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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Digidork, Jul 31, 2006.

  1. Digidork

    Digidork Guest

    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!
     
    Digidork, Jul 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Digidork

    Pat Guest

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

    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 piss 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!
     
    Pat, Jul 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

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

    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/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.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 piss 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!

    >
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 31, 2006
    #3
  4. Digidork

    Digidork Guest

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

    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/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.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 piss 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!

    > >
    > >
     
    Digidork, Jul 31, 2006
    #4
  5. Re: Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

    "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.


    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 piss 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)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 31, 2006
    #5
  6. Digidork

    simon Guest

    simon, Jul 31, 2006
    #6
  7. Re: Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > "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.

    >
    >
    > 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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 31, 2006
    #7
  8. Digidork

    Pat Guest

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

    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/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.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 piss 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!

    > >
    > >
     
    Pat, Jul 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Digidork

    Daryl Bryant Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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!
    >
     
    Daryl Bryant, Jul 31, 2006
    #9
  10. Digidork

    bluezfolk Guest

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

    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
     
    bluezfolk, Jul 31, 2006
    #10
  11. Digidork

    Pat Guest

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

    Roger, I am not disputing your charts, but I think they may not
    represent the "real world". Take your typical disposable film camera
    with technology that is about 100 years old and would make a "Brownie"
    seem sophisticated. You buy it preloaded with ASA 400 or 800 film. It
    has 1 preset aperature, 1 preset shutter speed, plus maybe a flash with
    a GN of 25 (okay maybe 50). It is capable of taking a mediocre picture
    under a wide range of situations.

    Now take your typical non-dSLR digicam. They blink, click, clatter,
    wheeze, cough and practically spit getting ready to take a picture and
    might take a second or more to get an image off ... and then it usually
    uses too flow of a shutter speed in low light situations. One of the
    biggest problems is people blinking or looking goofy because of all of
    the foreplay before it takes the picture.

    There are a lot of really bright scientists and (maybe) marketers out
    there working for all of the camera companies. Everyone is trying to
    out do each other to make a cheaper, better, faster, smaller camera.

    If the sensor of the digital camera really outdid the film, then
    someone would say "hey, wait a minute, let's make a digital camera with
    no meter, no adjustable shutter speed, no adjustable aperature, no
    focus", etc. etc. They could basically couple the operations of a
    disposable with a sensor and put out a decent P&S for a pretty
    reasonable price. Plus it would be as quick as heck with nearly no
    latency.

    So if the dynamic range is so great, why don't they do that???????
    Seems like it would be a nice simple, cheap camera. I contend, with no
    proof whatsoever (hey, that's a theory, isn't it), that they do not do
    that because it would not work because there is not enough latitude in
    the exposure.

    What are your thought of it?

    Pat.


    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > > "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.

    > >
    > >
    > > 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
     
    Pat, Aug 1, 2006
    #11
  12. Re: Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

    Pat wrote:

    > 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.


    That depends on the camera model and the metering system. When I
    got my first DSLR (Canon D60) I shot Canon a Elan 7 along side
    the D60 for a while using slide film. The results were not very
    good with too many blown highlights. Same when I upgraded to
    the 10D. I learned to monitor the histogram and blinking pixel
    and found I was often setting the meter compensation to
    -1/2 to -1 stops to get correct exposures.
    Finally, the 1D Mark II has great metering and responds
    well, rarely blowing highlights. I find I will do meter +1/3 to
    +2/3 stops, but usually 0.0.

    My experience with other cameras, between work and home, I've
    used many models extensively. Each model responds
    differently and one must get used to the metering and where
    that exposes the sensor relative to saturation.

    So again, digital is different than print or slide film, and one
    must understand the metering in the camera you are using.

    > 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.


    Well, the characteristic curve data shows the digital response
    essentially identical to print film until the film toe is reached
    (digital does not have a toe) in the shadows.

    > 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.


