Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 14, 2005, 3:03 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 198
Default

I wonder if you are comparing your film prints to digital ones you printed yourself, or if the lab that prints your digital ones turns colour correction of. Print shops generally automatically adjust saturation and brightness to make your prints as impressive as possible. Digital processing allows us to make these adjustments, but you have to match your monitor to your output, whether your own screen or the photo shops. You didn't say that you were disappointed with the digital pics so this may not be an issue.

It may also mean that you knew what you were doing with the p & s - after all, it is the photographer, not just the camera that makes the shot

Kevin
klfatcj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 6:34 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
techgeek419's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 404
Default

klfatcj wrote:
Quote:
I wonder if you are comparing your film prints to digital ones you printed yourself, or if the lab that prints your digital ones turns colour correction of.

...... You didn't say that you were disappointed with the digital pics so this may not be an issue.

Kevin
Thefilm prints Iwas reviewing were sunsets, city landscape,photos of bridges, ect.
The digital images were not printed, but comparedon overall image quality (sharpness, hues, saturation, color differences)

I am posting a "scanned" photo of the Mackinaw bridge, taken with the Minolta P&S, Advantix film.

It is ascenic sunset shot, with objects in front (bridge, waves).
The detail can be seen in the bridge and waves (they are not darkened).
Andthe differenthues from the sky are visable.

What I have foundwith digital cams used, isthat in dusk shots with objects, you get one ofthe following:

1) great sky hues, but dark objects in frontof it (no flash,since its too far to reach)
OR
2) bright objects (bridges or trees)but nohues in the sky (its one solid color)

Withdigitals, Ive even triedvarious manual white balance settings, and other "tweaking", butcant seem to achievedecent results. Maybe I am doing something wrong, not sure. It was just alot less complicated with P&S film. (I'm still learning).

I hope the message makes sense. It's hard to describe the specifics exactly,

So here is the example photo (Minolta P&S Film, internal lens, no settings)


Attached Images
 
techgeek419 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 6:45 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Bobbyz, believe it or not, there is a guy who shoots wildlife with a medium format. He is very limited in subject matter (things he can get close enough for a 300mm) but the results is absolute stunning.

I don't know about the lens selection with large format, though. I assume it isn't practical. My understanding is this person sets up a perch and a blind and waits with the camera focused properly for the subject. Doesn't sound like lots of fun to me, but it will produce great images.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2005, 6:57 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
techgeek419's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 404
Default

will post some other shots later
techgeek419 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 8:59 AM   #25
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

techgeek419 wrote:
Quote:
What I have foundwith digital cams used, isthat in dusk shots with objects, you get one ofthe following:

1) great sky hues, but dark objects in frontof it (no flash,since its too far to reach)
OR
2) bright objects (bridges or trees)but nohues in the sky (its one solid color)

Withdigitals, Ive even triedvarious manual white balance settings, and other "tweaking", butcant seem to achievedecent results. Maybe I am doing something wrong, not sure. It was just alot less complicated with P&S film. (I'm still learning).

I hope the message makes sense. It's hard to describe the specifics exactly...
You mean like this from a Canon 10D (the closest i can get to your shot) @ sunrise?






... this is from a moon shot @ sunset:






-> and same shot angle but during the day instead: :idea:


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 1:19 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

techgeek419 wrote:
Quote:
What I have foundwith digital cams used, isthat in dusk shots with objects, you get one ofthe following:

1) great sky hues, but dark objects in frontof it (no flash,since its too far to reach)
OR
2) bright objects (bridges or trees)but nohues in the sky (its one solid color)

Learn PS. You take 2 shots and blend in PS. If taken in RAW you can just take 1 shot and process it differently, once for highlights and second time for shadow detail and mix 2 up in PS.

Actually using flash for closer subjects in evenings shots does work fine on digital.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 1:22 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
Bobbyz, believe it or not, there is a guy who shoots wildlife with a medium format. He is very limited in subject matter (things he can get close enough for a 300mm) but the results is absolute stunning.

I don't know about the lens selection with large format, though. I assume it isn't practical. My understanding is this person sets up a perch and a blind and waits with the camera focused properly for the subject. Doesn't sound like lots of fun to me, but it will produce great images.

Eric
I was just saying that to prove there is no perfect solution to everything. You have to use the right tool for the job. All great landscape guys probably stilluse theview camera but on any sports sidelines, you only going to find state of art digitals.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 1:24 PM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

... The two shot tricks doesn't usually work with ocean waves :idea:
-> you might still need an f/2.8 here for early morning or late evening exposures

IMO one shot raw does not buy you any more dynamic range (but at least two will with different exposures...)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2005, 1:32 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

larger pixels = greater image quality

more pixels = more resolution

more pixels = higher reolution per equal print sizes (22 meg on a 8x10 is much more resolution then 12.8 meg on a 8x10)

pixels per mm" on the sensor is a meaningless figure except for noise reduction issues (fewer larger pixels = less noise)

this is why KM went with 6.1 meg of large QUALITY pixels on their APS sensor instead of 8 meg a la canon

i routinely get marketable 20x30 prints (on canvas) from cropped .MRW

CASE CLOSED

attached taken w/ fuji finepix s7000, WITH A TRIPOD


Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 5:40 AM   #30
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
larger pixels = greater image quality

more pixels = more resolution

more pixels = higher reolution per equal print sizes (22 meg on a 8x10 is much more resolution then 12.8 meg on a 8x10)

pixels per mm" on the sensor is a meaningless figure except for noise reduction issues (fewer larger pixels = less noise)
I don't think anyone disagree with your list of common facts...

The better quality pixels is not the issue -> The problem was you were comparing two formats - It's like saying 120/220 films are superior to 35mm which needs no explanation either and will provide a better enlargement ratio as well

If you crop the H2d to the frame size of the 5D you only get about 9.8Mpixels instead which is a fairer comparison of resolution -> i.e. compare 35mm film vs dSLRs and 120/220 films to the H2d

You might as well add this camera to the mix: http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm




Quote:
this is why KM went with 6.1 meg of large QUALITY pixels on their APS sensor instead of 8 meg a la canon i routinely get marketable 20x30 prints (on canvas) from cropped .MRW

CASE CLOSED
-> At 16262 pixels per mm square, the KM 7D (a camera which I have high respect for) has more pixel density than the full-frame 5D :idea:
... and so is the EOS-10D!
NHL 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 6:20 PM.