The AM Forum

Got the Canon T90 (film camera) test shoot in. Comments?  The D7000 wins the resolution contest this time. The Canon T90 with the ML3 ring flash (through the lens, off film metering) wins the exposure contest hands down.  I think with some scanning and picture taking technique improvement the T90 has a chance

Al

Previous thread

http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=27169.0

You posted the second shot at a lower resolution and the F stop was wrong no depth of field. I was addicted to Kodacrome and slide film. But marriage and kids cured the addiction.

73 John N8QPC

I can't help but make some comparisons to plate modulated AM vs. Flex 5000 generated AM.

:)

Quite a good comparison, actually.

Among the differences between film and digital photography is that I find it easier to accept the grain structure of film as part of the picture compared with the pixellation of digital images. There are no straight lines in nature.  

There's a similarity with what's heard from new and old AM.  Old, analog-generated characteristics seem more natural to my ears than what's produced digitally.  Either can sound very good, but the sterility of new AM sometimes strikes me as if someone beat all the color out of the audio, rendering it as a stark, black and white waveform.

---

Al, the T-90 produced the better image.  Look at the texture in the orange petals.  It's missing from the digitally-produced image.

On second look, I have to agree.  The T90 in spite of the handicaps of processing wins the day.  Thanks guys.  I agree that I needed to have better dept of field.  Still trying to figure out how to do that with these systems. Usually, the automatics go for the lowest F stop. Suggestions are welcome.

Not to deviate from the flower picture comparison but I wanted to make a comment based on this thread commenting about the various forms of generating AM that are available today.  We have some great technologies available to us today to generate AM.  As implementers we pick the ones that we want to explore and in the end have fun at the end of the day!  

I think that we all hear things differently.  I believe that something things that look better based on the typical suite of bench test, does not necessarily sound better to everyone's ears.  I don't have the answer why that is, maybe its conditioning of hearing, but I have found it to be true.  

I think the same is true for audio amplifiers as well with the choices of what sounds better to some people when comparing tube vs. solid state amplifiers.    

My Ham Radio experience only goes back to 1966 and I definitely believe we have more good sounding AM signals on the band today as compared to those days!  

We have so many good sounding rigs today that the stock rigs of yesterday are sometimes fun to work just as a reminder on how the AM sound has changed.  I find it enjoyable from time to time to hear a stock rig because one tends to forget the typical sound of yesterday.  From a historical perspective, its nice that some remain stock to preserve that sound!!!

Joe, W3GMS

I like the Canon film picture better too!

Aside from some obvious differences (DOF, for example), the benefit of the T90 photo is that it appears to be properly exposed.  The D7000 photo is overexposed with washed out color (the green is especially funky).

While I'm a long time fan of film (and refuse to part with my Canon F1-N), a bit of post processing of the D7000 image (especially if it is shot in RAW and not direct to jpg) might be another interesting comparison.

RAW is the only way to go if you really want high order images. Also a high-end printer is required. The computer screen resolutions are not suitable (unless you are zooming) to properly represent images from an upper end MP camera.

Hej!

I have two cameras, Nikon F5 and D200. The quality and feel of the F5 is superb. AND under many conditions it produces a result that I prefer, compared with the digital D200. I'm not sure that I can explain why...

Which film did you use for the flower shoot?

I think the way we use photography is about to be revolutionized.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWU3-gA3ueo&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWU3-gA3ueo&feature=player_embedded) 

Another problem is the variability of display across computer monitors. Without a color profile attached or embedded with the image file, you have know idea if you are seeing the same thing as the originator.

In the future digital age, what is going to be the shoebox full of old family photos? How are they to be preserved and accessible?

I use a flatbed scanner on my more favorite pics from yesteryear, then I put them on photobucket and flickster AND my hard drive. 

What I want to know is the setting to get rid of the snow in this picture.

Anything above 32F.

Don't you mean f32?   EITCH EYE!

Ding!

I have pretty much transitioned from film to digital but I still have one of my older Canon EOS bodies.  Digital allows you to get good results easily but achieving the ultimate quality of which it is capable introduces many complications, just like "analog" photography.

One area where digital still has some weakness is an area we all readily understand, dynamic range.  The latest sensors and in-camera processors are greatly improved but most digital sensors are not so great at handling a wide range of illumination and reflectivity level within a given scene.  The operator is very important in choosing the correct parameters to provide at least desired minimal levels of detail from the darkest to lightest elements.  In camera diagnostics, i.e. check for "blown" highlights are also very helpful.  The ISO (basically sensitivity) setting for the sensor plays a big role and most have the widest range at their "native" sensitivity which is generally one of the slowest settings.  A number of photographers take multiple exposures of the same scene and then use processing software to choose which elements from a given exposure appear in the final output.

