How far...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peter, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
    I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again keeps
    the money flowing.
    Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?
    Peter, Aug 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Peter" <.> wrote:
    > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?


    If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
    not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.

    > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
    > keeps
    > the money flowing.
    > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?


    Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter

    Mark² Guest

    "Peter" <.> wrote in message
    news:MWiKe.78257$...
    > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
    > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
    > keeps
    > the money flowing.
    > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?


    Pros?
    Which pros?
    Professional photogs that shoot 35mm SLRs are overwhelmingoly moving to
    digital. any newspaper that can afford them use DSLRs. Sports and PJs use
    digital. Huge numbers of those in medium format are moving too. This is
    evidenced by the huge glut of cheap MF gear available used. I just bumped
    into one such photog last week who was walking around with his 16.7MP Canon
    1Ds Mark II DSLR. He stopped shooting medium format for all but a few
    shoots once he got his new Canon. For him, it was (as he put it), "a
    no-brainer" to buy the 1Ds Mark II.
    Mark², Aug 10, 2005
    #3
  4. Peter

    salgud Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
    > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again keeps
    > the money flowing.
    > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?


    My oldest son is a "pro". Been working as a full-time photojournalist,
    first freelance and now for a local paper, since he graduated in '98.
    He's been shooting with a digital Nikon for about 3 years now. Still
    loves film, but it's purely an art form now. No paper worth a nickel
    messes with film anymore. And when he interviewed a few years ago with
    Reuters to get on the "list" of local photographers, they told him they
    couldn't use him until he was fully digital. That's what prompted him
    to find a way to go digital. Now he wants a Canon, since they've
    surpassed Nikon in the digital arena.
    salgud, Aug 10, 2005
    #4
  5. Peter

    CFB Guest

    In article <ddcg82$msu$>,
    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    > "Peter" <.> wrote:
    > > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?

    >
    > If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    > since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
    > not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.


    If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go. And
    forget about 8x10 negatives. Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
    range of film in high contrast situations. Anyway, I think the look of
    35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
    both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
    never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.

    But what does "inferior subminiature" mean?

    >
    > > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
    > > keeps
    > > the money flowing.
    > > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

    >
    > Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.


    And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P

    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    CFB, Aug 10, 2005
    #5
  6. Peter

    CFB Guest

    In article <SWjKe.60365$Eo.53884@fed1read04>,
    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > "Peter" <.> wrote in message
    > news:MWiKe.78257$...
    > > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
    > > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
    > > keeps
    > > the money flowing.
    > > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

    >
    > Pros?
    > Which pros?
    > Professional photogs that shoot 35mm SLRs are overwhelmingoly moving to
    > digital.


    They may be pros, but they are not artists. :^P The main reason they
    are moving to digital is the speed of sending the image to newspapers.

    > any newspaper that can afford them use DSLRs. Sports and PJs use
    > digital. Huge numbers of those in medium format are moving too.


    Do you have any references for this? I am not saying I don't believe you
    but I would just like to see the reference.

    > This is
    > evidenced by the huge glut of cheap MF gear available used.


    Again, reference?

    > I just bumped
    > into one such photog last week who was walking around with his 16.7MP Canon
    > 1Ds Mark II DSLR. He stopped shooting medium format for all but a few
    > shoots once he got his new Canon. For him, it was (as he put it), "a
    > no-brainer" to buy the 1Ds Mark II.


    I hope one person was not your reference. And why did he admit he had no
    brain? :^P

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    CFB, Aug 10, 2005
    #6
  7. Peter

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
    > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again keeps
    > the money flowing.
    > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?
    >
    >

    There are already focal planes that reach resolution of some films.
    Films cover a wide range of resolution, so it is not a good idea to just
    lump film together. It will be a long time before we reach microfilm
    resolution, for instance, while we are already at 35mm ASA 1600 color.
    Don Stauffer, Aug 10, 2005
    #7
  8. Peter

    Celcius Guest

    I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question differently
    in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
    If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you still
    think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The film is
    not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
    camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even know
    if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally well
    photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
    offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?
    Marcel

    "CFB" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <ddcg82$msu$>,
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >
    > > "Peter" <.> wrote:
    > > > will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?

