CHUKKAS DIG THE FABULOUS EOS-1V !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Sep 14, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    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...
    Noons, Sep 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 14, 2008
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Colin.D Guest

    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, Sep 15, 2008
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    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?
    Noons, Sep 15, 2008
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Noons, Sep 15, 2008
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 15, 1:23 am, Noons <> 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
    Scott W, Sep 15, 2008
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    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.
    Annika1980, Sep 15, 2008
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    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!)
    Noons, Sep 15, 2008
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    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.
    Noons, Sep 15, 2008
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Bruce Guest

    "Colin.D" <> wrote:
    >
    >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.



    And that's exactly the point. It is all about his choice of film.

    Superia is a high contrast film that is designed to give some apparent
    sharpness to photos taken with low contrast consumer-grade lenses used
    on film SLRs and in inexpensive point and shoot cameras. Use it with
    good lenses and it blows out the highlights and fills in the shadows
    just like any digital sensor will.

    Use a low contrast film such as Fujicolor NPS 160 and the results will
    be very different. There is not one brand of digital sensor that will
    come close to the dynamic range that NPS 160 offers.

    The OP could hardly have made a worse choice of film to illustrate the
    relative abilities of film and digital capture. I wonder if that was
    his intention ...
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2008
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 15, 7:11 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > "Colin.D" <> wrote:
    >
    > >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.

    >
    > And that's exactly the point.  It is all about his choice of film.
    >
    > Superia is a high contrast film that is designed to give some apparent
    > sharpness to photos taken with low contrast consumer-grade lenses used
    > on film SLRs and in inexpensive point and shoot cameras.  Use it with
    > good lenses and it blows out the highlights and fills in the shadows
    > just like any digital sensor will.  
    >
    > Use a low contrast film such as Fujicolor NPS 160 and the results will
    > be very different.  There is not one brand of digital sensor that will
    > come close to the dynamic range that NPS 160 offers.
    >
    > The OP could hardly have made a worse choice of film to illustrate the
    > relative abilities of film and digital capture.  I wonder if that was
    > his intention ...


    It was Alan who was say how much more DR the shot had then the shots
    from the 40D, clearly he saw something in the shot that others did
    not.

    As for NPS 160, from the spec sheet it looks to a bit less then 10
    stops of DR
    http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-809E.pdf

    The 40D has just over 9 stops of DR
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp

    So I guess by not coming close you mean less then one stop?

    And unless you expose you negative on the dark side most of that range
    is in the highlights, the shadows will be lost.

    Scott
    Scott W, Sep 15, 2008
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Peter Irwin Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Scott W <> wrote:
    >
    > As for NPS 160, from the spec sheet it looks to a bit less then 10
    > stops of DR
    > http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-809E.pdf


    A little misleading because, in common with almost all graphs
    for negative film, the graph cuts off while the film is still
    linear. What you can conclude is that the film is linear at
    least up to the same level (+0.5) that results in clear film
    with Velvia 50. If you were to expose it as if it were Velvia 50
    then you would use the top of the range shown on the graph.
    From the toe to the right hand side of the graph is 9 1/3 stops
    of dynamic range. (From -2.3 to +0.5 on the x axis.)

    The actual point where the film really runs out of linearity
    will be somewhat to the right of the right-hand side of the
    graph. You can prove this to yourself by doing a latitude test
    in which you do a series of exposures each one stop higher than
    the last. A moderate increase in exposure in negative film
    results in increased contrast due to the lower end of the exposure
    coming off the toe, if you have real overexposure you should see
    highlight compression and decreased contrast. With colour film
    the different layers of the film will not likely become non-linear
    at the same time so there may be colour shifts in the highlights.
    This used to be a real problem decades ago when colour negative
    materials had much less range than they do now.

    Peter.
    --
    Peter Irwin, Sep 15, 2008
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Colin.D Guest

    Noons, 9/15/2008 11:23 PM:

    > 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?


    Of course. Where the subject is black, or very nearly so. But the legs
    are not black, nor are they in 'deep' shadow, so there should be some
    detail.

    > Ever heard of the zone system
    > and what each zone is supposed to represent?


    Of course again, and I used the zone system with a zone-modified spot
    meter with my 5x4 Wista monorail for years, before the advent of digital.

    > Have you
    > *ever* considered that a photo does NOT need
    > to have detail in every pixel?


    Of course^3. Specular highlights do not require detail, they should be
    255^3. But highlights - or more correctly light-toned areas, zones 8
    and 9 if you like - such as light-colored shirts and riding pants should
    have some gradation to show shape and form, and at least hint at the
    fabric texture.


    A question for you. Why do you assume that I, or any other poster here,
    automatically knows little about the technical side of photography?
    It's an attitude that does you no credit. But, I guess that will fall
    on deaf ears, and probably trigger the usual profane response.

    Colin D.
    Colin.D, Sep 15, 2008
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 15, 11:47 am, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > Scott W wrote:
    > > On Sep 15, 7:11 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> "Colin.D" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> 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.
    > >> And that's exactly the point.  It is all about his choice of film.

    >
    > >> Superia is a high contrast film that is designed to give some apparent
    > >> sharpness to photos taken with low contrast consumer-grade lenses used
    > >> on film SLRs and in inexpensive point and shoot cameras.  Use it with
    > >> good lenses and it blows out the highlights and fills in the shadows
    > >> just like any digital sensor will.  

    >
    > >> Use a low contrast film such as Fujicolor NPS 160 and the results will
    > >> be very different.  There is not one brand of digital sensor that will
    > >> come close to the dynamic range that NPS 160 offers.

