Why are my old slides sharper than my present digital images?
Mar 25, 2014 17:05:24 #
TheDman wrote:
You can get infinite stops of 'improvement' by shooting HDR. HDR eliminates dynamic range limitations.
Huh? My camera allows max +3 or -3 stops of exposure differential? How is "infinite" possible?
Mar 25, 2014 17:09:19 #
BobbyT wrote:
Huh? My camera allows max +3 or -3 stops of exposure differential? How is "infinite" possible?
You have totally confused "exposure compensation" with "dynamic range", they have literally nothing in common.
Mar 25, 2014 17:25:47 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
BobbyT wrote:
Huh? My camera allows max +3 or -3 stops of exposure differential? How is "infinite" possible?
Set your camera to manual and change the exposure to be anything you want.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Mar 25, 2014 17:29:22 #
MT Shooter wrote:
You have totally confused "exposure compensation" with "dynamic range", they have literally nothing in common.
I stand corrected. Thanks
Mar 25, 2014 17:30:41 #
BobbyT wrote:
I stand corrected. Thanks
But, how is infinite possible?
Mar 25, 2014 17:32:36 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
BobbyT wrote:
But, how is infinite possible?
Because in manual mode, you can change your exposure to be anything.
Mar 25, 2014 20:24:24 #
LEGALDR wrote:
I started to clean out a closet that contained boxes and boxes of slides. Naturally, I started to look at them and I was amazed at how crisp they were in comparison to a lot of my more recent stuff. These slides are over forty years old and many shot with a Yashica 35mm and a Canon AE -1. Were my eyes that much better with manual focus than now? By the way, the AE-1 does have a split screen focus. What say you?
My 2 cents for what its worth. In the Navy, 30 years ago, I took over 3,000 pictures, almost all Kodachrome 25. Today I use a Nikon D600. I recently scanned all my slides on my computer. While I would not try to make a nuts and bolts comparison, clarity, color, vibrance, etc. etc., I would just say that I am amazed how good my slides look overall. My D600 pictures look really good also, so I am not sure at this point it is worth debating the pros and cons. Suffice to say, film is really good, whatever the reason.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Mar 25, 2014 20:28:12 #
I am impressed by the technical knowledge of digital shooters on this forum. I've had a Leica V-Lux 4 for about a year, use it mostly for shooting ballet, and am pleased with the results. Otherwise I shoot a Nikon F5 and a Hassy. In the distant past, I shot Plus-X for theatrical head shots and Kodachrome for fashion. Most of those were printed by superior labs ( the old Photo Impact in Hollywood ), or by clients for their own uses. Those images look great to me today, in every way.
( I mean technically. Here and there the photography could have been better. )
I guess the eye continues to prefer what it grew up on. So far I haven't seen digital prints that quite match the quality ( a subjective judgment ) of those old prints.
Nowadays, I still shoot mostly film, Tri-X and Porta 400, and occasionally T64 for head shots. Overexposed 1 stop, it produces creamy skin with a faint blue tint. If anyone is shooting head shots with film, I recommend Portra 400 at ISO 250. Great skin tones.
I still prefer prints made from film. I employ an excellent printer. To my eye, they have a more lyrical, less perfect quality than do digital prints, and less brittle texture. Two of my pro friends here in LA agree with this judgment -- but they shoot only digital.
I realize that the photo process involves multiple interacting elements, many of which at the moment escape my understanding. I also realize that taste differs.
I'll probably run into a minefield with these comments, but I post them for what they are worth. I am not exactly technically challenged, but I am not in the same league with many who post here. I enjoy reading their posts, and learn something when I'm not entirely baffled. It even took me a while to master the technical side of a film camera. I took up photography as a hobby while I was still an English professor, and became a pro almost accidentally when a girl took some shots I did for her to a modeling agency.
All of you who post are generous with your time and advice. If I buy a Nikon DSLR, I'll come running to you. Perhaps even the Canon shooters can spare me a minute.
( I mean technically. Here and there the photography could have been better. )
I guess the eye continues to prefer what it grew up on. So far I haven't seen digital prints that quite match the quality ( a subjective judgment ) of those old prints.
Nowadays, I still shoot mostly film, Tri-X and Porta 400, and occasionally T64 for head shots. Overexposed 1 stop, it produces creamy skin with a faint blue tint. If anyone is shooting head shots with film, I recommend Portra 400 at ISO 250. Great skin tones.
I still prefer prints made from film. I employ an excellent printer. To my eye, they have a more lyrical, less perfect quality than do digital prints, and less brittle texture. Two of my pro friends here in LA agree with this judgment -- but they shoot only digital.
I realize that the photo process involves multiple interacting elements, many of which at the moment escape my understanding. I also realize that taste differs.
I'll probably run into a minefield with these comments, but I post them for what they are worth. I am not exactly technically challenged, but I am not in the same league with many who post here. I enjoy reading their posts, and learn something when I'm not entirely baffled. It even took me a while to master the technical side of a film camera. I took up photography as a hobby while I was still an English professor, and became a pro almost accidentally when a girl took some shots I did for her to a modeling agency.
All of you who post are generous with your time and advice. If I buy a Nikon DSLR, I'll come running to you. Perhaps even the Canon shooters can spare me a minute.
Mar 25, 2014 20:29:22 #
TheDman wrote:
I think you have both of those things backwards.
Right you are .
KM 25 especially tolerarated very little exposure error.
Mar 25, 2014 20:32:01 #
Mar 25, 2014 23:16:59 #
jboy24
Loc: Downey Ca,
LEGALDR wrote:
I started to clean out a closet that contained boxes and boxes of slides. Naturally, I started to look at them and I was amazed at how crisp they were in comparison to a lot of my more recent stuff. These slides are over forty years old and many shot with a Yashica 35mm and a Canon AE -1. Were my eyes that much better with manual focus than now? By the way, the AE-1 does have a split screen focus. What say you?
I have had the same experience lately, going thru some slides (Velvia) and found that these slides were incredibly sharp with color depth that was to die for... I was using a loupe for critical vision, these were of Yosemite and Yosemite Falls...I'em telling you these looked great, and soon to be printed. Velvia is like shooting in HDR, that film is great...
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Mar 25, 2014 23:40:54 #
Mar 25, 2014 23:47:06 #
jboy24
Loc: Downey Ca,
TheDman wrote:
Velvia may look great, but it's exactly the opposite of shooting in HDR.
Yeah, thinking back I got carried away with that, it's just when I look at my slides they look soooo dam good.
Mar 26, 2014 00:08:25 #
jboy24
Loc: Downey Ca,
[quote=KTJohnson]When I look at my slides with a loupe, they are excellent (especially the Kodachromes ~ Ektachrome not so much). When I scan them to digital, they lose a lot. I scan with an Epson V600 which works good, but I don't know the optimum DOF of the flatbed scanner.
Have you tried a dedicated film scanner? Because my slides come out good with the dedicated scanner.
The 24MP my camera puts out are certainly high quality. Digital is also just so much cheaper & faster overall, once you have made the initial investment of camera, lenses, & PP software.
I could not agree with more..
Have you tried a dedicated film scanner? Because my slides come out good with the dedicated scanner.
The 24MP my camera puts out are certainly high quality. Digital is also just so much cheaper & faster overall, once you have made the initial investment of camera, lenses, & PP software.
I could not agree with more..
Mar 26, 2014 00:54:46 #
OddJobber,
Have you used a katz screen? I see there's a company in Taiwan at focusingscreen.com that has screens for all models of cameras, and they are a bit cheaper than katz. They have a k3 type nikon split screen for my D3100 that I was wondering about getting. Right now I manual focus by using the 6x magnifier on the lcd screen. I'm not sure if one of these screens would give me a better focus than that. What do you think?
Bob
Have you used a katz screen? I see there's a company in Taiwan at focusingscreen.com that has screens for all models of cameras, and they are a bit cheaper than katz. They have a k3 type nikon split screen for my D3100 that I was wondering about getting. Right now I manual focus by using the 6x magnifier on the lcd screen. I'm not sure if one of these screens would give me a better focus than that. What do you think?
Bob
OddJobber wrote:
Examples of comparison photos would help.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.