Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

Reply
Thread Tools

Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

 
 
Digidork
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
most efficient way. THANKS!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
it is not. It's one big trade-off

Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy. Don't
think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.

As for message boards, make sure the boards like pictures. For
example, here you post links to pictures, not the pictures, so that you
don't **** people off. Many NGs that post pics start with
BIN.whatever.

Good luck.

Pat.



Digidork wrote:
> Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
> Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
> like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
> control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
> can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
> Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
> applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
> most efficient way. THANKS!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Pat wrote:
> Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
> here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
> us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
> it is not. It's one big trade-off
>
> Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy. Don't
> think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
> just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.


Here we go again. The urban myth just will not die.
1) the response curve of digital matches closely to that of
print film, not slide.
2) digital sensors have far greater latitude than any
regular print or slide film.

See:
Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ignal.to.noise

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Procedures for Evaluating Digital Camera
Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range, and Full Well Capacities;
Canon 1D Mark II Analysis
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2

Roger


>
> As for message boards, make sure the boards like pictures. For
> example, here you post links to pictures, not the pictures, so that you
> don't **** people off. Many NGs that post pics start with
> BIN.whatever.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Pat.
>
>
>
> Digidork wrote:
>
>>Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
>>Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
>>like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
>>control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
>>can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
>>Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
>>applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
>>most efficient way. THANKS!

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Digidork
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Thank you Pat & Roger...

I placed my first link in a new message. Thanks for the heads up on
not plastering photos here.


Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
> > here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
> > us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
> > it is not. It's one big trade-off
> >
> > Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy. Don't
> > think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
> > just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.

>
> Here we go again. The urban myth just will not die.
> 1) the response curve of digital matches closely to that of
> print film, not slide.
> 2) digital sensors have far greater latitude than any
> regular print or slide film.
>
> See:
> Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
> and Comparison to Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
>
> The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images
> and Comparison to Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ignal.to.noise
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
>
> Procedures for Evaluating Digital Camera
> Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range, and Full Well Capacities;
> Canon 1D Mark II Analysis
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2
>
> Roger
>
>
> >
> > As for message boards, make sure the boards like pictures. For
> > example, here you post links to pictures, not the pictures, so that you
> > don't **** people off. Many NGs that post pics start with
> > BIN.whatever.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Pat.
> >
> >
> >
> > Digidork wrote:
> >
> >>Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
> >>Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
> >>like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
> >>control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
> >>can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
> >>Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
> >>applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
> >>most efficient way. THANKS!

> >
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Pat wrote:
>> Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
>> here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
>> us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
>> it is not. It's one big trade-off
>> Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy.
>> Don't
>> think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
>> just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.

>
>Here we go again. The urban myth just will not die.
>1) the response curve of digital matches closely to that of
> print film, not slide.


So at what would be considered "maximum exposure",
where highlights are at or very close to the top end of the
linear portion of the curve, there is still a couple fstops of
non-linear area under the curve??? That is the significant
characteristic of print film.

Digital is much more like slide film. Over exposure means the
highlight data is *gone*.

However...

>2) digital sensors have far greater latitude than any
> regular print or slide film.


That is absolutely true, and Pat's "esp. the lack of latitude in
exposure" is not true at all.

What the OP needs to consider and use, is that instead of having
a couple of fstops up in the non-linear area, there is no
non-linear area and those two fstops can, and should, typically
be used because they are in fact "extra" dynamic range that
digital has over film.

Hence while Pat is correct that digital should be treated much
like slides, in fact it can (not recommended) be exposed just
about like print film simply by under exposing by 2 fstops.
Bingo, there's that "latitude"... (and the extra noise).

It's like slide film, where "proper exposure" means pushing it
right to the edge, but going over produces an obvious disaster.

>> As for message boards, make sure the boards like pictures. For
>> example, here you post links to pictures, not the pictures, so that you
>> don't **** people off. Many NGs that post pics start with
>> BIN.whatever.


