Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59

Thread: Are you pissed with Digital Photography

  1. #41

    Default

    my problem with film is storage & scanning. prior scanning must clean them too. its a really big hassle for me. thats why contemplating to go digital.

    i have one big box of negs & slides, wonder how long is it going to take to scan them all for archive.

    as far as i can see, even though digital format loses out in dynamic range compared to slides, most of the time & for most people, they don't use the very extreme ends of the dynamic range very often.

    i think i can accept today's DSLR technology but before i jump, i want to make very sure there r no problems that really get on my nerves. this very much explains the purpose of this post on what pissed u off in DP. would the factor be big enough for u to give it up & go back to film?

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    does it mean that for normal daily use with a F5.6 or F8, there shouldn't be any dust problems? so will it be a good idea to use a hand rubber blower to clear some dust inside the camera when changing lens?

    when it comes to ultra wide angles, wouldn't that introduce a lot of distortion? normally, u can't always find an ideal situation where u can adjust the camera parallel to the ground to reduce distortion. any work around on that one?

    sorry about my thread headlines. its meant to be read as: what solution u have when u r pissed with a problem in DP. i was expecting people giving out solutions to their problems rather then one liner comments. but its fun to read them.

    As for Jed, its just someone teasing u in one of the threads. nothing serious, really. maybe i should start a "What Jed might say" thread. just kidding!!
    For the dust, all I can say is that my 99% of my shooting, it ain't a problem. I do have a few instances of stopped down, long exposure shots where the influence of dust was apparent. I certainly don't recommend that you do a sensor cleaning halfway through a shoot, just keep your cam in a sheltered area, without breeze, and change the lens, there will be minimal dust. Only clean your sensor in a quiet enclosed place (i.e. in your study), it is a bit of a delicate job. In our environment, once a month will be more than adequate. Btw, don't take this as a recommendation from me to clean the sensor on your own, 'coz the official Canon 'position' is that you should bring it into the service centre to do so. For techniques, do a search on google using 'ccd cleaning' as search terms.

    I don't understand your question about the wide-angle lenses...

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    my problem with film is storage & scanning. prior scanning must clean them too. its a really big hassle for me. thats why contemplating to go digital.

    i have one big box of negs & slides, wonder how long is it going to take to scan them all for archive.

    as far as i can see, even though digital format loses out in dynamic range compared to slides, most of the time & for most people, they don't use the very extreme ends of the dynamic range very often.

    i think i can accept today's DSLR technology but before i jump, i want to make very sure there r no problems that really get on my nerves. this very much explains the purpose of this post on what pissed u off in DP. would the factor be big enough for u to give it up & go back to film?
    You'll never know till you try my fren . The dynamic range issue can be somewhat mitigated by shooting RAW. There are many conveniences to shooting digital, as well as some downsides. You do need to spend a little time to get familiar and understand the workflow. Overall though, IMO, its a winner.
    Last edited by dkw; 16th July 2004 at 03:03 PM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    TME, links below. It it fails, just head for the luminous landscape site and search for 'film vs digital'

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../d60/d60.shtml

    As you may have noticed, my two posts in this thread have only been in reply to some pretty inaccurate assumptions about digital photography. I'm happy shooting digital and I know there are many people happy to shoot film, so I've never ever bothered to start any 'film vs digital' debates. I will respond however, to mis-information. They may be different formats, but they try to achieve the same thing (i.e. take good pictures), so they DO bear comparisons.

    Cheers,
    Thanks for the links again!

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    I don't understand your question about the wide-angle lenses...

    what i want to know is: with the 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.3 crop factor, u'll need a wider angle lens to cover what was originally in 35mm. will that introduce a lot of distortion? eg, a 20mm on film will become a 30mm on a D100. so in order to have a 20mm equiv on the D100, u need ~12.5mm wide angle. will this 12mm lens intro more distortion compared to a 20mm lens?