I am sort of a purist with vintage gear (minimum mods) and with digital photography I shoot in RAW but I don't play a lot with processing on the end.  Although you can do a lot with photo shop and similar like any other process final quality is highly dependent upon starting with the best quality possible.

I really like digital but I quickly found I needed to impose more discipline.  Since there isn't a true monetary cost per exposure (I think the shutter assembly in my EOS is rated for over 250,000 exposures) I developed a tendency to shoot a lot and spend less time thinking and composing; this was the start of a very bad habit.  This leads to lower quality overall and a lot of work at the end.  When shooting birds in flight I switch to fast mode and shoot a couple of seconds at 10 FPS but for other scenes I may make a couple of exposures with different F and time settings but there won't be many.

How do I save my digital photography for my grandkids to enjoy 30 years from now?

CD ROM, DVD, floppy disc? Memory stick?  Bubble memory? The "cloud"? Print them and put in a shoe box or album?

Maybe buy a couple of those digital photo frames and stick them in a box with a suitable AC adapter.  Hopefully LCD displays (and USB memory drives) age well.

 Otherwise hopefully one of your grandchildren is into collecting/restoring vintage computers :)    I use a dye sub type printer and the prints are supposed to have at least a 100 year life under proper storage but I wouldn't consider that to be a useful guarantee.

Thanks..Archiving should be an issue with the advent of digital photography.
So far, nothing beats a shoe box of old Kodak prints.

For Paul, here's the XYL this afternoon- 60 degrees and ptly cloudy. No snow on the daffodils.

Taken with a Blackberry Curve on "medium" setting.

This is going to be a dry and nasty fire season here in the Rockies from New Mex to Montana.. I am available for first-hand interviews at $100/hour.

Recordable CDs and DVDs have a lifespan of <<about>> 15 years, and that timeframe is VERY plant dependent (where the discs where actually made).

Memory sticks and the rest all have a problem, too.  It's called absolescence.  After enough time, USB will not be around...  We've had RS-232 and other "standards" that you play hell finding today...  Shoot, I have backups on SCSI drives that if not for keeping an OLD adaptec scanner SCSI card, I wouldn't be able to get to those drives now.

Tape media suffers from migration...  The process where the magnetic particles move themselves after a period of time, causing echos, etc. (remember the silent part of one side of a cassette, where you'd hear the track you just listened to repeat the end of a side?  I've got some tapes here that suffer from that so bad, they are pretty much useless.  Matter of fact, I'll be tossing them in the next cleaning...  Can't access them, what's the point?

I've kept LOTS of old controller cards, etc. from previous technologies that where supposed to end the constant upgrades:  Notice the LOTS and KEPT..  But, I'm stuck with the fact that not all motherboards even support some of the technologies I need (different bus's than currently supported) to pull a backup down.

"The Cloud" is about the best method,, as Google and the rest do CONSTANT backups, and CONSTANTLY migrate old data to current tech.  BUT, look what happened when Yahoo bought some of the 'cloud based providers', groups, etc....  They just aren't there anymore...  

I've wrestled with the same problem, as my mom was into photography, and it sure is neat to go look at the photo albums with my sons today:  We just don't have that going for us today, and neither do our decendents.

--Shane
KD6VXI

That's the thing, nothing has replaced the shoebox of old family portraits printed on Kodak paper. I have them going back almost 150 years and they''ll probably be good 150 years from now. What format does digital have that's guaranteed to be readable in 2200? I do still own a 1980s IBM PC, who would know how to run it? Or even this Intel box dated 2009?

There are some great pics here. The monitor issue will always be there.

Professionals use a very costly monitor and frequently check/calibrate it using a nit meter or other specialized tool. I did that every day at Sony when servicing broadcast monitors. Some of them went in film-to-video houses and those were the pickiest folks ever.

60 degrees, eh ?  Looks fully jacketed to me.  Then again, if she's like Pam, the multi-layering stays put until about mid-May, then maybe we see skin.

Speaking of whom, the missus is in FLORIDA where it was 80 degrees today at Tiger Island, northeast part of the state.  Visiting her kin, escaping our big snowstorm overnight.

I've got one of those BB Curves too.  Awful unit.  No flash, no way to force an exposure bright or dark, digital zoom is horrid, blah blah blah.

Yet, I've taken shots on the dang thing because it was there and easy to fetch up. So it's better than nothing.

