WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > General Photography > The Photography Forum


The Photography Forum General Photography Related Discussion.

Digital or Velvia?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 29-01-10, 14:56
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

Good enough resolving power.

Below is a typical action shot I took the other day. No special lab conditions just a tripod used to steady the camera. Shot @ ISO500 1/200 sec f6.3 300mm. I focused on the most static part of the body as the head was swinging in all directions to survey the scene and check me over. The depth of field was about 0.7" ( I would of normally shoot at f8 in brighter light ) so the eye area is not as detailed as I would of hoped for. But non the less you can see the humble 10Mp sensor of the Canon 40D has picked plenty of detail.

The image is a 100% crop and the full frame version is in the insert.

I've been shooting digital for the past 6 years and in general the results have been far superior to my film work.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated

Last edited by robski; 26-07-11 at 22:34.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 29-01-10, 15:24
miketoll's Avatar
miketoll miketoll is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,477
Default

Agree with you Rob, when I have used a high end scanner to scan a few of my old slides or negatives I have been shocked at how poor they look compared to using something like the 40D, even when the same lenses were used (they are compatible with and used on both my film and digital cameras).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 29-01-10, 16:42
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Alex,
If your standard ex lab machine prints are 6x4, 7x5 or 8x6 then they really tell you next to nothing nothing about the film or camera lens's ability to record fine detail. Almost any 35mm camera with any lens, even the most budget jobs can easily be printed to that size. You may spot if a a really rubbish lens used but thats about it. From 35mm you need to get to at least 12x16 from full frame 35mm before things really start to show.

As far as this thread goes then it is fair enough for you to use film and have lab prints as you do, but from that standpoint as you are not seeing everything that film will deliver, and you cannot realistically get involved in film v digital never mind going as far as film even Velvia is superior to digital. Yeah I read KR, and its another one of his 'stoke a contraversy' to generate more hits articles. Sometimes that guy just spouts rubbish.

Your link to KR suggests that it is being used as some sort of justification for using film. This is not necessary. If you want to use film thats fine, whatever medium suits you.

If you want to discuss or argue the case for film then you really do need to experience digital imaging from a DSLR ( for its sensor size ). Only then can you really understand both sides of the fence and give reasoned opinions. If you have a friend with one, see if you can get a couple of full frame 16 bitTiffs made from RAW files.

All this is a bit reminiscent of the days when it was all film. ie the arguement then was that 35mm is a miniature format and you need to get into medium format if you are anyway serious. Larger neg requires less magnification at the enlarging stage. Then into medium format this continued into 6x4.5 v 6x6 v 6x7 v 6x9 debate. Then 5x4 will blow all that away, and while we are on large fomat 10x8 well now you are talking. And all that before talking about various film emulsions and developing brews.

Now we have digital, we are in the world of Canon v Nikon v Pentax v Sony et al, to which you have added v film.
Those that moved from film to digital did so as a conscious decision, and are well aware of the positives and negatives if they feel there are any.
The only thing I really miss from my Bronica 6x6 is the large viewfinder. Massive by comparison with my D2X. Processing Cibachromes in a length of plastic drain pipe is certainly something I would not want to go back to.

My view is ...................its Simples ...... research the gear then just use whatever suits your individual budget, style and photographic requirements best.

The old mine is better than yours bragging rights over kit is generally short lived unless you have very deep pockets so why bother. In the end its the pics and your enjoyment of the hobby that really count. If you have the cash and can afford the latest and greatest and it increases your enjoyment, then no probs here unless you then tell me my kit is rubbish, in which case we will then enter the convince me with pics not words territory.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 29-01-10, 17:07
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoll View Post
........................... One last point, we are all agreed that the final piccie is what counts but you also admit you have never worked in the wet darkroom and printed your photos under an enlarger. That means that you have handed over your picture to someone else to do at least half the process of producing the picture you want and he puts your film in an automated machine. If you are truly going to get the most out of your photography then you need to have control of the whole process from start to finish. Use film by all means and enjoy it but set up your own darkroom, us oldies have done it and enjoyed it but my old Durst stands rather forlorn in a corner because digital is far easier, gives more control, and is repeatable without the risk of destroying the original which can all too easily happen when developing the negative or slide. Darkroom work is fun but can be very frustrating and expensive when chasing a colour cast because the temperature is not quite right or constant. When you are in control of everything from start to finish you feel far more of a real photographer whether you use digital or film.
Well said Mike.
The biggest plus of digital is the ease of processing your own images once you have a glimmer of understanding of how the imaging program works. So long since I had a machine print done but I do recall how impressed I was with my first darkroom print when I compared it with the lab job.

I gave up colour neg due to the fact that each time I went to print I had to recalbrate the enlarger as the paper had changed. Shed loads of wasted paper, lost time and sheer frustration. Then again I could not afford a pukka colour analyser. Hence going to Cibachrome from slide for colour. Ciba paper was very stable and the colour wheel settings were accurately printed on each pack.

The next big issue was multiple prints from a single tranny. For work I could do two at a time in my bit of drain, but after each it had to be washed and thoroughly dried before the next. A straight run of 30 6x4's could take nearly 6 hours from initial chemical mix to final wash and tidy up.

Even some B&W that I recieved requests for were a bit of a nightmare to replicate due to the amount of dodging and burning required to near match the origional. Computer linked printing is so easy as its just a case of printing the processed and saved copy.

Makes you wonder if photography would have been so widely taken up if there was no commercial processing available back in the day.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 29-01-10, 21:33
Alex1994's Avatar
Alex1994 Alex1994 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 806
Default

Woah, quite an onslaught here. I'll try my best to address your points one by one.

1: The KR link. Yes, I think old Ken was being a little sensationalist here. Let's remind ourselves of what he was comparing: a 1950s era 'people's camera' with the creme de la creme of modern digital SLRs, just 3 years old and the top of the Nikon range when it was released. Surely there shouldn't be any comparison in any situation? The lighting doesn't look that different to me. While the Nikon image may have been tampered with a little, the cameras are so different in price that the result still astounds me.

2: Manual focus lenses: yes, for moving subject's they're not brilliant. However, you can still pick up an AF SLR with AF lens for very little money. I keep an EOS 30 for this purpose, total setup could be had for less than 150 pounds, it has an AF that is plenty fast enough for children and animals.

3: Cost. This issue may differ for many, but when I use a digital camera on a shoot I find myself making, say, 120 images. That's about 3-4 times more than I would make with a 35mm film camera. However, the number of photos I really like and put in an album is about the same (3 or 4 at the very very best). So, with digital I end up with more junk. However, taking all these picture is great for learning, but as for the end result, more isn't necessarily merrier.

4: Printing and developing at home as opposed to a lab. Yes, I agree that if I did the pics myself I would learn more and get a result I like more. However, issues of time and space prevent this from happening . Due to the fact all my cameras have meters that produce accurate, pleasing exposures pretty much every time, I'm content with giving the negs to a lab and specifying 'NO MODS' so it isn't tampered with.

By contrast, waiting for 100 pictures to transfer over USB to the computer, getting rid of the really crap ones, then going through fiddling with sharpness, saturation, contrast etc. I guess I'm just quite simple when it comes to these things, matter of personal preference.

As Don says, personal preference and budget prompts a final decision. I love the fact I can get a well-built, quality SLR with 3 sharp, fast lenses for under £200 (that's before we get to the even bigger bargains to be had in the compacts and rangefinder categories!) when a dSLR with one zoom lens starts at about 300 pounds and to me is a photographic tool that is far more annoying, complex and unpleasant to use. I crave simplicity and value for money, and I get more simplicity with shooting film and getting a lab to develop it for me. Of course, others will have other requirements, which is why no format can be declared 'better' than the other, since they are totally different.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 30-01-10, 04:14
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

What I find very strange is that KR Nikon D3 example images

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/example-images.htm

are orders of magnitude better than the example on the film vs Nikon D3 link.

Especially when you consider the example used was fairly large (10% of the whole frame). I hate to think what the whole image looked like.

As you say Alex you are happy picking up bargains from a bygone era. Which is fine we have no problem with that. We all have to live on a budget in my case £64 per week due to current financial climate. Whatever gives you pleasure is the whole point of having a hobby. But please don't refer to members as "troll" if they don't always agree with your point of view. Just because you don't like something you don't have to keep knocking it.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 30-01-10, 12:59
miketoll's Avatar
miketoll miketoll is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1994 View Post
3: Cost. This issue may differ for many, but when I use a digital camera on a shoot I find myself making, say, 120 images. That's about 3-4 times more than I would make with a 35mm film camera. However, the number of photos I really like and put in an album is about the same (3 or 4 at the very very best). So, with digital I end up with more junk. However, taking all these picture is great for learning, but as for the end result, more isn't necessarily merrier.

4: Printing and developing at home as opposed to a lab. Yes, I agree that if I did the pics myself I would learn more and get a result I like more. However, issues of time and space prevent this from happening . Due to the fact all my cameras have meters that produce accurate, pleasing exposures pretty much every time, I'm content with giving the negs to a lab and specifying 'NO MODS' so it isn't tampered with.

By contrast, waiting for 100 pictures to transfer over USB to the computer, getting rid of the really crap ones, then going through fiddling with sharpness, saturation, contrast etc. I guess I'm just quite simple when it comes to these things, matter of personal preference.
...... I crave simplicity and value for money, and I get more simplicity with shooting film and getting a lab to develop it for me. Of course, others will have other requirements, which is why no format can be declared 'better' than the other, since they are totally different.
No 3- You only get 3 or 4 shots you want to keep? Fine, with digital you only select those 3 or 4 to have printed instead of several rolls of film you do not want to keep.
No 4 - You get pleasing results most of the time because they are taken in average conditions. The labs do tamper with them, crop to fit the paper with no input from you then run everything through an automatic process which averages everything not taking the subject in to account at all. If B&W then the prints will most likely be shades of grey with no deep blacks or good whites. Colour corresponding problems. No creativity or control at all just Mr average whether it fits or not. You have lost half the photographic process.
Which brings us to your next point: You can't wait for 100 shots to download via USB (10 minutes at most) but can manage the time to go down town to a post box or shop to get your film developed???? Getting rid of crap ones is the same for both media in essence - look at the shots then click delete or toss in waste paper bin so no logic there. Next bit you are not comparing like with like. The digital equivalent is to print with out doing those "fiddly bits", in fact to do this you do not even have to download them on to the computer but put them straight through a printer. Many people do this at places like Boots or Jessops or where ever or on their own printer Mr average results again. Doing the "fiddly bits" is the digital equivalent of home processing. Ten minutes at most for a good quality print from a straight forward shot on the computer compared to several hours of work probably spread over a couple of days with the wet process to attain similar control. I know, I used to do it. No wonder you don't have time to do your own processing if you can't manage a few minutes on a computer. I would not do it either these days.
So there is a choice:
a) Do what you do now, enjoy shooting film but acknowledge you are losing a lot of control and creativity and your shots will not have the best brought out of them due to automatic processing.
b) Do what you do now but take full control and be prepared to put in the considerable effort and time required.
c) A mixture of the above, doing your own printing of your very best shots but most done the automatic way. Some control is lost here as you have no control over the developer used but it is a good compromise for film users.
d) Go digital which gives full control over the whole process in a much shorter time as and when you can fit in a few minutes. Despite what KR says digital comfortably matches the quality of film.
I won't add any more now as the old fingers are aching.

Last edited by miketoll; 30-01-10 at 13:02.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 31-01-10, 14:51
yelvertoft's Avatar
yelvertoft yelvertoft is offline  
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Essex, UK
Age: 59
Posts: 8,486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex1994 View Post
Due to the fact all my cameras have meters that produce accurate, pleasing exposures pretty much every time, I'm content with giving the negs to a lab and specifying 'NO MODS' so it isn't tampered with.
Alex, please advise, how does your camera's meter get such accurate results of subjects that are a long way from 18% grey?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 31-01-10, 16:25
Alex1994's Avatar
Alex1994 Alex1994 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelvertoft View Post
Alex, please advise, how does your camera's meter get such accurate results of subjects that are a long way from 18% grey?
All I'm saying is that I've never had an exposure which was so off it made me go 'urgh'.


As regards developing, it is not necessary to be in control of the process from start to finish (though it definitely helps.) Black and white photos certainly suffer a lot from being developed at a lab. However, saying there's no creativity at all when a lab does your prints is a little exaggerated--after all, Cartier-Bresson famously showed no interest in anything that happened after he had rewound the film. He just reviewed contact sheets and let others do the printing. For 'straight' photography, when not trying to achieve a particular artistic effect, developing at a decent lab is just fine. Convenience wins for me: I can just drop the film in the mail or even at Asda when on other, unrelated business.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 31-01-10, 17:10
andy153's Avatar
andy153 andy153 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bodelwyddan Denbighshire
Age: 78
Posts: 5,271
Default

Quote:
Cartier-Bresson famously showed no interest in anything that happened after he had rewound the film.
If I remember correctly Alex - not quite right - yes he left developing and printing to a team, but he would look at the finished prints and only Sign them if he was happy with the result. All the misses he had destroyed. Not quite the same as looking at a set of contact prints.
__________________
"I take pictures of what I like - if someone else likes them - that's a bonus" Andy M.

http://www.pbase.com/andy153

http://andy153.smugmug.com/

Equipment: Nikon - More than enough !!!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.