    like i said, many a times u can't always get the lens parallel to the ground to minimise distortion. very often, u need to tilt it up or down to get the composition u want. so if the lens is too wide, will the distortion be too much to crunch?
    Last edited by nightpiper; 16th July 2004 at 04:56 PM.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    what i want to know is: with the 1.5 or 1.6 or 1.3 crop factor, u'll need a wider angle lens to cover what was originally in 35mm. will that introduce a lot of distortion? eg, a 20mm on film will become a 30mm on a D100. so in order to have a 20mm equiv on the D100, u need ~12.5mm wide angle. will this 12mm lens intro more distortion compared to a 20mm lens?
    Heh heh,
    over my head already, you probably know more about this than I do. Short answer; I'm not sure. Yes, my understanding is that wide angle do introduce more distortion. It may or may not be mitigated by the fact that for a 1.5x crop, you are only using the middle 65% of the image circle cast from the lens, so the worst distortion which occurs at the edges may not become so apparent. This may or may not be true, pls dun quote me . To a certain extent, you can correct in photoshop, with very good results.

    OTOH, now that DSLR has really come to the fore, a lot of manufacturers are making some pretty good wide-angle rectilinear lenses with less distortion. Sigma has a 12-24mm which has some good reviews. Canon and Nikon also have their range of 14-18mm rectilinear primes and zooms.

    Cheers,

  7. #47

    Default

    Does anyone has any experience with using ultra wide lens to achieve the same angle of view as a 35mm?

    what i can imagine is: compare using a 28mm lens on film & 45mm on medium format. MF has virtually no distortion whereas 35mm film will have quite a bit of distortion.

    will this distortion be greatly unacceptable on a DSLR using 12mm lens?

    anybody got pissed off by this distortion to the extent of giving up DP altogether until full frame CCD arrives?

  8. #48

    Default

    Well, I said it many times, & i'll say it again...

    It's better to be pissed off than to be pissed on.

  9. #49

    Default

    Shoot and process/scan to CDR by lab no need to print lah, all for $5.50, can preview on peecee until the moon turn blue. Cut out those you wanna keep and throw the rest into tupperware container w/silicon. Send those you like to print to whatever R once you have compile enuf of yr masterpiece

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper
    my problem with film is storage & scanning. prior scanning must clean them too. its a really big hassle for me. thats why contemplating to go digital.

    i have one big box of negs & slides, wonder how long is it going to take to scan them all for archive.

    as far as i can see, even though digital format loses out in dynamic range compared to slides, most of the time & for most people, they don't use the very extreme ends of the dynamic range very often.

    i think i can accept today's DSLR technology but before i jump, i want to make very sure there r no problems that really get on my nerves. this very much explains the purpose of this post on what pissed u off in DP. would the factor be big enough for u to give it up & go back to film?

  10. #50

    Default

    No need to bring extra memory card or backup when travel (these thing is hell expensive), pop in a new roll anytime u want, get them everywhere in the world available in any convienence store.

    Quoted from Mr Spielberg mouth:
    "There's a magic about chemistry and film. Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies."


    But then who cares, use what matters to you cos other dun really care

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whoelse
    No need to bring extra memory card or backup when travel (these thing is hell expensive), pop in a new roll anytime u want, get them everywhere in the world available in any convienence store.

    Quoted from Mr Spielberg mouth:
    "There's a magic about chemistry and film. Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies."


    But then who cares, use what matters to you cos other dun really care
    Yup, heard the same argument 15 years ago when people refused to give up vinyl for music CDs. Also, plenty of folk argued that taking 4 days to sail to New York was better than an 9 hour flight when the first transatlantic service started, after all, what's travel without the 'romance'.

    To each is own.....the fallback argument to 'romance' and 'too sterile and clean' occurs all the time when an old technology is about to be eclipsed. Thankfully I don't have much of a film legacy or emotional attachment to it, I only use what is cost effective in terms of labour and money, a gives outstanding quality.

    Happy shooting,

  12. #52

    Default

    hmmm....pissed...not really....i take film and scan it straight...if i like a print i can still print from film....though post processing still takes up lottsa time...

    take digital consider it as taking film lo....haha...solve more probs if u go wif tt approach...

  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    No point keep on comparing Digital and Film. If it is for you, just shoot! End of the story!
    Chicken or Fish nicer? Your choice, of course!!!

  14. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    No point keep on comparing Digital and Film. If it is for you, just shoot! End of the story!
    Chicken or Fish nicer? Your choice, of course!!!
    i liek chicken leh..

