Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 19, 2005, 2:24 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Austintatious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 187
Default

Thanks Hiroshi !!!........You truly are a WIZZARD !!!!!..............Charles
Austintatious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2005, 2:44 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Austintatious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 187
Default

I do understand what is being said about this not being a really fair test. Film vs small sensor digicam and all.
My whole reason for this experiment was an old post by non other than NickTrop, where he quoted an add for a Kodak Professional DSLR. (DCS720X). The add stated that now kodak had a digital camera with the equivalent resolotion of FILM !! (Two megapixels) At the time of release that camera cost somewhere around ten thousand dollars!
I just wanted to see for myself and to share with all of you what a side by side comparison looked like. When I put the images up on PhotoBucket for posting here, they were resized a bit by PhotoBucket. Thanks again to Hiroshi for correcting this and reposting the images.:G
Black & White is fun to work with at any rate !!
NickTrop, come out come out where ever you are !!:blah:

Charles
Austintatious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2005, 3:36 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Hiroshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,749
Default

Austintatious wrote:
Quote:
Thanks Hiroshi !!!........You truly are a WIZZARD !!!!!..............Charles
Hey Charles, it was no big deal. I was curious to see what the results were myself.

As for Nick.....well, he better make an appearance pretty soon....cause from what I understand the "National Inquisitor" is working on a new article about him, and I understand that it's a dozy.:blah::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:Oh no!!... Not that!!!!!

Hiroshi
Hiroshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2005, 5:22 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Charlie46227's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 295
Default

He he. I wonder what the headlines will say THIS go around. Maybe some 'post processing' of his likeness, too?
Charlie46227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2005, 6:47 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
jussiuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 719
Default

maybe he has joined the samurai Hiroshi.......

jussiuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2005, 6:54 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
jussiuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 719
Default

These comparisons are very interesting. They do show the problem with the depth of field. In other areas the differences seem quite small to my eye though.
Of course on paper it might all look very different...With digital we have really very little choice with paper where in film you have so many choices.
(Co-incidentally does anyone know why the paper used by commercial photo printers is never the right size for digital? You have to either have the picture clipped thus losing some important visuals...or have some white on two sides of the photo showing. I would have thought that by now when digital far outsells film the companies like Kodak might have sprung to action and corrected this.)

Have to soon have a go and see if shooting in one of the scene modes which I never have used might affect the depbt of field a bit. I think the portrait mode is supposed make background a bit "fuzzier"? Does not the point focus for instance in the fence shot change the depth of field if you focus only on the bit on the right and then move the camera before shotting the picture? Possibly a stupid question?

jussiuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2005, 7:28 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

jussiuk wrote:
35mm film is ~3/2 ratio
Pana digital is ~4/3 ratio

so printing to std sheet sizes involves some cropping

As for DOF and Bokeh small sensor cams suck you just cant equal FF (large sensors) (DSLR's) or old film SLR's

With Pana You need to use 12X zoom in normal view and keep background well behind the subject to blurr it and use f2.8 / f3.3

low F number and max zoom gives narrowest depth of field.

The good thing with Digital is you can experiment to get desired effects for no cost... only time this is something people don't exploit often enough ;-)

look at Charles / Austentatious ...iron fence B&W shots Film/Digital

John
Quote:
These comparisons are very interesting. They do show the problem with the depth of field. In other areas the differences seem quite small to my eye though.
Of course on paper it might all look very different...With digital we have really very little choice with paper where in film you have so many choices.
(Co-incidentally does anyone know why the paper used by commercial photo printers is never the right size for digital? You have to either have the picture clipped thus losing some important visuals...or have some white on two sides of the photo showing. I would have thought that by now when digital far outsells film the companies like Kodak might have sprung to action and corrected this.)

Have to soon have a go and see if shooting in one of the scene modes which I never have used might affect the depbt of field a bit. I think the portrait mode is supposed make background a bit "fuzzier"? Does not the point focus for instance in the fence shot change the depth of field if you focus only on the bit on the right and then move the camera before shotting the picture? Possibly a stupid question?
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 3:50 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Nancy Gabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 662
Default

Hey Fellas, just like to point one thing out. The film pictures that Charles took was with a C-41 process, using special film for that process which is meant for color photos, this means that the quality isn't nearly as high as tradition b&w film. What I am getting at is that dedicated b&w film (like the old Tri-X, or the new T-Max) uses silver halide particles (if my memory serves me well). Which means that the quality would be even higher using these films.I know color films uses dyes, and I would assume so does the XP2. I also believe that Ilford XP2 was developed for the pns shooter who wants to see what b&w looks like, so they can get it developed at any print shop but this is a trade-off for quality.Ilford makes great films, there isa film called Pan F which is an ISO of 50. T Max (from Kodak)can be shot at 50 and you pull process the developing (develop it less), this would yield incredible looking pics. I would love to see the results using a T Max film develped with D-76 (the ole standard) or I believe it is called Extol, which was a new developer Kodak introduced back when I was developing film at school. And if you pull process you would use the T Max developer. I wish I had the time to do this, b/c I love b&w developing, which is most definitely a dying art. Anyway, guys, just my two cents.
Nancy Gabby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 5:38 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Austintatious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 187
Default

Hi Nancy!.....and thanks........Yes I believe you are spot on in your statement about "real" B&W film.......This C41 stuff came out with a strange cast to the prints. The negs that were scaned to a CD seem to look more normal. .......Don't think I will use it again......For the class in B&W photography that I am taking at UT they will be using Ilford Delta 400 speed.....This will be FUN !!!!.................Charles
Austintatious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2005, 7:02 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

Nancy Gabby wrote:
Quote:
Hey Fellas, just like to point one thing out. The film pictures that Charles took was with a C-41 process, using special film for that process which is meant for color photos, this means that the quality isn't nearly as high as tradition b&w film. What I am getting at is that dedicated b&w film (like the old Tri-X, or the new T-Max) uses silver halide particles (if my memory serves me well). Which means that the quality would be even higher using these films.I know color films uses dyes, and I would assume so does the XP2. I also believe that Ilford XP2 was developed for the pns shooter who wants to see what b&w looks like, so they can get it developed at any print shop but this is a trade-off for quality.Ilford makes great films, there isa film called Pan F which is an ISO of 50. T Max (from Kodak)can be shot at 50 and you pull process the developing (develop it less), this would yield incredible looking pics. I would love to see the results using a T Max film develped with D-76 (the ole standard) or I believe it is called Extol, which was a new developer Kodak introduced back when I was developing film at school. And if you pull process you would use the T Max developer. I wish I had the time to do this, b/c I love b&w developing, which is most definitely a dying art. Anyway, guys, just my two cents.
Nancy's right C41 = dye NOTHING like TRIX/D76 or Ilford FP4/HP4/Id11 silver halide films are best so too are the silver halide papers

I used Ilford film and papers, its a bit of a dying art now the whole process from film to darkroom print takes quite a bit of effort.

Today with digital and inkjet B&W is no sweat, however its worth viewing in a gallery
B&W darkroom prints on silver halide paper they are unique they have a tone and quality thats something to behold .... for example Ilford paper (Ilfobrom) has a slight purple warm tone.

Most pros have gone the Epson inkjet route for color or B&W for ease and speed.


John



boyzo 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 9:50 PM.