View Full Version : TO Greg,Mike and Fil.
07-23-2003, 08:30 PM
Thanks as allways for your comments.I learn,i laugh and ....yes,i am going to buy a new camera soon and would not dare doing so before consulting with my mentors...:)
just posted the original photo on WS,please look and tell me if better....and thanks again!
To me, yes, the original is the better of the two images, as I said in the critique, having an explore of the many filters that come with Photoshop can be great fun, and lead to some interesting images, some work well, some not so, it's painting filters aren't that good really, which is a surprise considering Photoshop is the premiere imaging programme, you can improve on them by using more than one filter, or adding a texture to the image after applying the filter.
There's also a whole range of filters that can be found for free on the web, just do a Google search for Photoshop filters (or actions), when you find some you like the look of, just copy them into the presets directories.
Finally, if you ever come across a program called Paint, jump at it, this has some very good painting and drawing effects, from pencil, to chalk, right through to oils, that put Photoshop's to shame!
07-24-2003, 03:25 AM
I read very carefully all the above....By my humble opinion photography as a medium has nothing to do with all those PS "tricks" and filters...A real photograph is what you see in your camera view finder...All the rest are just lolipops for the novice who things that can create a real photo through PS and toy digital cameras...As you can see in my intro since years now I use to use film cameras, some of them old models dating back to 70's...I am doing that not because I am afraid of new technologies but because I think that a real photo is what a photographer can transfer on the film...As a matter of quality i must admit that the best digital camera of today can achieve something like 30% of a film quality...and if you don't believe me just read digital camera tests on any photo magazine available around...
Digital cameras are useful if you are a war corespondent photographer in the middle of nowhere, or a sports photographer in the World's Cup...And here we are talking about cameras and equipment on the cost level of tens thousants of $$$$...News papers are ready to compromise on pictures quality for the sake of speed....BUT for the quality concern photographer digital cameras are still on "infant" level...Try to sell a digital photograph made bu a consumer oriented digital camera in a magazine and you will see what will be the answer...
I am really sorry if i did hurt you but reality is not always pleasant as it is not the naked truth....
A real photograph has nothing to do with PS manipulation....
07-24-2003, 04:50 AM
I agree and I disagree - I think that PS filters like the one Rafi applied <i>can</i> have uses, but they don't really belong here on TE, IMO.
Digital cameras on the other hand can surpass 35mm these days - at least one camera does, the Canon EOS 1Ds. The EOS 10D is just slightly short of 35mm slide IMO, but lenses are important at that level still.
The lens quality of many of the pro-sumer digitals put 35mm P&S to shame.
I agree there are still some luddite photo-editors out there, and I think that's a shame - but the time has come to embrace new technology...
"Digital cameras on the other hand can surpass 35mm these days - at least one camera does, the Canon EOS 1Ds."
True, but the EOS 1Ds is not a "consumer oriented digital camera".
07-24-2003, 06:08 AM
Memo to self, read <i>all</i> the text <i>before</i> replying...
07-24-2003, 06:15 AM
By your logic, Aegean, a photographer must not process their photo. Therefore, somebody like Ansel Adams, is not a real photographer unless he can create his photos only from the camera and only develop them at a one-hour developing station.
After all, PS is the digital photographer's darkroom. So if you say digital manipulation are tricks and for novices, then so is manipulation in the darkroom.
> Digital cameras are useful if you are a war corespondent photographer
> in the middle of nowhere, or a sports photographer in the World's Cup...
Actually these two places are possibly some of the worst situations for digital cameras. In the middle of nowhere you have less access to power supplies & batteries; plus digital cameras are probably more easily broken. In the world cup, you will be able to take much faster pictures with a good film camera than a comparable digital.
> Try to sell a digital photograph made bu a consumer oriented digital camera in a magazine and you will see what will be the answer...
I really doubt this. The magazine will probably ask for a digital copy of your photo and won't care whether or not it originally came from film or not.
Just my opinions...
07-24-2003, 07:18 AM
I really appreciate all your comments,really do!
George,you didnt hurt my feelings by no means!
How could i get hurt when i learn so much from you guys?
This site (THANKS ADAM!!)and you guys give me so much!
I wouldnt think about another camera few weeks ago and was not even aware that i have a problem,well i knew that my eye is OK but am far behind in technichs,.By looking at your photos i understand alot better what to do and what not.By the way George,do you feel the same about croping?
concerning the cameras i have a qurstion:the Canon EOS 1Ds i cant afford or at least would not at this point and photography level.Canon EOS 10D-thats a possiblility.
Can you tell me your opininion about the Minolta f1?