    And also, i prefer Movies to theatre works..

    But i shoot on film.. =x maybe cause i got no money

  15. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OzOn3
    i liek chicken leh..

    And also, i prefer Movies to theatre works..

    But i shoot on film.. =x maybe cause i got no money
    Good for you la!

  16. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whoelse
    Shoot and process/scan to CDR by lab no need to print lah, all for $5.50, can preview on peecee until the moon turn blue. Cut out those you wanna keep and throw the rest into tupperware container w/silicon. Send those you like to print to whatever R once you have compile enuf of yr masterpiece

    checked that already. the scan is not so nice & its all in jpg only. if i want to make bigger enlargement in the future, i m stuck with lesser quality. this is the reason why i bot a film scanner & DIY.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Catchment Area
    Posts
    2,441

    Default

    Scanning in the minilab - at $5.50 gives you smaller resolution of about 1.5Mp, and at high resolution scan at $8 or so, you get 6Mp scan. That is an awesome resolution, unlike that of a 6Mp digicam or even a dSLR file. And if your neg is grainy, you see each one of them. If you shoot ASA100, you'll be delighted by the resolution, sharpness and the richness of the colour.

    And you don't loose much in the low compression JPEG. Using film and scanning it is somewhat the best of both world. Digital cameras are still in full development stage, and so, we are still waiting for the Full-frame camera to be affordable and become mainstream. When the time comes, or when FF dSLR is in the region of 3 to 5k, I will move in. That day will arrive much sooner than we expect. Meanwhile, just a small Oly digicam for some snap shots.

  18. #58

    Default

    hi just liked to chip in abit
    had my doubts about digital also
    I just moved on to 4x5 format in fact and of course it's eyepopping watching a 4x5 slide on a light table
    I like the material feel of film and fiddling around in a dark room
    but I think at the end of the day what's most important is getting a shot
    Digital really makes life so much easier, and it changes your whole perception of photography even. Since taking a photo becomes so easy and cheap and unlimited (it becomes about data rather than about 36 shots of velvia) taking pretty photos has almost become boring since now everyone can shoot as much as they want and chances are most people have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a pretty photo, so I guess it has forced me to think of more interesting things to do with photography.

    I think most people are too caught up with the resolution, frame size, small little details of digital photos
    The truth of the matter is, most people don't even print up to 8x10, so frankly they could all be using a 3 megapixel point and shoot and still be able to get lovely pictures

    I agree with dlkw, it is a common human trait to yearn for the past, make it seem more romantic and beautiful than it actually is.

    my gripe with dSLRs is that camera engineers could have taken the opportunity to do something exciting to the design of the cameras to make them more user friendly, more ergonomic, more technically exciting. Why can't the lcd screens be used for preview also instead of just post-shot review? why msut they design it with the obvious flaw that dust tends to get in, couldn't they have changed the design in some way to prevent this? isn't there some way to change the whole mirror system so that there isn't the irritating and frankly all too loud mirror slap?
    digital slrs still look like slrs from 10 years ago. I don't know if they're banking on the whole nostalgia factor. at least medium format camera designs were more daring. If camera makers were in the cell phone business you can bet your ass that we'd still be using cellphones the size of bricks.

    also, the dynamic range of most digital cameras is quite pathetic. of course photoshop does wonders. but I hope that problem is dealt with soon!
    I don't understand the whole full frame fetish either
    the wide angle problem isn't that horrendous a deal and there are pretty good lenses to deal with that nowadays, and frankly given the choice I think it would be more productive for camera makers to concentrate on getting a smaller sensor chip with higher sensitivity to colour and light than to just make bigger sized ccds.
    that would probably allow smaller sized cameras, smaller sized lenses.

    Digital photography has brought photography to a huge range of people and has made photography much more user friendly and in the long run cheaper.
    I can't complain about that much.

  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Reservoir Dude
    Posts
    534

    Default

    DCs allow newbies like me to learn fast and learn quick... then maybe when I'm good enough, will go back to getting a conventional high end SLR, then take positive films... get the 3D effect, put up on big screen

    dreams keep us living...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •