Re: How far...
- From: CFB <look@xxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:58:45 GMT
First, look at the very end of the message, then forget what you read,
and start from here.
In article <42FAC7B2.1030405@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> CF wrote:
>
> > In article <42FA2B42.60508@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@xxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >>Incorrect. This digital myth just doesn't seem to die. Digital
> >>cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
> >>See:
> >> Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
> >> and Comparison to Film
> >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
> >
> >
> > "Digital camera transfer functions, like that in the Canon 1D Mark II
> > camera, are similar to print film." That did not say higher, right?
> >
> > And $9000 for a digital body is a lot to pay to get "close" to film's DR.
>
> A transfer function describes the sensor/film response to the intensity
> of light and has nothing to do with spatial resolution.
?
I was talking about dynamic range?
>
> The 1D Mark II is a $4000 camera, not $9000.
Is that any better?
> But if you read the tables at
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
> you will see many other DSLR have quite similar specifications.
Telling me the cameras would help. I saw no reference to Dynamic range.
>
> >>Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
> >>a dynamic range limitation.
> >
> >
> > Hmm. Isn't blowout caused because of a small DR? Like if you have a very
> > contrast scene dark and light will suffer if you expose for the middle
> > range. Like comparing a DR of 1 stop to one of 5.
> >
> > http://www.nature-photography-central.com/DynamicRange.html
>
> No it is not. Blowout is caused by incorrect metering.
Yikes. You can get blowout if you have metered correctly. Want proof? Go
outside, face the sun, half sky, half land. Meter, blowout. Adjust meter
for shadows, more blowout. Adjust for sky, underexposure on land.
Now, change a cameras DR to 1. You will always get blowout.
>
> >> Digital has more dynamic range in the
> >>low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
> >>in the high end. You must learn to expose differently with
> >>digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
> >>and print film differently.
> >
> > That is just wrong.
> > http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/technical/hdri/
>
> No it is not. But the above page is correct too (claiming film has a
> high dynamic range).
My head hurts.
> The problem with the study on the above page, and
> the characteristic curves from film manufacturers is that they average huge
> film area in order to get the response at the low end. Go back to:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
Dude, you need to start referring to web pages other then your own.
"I am right because look at what I said!" That should sound silly to
you.
> and look at figure 10. The Kodak characteristic curve is plotted along with
> constant and high resolution data for the same film (Kodak Gold 200).
> The problem with film's dynamic range is not that it is not there,
> but the image is lost in noise when you want detail at the same
> resolution as brighter parts of the image.
>
> DSLR, on the other hand, maintain high signal-to-noise ration into the
> deep shadows, even when considering a single pixel. So if both film
> and digital are put on the same playing field, examining data at
> comparable resolution, digital wins by orders of magnitude.
Yes, so you said a lot of technical gibber gabber, but what good does
that do me?
I did not go to MIT but just because you did doesn't mean you are right.
I mean Oppenheimer knew a lot but sheeesh!
>
> >
> >>>Anyway, I think the look of
> >>>35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
> >>>both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
> >>>never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.
> >>
> >>I consistently produce higher quality digital prints up to
> >>16x24 inches from 6 and 8 megapixel DSLRs whose sharpness has
> >>surprised me, and those who bought them than I did with film. I use
> >>Richardson-Lucey image restoration to improve resolution up to 2x.
> >>That is possible because of the high signal-to-noise of digital images.
> >
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah. You're not a photographer, you're a geek.
>
> Thanks. Did you look at any images? I guess I better just take
> my national and international prize winning photos and my images
> hanging in galleries, tell people who are buying my photos
> that I am not a photographer and go home.
And McDonald's sells a lot of hamburgers. Van Gough did not sell
anything till 50 years after he died. You can do everything or nothing
and it don't matter.
Just because you sell work does not make you a photographer. Technically
you might be.
And "Highly Honored"? That's not an award, that's a mention. And judges
award what they like. What's the big deal?
Dude, just don't hoot your own horn so much.
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com
>
> >
> >>There is no longer a comparison between digital and 35mm film.
> >
> > There never was.
>
> You seem to have a problem with it.
:^P
>
>
> >>In all but very restricted circumstances, 8-megapixel digital
> >>cameras outperform film, even low speed film.
> >
> > What does "out perform" mean? Are your photographs better?
>
> Higher spatial resolution, larger dynamic range, higher signal-to-noise,
> giving better tonality.
Oh, it's a technical race.
> >
> > IE: Art is not dependent on mechanics.
>
> It absolutely is.
OK. I see. You're a tech geek. Nothing wrong with that.
> Example: 35mm is barely adequate for many photographic
> applications (mine and many people's opinions). One must understand the
> technology in order to get the most from it.
A friend gave three wedding photographs to my friends wedding he took
with a point and shoot. The mother wanted a copy and she has in hung in
her hallway. So whatever. Your "one must do this" statements are silly.
I once saw a guy draw something really cool on a napkin.
> I do large format
> photography (with film), and I find it limiting too. I push my
> equipment to their limits trying to get the best image I can, whether
> 4x5, 8x10, 35mm, or digital.
Are there no limits man! DAMN YOU!
>
> >
> >> But this is true
> >>only if you know how to post process digital files, which in itself
> >>is an art form, much like darkroom printing is an art form.
> >
> > Uhm, no.
>
> Then clearly you do not understand.
You can't fix a bad photograph in photoshop. And I'm not talking about
red eye.
>
> >>See:
> >>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
> >>and follow the links to more specific articles. Note the
> >>Apparent Image Quality factor, AIQ, I've developed. It shows
> >>how DSLRs are challenging medium format, just as David Littleboy
> >>indicated. For those who've seen but haven't viewed this page
> >>recently, I've done a lot of updates to it, adding newer cameras.
> >
> > Damn, all I see are a bunch of silly people thinking they are
> > photographers.
> >
> >>>>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.
> >>>
> >>>And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P
> >>
> >>Statements like this only illustrate you don't know what
> >>you are talking about.
> >
> >
> > Oh, OK. Maybe you could ask me what I meant by that?
> >
> > By the way, I am not saying this as a gotcha, but you should spend more
> > time taking photographs and maybe then you will know what I am talking
> > about.
>
> I would love to take more photos, but I have a backlog of thousands
> already that I want to print. But you came into this thread with
> an absolute mindset that film is best.
Can you mark where I said that? You assumed I said it. In fact you said
best 3 times. Don't be a dingy. I never said film is better and I don't
believe either is better then the other.
> All objective data says that
> is not correct.
Preference is not objective. Neither is art.
> Many many photographers are switching, and many care
> strongly about image quality and would not switch from film unless the
> quality was there. It is with digital for many situations, including
> most 35mm work. Open your mind and be objective.
Oh, reference above.
>
> > And dude, you can reference yourself all you want, but it's just you.
>
> Yep. Follow the references in the articles, and check my bio (link
> on the home page).
I told you your were a geek. MIT? C'mon. No worries, I'm a geek too.
You've seen the glories of the universe, it used to make me cry. I had a
1000mm Celestron Scope I bought when I was 14 by changing tires at a
garage. But ya know what? It's still there when you put the telescope
down.
Oh, and I think it's cheesey for any one to have their pic on a web page
holding a camera. And you have two. :^P
> I stand by my research,
Of course. Who doesn't?
> which I do for myself, to
> improve what I do. My original research was simply a comparison of
> 35mm film versus 4x5 film (before consumer film scanners) so I could
> understand when I could use each at its best. I've been doing scientific
> digital imaging for about 30 years.
Talking about yourself does not make what you say anymore credible.
>
> When consumer digital came along, I started testing different
> cameras to watch the technology. I did not switch until 6 megapixels
> came along, and then only for high speed work. I used 35mm
> and 6 megapixel DSLRs together for a while along with 4x5. Only
> in the last year have I mostly stopped 35mm, using an 8-mpixel
> DSLR and 4x5 film.
>
> The next big step for me will be when I drop 4x5 for digital DSLR and
> mosaicing multiple frames together to match the resolution of 4x5.
> I've gotten some images, but I am not yet convinced it will work as well
> in many situations. Until then, I'll lug both around (50+ pounds).
> Can anyone out there see why it might not work? It has to do with
> tilts and depth of field of a view camera. Another example of how
> technical knowledge is critical in getting an image.
Well, all you have to do is try. You don't need no stinkin math. You
must know how Einstien postulated his famous light speed question.
Now read below again.
Anyway, it's been fun. I like thinking.
Being hard on others so they are hard on themselves,
CFB
LOOK BELOW!
You have some really great work and you know a crap load of technical
information.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How far...
- From: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
- Re: How far...
- References:
- How far...
- From: Peter
- Re: How far...
- From: David J. Littleboy
- Re: How far...
- From: CFB
- Re: How far...
- From: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
- Re: How far...
- From: CFB
- Re: How far...
- From: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
- How far...
- Prev by Date: Re: Lens advise
- Next by Date: Re: Soft focus filters
- Previous by thread: Re: How far...
- Next by thread: Re: How far...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
