DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Digital v Film again

My God! Photography is not about comparing slides and digital files side by side, but about artistic content of the images. Exploding over such rediculous issues as MTF charts, megapixels and motor drives I find closely related to masturbation, truly.
 
Sorry Irakly?
Why have you never mentioned this before when the other half of your self – appreciation society is boring us rigid with his ‘authoritative’ testing of many and various equipment?. Oh! I forgot! You have been locked in the studio with him on many occassions.

Were you there for 'Artistic' reasons?

Clive
 
Hey guys cool down a little bit
happy.gif


I understand the point of Irakly and agree with it. But on the other hand not many people have the possibility to shoot a roll with a camera they are thinking about buying in the near future.

Especially with Contax is the problem to find dealer who have the stuff in stock at all.

So this is why I think it is helpful to have comparison shots which everybody can download and make their own judgements.

The ND will come down a lot in price over the next 12 months. I gues there are many people who are thinking about buying one if the price is right - and if it is at least on par with our own current Contax analog equipment
happy.gif


Dirk

P.S. The Test-Images Gallery is online again...
 
Clive, being abrasive will not make you more intelligent or persuasive. I can understand when people get worked up about art, but getting personal about technical performance of a meat grinder is absolutely ridiculous. Do yourself a favour, try not to make fool of yourself in front of the whole world.
 
Hi Irakly, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. My interpretation is that this is not to show how well a pocket camera can shoot, but to show that the results from the ND were not superior to a photo taken by a competant photographer using a film camera with reasonably good glass. I have noticed a few times that people seem to think that the discussion is centered on the point and shoot. I don't see it that way. I and I think others are trying to see whether the price tag of the ND produces images of a quality for the typical pro-am photographer to get results that will surpass a good traditional film camera with decent film loaded. The point of scanning that film image was just to show that even generations out, the film image still held up to the first generation digital image supplied from the ND. So, hopefully this helps explain the point of the exercise, at least it does in my mind. I still say the ultimate test is to have two photographers shoulder to shoulder, tripod to tripod with the ND and a reasonable film camera shooting the same scene together. Compare those images and look to see if the Digital image serves your purpose, is it sharp enough, is the color and depth what you wanted, and at that price point is is profitable over the traditional methods. I think the answer of "is it good enough and profitable enough" depend on the individual photographer. Is that a fair enough assessment in your mind, or do you feel I am unreasonable and a fool? -Lynn
 
I noticed similar discussion in other mailing lists I joined, and it is always a hot topic. To me, I don't view it as 'Digital versus Film' but rather 'Digital and Film'. I have choices here, I'd go with digicam if immediate results are badly needed (e.g. incident reports), and if I want quality in big size I'd go films.

I know if I use a sophisticated digicam such as Contax 645 plus Kodak digital back, excellent quality large prints is possible, but from a hobbyist point of view, I cannot justify the investment.

Trisnadi
 
Marc,

> Austin, we can quote all kinds of equations, but I have seen Irakly's > prints. He had stuff made from his ND AND Rollie MFin a show I visited > along with another highly accomplished photographer. We could not tell > the difference even with our noses an inch away from the prints.

This is a very amorphous comparison without any information. WHAT Rollei? What lenses, at what f-stop and shutter speed? What film? What settings for the ND? What size were the prints?

I, too, have a Rollei MF and Hasselblads, and have made many large prints from them. I have also done the same from most of the high end digital cameras, and even from digital backs that are of higher quality than the ND. To believe, much less "see", that the ND can equal a correctly done MF image (assuming a size larger than 13 x 19), is simply dreaming or lack of visual acuity/ability.

I also don't know what your criteria is for the comparison either...so what you may be perceiving as "better" may in fact not have a thing to do with actual image fidelity (accuracy of reproduction).