    Shooting jpeg does not effect dynamic range much (just increased noise
    at the low end, so slightly less dynamic range). Some cameras
    clip the high end on jpegs (e.g. the 10D) in order to put more bits
    into low end. To see the dynamic range of some of jpeg
    versus raw, see my previous posted link:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

    But be aware that different raw converters give different
    performance, and in some cases a jpeg can actually do better. See
    Figures 13 and 14 at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.converter.shadow.detail

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


    While basically I agree, there are workflow changes that are required
    to achieve this. For example, one can do an all night exposure
    (e.g. 8+ hours in winter), say of stars rotating around the pole
    star. You can't do that with any digital camera. But you
    can take multiple shorter exposures and add them together.
    Astronomers are doing this VERY effectively, pushing limits
    unheard of with film. See:
    Night and Low Light Photography with Digital Cameras
    http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/night.and.low.light.photography

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 1, 2006
    #12
  13. Re: Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

    Pat wrote:

    > Roger, I am not disputing your charts, but I think they may not
    > represent the "real world". Take your typical disposable film camera
    > with technology that is about 100 years old and would make a "Brownie"
    > seem sophisticated. You buy it preloaded with ASA 400 or 800 film. It
    > has 1 preset aperature, 1 preset shutter speed, plus maybe a flash with
    > a GN of 25 (okay maybe 50). It is capable of taking a mediocre picture
    > under a wide range of situations.
    >
    > Now take your typical non-dSLR digicam. They blink, click, clatter,
    > wheeze, cough and practically spit getting ready to take a picture and
    > might take a second or more to get an image off ... and then it usually
    > uses too flow of a shutter speed in low light situations. One of the
    > biggest problems is people blinking or looking goofy because of all of
    > the foreplay before it takes the picture.
    >
    > There are a lot of really bright scientists and (maybe) marketers out
    > there working for all of the camera companies. Everyone is trying to
    > out do each other to make a cheaper, better, faster, smaller camera.
    >
    > If the sensor of the digital camera really outdid the film, then
    > someone would say "hey, wait a minute, let's make a digital camera with
    > no meter, no adjustable shutter speed, no adjustable aperature, no
    > focus", etc. etc. They could basically couple the operations of a
    > disposable with a sensor and put out a decent P&S for a pretty
    > reasonable price. Plus it would be as quick as heck with nearly no
    > latency.
    >
    > So if the dynamic range is so great, why don't they do that???????
    > Seems like it would be a nice simple, cheap camera. I contend, with no
    > proof whatsoever (hey, that's a theory, isn't it), that they do not do
    > that because it would not work because there is not enough latitude in
    > the exposure.
    >
    > What are your thought of it?


    It's been done:

    Digital Cameras Go Disposable
    Ritz Camera offers an affordable digital alternative.
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/111841-1/article.html

    A disposable digital camera enters the market at $19.99
    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-08-18-puredigital_x.htm

    Try googling:
    disposable digital camera
    or
    disposable digital camera review

    to get many hits.

    But sensors in a large size, say 5 megapixels with decent size
    pixels are still too expensive for use in cheap disposable
    cameras, thus quality is relatively low.

    If you would simply set up a film camera viewing a contrasty
    scene along side with a digital camera, and take a picture with
    each, you would easily see how much cleaner the shadows are
    on the digital compared to any print or slide film you use,
    assuming a decent modern digital camera.

    Or just look at figure 5 at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 1, 2006
    #13
  14. Digidork

    Pat Guest

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

    Okay, let me propose a "real world" test we can each do, if you are up
    to it. It should be interesting.

    Both of us (or is it each of us) will buy a disposable camera without a
    flash. Your choice as to whether it is ASA 400 or 800, but they should
    be the same. Let's not use a flash so we don't have to worry about
    different guide numbers.

    I'm not sure I have a lens as wide as what comes on the disposables,
    but each/both of us will throw on a wide-ange and use it as as close to
    the disposable as we can.

    We will set our cameras to the proper ASA/ISO and a shutter speed of
    1/100th. We will start with a high-overcast scene or an evening scene
    and meter it to get a good exposure. This will be our exposure for the
    test with no adjustments to shutter speed or aperature.

    We will shoot in the largest JPG size available on the camera.

    We with take both cameras and shoot a variety of scenes for the 24/27
    exposures of the disposables. 1 pic each scene from each camera.

    If you can think of any other controls we can throw in, let me know.

    Then, we will process the film using Kodak processing and get a Kodak
    picture disk (other brands are notoriously unreliable and crude out
    here). Then we will post both sets of pictures with NO manipulation to
    our web sites for side-by-side comparision in a week or so.

