sometimes leads to me lose my temper. I must say, though,
that I was stating hard facts; not just opinions.

Quote:
I think your nuts for being rude and arrogant.
Again, I apologize.
dimagez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:02 AM.