    > >
    > > If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    > > since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with

    645,
    > > not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.

    >
    > If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go. And
    > forget about 8x10 negatives. Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
    > range of film in high contrast situations. Anyway, I think the look of
    > 35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
    > both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
    > never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.
    >
    > But what does "inferior subminiature" mean?
    >
    > >
    > > > I smell a rat like computers where just a little better now and again
    > > > keeps
    > > > the money flowing.
    > > > Or is the current crop good enough for pros ?

    > >
    > > Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

    >
    > And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P
    >
    > >
    > > David J. Littleboy
    > > Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > --
    >
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    Celcius, Aug 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Peter

    John Moore Guest

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:08:46 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:


    >If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    >since passed that watermark.


    Bollocks.


    >Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.


    That's because they are shooting for magazines and not photo art
    galleries you silly boy.
    John Moore, Aug 10, 2005
    #9
  10. Peter

    John Moore Guest

    On 10 Aug 2005 06:46:49 -0700, "salgud" <> wrote:

    >No paper worth a nickel
    >messes with film anymore.


    Not all photograpers shoot for rags.
    John Moore, Aug 10, 2005
    #10
  11. Peter

    John Moore Guest

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:40:52 -0500, Don Stauffer
    <> wrote:


    >There are already focal planes that reach resolution of some films.
    >Films cover a wide range of resolution, so it is not a good idea to just
    >lump film together. It will be a long time before we reach microfilm
    >resolution, for instance, while we are already at 35mm ASA 1600 color.


    ASA 1600 is very grainy.
    John Moore, Aug 10, 2005
    #11
  12. CFB wrote:
    > In article <ddcg82$msu$>,
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Peter" <.> wrote:
    >>
    >>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?

    >>
    >>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    >>since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
    >>not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.

    >
    >
    > If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go.


    You must mean 4x5. 4x5 Velvia is about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.

    > And
    > forget about 8x10 negatives.


    About 1 gigapixel.

    > Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
    > range of film in high contrast situations.


    Incorrect. This digital myth just doesn't seem to die. Digital
    cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
    See:
    Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
    and Comparison to Film
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

    Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
    a dynamic range limitation. Digital has more dynamic range in the
    low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
    in the high end. You must learn to expose differently with
    digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
    and print film differently.

    > Anyway, I think the look of
    > 35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
    > both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
    > never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.


    I consistently produce higher quality digital prints up to
    16x24 inches from 6 and 8 megapixel DSLRs whose sharpness has
    surprised me, and those who bought them than I did with film. I use
    Richardson-Lucey image restoration to improve resolution up to 2x.
    That is possible because of the high signal-to-noise of digital images.
    There is no longer a comparison between digital and 35mm film.
    In all but very restricted circumstances, 8-megapixel digital
    cameras outperform film, even low speed film. But this is true
    only if you know how to post process digital files, which in itself
    is an art form, much like darkroom printing is an art form.

    See:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    and follow the links to more specific articles. Note the
    Apparent Image Quality factor, AIQ, I've developed. It shows
    how DSLRs are challenging medium format, just as David Littleboy
    indicated. For those who've seen but haven't viewed this page
    recently, I've done a lot of updates to it, adding newer cameras.

    >>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

    >
    > And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P


    Statements like this only illustrate you don't know what
    you are talking about.


    Roger Clark
    Large format, 35mm film and digital photos, digital info at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 10, 2005
    #12
  13. "John Moore" <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:08:46 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    >>since passed that watermark.

    >
    > Bollocks.


    Bollocks to you: there's no way 35mm can compete with 11 MP (and that's
    getting to be ancient history), let alone 16.7 MP. Even 645 has trouble
    competing with that.