    Then we can see under what circumstances which media acts better and
    which (if either) has more versitility (I hesitate to use "dynamic
    range").

    Since neither of us own digital camera or film factories (at least I
    don't), neither of us have a vested interest one way or the other, so
    it'll be just and interesting experiment to see what happens. Like all
    good experiments, I have no idea which outcome will be better.

    You are the scientist with lots of great charts. I'm the pragmatist
    who "knows what I see". We'll see what happens when, as they say, the
    rubber hits the road.

    Pat.




    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Pat wrote:
    >
    > > Roger, I am not disputing your charts, but I think they may not
    > > represent the "real world". Take your typical disposable film camera
    > > with technology that is about 100 years old and would make a "Brownie"
    > > seem sophisticated. You buy it preloaded with ASA 400 or 800 film. It
    > > has 1 preset aperature, 1 preset shutter speed, plus maybe a flash with
    > > a GN of 25 (okay maybe 50). It is capable of taking a mediocre picture
    > > under a wide range of situations.
    > >
    > > Now take your typical non-dSLR digicam. They blink, click, clatter,
    > > wheeze, cough and practically spit getting ready to take a picture and
    > > might take a second or more to get an image off ... and then it usually
    > > uses too flow of a shutter speed in low light situations. One of the
    > > biggest problems is people blinking or looking goofy because of all of
    > > the foreplay before it takes the picture.
    > >
    > > There are a lot of really bright scientists and (maybe) marketers out
    > > there working for all of the camera companies. Everyone is trying to
    > > out do each other to make a cheaper, better, faster, smaller camera.
    > >
    > > If the sensor of the digital camera really outdid the film, then
    > > someone would say "hey, wait a minute, let's make a digital camera with
    > > no meter, no adjustable shutter speed, no adjustable aperature, no
    > > focus", etc. etc. They could basically couple the operations of a
    > > disposable with a sensor and put out a decent P&S for a pretty
    > > reasonable price. Plus it would be as quick as heck with nearly no
    > > latency.
    > >
    > > So if the dynamic range is so great, why don't they do that???????
    > > Seems like it would be a nice simple, cheap camera. I contend, with no
    > > proof whatsoever (hey, that's a theory, isn't it), that they do not do
    > > that because it would not work because there is not enough latitude in
    > > the exposure.
    > >
    > > What are your thought of it?

    >
    > It's been done:
    >
    > Digital Cameras Go Disposable
    > Ritz Camera offers an affordable digital alternative.
    > http://www.pcworld.com/article/111841-1/article.html
    >
    > A disposable digital camera enters the market at $19.99
    > http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-08-18-puredigital_x.htm
    >
    > Try googling:
    > disposable digital camera
    > or
    > disposable digital camera review
    >
    > to get many hits.
    >
    > But sensors in a large size, say 5 megapixels with decent size
    > pixels are still too expensive for use in cheap disposable
    > cameras, thus quality is relatively low.
    >
    > If you would simply set up a film camera viewing a contrasty
    > scene along side with a digital camera, and take a picture with
    > each, you would easily see how much cleaner the shadows are
    > on the digital compared to any print or slide film you use,
    > assuming a decent modern digital camera.
    >
    > Or just look at figure 5 at:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
    >
    > Roger
     
    Pat, Aug 1, 2006
    #14
  15. Re: Help for an-ex 35mm guy, please. Username says it all.

    Pat wrote:

