Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#658907 - 16/10/2005 22:47 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
One thing that i find to be a trap with digital, is if you tinker around with the settings, and take a few photos with the ISO set at 1600, its very easy to forget to change it back to 100 or 200, then next time you take important photos (wedding, party whatever) take a heap of grainy photos. Ive done this a few times.

Here is a comparison. The top photowas taken last thursday with my 300D, and the bottom photo was taken pretty much at the same time with my old (early 80s)canon AV-1 that i bought for $20 a few weeks ago.




_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658908 - 17/10/2005 08:21 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Jake Offline
Member

Registered: 26/12/2004
Posts: 798
Loc: Sunshine Coast, SE QLD
Totally agree about that ISO setting Rob, canon have to get ISO in the viewfinder asap. People have been complaining about this since the D30-D60 and Canon still haven't addressed it. When I first got my 350D I was playing around at home in low light @ iso 800, next day we had small storm come through and I got some great shots of two horses watching the approaching cell with a rainbow in the BG....got home and almost died when I saw F8 1/4000th ISO 800. These days I've got a little process that I go through where I reset ISO back to 100, aperture priority to F8, shutter priority to 1/500th and M to F16 1/100 (base for sunny 16 rule). I'd like to think I'd notice 1/4000th flashing in the viewfinder these days too :p

With the comparison, as I mentioned earlier you've got to process your digital images just like processing film if you want the best results and a fair comparision. The film example has quite a nice dynamic range but has a strong magenta colour cast. The digital examples colour balance is good (maybe a tad green) but is underexposed, you can avoid that by exposing to the right I shoot raw exclusively so usually take it a touch further by overexposing just a touch, a lot of the time this helps to avoid noise when processing and any slightly blown highlights can be pulled back easily. The only downside to this method is that on the odd occasion you'll blow an individual RGB channel because the consumer DSLR's only offer a lumiousity histogram for reference. I think the one series have a full RGB histogram though, would be a very nice feature to see on the consumer series. smile


Top
#658909 - 17/10/2005 12:53 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
Thanks Rob and Jake, that is interesting.

Jake, for those of us still learning and indeed wanting to make the most of our P&S's (with some manual settings), is it possible to use a watered down approach of what you have mentioned above?

For example, slightly overexposing this shot from 2004 season up here and then bringing it back a little in Irfan View seemed to produce less noise than the underexposed shots being brightened up. Does that sound right?



I think I was on ISO 50, manual focus, 1/2000 (my limit sadly) for this shot. I have a Canon A70.

Larger images:

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bmstorms/summer2004/dec13th2004storm2.jpg

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bmstorms/summer2004/dec13th2004storm1.jpg
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#658910 - 17/10/2005 13:57 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Jake Offline
Member

Registered: 26/12/2004
Posts: 798
Loc: Sunshine Coast, SE QLD
Quote:
Originally posted by Blizzard:
For example, slightly overexposing this shot from 2004 season up here and then bringing it back a little in Irfan View seemed to produce less noise than the underexposed shots being brightened up. Does that sound right?
That's spot on Blizz, to avoid unwanted noise with any digital camera you have to try and get exposure as close to perfect as possible in camera. When you try and brighten the image up after the noise will only become more pronounced.

Without a histogram or the ability to shoot RAW on most P&S cams makes it much harder. If you go too far the blown pixels will simply contain no information (255 being pure white) and will not be salvagable.

There is a way around it though, buy a 512mb-1GB card and use exposure bracketing. This not only increases the chance of getting exposure right for any given situation but gives you frames which you can layer in editors like Photoshop and The Gimp (free) By combining a couple of shots you not only increase dynamic range but you can paint back any lost highlight detail.

Top
#658911 - 17/10/2005 15:25 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
GraemeWi Offline
Member

Registered: 30/06/2002
Posts: 78
Loc: Auckland NZ
Hi Blizzard - I hope you don't mind - I had a quick play with your image in Gimp... there is a fair amount of detail that can be pulled from the image... I used a couple of layers and masked blends... though if the picture was a bit larger I could have had a go at the noise as well...

Initial image: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~bmstorms/summer2004/dec13th2004storm2.jpg

My attempt below:



With my digitals I tend to slightly under-expose to try and not blow out any highlights. My S1 IS has a histogram (not a live one though!) which helps me get the exposure a little better while 'still out in the field'.

By way of keeping on the topic - I'm another ex-film user. My film SLRs are stored away with silica bags... sad to say I can't see myself using them again.

Cheers,

G

Top
#658912 - 17/10/2005 16:20 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Blizzard Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 31/03/2001
Posts: 10341
Loc: Blue Mountains
Don't mind you fiddling about with it at all, Graeme. Taa. smile

And thanks Jake. Your info is much appreciated.

I'm just working on getting the most out of my cam for another year or two before I consider going SLR or whatever. Establishing a better grounding in basic photography is more important to me at this point.

Blizz
PS: Hmm, might go and try out GIMP.
_________________________
BoM Storm Spotter, snow chaser, webmaster for www.blackheathweather.com

Top
#658913 - 17/10/2005 17:32 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
---- Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 25/11/2002
Posts: 5786
I expose to the point of blowing and use the histiogram and the "blinking highlights" to gauge exposure. I never underexpose, it exacerbates any noise especially in post. I also shoot raw which gives huge latitude in processing and for me reduces the need to bracket except in the highest contrast scenes. A litle bit of blown highlights is fine as it can be pulled back from the raw file, but too much and its gone forever. Its a fine line but not so difficult with practice and knowing how your breed of cam responds.
The image below was shot in just the method used above with much broader dynamic range than the camera could capture in a single jpeg. The data was there locked up in the raw file..

Ona side note I have printed this image to 40 inches and it looks great!!
Cheers,
Tim

Top
#658914 - 17/10/2005 18:25 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
GraemeWi Offline
Member

Registered: 30/06/2002
Posts: 78
Loc: Auckland NZ
I love the warm colours of the land in that shot!

I suspect the raw shooting / processing is the magic key to blown highlights recovery - I've never been able to recover blown highlights from the jpgs my cameras produce. In the early days some consumer P&S models did have raw, but sadly this feature has been left out.

I must admit I'm really tempted to get a DSLR so I can shoot raw... at least I can reuse my Nikon glass if I get a D70s!

Cheers,

G

Top
#658915 - 18/10/2005 14:47 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Ray Mullens Offline
Mod Squad, This is my second home!!

Registered: 31/03/2003
Posts: 1223
Loc: Lismore,Goonellabah. Norther R...
I use RAW all the time, it can be a savour or it can be a pain!!!!
Blown highlights can be bought back a little but not very often Iím afraid.
If you are unshorn of the exposure I would under expose a little, at least it can be bort back with very good results. Iíve seen an image pulled out from a black frame (amazing demonstration of what can be done) at a seminar once.
If you can upload custom curves to you Cam (the D70 is one) these are well worth getting to know, there great for JPG applications when you wonít your results strait away.

As for the Film v Digital------ they both have there applications that only that formate will be able to produce. What I can say I wonít be going back to film for some time to came, I like the idea of have an instant preview on hand & the histogram is one awesome tool to get your head around & learn to use.

My two cent worth!!!!! laugh

:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
#658916 - 18/10/2005 15:49 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Andrew Miskelly Offline
Weatherzone Webmaster

Registered: 15/11/2001
Posts: 3147
Loc: Mittagong, NSW
One problem that's inherent to anything digital is that the model you end up forking out for is superseded almost before you get it out of the box!

I get the impression that this isn't the case to the same extent with film cameras (or lenses) - people seem to happily use the same model for many years.

Top
#658917 - 18/10/2005 15:53 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
bigwilly Offline
Weatherzone Mod and Photog

Registered: 25/09/2002
Posts: 6543
Loc: Junee - just north of the 'Bid...
Bloody hell Tim, that is one fantabuolous shot you have there! Sums Australia perfectly, the land of drought and flooding rains. Awsome.
The only pain I have with RAW and it was alleviated quite considerably with RAW essentials I think it is (Thanks Jake wink ) is the workflow. Having to download the photos from the cam, edit and convert to TIFF and then open up in PS does get a little tiresome, especially with the software that came with the cam. However as I said, the new software seems to improve the workflow considerably, especially with the ability to prioritise what images you want to work on and saving them as you work on them, great little program.

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountains Photography
_________________________
YTD Rainfall = 281.0mm (Avg to March 117.0mm)
MTD rainfall March = 34.7mm(Avg 41.3mm)
February 2011 total = 203.9mm (Avg 37.8mm)
2010 Rainfall: 759.3mm (Annual Avg: 521.5mm)

Top
#658918 - 19/10/2005 14:57 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Ray Mullens Offline
Mod Squad, This is my second home!!

Registered: 31/03/2003
Posts: 1223
Loc: Lismore,Goonellabah. Norther R...
Very true Andrew

One thing I have noticed over the latter part of this year is the Camera manufactures have slowed down with the reales of new models some what??
I think for the average person anything over the 5 Meg pix is a bit of an over kill.
Any thing over this is more costly & if you arenít going to print large poster size or crop the hell out of your images you really donít need to spend the big bucks for a bigger size sensor, you really arenít gaining anything from the money you have spent.
You can add a bit more money onto the Cam price for bigger sized cards to hold the larger file sizes that go with the bigger sensor as well.
A 6X4 printed from a 5 meg pix cam looks, to the every day person the same as a 6X4 printed from a 8 Meg Pix Cam once you get up to the 8X10 you mite start finding a little difference but you would have to hard up to say anything .
The differences from the normal viewing distance would be quite undetectable IMO.