That was good advice, and should be repeated just to be clear.
Images should only be posted to binary groups, never to text groups.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Take a look at
www.photography-cafe.com
and
www.photochimper.com

both have photosharing galleries - with the ability to ask for / get
feedback...

simon

--


www.srsteel.co.uk
http://www.srsteel.co.uk/Panorama
http://www.srsteel.co.uk/landscape
http://www.srsteel.co.uk/Peru


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Pat wrote:
>>
>>>Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
>>>here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
>>>us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
>>>it is not. It's one big trade-off
>>>Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy.
>>>Don't
>>>think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
>>>just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.

>>
>>Here we go again. The urban myth just will not die.
>>1) the response curve of digital matches closely to that of
>> print film, not slide.

>
>
> So at what would be considered "maximum exposure",
> where highlights are at or very close to the top end of the
> linear portion of the curve, there is still a couple fstops of
> non-linear area under the curve??? That is the significant
> characteristic of print film.
>
> Digital is much more like slide film. Over exposure means the
> highlight data is *gone*.
>
> However...
>
>
>>2) digital sensors have far greater latitude than any
>> regular print or slide film.

>
>
> That is absolutely true, and Pat's "esp. the lack of latitude in
> exposure" is not true at all.
>
> What the OP needs to consider and use, is that instead of having
> a couple of fstops up in the non-linear area, there is no
> non-linear area and those two fstops can, and should, typically
> be used because they are in fact "extra" dynamic range that
> digital has over film.
>
> Hence while Pat is correct that digital should be treated much
> like slides, in fact it can (not recommended) be exposed just
> about like print film simply by under exposing by 2 fstops.
> Bingo, there's that "latitude"... (and the extra noise).
>
> It's like slide film, where "proper exposure" means pushing it
> right to the edge, but going over produces an obvious disaster.


I disagree. Just like metering for and exposing slide film
is different than print film, digital is a third method.
It is the failure to recognize these differences that lead
people to make false statements like less "latitude"
or dynamic range. Further, each camera model meters
scenes differently. If you looked at Figure 8 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
and read the paragraph above Figure 3, it says the exposure
times needed to drive the image into saturation were:

media meter
slide film: + 0.0 stops,
1D Mark II: + 0.3 stops,
Print Film: + 1.0 stops.

The data in Figure 8 (look at 8B) is set so each
media type goes to saturation. Now work from
the brightest to darkest portions of the curves
(from upper right to lower left). The film
becomes very noisy at 4 to 5 stops (saturation
was at 10.5 stops), but the digital is less noisy
than either film down to 0.5 stops (total 10 stops
of dynamic range compared to film's 5 to 6 stops).

Other camera models have metering systems that saturate
at different levels, and it can (not always) differ
by a stop or so if you record raw or jpeg. For example, my
canon 10D would blow the highlights on the test chart
if I metered +0.3 stops. Then if I recorded jpeg, I would
lose another stop. See Figure 3 at:
Digital Camera Raw versus Jpeg Conversion Losses
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1
So, depending on the camera, exposing like print film may
work well or be disastrous.

So proper metering methods:

slide: must be very accurate: you must choose what gets
lost in the highlights and shadows.

print: more tolerance, can recover some highlights, but
shadows can appear "muddy" if too underexposed.

digital: highest tolerance (most dynamic range) with
danger of saturation and loss of information, but can
recover deep shadows.
Expose "to the right," meaning watch the histogram and
have the recorded image set to blink if pixels are saturated.
If you want to keep the highlights, expose so those
highlights are on the right side of the histogram plot,
and no pixels are blinking. Bring up the shadows in
post processing.

In old film photography books (5+ years ago), one of the
first chapters is usually about understanding your meter.
That is not only true today, but it is still as critical
as ever for great photographs with digital.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Roger, if you are coming out of the world of film photography and you
think of digital as slide film, it's a pretty easy transition. You get
dead-on exposures and great results. If you think it's Tri-X -- where
you don't really care if you're off by a couple of f/stops -- then
you'll hate it. So if he treats it like slide film, he'll be happy
with the results and wonder what the big deal is all about.