    >>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

    >
    > That's because they are shooting for magazines and not photo art
    > galleries you silly boy.


    The 20D/1D2 stuff I'm seeing in the landscape (and other) magazines here is
    better than the 35mm stuff, although it's not as good as the better MF work;
    35mm turns to mush sooner than 8MP digital.

    People showing in art galleries don't shoot 35mm, either. At least if they
    want decent larger prints.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Peter

    Mark² Guest

    "John Moore" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:08:46 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    >>since passed that watermark.

    >
    > Bollocks.
    >
    >
    >>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

    >
    > That's because they are shooting for magazines and not photo art
    > galleries you silly boy.


    11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
    film captures.
    If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
    Mark², Aug 10, 2005
    #14
  15. Peter

    John Moore Guest

    On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:29:51 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:


    >Bollocks to you: there's no way 35mm can compete with 11 MP (and that's
    >getting to be ancient history), let alone 16.7 MP. Even 645 has trouble
    >competing with that.


    You're a clueless idiot.


    >The 20D/1D2 stuff I'm seeing in the landscape (and other) magazines here is
    >better than the 35mm stuff, although it's not as good as the better MF work;
    >35mm turns to mush sooner than 8MP digital.


    Mag photos are printed at 300dpi or less you dumb ****. Look at a mag
    photo with a really big magnifying glass next time.
    John Moore, Aug 11, 2005
    #15
  16. Peter

    John Moore Guest

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:49:10 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:


    >11 and 16MP digitals are definitely surpassing the detail even slow 35mm
    >film captures.
    >If anything, it's now a question of comparison with some medium formats.
    >


    Bollocks. Show me the scientific data to back that up. You need
    something in the range of 50mp to match medium format.
    John Moore, Aug 11, 2005
    #16
  17. Peter

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    "Celcius" <> wrote:

    > I agree with you CFB. However, I would tend to ask the question differently
    > in comparing Film cameras to Digitals.
    > If we asked how well cameras reproduce what we photograph, would you still
    > think the film camera does a better job? If so, how could it be? The film is
    > not the only element. There is the lens, the camera, quality of lens and
    > camera, the type of film and ISO, the developing studio... I don't even know
    > if it's possible to compare. By and large though, comparing "equally well
    > photographed scenes", what measure of reproduction fidelity would both
    > offer. Would the film camera do a better job than, say a Canon 20D?


    My point was that there is no "better". You'll spend a life trying to
    figure all that out and you'll miss a million photographs. "reproduction
    fidelity"? Words like that have no place in art. If your trying to get
    film images from a digital camera one should buy a film camera. The idea
    of comparing the two hurts my head.

    I like the look of film images. I do not like the look of digital
    images. Preference.

    Peace.

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #17
  18. Peter

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    wrote:

    > CFB wrote:
    > > In article <ddcg82$msu$>,
    > > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>"Peter" <.> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?
    > >>
    > >>If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low. Digital has long
    > >>since passed that watermark. The 1Ds and 1Ds mk2 are competitive with 645,
    > >>not the inferior subminiature 35mm format.

    > >
    > >
    > > If you are talking 4x6, digital cameras still have a way to go.

    >
    > You must mean 4x5. 4x5 Velvia is about 200 megapixels digital equivalent.
    >
    > > And
    > > forget about 8x10 negatives.

    >
    > About 1 gigapixel.
    >
    > > Digital probably will not reach the dynamic
    > > range of film in high contrast situations.

    >
    > Incorrect. This digital myth just doesn't seem to die. Digital
    > cameras, especially DSLRs have higher dynamic range than film.
    > See:
    > Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
    > and Comparison to Film
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2


    "Digital camera transfer functions, like that in the Canon 1D Mark II
    camera, are similar to print film." That did not say higher, right?

    And $9000 for a digital body is a lot to pay to get "close" to film's DR.

    >
    > Don't confuse digital saturation (blown highlights) with
    > a dynamic range limitation.