So I donít think I will be upgrading from my D70 for some time to come.

:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
#658919 - 21/10/2005 12:11 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
mic_o7 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/10/2003
Posts: 521
Loc: Brisbane
dont know if its been mentioned but for ppl with apples( the only way to go) u might be interested in this

http://www.apple.com/aperture/

http://www.apple.com/aperture/profiles/

Top
#658920 - 30/10/2005 21:09 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
RickC Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/10/2001
Posts: 1597
Loc: Back in good ol' Whyalla, Sout...
People, people, people........digital has surpassed 35mm film has it and its now bordering on medium format. Well, my, Ive heard some big statements but......

Here in whyalla, digital surpassed 35mm when cameras exceeding 3mp came out. Why? Because, I think we are (were - theyve all gone out of business now when everyone went to digital - wonder why) home to the worst minilabs in australia. If you process the film in the wrong chemicals or spent or contaminated ones at the wrong temps for the wrong times you can make an iso 25 film look like an iso 1600! and then if your incompetent at printing them you can add another quantum leap in image degradation.

I think you should be extremely careful at saying 6mp dslr's are past 35mm film slr quality. I have significant doubts about that.

Wait until you've seen an iso100 film developed to perfection and then printed to perfection. Nice and sharp even at 20 by 30 inches. I have seen this myself, mind you with a film about 4 generations old. Each subsequent generation gets finer grain, sharper res and usually better colour reproduction. So imagine what current generation iso 50 can produce.

I was asked a while ago to rate what I thought the res 35mm film goes up to in mp terms. My answer was from 0.3 through to about 24mp. I will stick with that answer too, hey, even if Im out by 6mp, thats still a fair margin ahead of most dslrs. Now, about medium format.............

Top
#658921 - 30/10/2005 21:30 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Lert Offline
Member

Registered: 17/02/2003
Posts: 377
Loc: Duncraig
I guess there are arguments one way or the other and i'm not qualified to have an opinion but I happened to read this Canon D30 vs film comparison earlier this afternoon. Take into consideration that the D30 was a 3MP class camera..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

Top
#658922 - 31/10/2005 18:24 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
RickC Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/10/2001
Posts: 1597
Loc: Back in good ol' Whyalla, Sout...
Lert, your reply prompted me to go out and do a bit more research. Findings were interesting to say the least (http://www.theimage.com/photography/photopg1.htm). Having gone all technical on everyone, I am now going to do an about face and say, that after a while the technical is irrelevant and that what looks better to you, looks better to you!

Top
#658923 - 02/11/2005 01:36 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
Im still convinced that they both have fors and againsts.
Have a look at this rainbow photo i took with slide film near urana in southern NSW last summer,


You will notice the photo has atmosphere. Its almost like looking out of a window rather than looking at a photo. It hasnt been altered in any way apart from clone out a couple of hairs that always end up on slides when you scan them.
On the other hand, had i taken the photo with my digital SLR, i would of had the photo on the computer that evening rather than have to wait for the slides to be developed and mounted. Also with the digital i probably would of needed to adjust a few levels of saturation, contrast, sharpness etc... to get it how i wanted it. wink
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658924 - 02/11/2005 01:46 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Volkl_1 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/06/2005
Posts: 1755
Loc: wangaratta
And here is the digital equivelent, taken at the same time. Ironicly exactly 12 months ago today!lol
Both shots are unedited.
_________________________
Lindsay Knowles is a legend

Top
#658925 - 02/11/2005 07:56 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Andy Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 29/06/2001
Posts: 1017
Loc: Mid-North Coast, NSW
Rob, to be honest I think the digital version has much more accurate colour rendition. The slide picture has too much red/magenta. On my (calibtrated) monitor the sky in the slide picture appears almost purple and the white road markings and post have a definate red cast. I also notice a fair bit more noise in the sky area of the slide pic compared to the digital, although this would be due to the scanning process and also the fact that the images are small, low resolution and not the originals.

A couple of minutes in PhotoShop and I think I could make either one of the pics look like the other.

Top
#658926 - 02/11/2005 08:30 Re: Digital V Film...Which is better?
Ray Mullens Offline
Mod Squad, This is my second home!!

Registered: 31/03/2003
Posts: 1223
Loc: Lismore,Goonellabah. Norther R...
I think you mite find alot of the difference is in the white balance setting in the two images.
If you play around with the white balance setting in PS you could get them looking the same.

:cheers:
Ray :p

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Who's Online
4 registered (Max Record, desieboy, Trumper, 1 invisible), 294 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Asti, carlaell, gerryr1, mcjody, rjdsunsets
Forum Stats
29239 Members
32 Forums
23597 Topics
1450147 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image