    > Okay, let me propose a "real world" test we can each do, if you are up
    > to it. It should be interesting.
    >
    > Both of us (or is it each of us) will buy a disposable camera without a
    > flash. Your choice as to whether it is ASA 400 or 800, but they should
    > be the same. Let's not use a flash so we don't have to worry about
    > different guide numbers.
    >
    > I'm not sure I have a lens as wide as what comes on the disposables,
    > but each/both of us will throw on a wide-ange and use it as as close to
    > the disposable as we can.
    >
    > We will set our cameras to the proper ASA/ISO and a shutter speed of
    > 1/100th. We will start with a high-overcast scene or an evening scene
    > and meter it to get a good exposure. This will be our exposure for the
    > test with no adjustments to shutter speed or aperature.
    >
    > We will shoot in the largest JPG size available on the camera.
    >
    > We with take both cameras and shoot a variety of scenes for the 24/27
    > exposures of the disposables. 1 pic each scene from each camera.
    >
    > If you can think of any other controls we can throw in, let me know.
    >
    > Then, we will process the film using Kodak processing and get a Kodak
    > picture disk (other brands are notoriously unreliable and crude out
    > here). Then we will post both sets of pictures with NO manipulation to
    > our web sites for side-by-side comparision in a week or so.
    >
    > Then we can see under what circumstances which media acts better and
    > which (if either) has more versitility (I hesitate to use "dynamic
    > range").
    >
    > Since neither of us own digital camera or film factories (at least I
    > don't), neither of us have a vested interest one way or the other, so
    > it'll be just and interesting experiment to see what happens. Like all
    > good experiments, I have no idea which outcome will be better.
    >
    > You are the scientist with lots of great charts. I'm the pragmatist
    > who "knows what I see". We'll see what happens when, as they say, the
    > rubber hits the road.


    Pat,
    That would be an interesting test. Due to work schedules
    I will not be able to do the test for a few weeks (near
    the end of August).

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 1, 2006
    #15
  16. Digidork

    Pat Guest

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

    Okay, I'll pick up a disposable and start the process. I'm not going
    out of my way to take any pics, just what is around. Then I'll post
    them and you can "replicate" the experiement.


    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Pat wrote:
    >
    > > Okay, let me propose a "real world" test we can each do, if you are up
    > > to it. It should be interesting.
    > >
    > > Both of us (or is it each of us) will buy a disposable camera without a
    > > flash. Your choice as to whether it is ASA 400 or 800, but they should
    > > be the same. Let's not use a flash so we don't have to worry about
    > > different guide numbers.
    > >
    > > I'm not sure I have a lens as wide as what comes on the disposables,
    > > but each/both of us will throw on a wide-ange and use it as as close to
    > > the disposable as we can.
    > >
    > > We will set our cameras to the proper ASA/ISO and a shutter speed of
    > > 1/100th. We will start with a high-overcast scene or an evening scene
    > > and meter it to get a good exposure. This will be our exposure for the
    > > test with no adjustments to shutter speed or aperature.
    > >
    > > We will shoot in the largest JPG size available on the camera.
    > >
    > > We with take both cameras and shoot a variety of scenes for the 24/27
    > > exposures of the disposables. 1 pic each scene from each camera.
    > >
    > > If you can think of any other controls we can throw in, let me know.
    > >
    > > Then, we will process the film using Kodak processing and get a Kodak
    > > picture disk (other brands are notoriously unreliable and crude out
    > > here). Then we will post both sets of pictures with NO manipulation to
    > > our web sites for side-by-side comparision in a week or so.
    > >
    > > Then we can see under what circumstances which media acts better and
    > > which (if either) has more versitility (I hesitate to use "dynamic
    > > range").
    > >
    > > Since neither of us own digital camera or film factories (at least I
    > > don't), neither of us have a vested interest one way or the other, so
    > > it'll be just and interesting experiment to see what happens. Like all
    > > good experiments, I have no idea which outcome will be better.
    > >
    > > You are the scientist with lots of great charts. I'm the pragmatist
    > > who "knows what I see". We'll see what happens when, as they say, the
    > > rubber hits the road.

    >
    > Pat,
    > That would be an interesting test. Due to work schedules
    > I will not be able to do the test for a few weeks (near
    > the end of August).
    >
    > Roger
     
    Pat, Aug 1, 2006
    #16
    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. The Reluctant Robot Named Jude

    Change the username found in "C:\Documents and Settings\Username"

    The Reluctant Robot Named Jude, May 5, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    12,755
    Rifleman
    May 5, 2004
  2. Bobby Fischler
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,929
    Bobby Fischler
    Jul 24, 2004
  3. Guy Macon (Guy Macon)

    GUY MACON HAS NO COLLEGE DEGREE (Guy Macon, pseudo-engineer Guy Macon)

    Guy Macon (Guy Macon), Feb 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
    Guy Macon (Guy Macon)
    Feb 4, 2005
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    666
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,163
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page