    Hmm. Isn't blowout caused because of a small DR? Like if you have a very
    contrast scene dark and light will suffer if you expose for the middle
    range. Like comparing a DR of 1 stop to one of 5.

    http://www.nature-photography-central.com/DynamicRange.html

    > Digital has more dynamic range in the
    > low end than film, more than enough to compensate for saturation
    > in the high end. You must learn to expose differently with
    > digital, just like photographers have to learn to expose slide
    > and print film differently.


    That is just wrong.
    http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~bernardk/tutorials/360/technical/hdri/

    >
    > > Anyway, I think the look of
    > > 35mm is more realistic. But that is just a preference. (I shoot with
    > > both.) I have tried to get a digital image to look like film but was
    > > never able to do it. Again, don't freak out, it is just my preference.

    >
    > I consistently produce higher quality digital prints up to
    > 16x24 inches from 6 and 8 megapixel DSLRs whose sharpness has
    > surprised me, and those who bought them than I did with film. I use
    > Richardson-Lucey image restoration to improve resolution up to 2x.
    > That is possible because of the high signal-to-noise of digital images.


    Blah, blah, blah. You're not a photographer, you're a geek.

    > There is no longer a comparison between digital and 35mm film.


    There never was.

    > In all but very restricted circumstances, 8-megapixel digital
    > cameras outperform film, even low speed film.


    What does "out perform" mean? Are your photographs better?

    IE: Art is not dependent on mechanics.

    > But this is true
    > only if you know how to post process digital files, which in itself
    > is an art form, much like darkroom printing is an art form.


    Uhm, no.

    >
    > See:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    > and follow the links to more specific articles. Note the
    > Apparent Image Quality factor, AIQ, I've developed. It shows
    > how DSLRs are challenging medium format, just as David Littleboy
    > indicated. For those who've seen but haven't viewed this page
    > recently, I've done a lot of updates to it, adding newer cameras.


    Damn, all I see are a bunch of silly people thinking they are
    photographers.

    >
    > >>Lots of pros are happy with the 20D and 1Dmk2 8MP cameras.

    > >
    > > And that is why all their photo's look the same. :^P

    >
    > Statements like this only illustrate you don't know what
    > you are talking about.


    Oh, OK. Maybe you could ask me what I meant by that?

    By the way, I am not saying this as a gotcha, but you should spend more
    time taking photographs and maybe then you will know what I am talking
    about.

    And dude, you can reference yourself all you want, but it's just you.

    Peace.

    >
    >
    > Roger Clark
    > Large format, 35mm film and digital photos, digital info at:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com


    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #18
  19. Peter

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Peter" <.> wrote:
    >
    >>will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?

    >
    >
    > If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low.



    In that case, does anyone know what 35mm format might be "equivalent" to
    in the digital camera realm? 3 MP? 4MP? 5?

    Also, how is this determination made?




    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
    Isaiah Beard, Aug 11, 2005
    #19
  20. Isaiah Beard wrote:

    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    >> "Peter" <.> wrote:
    >>
    >>> will the pixel count go up in cameras till they reach film?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> If by film, you mean 35mm, you set the bar far too low.

    >
    >
    >
    > In that case, does anyone know what 35mm format might be "equivalent" to
    > in the digital camera realm? 3 MP? 4MP? 5?
    >
    > Also, how is this determination made?
    >
    >
    >
    >

    There is no "one" answer. See:

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 11, 2005
    #20
    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. Headtheball

    The worst day of my computing life (so far)

    Headtheball, Sep 6, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    437
    Headtheball
    Sep 6, 2004
  2. M Skabialka

    Wireless distance far too short

    M Skabialka, Jan 13, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,805
    =?Utf-8?B?cGF1bGdtaWxsZXI=?=
    Jan 14, 2005
  3. Peter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    666
    Peter
    Nov 15, 2004
  4. Arnold Nipper
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    502
    Arnold Nipper
    Nov 15, 2004
  5. JC
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    10,591
    Phillip Remaker
    Dec 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page