Regards,

Austin
 
>Lynne, Clive, Dirk, Et.Al

I want to clarify an issue (I know Lynne to be a staunch supporter of Clive's photograhy ... as well she should be ... it is very good.) but the original discussion was simply Clive's assertion that no 35 mm digital camera could take a photograph as GOOD as a 35 mm point and shoot, not better. I found that a silly claim. Although, in workflow, the digital (for me) is definitely easier.

I am not trying to prove that current digitals are superior, but that they can be tools for taking great photographs, that can generate prints as good as 35mm film. Ok, some of the lists members have panned the Ms. Kitty photo as a "soft" photo. Ummm. When I print the photograph, I print the photo as a full frame photo, and get comments that the photograph is a very nice print. Great? Perhaps not. Perhaps, due the subject matter? Perhaps due to dog lovers? When I look at the photo, I see the photo on the monitor and as a print, as a nice, rich photo, with good black, whites, and tone. The photograph is interesting, techniclly well done, holds the viewers interest. Anyway, I know the photograph to be a good shot and while we can say that the 10% crop of the image is poor due to softness in the hair structure ... I think the point is totally lost. I would not print the 10% image. I posted the 10% and the 1% because Clive keeped "bashing" me for not taking on his posting challenge. And, when I look at the crops, I think they are as good as the angler crops. Look at the noise, in the Angler crops. Are those freckles, or grain, or noise? Look at the mush of colors. And you know what, Clive's scan was a poor scan from the start, because he scanned a print, not the original negative. But, if you look at the full size image of the Angler, I think the print works great. That is a nice shot.

Now, several of you seem to agree with Clive that the ND postings are "inferior". Hmmm. Just don't see it. Perhaps, I made a mistake by posting an image of a live animal taken at 1/11th of a second and as Irakely noted, some camera shake using an 300mm telephoto could be detected. But, I thought the subject intersting, and the crops from face to eye would be of interest.

I did take a photograph of a group shot using both the N1 (film) and the ND (digital) at the exact same instance. The digital shot, is the shot that we used to mail to 25 of the folks in the shot. Why? The digital was just as good as the film, and much easier to print! This weekend, I will try to post those shots, side by side.

It will take me a few days to get to a high speed connection, but as Dirk suggested, I will also upload the tif of Ms. Kitty.

Thanks,

Michael.
 
>Another s&le shot has been posted from the Contax Digital ND using a flash. There are again three shots, one at full frame, one at ten percent and one at one percent of "Edward". The images were brightened in photoshop about 10 percent and contrast was increased 5 percent.

I would also to know (from Clive), at what ISO setting his Angler shots were taken? And, also, whether he has any exposure information.

Thanks,

Michael.
 
Hi Lynn ; - )

Well, I agree that the only way to intelligently determine the issue would be a side-by-side. Which I can do when I get time. (I have back-to-back weddings right now, so my plate is quite full). I was thinking of using a ND verses a NI using the same lens and Profoto studio strobes. Just swap out cameras on the tripod and keep everything else identical. That was how we compared the ND against the Canon 1Ds in the test Gallery (except, obviously not using the same lens).

Which color film do you think I should use in such a test? And do you think a scan from a 4000dpi Polaroid SprintScan 120 would be a fair comparison? I believe it would be since that's the most popular resolution available for home scanning/processing.

I really don't care which wins such a shoot out,
I don't have an emotional issue favoring either as I shoot with both digital and film in my work.

This would address the issue for those thinking of going digital with an ND as the prices put it with-in the grasp of more people as Dirk has mentioned.

Austin, what difference would the exact lens used with the Rollie make? The photos were all beautifully executed, and we all had difficulty telling digital from film. The point is that the art of Irakly wasn't compromised by technical shortcomings...at least not to a bunch of other photographers who enjoyed it.

Clive, I'll not dignify your personal insults and innuendo about Irakly and I, with a slug-for-slug macho response...other than to point out that this is just photography and you're free to believe what you wish, and so is everyone else. Just keep it civil if you could please.
 
Back
Top