Film vs digital Christmas flower comparison

[w1vtp]

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

[Detroit47]

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

[KX5JT]

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

[WA3VJB]

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.

[w1vtp]

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.

[W3GMS]

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

[KX5JT]

I like the Canon film picture better too!

[nq5t]

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.

[Steve - K4HX]

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.

[SM6OID]

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?

[W2PFY]

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


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

[Steve - K4HX]

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.

[Bill, KD0HG]

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?

[KX5JT]

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. 

[WA3VJB]

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

[Bill, KD0HG]

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

Anything above 32F.

[Steve - K4HX]

Don't you mean f32?   EITCH EYE!

[Bill, KD0HG]

Ding!

[WQ9E]

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.

[Bill, KD0HG]

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?

[WQ9E]

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.

[Bill, KD0HG]

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.

[KD6VXI]

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

[Bill, KD0HG]

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

--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?

[Opcom]

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.