Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Reply
Thread Tools

DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
40D.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
other than cropping.
Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
detail, but are not quite down to true black.

I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
> Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> 40D.


> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original
>
> This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> other than cropping.
> Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> detail, but are not quite down to true black.
>
> I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.
>


Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...wn%20world.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
+**** YOU wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 11:01 PM:
> HEY NOONS WERE U DRUNK WHEN U POSTED THE UPSIDE DOWN PIC LOL
>


It's not upside down, dipshit. But you're
too stupid to realize that, aren't you?
Go back to school, moron.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Draco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
On Sep 16, 7:31*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
>
> > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> > 40D.
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

>
> > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> > other than cropping.
> > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> > detail, but are not quite down to true black.

>
> > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

>
> Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
> Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.

Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.


Draco
 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
On Sep 16, 7:31*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

>
> Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
> Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


Lotsa blown highlights there. Thanks for illustrating my point.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
On Sep 16, 1:31*am, Noons <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:
>
> > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> > 40D.
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

>
> > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> > other than cropping.
> > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> > detail, but are not quite down to true black.

>
> > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

>
> Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ban%20gold.jpg
> Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?


In the first one
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
the reduced size image.
The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
them.
If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
much DR at all.
The other two photos don't show any more DR.

I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.

Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
scene, hard to know.

Scott




 
Reply With Quote
 
David Nebenzahl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
On 9/15/2008 10:57 PM Annika1980 spake thus:

> Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> 40D.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original
>
> This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> other than cropping.
> Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> detail, but are not quite down to true black.
>
> I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.


This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
cameras that look like 35mm SLRs (DSLRs).

Since this post concerns such cameras, the appropriate place for it is
rec.photo.digital.slr. Please post there in the future.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2008
On Sep 16, 10:34*am, Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
> > Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> > 40D.

>
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

>
> > This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> > other than cropping.
> > Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> > detail, but are not quite down to true black.

>
> > I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

>
> I'd like to see a posted photo similar to the color negative from
> yesterday v. the Canon.
>
> Really, that's the only way to compare.

Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ge2/index.html

Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
but for a normal exposer
film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
shadows.

Slide film is of course much worse yet.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:

> In the first one
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...e%20wheels.jpg
> You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
> the reduced size image.


Actually, it's called clouds. Not noise.
And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
a good anti-film rant, shall we?

> The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
> them.


Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
high rez version. But of course shadows are shadows: if you
expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...

> If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
> much DR at all.


Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
you can see high DR? Of course, do not come back to me
with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
folks call "high dr". And no: an image made out of multiple
raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
digital mush.

> The other two photos don't show any more DR.


Really? Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?


> I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
> have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
> years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.


Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
it is not digital is pretty poor form. And no: a drab old
non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
is NOT an example of high dr.


> Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
> not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
> shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
> scene, hard to know.


Exactly. Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
I won't post it because it might shock Rita...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-17-2008
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 8:04 AM:

> Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ge2/index.html


Funny how that site is "good" to demonstrate
"bad film" but is "bad" to demonstrate digital
weak points...

> Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
> but for a normal exposer
> film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
> shadows.


That is indeed true. And also of most of the
"comparisons" in most of the sites out there:
made years ago, with bad scanning technique of bad
film and badly exposed images. Not surprising that
it looks so bad overall...

> Slide film is of course much worse yet.


Actually, it isn't.
 
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
How can I transform source range to destination range that is thesame as source? Lambda C++ 2 07-16-2008 05:18 PM
'ArgumentError: bad value for range' for range of Times David Bird Ruby 1 06-23-2008 12:12 PM
range() is not the best way to check range? Summercoolness@gmail.com Python 46 07-25-2006 08:10 PM
Scene range vs dynamic range Robert Feinman Digital Photography 2 07-04-2005 09:30 PM
Range does not take an Range object. Tomoyuki Kosimizu Ruby 3 11-27-2003 12:42 AM



Advertisments