Show us your camera's best pix! (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

BTW, Man-Fai, I looked through more of your photos and I get the feeling you may not be paying as much attention to composition since you got the D70. I hope that is not true. You probably had more shots to choose from which were done with the G3.


Can't agree on dynamic range. Of course, it depends on the trans film you are comparing it to, but the dynamic range I see is still quite a far cry from most films. I use Kodak EPY (tungsten) and Fuji Astia for 90% of the stuff I shoot and nothing I have ever seen in digital even comes close to their dynamic range. They are also relatively flat films, which is why I use them.

I didn't see the article you mention, but any 6MP camera would still be miles away from a good 120 shot. I regularly scan 6x6 transparencies at about 42 MP and 6x9 at about 60 MP, which is about as far as Astia can handle. A far cry from a 6MP chip. It definitely has improved, though.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Yeah, I agree that the "dynamic range" of digital is still not as good as a MF film.

Perhaps some clarification is warranted. When we talk about "dynamic range", aren't we really talking about exposure latitude as well? Or are they mutually exclusive?

I can say this: I definitely capture as much, if not more, detail from my D70 than I get on 35mm film and scanning it (with a Nikon Coolscan V). But resolution/detail is not the same as dynamic range.

 

[JohnRice]

Well Rob, Dynamic Range will lead to exposure latitude if the dynamic range needed for the shot is less than the film captures, which then results in exposure latitude. People tend to express them as two different things though.

As far as the detail you get with digital, that will of course depend on the hardware involved, for both the digital and film. I was recently scanning a bunch of transparencies from the early 70s back to the early 50s and I was surprised with the detail I extracted from them. The ones from the 50s were shot on Kidachrome, which was only ISO 12, so the apertures were usually 4 to 5.6 and it was an Argus C3, which probably wasn't the sharpest camera to begin with. but the stuff from the 70s gave some serious detail.

More recent shots, generally from the mid 80s gave detail well into the 12MP area, and I expect that is about as far as most 35mm optics can actually show. Of course, the nice thing about digital is you don't have to scan. Anyway, I guess my point is, there are a lot of variables. FWIW, these scans were with a Nikon 8000. Great results but that is one twitchy scanner. I understand all the Nikons are.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Hi, y'all.

Thanks for the many kind words and encouragement. I enjoyed the variety of photos posted by y'all too although they may not always be the kinds I take myself. Variety is a good thing -- and oh, yes, it's very nice to have a photo section here at HTF.

To John,

Yes, I do like playing w/ POV a lot (and even doing things like tilting the shot), and yes, I must admit that I've done this much less w/ the D70 than the G3 (although I've probably gone for tilts more often and make more subtle changes in POV). It's not all intentional, but rather a (temporary?) side-effect of switching from one approach and set of limitations to another -- and I'm looking to remedy that.

With the G3, I was limited in DoF control which forced me to play w/ POV more aggressively -- not that I don't like that of course, but it makes me think that way more -- and the flexibility of shooting w/ flip-out LCD made that much easier too. Also, the G3 was more limiting for street candids, low light, etc, so that made POV even more important (for me) while limiting me on the kinds of shots I could make (as well as shot frequency).

When I switched to the D70, all those limitations were removed more or less, and I was freed to shoot w/out playing w/ POV quite the same way. Also, having to use the viewfinder also makes that approach less practical -- a new limitation that plays against the approach. Still, I think I've just been mostly too preoccupied w/ street candids since getting the D70 (and it's so much more responsive than the G3). And for that, I usually can't get close enough to be more aggressive w/ the POV. Still, it's only been ~2.5 months since getting the D70 while I did shoot w/ the G3 for ~6 months (and made less shots too despite the longer period). In a way, I've gotten a bit trigger-happy w/ the D70 and yes, perhaps, my composition has suffered at least on a shot-to-shot basis.

About that one B&W photo (http://www.pbase.com/image/22543450.jpg), that was shot in color w/ my then-2-week-old G3 (during the regional blackout in 8/03) and converted to B&W w/ diffuse glow filter applied in PS. Most aspects of the shot and processing was still fairly new to me at the time, and I had just stumbled on the diffuse glow effect and liked it for this shot (and the few others from that day). So no, it was not originally shot that way.

Actually, if you like good grain in digital B&W, you might want to check out the forums in dpreview.com. There are some very nice methods that people have found over there for adding very nice, film-like grain to digital B&W. There are also some people who produce excellent infrared images too. I have never gotten into IR shooting myself -- indeed, I'm still very new to photography period (beyond typical p&s family pics).

I just did a quick search and found these over there:

http://www.cybia.co.uk/bwplus.htm

http://www.jakerlund.net/page.php?id=6

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=7835209

Personally, I think all the rage about low noise/grain digital has gone to some people's heads. I find that grain can often be a good thing for an image. IMHO, a good photo is not just about sharpness, clarity, vivid (or "accurate") colors and/or noise/grain-free quality -- all of these are technical aspects and I'd consider them all just tools (of sorts). To me, technical "excellence" can sometimes make an image seem a bit clinical, distant or maybe even dull. What works best depends on what the image is about, and no one approach works perfectly all the time. Of course, I'm not saying I have been any good at doing so, but still, that's how I see it. But enough of this little rant.

RE: the film vs digital debate, I've never been a real film shooter and only got into photography w/ digital -- see, I'm that new -- but as I understand it, digital still falls quite a bit behind film in DR (and as a result, exposure latitude). This is especially true compared to B&W film. Digital is also still behind in absolute resolution. But what digital does have over film is low noise/grain -- ah ha(!). And partly because of that, I think people get too obsessed about low noise in their digital photos.

Anyway, the low noise has the advantage of making details more clearly visible, which helps balance against the lower absolute resolution for many kinds of photography. But as far as I can tell, film still wins in certain subtle ways beyond the DR issue. And I have seen some inspiring landscapes from those who still stick to film -- and yes, in dpreview.com no less. Here's one gallery of such film-scanned landscapes I love from Ed Ley over in dpreview.com:

http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/

Ed seems to regularly debate w/ folks on film-vs-digital over there.

Of course, I do also love some digital landscapes I've seen from the Canon 1Ds in both luminous-landscape.com and over here from Mahesh:

http://www.starvingphotographer.com/

I think though in the end it's really the photog behind the tools that counts the most. Sure, the tools are very important and will provide certain advantages while also placing certain limitations on the image-making, but they are still just tools.

And oh, yes, in my newbie-ness, I have not yet gotten into landscape photography. I guess it's largely due to my interest in observing people as well as being a life-long city-person. Photography is still fairly new for me, and there's so much exploring to do. Makes me wish I'm already retired and can spend my time doing this full-time for myself -- not for someone else's $$$.

Phew! What a long ramble... :wink:

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

You point out something I have noticed several times. In the digital craze, people often latch onto one strength of digital and completely ignore the weaknesses. One example, the manufacturer of a certain large format scan back figured out one particular technical aspect of images where they calculated it would take a 20"x30" sheet of Fuji Velvia to equal their back. They then go on to say it would take that size a sheet of film to give the same image quality of their back. Well, the claim is absolutely absurd. They just worked up some obscure aspect of image quality and applied it to the overall image appearance.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Considering how much those large format scan back cost, they SHOULD match the quality of a 20"x30" sheet of Velvia! Not that they would.

I know the limitations of my D70 vs. my F100. That being said, I know I will shoot with the D70 close to 90% of the time now.

When I want very high quality for landscape or still life type of work, I will use my 4x5 view camera.

 

[JohnRice]

That's really it, Rob. With a good SLR style (I said "style" so you "purists" don't jump on my case) digital, there is virtually no needfor 35mm. I've been wondering if I will ever shoot 35mm film again. I probably will, just because I sometimes like to screw around, and I have quite a bit of High Speed Infrared in the freezer. Damn! There's even an (I think) unopened 150' roll of tech pan in there. I really should look around the back of my film freezer more often. Bunch of Konica IR 120 too. That film is a blast. Guess I need to straighten up the darkroom a little and get photo-retro. :p)

 

[JohnRice]

And yes Rob, that scan back is something like 25 or 30K. cha-ching!!!

 

[Rob Tomlin]

That's just a drop in the bucket, for you, ain't it John!?

:wink:

I think I will be most likely to shoot with my F100 when I know all I will want out of the shoot is 4x6 prints, such as a kids birthday party. My wife does a lot of scrapbooking, so things like b-parties and family get togethers at the holidays would be easier to use the film camera to get prints.

I have used Costco for 4x6 prints from my D70. They weren't bad, but not as good as the prints I get from film. They just lacked the same "punch" for lack of a better word.

Frankly, the way most point and shooters work, I think they would still be better off with film. I am talking about those who do not print their own photos, but have them all processed by Costco, Target, WalMart etc. There is still a lack of consistency and quality with prints from digital files. You don't have that problem with film prints.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

John,

That does seem so true w/ all things technological. Another great example of this is the whole MP race that's going on. Ironically, the makers have found out that the average consumer doesn't care about noise/grain (or DoF control or shooting w/out flash or what-not) as much as MP count, so they churn out relatively noisy, $1K 8MP prosumer cams w/ tiny CCDs to sell to them (and even try to con some of the better informed ones w/ lenses that sport a "red ring" or the Zeiss name or even Leica(!) ). So for the less informed, it's MP count. For the better informed, it's low noise -- heck, the $3500 Nikon D2H is only 4MP.

Of course, I'm exaggerating and just poking fun a little there. Still, you can't blame after wading through tons of posts that argue about such things over in dpreview.com. :wink:

BTW, you might also find it interesting that the folks at Sports Illustrated also appreciates the low noise/grain advantage of digital, but have a relatively balanced view on the film-vs-digital debate. Here's a quote taken from this interesting article (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6453-6821) I found a while ago on Rob Galbraith's DPI site:


So yeah, even for basketball games, they still use film for certain kinds of shots despite having gone digital almost completely.

_Man_

 

[Max Leung]

Well, I think SI was taking a more balanced view so that they don't piss off their elite film-only photographers.

Just kidding.

I too don't like the obsession by most consumers over megapixel count...I'd be perfectly happy with full-frame (35mm) 6MP sensors. The low noise makes up for the lack of pixels. And besides, you can always add grain later, or simply up the ISO, if you want.

I don't see the big deal about grain...if you want it, add it! It's that simple right? Or is there some voodoo mystical magic about film grain that will always make film superior to digital? Hmm.

Film is still best for DR, particularly since digital can only match the DR of decent slide film. You blow your highlights, and they are gone for good! However, good photographers will just shoot in RAW mode, which gives you more leverage for exposure - probably an extra .5 or even 1 stop of latitude. Or bracket the shots if the subject isn't moving, and combine the two exposures in post-processing. Again this is where the tedium of the digital workflow is a factor though - old pro photographers would hate it. :p)

Oh well, at least everyone is having fun!

 

[Max Leung]

Well, I think SI was taking a more balanced view so that they don't piss off their elite film-only photographers.

Just kidding.

I too don't like the obsession by most consumers over megapixel count...I'd be perfectly happy with full-frame (35mm) 6MP sensors. The low noise makes up for the lack of pixels. And besides, you can always add grain later, or simply up the ISO, if you want.

I don't see the big deal about grain...if you want it, add it! It's that simple right? Or is there some voodoo mystical magic about film grain that will always make film superior to digital? Hmm.

Film is still best for DR, particularly since digital can only match the DR of decent slide film. You blow your highlights, and they are gone for good! However, good photographers will just shoot in RAW mode, which gives you more leverage for exposure - probably an extra .5 or even 1 stop of latitude. Or bracket the shots if the subject isn't moving, and combine the two exposures in post-processing. Again this is where the tedium of the digital workflow is a factor though - old pro photographers would hate it. :p)

Oh well, at least everyone is having fun!