"    How do I save my digital photography for my grandkids to enjoy 30 years from now? "

Try this system?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Disc


klc

OK, print them out and put them in a shoebox.

I've been storing my digital photos on multiple computers so I have a back up waiting for the right storage device.

Yep, I agree - hard copies are the best bet for long-term compatibility with the MKI Eyeball.

Just be aware that if you're creating and saving them as .jpeg files, you're not going to enjoy the resolution you'd see with good ol' film. Digital photography beats film hands down for speed and convenience, big issues in today's world. But film shot through the proper optics still wins out for overall color, clarity, and resolution. You can come close with digital formats(RAW,TIFF), but they require a lot more massaging to get there, more work than getting a role of film developed and printed. Pick your poison.

Interesting market trend regarding the printing of photos by retail labs, regardless of whether the source is film or digital.  They've nearly all switched over to digital prints with dye-based ink, rather than on photosensitive "chemical based" paper.

I shoot 120/medium format 6x7 and 2 1/4, but the negatives use the same C-41 developing chemistry that my 35mm film uses.  Most labs locally still have all the C-41 chemistry, so what I've been doing is simply getting the film developed, then scanning at high resolution those frames I want to review on a monitor or ultimately, burn down to a disc to take back and have them print.

I can also ship that disc to a place that can print with photosensitive paper. I can scan at a level of detail far greater than the grains in the negative, and greater than the default setting the lab might use as an interface to get from the film negative to the digital print.  So the "weak" link, if it can be called that, is still the grain structure at least among elements I have the control over.

For ordinary snapshot stuff of course I just shoot the frame to the wireless printer upstairs and presto, out comes a print.  

Still reassuring to have physical media like a negative or a print as a "source" for the future, instead of sole reliance on a digital storage format that might not be around.

There was, maybe is, still a format guaranteed 100 years. It is a laserdisc. The less costly version used some kind of matrix between two glass discs and was a constant angular velocity analog system with a resolution of about 700x488 in the luminance channel and half that horizontally in the chrominance, which was TDM'd between the two color components. It could also store data wit an optional interface and had the old SCSI as an interface.

Those technologies are surely already obsolete, but simple enough that a player could be built in the future. What digital formats even exist that will be recoverable without errors in 100 years, or even 1000?

As time passes, we see our important data moved from one technology to another because of obsolescence and upgrades. At some point the data we have cherished and considered important may be discarded, or in some way set aside and forgotten until the media or storage mechanism decays.

Many years ago I blew up my XT computer by misplugging the power supply into the board by one pin.  Blew the MB to smithereens.  I still have the 20 MB MFM HD and as far as I can tell it should be fine.

Lesson here is that I have files on that HD that I would love to extract but nothing except a XT type clone could read it.  The data is still there (probably) but it is inaccessible.  Unless we migrate these files or or in the case of my inaccessible files print them they can be gone forever.  It pays to more than duplicate. Use  more than one medium

Hey AL
Here is a link to a nice gadget I have used many times to save my bacon.

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20070222/access-any-old-hard-drive-via-usb/
 
Or this one from the bay:

  http://cgi.ebay.com/HDD-Hard-Drive-Multi-Function-Dock-Card-Reader-SATA-IDE-/170609074269?pt=PCC_Drives_Storage_Internal&hash=item27b917e05d


The laptop HDD can be powered from the USB port.
The reader from the ebay link has its own PS to power a SATA or IDE HDD.

Be careful accessing Win 95 or 98 HDD's. You might corrupt the data on the drive. I have had no problems with reading and grabbing files from an XP HDD.
Fred

For digital photo archiving I use Memorex ProGold CD's.    They are suppose to last a hundred years, I'll tell my grandchildren to let you know if that is true.  The Gold substrate doesn't tarnish or degrade (so they claim).     They also recommend copying at a speed no greater than 16x, the higher speeds don't completely burn.    You get 3 CD's for about $10, not cheap but maybe my ancestors will appreciate them if they still have digital CD drives around.

Those gold blanks were cheap around 1999. I bought hundreds of them as I built a digital audio library converting my vinyl audio.

Fred

I'm intrigued.  We are talking about the ancient MFM format HD's, right?  I can read SATA and PATA HDs with my external cables.  But I'd be at a loss on how to hook up my old ST225 Seagate. The connections aren't even close.  Tell me more.

BTW, here is a facinating video of  one of those beauties reving up.  I do NOT recommending exposing the disks as this person did. Sure way to have a head crash

Al

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EwyLhzjlug&NR=1

oooohhhh boy Al,
That is very old Hard drive technology. In the IBM room at work they had many stations of these things spinning away. The IT guys called them juke boxes