All Forum Comments
Comment by ChrisA posted on Datchworth sunset at 29/09/2009 - 22:50
Malo1961 wrote:
Its time to drop down the false coat of modesty, Amin.
It doesn't suit you anymore.
Not after 21 PPG accepted images and a enormous track record on various subjects and excellent photography here on this forum.
Its time to drop down the false coat of modesty, Amin.
It doesn't suit you anymore.
Not after 21 PPG accepted images and a enormous track record on various subjects and excellent photography here on this forum.
impotentspider wrote:
Amin, who incidently was talking b0!!0cK$ for a change
I do agree with these comments. There comes a point when modesty appears false, and has the potential to be a bit unattractive.Amin, who incidently was talking b0!!0cK$ for a change
Quote:
I know I will never come up with the goods as you all do
Yeah right, and I'm Santa Claus.I know I will never come up with the goods as you all do
Comment by ChrisA posted on Do we rely too much on Technology at 29/09/2009 - 15:49
johnriley wrote:
I think the good advice is that it's a worthwhile exercise for digital photographers to have shot at least one slide film.
The reason for this is that what you shoot is what you get and it really highlights any inconsistency in composition and metering in particular. There is nothing to be done to save the day by a printing machine or a computer, so it is an exercise in discipline.
Just one film will be fine!
Ah yes. A valuable, and very straightforward learning experience, it was for me.I think the good advice is that it's a worthwhile exercise for digital photographers to have shot at least one slide film.
The reason for this is that what you shoot is what you get and it really highlights any inconsistency in composition and metering in particular. There is nothing to be done to save the day by a printing machine or a computer, so it is an exercise in discipline.
Just one film will be fine!
Step 1: Take the pictures
Step 2: Look at the shockingly bad results in disbelief
Step 3: Vow never to shoot slides again
The thing that's made me work at exposure with digital is, on the one hand, nasty cyan stripes across the sky, which has ruined many otherwise well-composed photographs.
And on the other hand, forever having to muck about with the shadow/highlight tool in PhotoShop.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Do we rely too much on Technology at 29/09/2009 - 14:37
impotentspider wrote:
I remember the solar eclipse we had several years ago, and I remember people taking pictures of it using compacts with the flash popped up
From the air, this sight was quite striking.I remember the solar eclipse we had several years ago, and I remember people taking pictures of it using compacts with the flash popped up
I'd been airborne at the time, hoping to see both totality, and the moon's shadow rushing across the ground. Sadly, I missed both, due to a very annoying thin layer of cloud at about 8000 feet.
However, in the darkness below, for the whole of totality, there was a constant twinkling from the flashes going off.
Not really compensation for being in the wrong place, but it was quite pretty.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Using A Flash at 29/09/2009 - 13:57
aminstar wrote:
For a digital photographer, I think this is actually really bad advice.Hardgravity wrote:
Everybody should have to do 6 months on film before being let loose with a digital body.
That way they'd learn about exposure, composition, shutter speed and how to use them all together.
I am seriously considering this.Everybody should have to do 6 months on film before being let loose with a digital body.
That way they'd learn about exposure, composition, shutter speed and how to use them all together.
Firstly, turning the little dial on top to 'M' will allow you to learn everything about 'exposure, composition, shutter speed and how to use them all together' that using a film camera will teach you, and you won't suffer the IMO substantial disadvantages of the delay while the films are developed, and the lack of EXIF information.
Secondly, learning exposure on film will mean there's a lot to unlearn when you go back to digital, given the different characteristics of film (especially negative film) and the digital sensor. It's pretty hard to burn the sky out unpleasantly with colour negative film, for instance, if you want to give it a bit more to get the shadow detail. Whereas, with the sensor, it's pretty hard not to.
I had to relearn the whole deal when I moved to digital, and it was really annoying until I got my head round 'exposing to the right'.
Quite frankly, anyone without the patience to read a bit, switch the camera to manual, experiment, and learn, is unlikely to persevere with film unless they're interested in the historical perspective - which is a completely separate issue.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Do we rely too much on Technology at 29/09/2009 - 13:36
johnriley wrote:
Ah yes, thanks. I even have it... since the last time you recommended it to me, ISTR Quote:
Is there a definitive guide online to this kind of thing, John, that you're aware of?
There is a succinct and well written explanation in "The Lens Book" by Roger Hicks and Frances Shultz. He does a good job at explaining the basic principles.Is there a definitive guide online to this kind of thing, John, that you're aware of?
Too much knee-jerk Googling, methinks!
Comment by ChrisA posted on Another 645 Digital at 29/09/2009 - 12:58
johnriley wrote:
I don't want to go into huge detail, but the sharpness on the print will relate to the circle of confusion that we allocate for the format and the resolution in lpmm on the print. This also depends on viewing distance.
Very complicated to describe all the inter-connected factors involved..
Is there a definitive guide online to this kind of thing, John, that you're aware of?I don't want to go into huge detail, but the sharpness on the print will relate to the circle of confusion that we allocate for the format and the resolution in lpmm on the print. This also depends on viewing distance.
Very complicated to describe all the inter-connected factors involved..
Comment by ChrisA posted on Another 645 Digital at 29/09/2009 - 11:24
Tooks wrote:
All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...
120 film is 2 1/4 inches square, isn't it? That's 57.15mm (is that the '6', of '645'?)All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...
The area, then, of a 120 square negative, is 3266 square mm, compared with 864 (= 24 x 36) for 35mm.
That's 3.8 times the area of a 120 negative.
When I scan a 35mm colour negative at 8 bits, I get a 68 Mb TIFF file. At 16 bits, I get 138 Mb.
Are your negs colour or black and white?
Comment by ChrisA posted on Another 645 Digital at 29/09/2009 - 10:30
Malo1961 wrote:
And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.
I understand this logic, but I thought the whole point of medium format was for producing enormous enlargements.And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.
6 x 4.5 isn't even as much as twice the linear dimensions of 35mm - it's only 1 2/3 = 1.67 times as big (ok, it's very nearly twice as big in the 4.5 dimension).
Given that, then with a 645 lens of less resolving power than a 35mm counterpart, wouldn't you expect the maximum size of a 645 print to be less than 1.67 times the maximum size of a 35mm print, all other things being equal?
Not sure what I'm missing here - I don't see why, if very large enlargements is the goal, MF lenses don't have to be at least as good as 35mm ones.
Edit: and how does the quality of the enlarger optics get factored into all this - presumably it's no good having an amazingly sharp negative if the enlarger isn't equally good.
I've only really started musing on this since I blew the dust of my old negative folders, and it's making my head hurt already!
Quote:
Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?
What's the theoretical number of megapixels from a 645 negative?Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?
Comment by ChrisA posted on Another 645 Digital at 29/09/2009 - 09:51
Malo1961 wrote:
Thanks, although I'm still pretty much using the default settings.Quote:
Have I lifted the shadow detail too much, do you think?
I think it is a great picture and a good scanning job.Have I lifted the shadow detail too much, do you think?
Quote:
I am inclined to think, the foreground needs some extra work. remove the slight colour cast,
raise the tone of the hoar frost and bring down the shadows of the trees. To give it a bit more bite, so to speak.
Hmm. What colour is the cast you're seeing? I can sort of convince myself there's something there, but I'm far from sure.I am inclined to think, the foreground needs some extra work. remove the slight colour cast,
raise the tone of the hoar frost and bring down the shadows of the trees. To give it a bit more bite, so to speak.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Some pictures from my film era - ME Super, Coolscan 5000 ED at 29/09/2009 - 01:00
What happened to the steeple on number 2 Kris?