«

1 Roll of cheapo Fuji Superia: $3
Developing 1 roll of cheapo Superia: $9
Spending an hour scanning and tweaking just to get
one decent pic for my $12: A total waste of time.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103089433/original

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 14/09/2008 12:58 PM:
> 1 Roll of cheapo Fuji Superia: $3
> Developing 1 roll of cheapo Superia: $9
> Spending an hour scanning and tweaking just to get
> one decent pic for my $12: A total waste of time.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103089433/original

excellent! If we could now keep you away
from ALL photography...

On Sep 14, 1:28*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103089433/original
>
> excellent! If we could now keep you away
> from ALL photography...

Here's one I took just for you, sweetie!

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103095149

Alan Browne, 9/15/2008 6:19 AM:

> Annika1980 wrote:
>> 1 Roll of cheapo Fuji Superia: $3
>> Developing 1 roll of cheapo Superia: $9
>> Spending an hour scanning and tweaking just to get
>> one decent pic for my $12: A total waste of time.
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103089433/original
>
> Much better dynamic range performance than your D40, however, despite it
> being a tad over exposed. Negative film allowed you that latitude.
>
> Hard metering, is it, Bret?
>
>
I dunno about that. The middle horse's back legs are black, no shadow
detail, and the white areas of the players' uniforms are mostly blown
out, not to mention relatively drab colors everywhere.

IM not so HO, Bret's 40D can do it from a great height all over the 1V -
or at least the film he used.

I'm drooling over the 50D when I can raise the cash.

Colin D.

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 2:19 PM:

>>
> I dunno about that. The middle horse's back legs are black, no shadow
> detail, and the white areas of the players' uniforms are mostly blown
> out, not to mention relatively drab colors everywhere.

Have you *ever* considered that "detail" is not present
in highlight or dark areas? Ever heard of the zone system
and what each zone is supposed to represent? Have you
*ever* considered that a photo does NOT need
to have detail in every pixel?

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 2:00 AM:

>
> Here's one I took just for you, sweetie!
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103095149
>

yeah, that seems to be your specialty...

On Sep 15, 1:23*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 2:19 PM:
>
>
>
> > I dunno about that. *The middle horse's back legs are black, no shadow
> > detail, and the white areas of the players' uniforms are mostly blown
> > out, not to mention relatively drab colors everywhere.
>
> Have you *ever* considered that "detail" is not present
> in highlight or dark areas? Ever heard of the zone system
> and what each zone is supposed to represent? Have you
> *ever* considered that a photo does NOT need
> to have detail in every pixel?

The point Colin made is very valid, Alan is trying to say that the
film shot has more DR, but this is clearly not visible in the shot as
posted. As for detail in every pixel, in a print you night not want
some black areas to show as black with no detail, but in an image that
is being viewed on a screen the more detail that is in the shadows the
better IMO. A good photo will have enough detail in the shadows that
the only way to see it is to load the image into a photo editor and
adjust the levels, in otherword your monitor show limit what you see,
not the photo.

What you really don't want is so little detail in the shadows that you
are forced to clip them to black to avoid seeing a ton of noise in the
shadows, that can look pretty unnatural IMO.

It is posible that the negatives have the range in them, and it is the
scan and editing after the scan that is limiting DR of the final
photo, but the photo as posted looks to have captured around 5 stops
of DR, not even close to what the 40D will capture. Again the film
might have a lot more on it then the photo as posted, but how Alan can
look at that photo and say it shows more range I just don't get.

Scott

I might be able to re-work the shot by combining multiple scans like
one might do with a RAW file. But my theory on the original shot is
that if some of the brightest highlights get blown, so what? Nothing
to see there anyway.
One thing's for sure .... if you expose the shot so as not to blow
those highlights you're gonna end up with a very underexposed pic.

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:31 PM:

> The point Colin made is very valid, Alan is trying to say that the
> film shot has more DR, but this is clearly not visible in the shot as
> posted.

No sorry, I don't think it is valid at all. One thing
is a monotonous dynamic range digital shot, where there is
"detail" everywhere because nothing is saturated and everything
looks watercolour-painted, the other is a saturated film photo
showing colour as we all see it. The two couldn't be more
different. Regardless of the relative merits of the media used
to show the images.


> As for detail in every pixel, in a print you night not want
> some black areas to show as black with no detail,

oh yes, I might indeed! I *do* want some black
areas to show up with NO detail whatsoever. That's
what they are: black, with no detail. Nothing wrong
with that. In the case of this photo: couldn't care
less about the detail in a black leg, in the shade,
of a dark horse. That is *not* what the photo is
about and any detail there only serves to detract
and distract from the real purpose of the shot:
showing the intense action of polo.

> but in an image that
> is being viewed on a screen the more detail that is in the shadows the
> better IMO. A good photo will have enough detail in the shadows that
> the only way to see it is to load the image into a photo editor and
> adjust the levels, in otherword your monitor show limit what you see,
> not the photo.

Whats is the point of having detail in something you
are not meant to see?

> What you really don't want is so little detail in the shadows that you
> are forced to clip them to black to avoid seeing a ton of noise in the
> shadows, that can look pretty unnatural IMO.

Noise and detail are neither synonymous nor opposites.
You can certainly have little detail in shadows with
little noise. Or lots of detail with lots of noise.
Or any other degree in between those two, in any mix.
With both film and digital. It means nothing if the
shadows are not the main part of a photo or the
main subject.


> It is posible that the negatives have the range in them, and it is the
> scan and editing after the scan that is limiting DR of the final
> photo, but the photo as posted looks to have captured around 5 stops
> of DR, not even close to what the 40D will capture.

Doubt it: that is superia 400, it has about 6 stops
in excellent conditions. For higher you need Reala or
Pro160. And that is not - or does not appear to be - a
very well lit scene, as in full range natural light.
Sky would have been hazy - my guess.
The point to me is: if the scene hasn't got the range,
why then represent it as having it?
Yeah, I'd say with careful scanning and some colour
adjustment this could be made a lot more striking.
But that is not likely the light it was taken under, so
why have it?
I mean: if the message of the shot was "striking colours",
then yes. But it isn't: it's action in a fast game.
Fine as is. Unless of course one's last name is Rockwell...


> might have a lot more on it then the photo as posted, but how Alan can
> look at that photo and say it shows more range I just don't get.


Actually, it's not half bad. I can see detail in the shadows
in my screen, but it's finely adjusted to do so. Not the
usual srgb calibration.
But like I said: horses for courses. (ooops,sorry!)

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 12:55 AM:
> I might be able to re-work the shot by combining multiple scans like
> one might do with a RAW file. But my theory on the original shot is
> that if some of the brightest highlights get blown, so what? Nothing
> to see there anyway.
> One thing's for sure .... if you expose the shot so as not to blow
> those highlights you're gonna end up with a very underexposed pic.

Hang on a tick, that's a colour negative: you should be able
to pull detail out of the highlights without hdr stuff?
Still: like you say, nothing to see there and not the
point of the shot anyway. Fine as is.
I'd maybe try to saturate the colours a touch: it's supposed
to be a sunny shot from the shadows of the horses yet the
lighting looks like it's a very hazy day.
Not Rockwellian, but a tad more sat. Nikonscan can do that
at scan time, dunno what you use for the Minolta.