Also, I think the way that digital reacts to light -- how the picture
look, esp. when viewed on a screen or TV -- is more like looking slide
film than print film. I think it's something about the direct-positive
than using a negative process. Digital just has the look of slide
film, to me.

Then there's also the whole "if you burn the upper end you are screwed"
thing.

Finally, to get the whole dynamic range out of digital, you have quite
a bit more in the line of work-flow than with film. It is do-able, but
not as easy as finding a great lab and letting them print your work.
To start with, you have to have your exposure and contrast adjusted in
the camera as you are shooting (or shoot RAW), but 99% of the people
out there don't to that, so they have a limited dynamic range.

OTOH, there no film out there that is as good in low light as even a
basic digicam.





Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > Don't feel like a gigidork. It's a learning curve. Most of the people
> > here are strictly digitial and learned that way, but there are some of
> > us who remember film. In many ways, film is better. In many others,
> > it is not. It's one big trade-off
> >
> > Just one work of advice to you that may make you breath easy. Don't
> > think of it as shooting digital. Think of it as shooting slides. It's
> > just about the same thing -- esp. the lack of latidude in the exposure.

>
> Here we go again. The urban myth just will not die.
> 1) the response curve of digital matches closely to that of
> print film, not slide.
> 2) digital sensors have far greater latitude than any
> regular print or slide film.
>
> See:
> Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
> and Comparison to Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
>
> The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images
> and Comparison to Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ignal.to.noise
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
>
> Procedures for Evaluating Digital Camera
> Sensor Noise, Dynamic Range, and Full Well Capacities;
> Canon 1D Mark II Analysis
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2
>
> Roger
>
>
> >
> > As for message boards, make sure the boards like pictures. For
> > example, here you post links to pictures, not the pictures, so that you
> > don't **** people off. Many NGs that post pics start with
> > BIN.whatever.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> > Pat.
> >
> >
> >
> > Digidork wrote:
> >
> >>Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
> >>Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
> >>like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
> >>control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
> >>can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
> >>Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
> >>applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
> >>most efficient way. THANKS!

> >
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Daryl Bryant
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
A great group @ news:alt.binaries.photos.original <<-- Pease read the FAQ
before posting -->> http://www.abpo.net/faq.txt !!
--
Bing Bang Boom Viola Done!
"Digidork" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
> Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
> like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
> control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
> can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
> Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
> applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
> most efficient way. THANKS!
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
bluezfolk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

Digidork wrote:
> Hello. I'm new here so, hello from Digidork. My UN says it all. 5.0
> Samsung UCA 505. Thought it would be different but still makes me feel
> like a dork shooting vs. my good old 35mm which seemed to give me all
> control. I'm here to gain knowlege and ask ?. Hopefully sometime I
> can give advice after making my next 11,000 mistakes...
> Aside from this newsgroup, any suggestions on best websites for
> applying photos to message boards? I'm not sure how to do that...best
> most efficient way. THANKS!


I'll bet you know a lot more than the average person who goes out
and buys a digital camera. Hang around here for a while, you'll pick
up a few tips. Experiment, you never have to pay for a roll of film
again. Get out with the camera and the manual and learn all those
functions. As a former long time film guy I still miss having those
dails and buttons in front of me instead of on some display.


Eric

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
loginview control displays network username instead of (web) username Shailesh Patel ASP .Net Web Controls 0 11-08-2006 08:19 PM
Most 35mm format lenses can't cover 35mm full frame DSLR? einst_stein@yahoo.com Digital Photography 8 06-03-2005 11:25 PM
Dell says no & Acronis says maybe sysprep utility ( Re: Anyone use Acronis Drive Image 7.0? Bobby Fischler Computer Support 0 07-24-2004 12:12 AM
Change the username found in "C:\Documents and Settings\Username" The Reluctant Robot Named Jude Computer Support 1 05-05-2004 07:11 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments