Digital v Film again

[djg]

Mehrdad,

I've been doing my own CCD cleaning with one of those air-blowing bulbs. From time to time (unless I notice something in an image, obviously) I'll shoot an overexposed blang surface and check.

The only real problem I ever had was in the beginning, when in New Zealand. At one point I noticed the images from the day before had some dark spots in the same place

. Fortunately I was able to clean them up fairly easily in Photoshop.

DJ
Getting ready to send his 50mm rebate form
$550 - $150 = $400: Good Deal!

 

[msadat]

DJ, my ND was real dirty with more than just dust ( i don't know how) i tried to clean it myself but no luck so i sent it in. and the only way i notices is when i took a portrait against a white back drop! something interesting the nikon is doing with their new to be released software is = a reference white balance filter that u can use to clean or filter all images!! so i guess it works like u have a pre image and then use it to clean others as needed. that's very cool!!=20

on other notes, i really hope contax will contract out to phase one for their software on the new camera!!

 

[fotografz]

DJ, that 50/1.4 rebate has got to be the best deal going. I love my ND with the 50.

 

[djg]

Marc,

My original plan was to get the 85/1.4, but they offered no rebate for it. And since my main use will be for available light, the shorter F.L. is actually more practical and noticeably lighter. For most other shooting I do the 24-85's variable F.L. is a good trade-off over the improved image quality the fixed 85 would bring.

But who knows, if a suitable new digital body appears it would make sense to get it with the 85/1.4, now, wouldn't it?

DJ

 

[kaisern]

>=20 >=20 >=20 > [Difference between the digital files from Kodak and Canon is the signal = noise > in dark area, Kodak still not match Canon in this regard and the camera i= s not > very well built and it is very difficult to look thru the viewfinder beca= use > the back structure of the 14n. Kaisern] >=20 >=20 >=20

 

[kaisern]

>=20 >=20 >=20 > [One advise is to clean the CCD before and at the end of a shooting at re= gular > basis so the dust will not stay on the CCD for too long and cannot be rem= oved. > New lenses from Canon or Nikon has the TPE gasket on the lens mount also = help > to prevent dusk coming inside the camera. Brgds/Kaisern] >=20 >=20 >=20

 

[coyot]

> I have posted a 1 percent crop from a film scan (3600 DPI, 48.7 Megabyte File) to the test gallery (Victor) to show how ridiculous this film to digital extreme crop comparison has become. It is unfair and an "unnatural act" to expect either film or digital to stand up to a One Percent scrutiny in web form. At 72 DPI (monitor resolution), when you are creating a web file for comparison, the pixels are expanded and distorted. The 10 Percent comparison may be fairer, but when you look at them, you will note that the ND to AX film comparison is close, if not the same.

Look at the Angler extrme crop. It looks terrible. Look at any of the 1 percent extreme crops I posted. They all have problems. When you take a photo, if you want to show 1 percent of the image, get 100 times closer to the subject!

Yes, you can argue ISO 100 vs. 200 is the problem. Yes, a direct comparison of the same image and the same ISO would be better.

Several people have said, that with the one percent analysis, that you should see the cat hairs or Edward's' eyebrow hairs, etc.(Clive, Lynne ...) I took a one percent look at an AX image to see if those statements were true. In my film scan they were not. Perhaps somebody has a less than one percent englargement that differs. Please show me!

But ... regardless, the One percent comparison is ridiculous. You need to look at the final output, whether to a monitor or to print form, to make a valid comparison. The ND holds up to film for monitor displays or for print displays up to 11 x 14 inches! (In my humble opinion).

Michael.

 

[sparkie3977]

I am wondering what the difference is between a 50th anniversary Contax RTS II and regular Contax RTS II camera. Are there any extra features on the anniversary edition? Does the anniversary edition have more value than the standard edition? I camera that I'M looking to barder for has a gold cap that screws on the front of the camera body. It has the inscription "Contax 50th Anmiversary" edition. Can anyone give me some more info on this camera? Thanks Ralph

 

[bobbl46]

Hi Ralph

This is a mixed bag of tricks, here!

The forum section you chose is not the best! (Dirk, you might consider a transfer for this one!)

As far as I know, there is no such thing as an RTS II 50 year anniversary edition! Has the Ebay seller been badly advised, or discovered an absolute rarity? The anniversary versions of Contax cameras use a base date of 1932 as origin (Contax I R/F). The ordinary(?) Contax RTS II's release date was 1982 (the 50th year), not as an anniversary edition.

The RTS I was issued as a 50th year anniversary Gold plated edition in the same year (along with other Lizard skin special editions .....137MD's & 139Q's.

RTS I and II came in the following flavours

RTS I........

1974 (a landmark camera - the vanilla version!)
1979 Lizard Skin version (5th year domestic sales in Japan(?))
1979 RTS Scientific/medical (Fundus cameras - 2 versions with modified shutter mechanisms)
1982 the RTS I GOLD plate 50 year Anniversary version - see photo)

* There are a number of RTS I's with Gold-plated bases marked "For Demonstration Only" which are thought to be dealer/rep's versions.

RTS II......

1982 - the vanilla version.

In addition, customised versions were submitted to specialist Japanese companies to have Lizard skins added.

The bottom line is that the Ebay photo shows it is an RTS II with the possible addition of the "Gold - flash contact cap" off an RTS I aniversary edition or possibly a 137MD Lizard skin anniversary edition etc. (see photo).

I apologise in advance if it can be shown that I am wrong (and I'd like to know a lot more about it , if this should be the case).

Cheers, Bob.

 

[paul_schliesser]

Hi,

I'd like to make a few observations about the digital vs. film debate.

Someone who shoots negatives and hands them over to a lab doesn't really know what was on the negative; whether it was hand printed or done by an automated minilab, the tonal range, color balance and contrast will be what the printer decided, and are not necessarily a literal interpretation of what was on the film. All you know is that the exposure was sufficently close to get a decent print. In many cases, the film can potentially yield a much better print than what you actuall got from the automated lab. Only someone who prints their own negs themselves really knows what their own negative looks like. For instance, if you shot a series of bracketed test images, an automated minilab might print them all so that the tonal range is identical and they'd all look nearly the same.

This is one of the primary reasons that I shoot slides almost exclusively - I'm seeing the photos exactly as they were shot (provided they were processed correctly) and no decisions about the image were made behind my back. If I did a series of bracketed shots, they'd each look different.

What many people don't seem to realize is that shooting digital images is very similar to shooting negs - only you don't have a custom printer to fix them for you, even though the image may require as much work - there are often similar color and contrast problems. However, few photographers have the skill with Photoshop and other tools to do justice to their images. It makes me cringe to see photographers seriously damage or even ruin their photos by making selections, blurring, using levels, etc. in a heavy-handed fashion.

People with little skill in electronic image manipulation simply can't match the skill of someone with years of experience doing custom wet printing, and when they discover they can't, they blame their computer or camera or scanner or printer.

Scans also take a great deal of skill to make, and the final result depends again on the decisions the scanner operator made.

So, any test of film versus digital is partly a test of the skills of the people manipulating the image - if you're scanning prints, you have the both the person making the print and the person scanning the print. It would be better to scan directly from either a negative or slide, instead.

My suggestion for a fair test would be to shoot a digital and a chrome of the same subject, scan the chorme, and have the same person do the necessary manipulation to each image to get the closest results possible; then the two images could be compared on-screen or printed identically.

For professional photographers whose work appears in print, the only thing that makes a real difference is whether a first-generation digital image from a digital camera is superior to a digital image scanned from film.

- Paul