DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are 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. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Film vs digital camera pros and cons
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
M
mikel
Most of images with lots of sky in them.
Mike.
Mike.
D
djg
Michael, thanks for the nice words. I do love my ND.
Mike,
No filters. I made some statement back that I don't like using filters, so I'd better be consistent
. As far as noise, I'm interpreteting that as the break-up in the evenness of the flat tone, more noticeable as you magnify the image.
If you look at the New Zealand shots on my web site, you'll see there's less noise in similar shots. I believe this is from an impromptu change I made in my base settings at the beginning of the trip, which was to use the softest contrast curve, counting on getting a wider tonal variation. This is forcing me now to increase the contrast manipulation in most shots, and this is exacerbating whatever low noise may have been in there naturally. I'm going to try some noise reducing cheats to see if this can be improved. And of course, the JPEG compression is not helping.
My contrast decision is usually based around the perceived tonal range of the whole scene. While added contrast will give you more snap, the downside is the potential loss of tonal information at one end or the other of the tonal spectrum.
In general, I adjust contrast to the highest limit that will preserve the extreme end tonal variations. Having said that, I will temper that decision based on the specific scene, ie, the added snap may enhance the image more than the loss of extreme-end tonal detail detracts.
As always, photography is really a set of complex compromises
.
I should add, that to my aging eyes (the upside of course is that I'm happy with sloppier images
) I find the digital noise I'm getting less intrusive than the film grain in similar flat tonal areas. But then, that's one of those purely subjective things. The great thing about today's choices in technology, you can use whichever gives you the most satisfaction.
Cheers,
DJ
Mike,
No filters. I made some statement back that I don't like using filters, so I'd better be consistent
If you look at the New Zealand shots on my web site, you'll see there's less noise in similar shots. I believe this is from an impromptu change I made in my base settings at the beginning of the trip, which was to use the softest contrast curve, counting on getting a wider tonal variation. This is forcing me now to increase the contrast manipulation in most shots, and this is exacerbating whatever low noise may have been in there naturally. I'm going to try some noise reducing cheats to see if this can be improved. And of course, the JPEG compression is not helping.
My contrast decision is usually based around the perceived tonal range of the whole scene. While added contrast will give you more snap, the downside is the potential loss of tonal information at one end or the other of the tonal spectrum.
In general, I adjust contrast to the highest limit that will preserve the extreme end tonal variations. Having said that, I will temper that decision based on the specific scene, ie, the added snap may enhance the image more than the loss of extreme-end tonal detail detracts.
As always, photography is really a set of complex compromises
I should add, that to my aging eyes (the upside of course is that I'm happy with sloppier images
Cheers,
DJ
W
writing4me
Dirk, Somewhere in the middle of this very long thread, you posted some information about your Super Coolscan 4000 and three new Nikon film scanners. Thanks for the info. It helps to hear from people like you who have tested things out, and who can actually understand what quality looks like. It would be nice if Zeiss/Contax did have a film scanner, and nicer yet if it was something most of us could afford! Until then, I'm going to look at these new Nikon scanners a little closer. Wish I knew how much they sell for in the real world. The only web site I have seen them on is the Nikon Canada site here so far:
Nikon V Ed http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/film_scanners/Ved/default.asp
5000 ED http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/film_scanners/5000ed/default.asp
9000 ED http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/film_scanners/9000ed/default.asp
You mention that your combination of scanner and printer is producing results better than the local labs were giving you. I can certainly understand the frustration of having labs that don't seem to be able to do a good job. When I was about 19 or 20 I did custom color enlargements for a large lab. Although it has been a long time since then, and I'm certainly no lab tech these days, I get frustrated not being able to get the results that I know are possible with film. Thanks very much for the ideas and tips. -Lynn
Nikon V Ed http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/film_scanners/Ved/default.asp
5000 ED http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/film_scanners/5000ed/default.asp
9000 ED http://www.nikon.ca/cameras/products/film_scanners/9000ed/default.asp
You mention that your combination of scanner and printer is producing results better than the local labs were giving you. I can certainly understand the frustration of having labs that don't seem to be able to do a good job. When I was about 19 or 20 I did custom color enlargements for a large lab. Although it has been a long time since then, and I'm certainly no lab tech these days, I get frustrated not being able to get the results that I know are possible with film. Thanks very much for the ideas and tips. -Lynn