    >
    > >> The OP could hardly have made a worse choice of film to illustrate the
    > >> relative abilities of film and digital capture.  I wonder if that was
    > >> his intention ...

    >
    > > It was Alan who was say how much more DR the shot had then the shots
    > > from the 40D, clearly he saw something in the shot that others did
    > > not.

    >
    > > As for NPS 160, from the spec sheet it looks to a bit less then 10
    > > stops of DR
    > >http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-809E.pdf

    >
    > > The 40D has just over 9 stops of DR
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp

    >
    > Regardless of the DR range of the 40D, about 7 stops of that is to the
    > shadow side whereas for negative film 3 - 4 stops are to the highlight side.
    >
    > The lower few stops of the shadow side DR of the Canon 40D is not likely
    > viewable on the screen and especially not in print.
    >
    > I would correct my earlier statement to be: "much better highlight
    > performance than the 40D".


    Whether the range is in the shadows or highlights depends on how you
    do your exposure. It is very rare that I have a photo where the
    highlights are blown in the capture, I might convert the raw image to
    set the white point such that they are blown, in the same way you
    might when scanning a negative. But I have a lot of negatives where
    the shadows are so thin that trying to pull anything out is just about
    impossible.

    And just what do you do with the extra highlight headroom in the final
    image? Let’s say you are photographing a scene with some areas of
    bright white snow in full sun, and also some specular reflections off
    a metal surface that goes three stops brighter then the snow, where do
    you set the white point in the print? Are you going to put the snow
    three stops down from full white in the print, that would look like
    crap. Do you set the white point half a stop above the snow and
    compress the 3 stops above it down to ½ hoping that will look good?,
    maybe, but then the snow is going to look a bit dirty.

    I see a lot of people who shoot film that seem to believe that just
    because film has good highlight range that they will not have problem
    with blown highlights in the final image, this of course is nonsense.
    The real art to making a print, whether from a digital capture or
    film, is fitting all that range onto a print that might have 5 stops
    of range at best.

    I won't speak for others, but I have had far more under exposed
    negatives then over exposed digital captures. It is always easy to
    shoot a stop or two faster, say going from 1/60 second to 1/120, but
    shooting a stop or two slower can be a real pain, say going from 1/60
    to 1/30.

    Scott
    Scott W, Sep 16, 2008
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 15, 1:11 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    > Use a low contrast film such as Fujicolor NPS 160 and the results will
    > be very different.  There is not one brand of digital sensor that will
    > come close to the dynamic range that NPS 160 offers.
    >
    > The OP could hardly have made a worse choice of film to illustrate the
    > relative abilities of film and digital capture.  I wonder if that was
    > his intention ...


    My intention was to stop by the grocery store on the way to the match
    and buy whatever film I could find, which is why I went with the
    cheapo Fuji Superia "XTRA" 400. Believe it or not, the idiot Noons
    was correct in that the day started out very gloomy and overcast with
    only occasional glimpses of sunlight. Otherwise, I would have gone
    for 100 speed film. I hate grain, dontcha know.

    I guess I'll include a couple of rolls of NPS 160 in my next order
    from B&H. I've used it in the distant past a few times, but my usual
    film was Reala back in the day.
    Annika1980, Sep 16, 2008
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    ZetaLyra Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:58:47 -0700 (PDT), Scott W <> wrote:

    >On Sep 15, 7:11 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> "Colin.D" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Use a low contrast film such as Fujicolor NPS 160 and the results will
    >> be very different.  There is not one brand of digital sensor that will
    >> come close to the dynamic range that NPS 160 offers.
    >>
    >> The OP could hardly have made a worse choice of film to illustrate the
    >> relative abilities of film and digital capture.  I wonder if that was
    >> his intention ...

    >
    >It was Alan who was say how much more DR the shot had then the shots
    >from the 40D, clearly he saw something in the shot that others did
    >not.
    >
    >As for NPS 160, from the spec sheet it looks to a bit less then 10
    >stops of DR
    >http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/AF3-809E.pdf
    >
    >The 40D has just over 9 stops of DR
    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp
    >
    >So I guess by not coming close you mean less then one stop?
    >


    Huh. That's funny. Because the Canon S3 IS P&S camera has a total dynamic range
    of 10.3EV steps. So much for that mythical urban-legend that's perpetuated by a
    few with a deceptive personal-agenda trying to convince everyone that larger
    sensor cameras always have more dynamic range.

    See the lab-test graphs for yourself

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

    Even at ISO800 it still has a total dynamic range of 8.93 EV steps, beating out
    the dynamic range of most all APS-C sized sensors at that ISO.

    You people shouldn't blindly believe what you are told and then stupidly spew it
    back out again as if they are some hard facts that always hold true.
    ZetaLyra, Sep 16, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    THE FABULOUS EOS-1V FLIES AGAIN !!!

    Annika1980, Nov 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    354
    Annika1980
    Nov 2, 2005
  2. Annika1980

    KIDS LOVE THE FABULOUS EOS-1V !!!

    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    260
    g n p
    Dec 2, 2005
  3. Annika1980

    WAKING UP WITH THE FABULOUS 40D !

    Annika1980, Sep 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    1,825
    John Turco
    Sep 28, 2007
  4. Annika1980

    SNIFFIN AROUND WITH THE FABULOUS EOS-1V !

    Annika1980, Feb 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    298
    Jon Pope
    Mar 1, 2008
  5. Annika1980

    MOUNTAIN MUSIC WITH THE FABULOUS EOS-1V !

    Annika1980, Feb 28, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    433
    Atheist Chaplain
    Feb 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page