 

[BobV]

Some pictures from a forest fire going on right now up behind my town...

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...album=21&pos=7

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...album=21&pos=8

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=10

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=11

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=15

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=23

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=27

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=24

 

[BobV]

Some pictures from a forest fire going on right now up behind my town...

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...album=21&pos=7

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...album=21&pos=8

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=10

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=11

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=15

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=23

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=27

http://meyeuniverse-com.virtualhelpe...lbum=21&pos=24

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Rob wrote:

Rob,

I'm curious about this -- not that I doubt that good 35mm film can still beat the D70 -- but did you do any postprocessing for such pics or use settings beyond the defaults?

A lot of people do find Nikon's default straight-from-camera images to lack "punch" -- and this is not just the D70. Nikon seems to use a default (ie. normal) tone curve that yields maybe ~1/2-stop darker mid-tones than say Canon and perhaps also what you normally see from the 35mm film prints you get.

See here to get a better sense of what I mean:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/c...ne_curves.html

FWIW, I normally use Fotogenetic's Provia curve for my shooting. Often, I do need to tweak the contrast a bit in post as a result of the less contrasty Provia curve. His White Wedding curve seems pretty popular for people who want that "punch" in their straight-from-camera Nikon images and would probably look more like typical film output. Also, you will note that a custom curve can be disabled during RAW conversion (much like anything else) although you cannot effectively apply one you did not shoot w/ after-the-fact.

Maybe this will help you some.

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Rob wrote:

Rob,

I'm curious about this -- not that I doubt that good 35mm film can still beat the D70 -- but did you do any postprocessing for such pics or use settings beyond the defaults?

A lot of people do find Nikon's default straight-from-camera images to lack "punch" -- and this is not just the D70. Nikon seems to use a default (ie. normal) tone curve that yields maybe ~1/2-stop darker mid-tones than say Canon and perhaps also what you normally see from the 35mm film prints you get.

See here to get a better sense of what I mean:

http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/c...ne_curves.html

FWIW, I normally use Fotogenetic's Provia curve for my shooting. Often, I do need to tweak the contrast a bit in post as a result of the less contrasty Provia curve. His White Wedding curve seems pretty popular for people who want that "punch" in their straight-from-camera Nikon images and would probably look more like typical film output. Also, you will note that a custom curve can be disabled during RAW conversion (much like anything else) although you cannot effectively apply one you did not shoot w/ after-the-fact.

Maybe this will help you some.

_Man_

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Absolutely Man. I am not using a "curve" as such, but I am using custom settings that stray quite a bit from the standard settings.

I still think it is the lack of expertise by Costco and other superstore chains at printing from digital files that is the biggest problem.

Now, when I can manipulate the images in PS, the prints come out every bit as "punchy" as prints from color film.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Absolutely Man. I am not using a "curve" as such, but I am using custom settings that stray quite a bit from the standard settings.

I still think it is the lack of expertise by Costco and other superstore chains at printing from digital files that is the biggest problem.

Now, when I can manipulate the images in PS, the prints come out every bit as "punchy" as prints from color film.

 

[Max Leung]

Printing at big stores like Costco and Wal-mart is a big crap shoot...their printers are probably not calibrated right, or they don't change inks often enough messing up all the colors. It doesn't matter if you're shooting digital or film - the print lab can still muck it all up. :frowning:

Cool forest fire shots BTW. Bob, any chance you can take a picture at sunset? I remember a deep purple haze that was just jaw-dropping amazing when I was living in Salmon Arm during the big fire of '99!

 

[Max Leung]

Printing at big stores like Costco and Wal-mart is a big crap shoot...their printers are probably not calibrated right, or they don't change inks often enough messing up all the colors. It doesn't matter if you're shooting digital or film - the print lab can still muck it all up. :frowning:

Cool forest fire shots BTW. Bob, any chance you can take a picture at sunset? I remember a deep purple haze that was just jaw-dropping amazing when I was living in Salmon Arm during the big fire of '99!