07-24-2003, 07:45 AM
Sorry,i ment the Minolta Dimage 7i.
is it at par with the Canon AOS 10D?
Is more user friendly?
07-24-2003, 01:02 PM
Minolta Dimage 7i supose to be a very advanced consumer orriented digital camera Rafi...All the tests i have read said that it is a very nice camera with good image quality...But from the other hand it is a pricy camera and not tough enough to be able to stand profesional use conditions...I want to make VERY clear that I have nothing against digital cameras...but (and this is my opinion only) what i think is that with the same price of the Dimage 7i, and maybe less, you can have a film camera of the highest quality i.e Canon EOS1v,Nikon F100,Minolta Dynax 9 etc. plus a couple of lenses...So, i think it is much more logical to have one of these cameras and a good quality scanner and take the advantages of both worlds, digital and conventional...Just think about it:-)
Camera companies are trying to promote their digital products to open new markets and this is logical...The same happens on everything...cel phones etc...So the consumer is pushed to jumb on new products...As I said in my previous posting, pro digital cameras are playing a main role in the news industry for very specific reasons...And there we are talking about cameras with price tags of thousants of $$$$...
07-24-2003, 01:04 PM
...Part II of the previous posting:-)
As of the cropping ofcourse it is something permitable they are some other minor adjustments on our photos, no doubt on that:-)
And to reply to mdchachi now...conventional darkroom techniques has nothing to do with PS manipulation of a photo...The differences are obvious...Ansel Adams you did mention never changed a photo in the darkroom. He was using tecniques to emphasize the strong points on his shots and ad a special feeling...Minor adjustments on contrast, croping,light color corection etc on PS are logical to be done and the main reason to use them are to bring the digital image to the same quality as the original slide or print...As of the magazines they want digital photos as samples...when they decide to buy your work they demand slides...Try to send digital images on National Geographic or any of high quality magazines and you will be surpised by the answer:-)
As profesional journalist and been actually in Afganistan I can asure you that the media pro photographers use mainly pro oriented digi cameras and they don't care about all those you mentioned i.e bateries etc...Their equipment is far away of the abilities of any amateur photographer as a mater of cost...They are connecting their cameras to a laptop and are sending them to their office back home via satelite phones from the middle of nowhere...and just becides are electric generators to suply the needed power;-)
Well i hope i gave some answers and did explain my thoughts...Actually i love this conversation:-)
07-24-2003, 03:23 PM
This is a subject that always raises interesting discussions! What is reality and is digital reality as good as film reality? Is the digital darkroom any different to the darkroom used by film photographers?
Read this article (Levels of Abstraction) - a fascinating and erudite view on the subject...
07-24-2003, 06:29 PM
> conventional darkroom techniques has nothing to do with PS manipulation of a photo...
> The differences are obvious...
> Ansel Adams you did mention never changed a photo in the darkroom.
> He was using tecniques to emphasize the strong points on his shots and ad a special feeling...
Ansel Adams never changed a photo? He is very famous for being
the first well-known photographer to seriously manipulate images in
the darkroom. Anyway, the question remains as to why it is wrong to use PS techniques to "emphasize the strong points [in ones] shots and ad a special feeling" but it is okay to use a darkroom to do so. The differences are not obvious to me. Of course the technical differences are obvious but the creative process is the same in my opinion.
> Try to send digital images on National Geographic or any of high quality magazines
I was talking about common magazines such as Newsweek or those that use photos to compliment their stories. I'm sure you're right about "high quality" magazines.
By the way, is it not possible to create a slide from a digital image? Just curious.
That's interesting about Afghanistan. I wasn't picturing modern battlefields with satellite uplinks. I guess it's a new era.
07-24-2003, 06:55 PM
About the Nat Geo thing. I am not 100% certain, but I think NG now uses digital photos preferentially. I believe I read from a good source that this is now true, although I can't remember where I read this. My belief is that NG allows digital photos, as long as they adhere to the foundview principle, which allows for very little manipulation (no cloning, substitution, limited contrast adjustment etc.). Again, I am not certain, and I do wish I could remember where I found this.
I do think that Adams was fully capable of changing a photograph in the darkroom, and was well known for doing so.
I will side with George that some manipulations in Photoshop go well beyond what is possible in a darkroom, although my understanding is that a skilled darkroom person can do a surprising amount. One thing for certain, before PS, any sort of manipulation was beyond the possibility for the (vast) majority of people who own cameras, but dont' have access to darkrooms. Now, with PS, perhaps the playing field has been levelled?? I go with the thinking that this is an exciting time. We are still able to enjoy film, but the possibilities of digital are truly exciting. I can hardly wait to get my digi-SLR.
07-24-2003, 07:18 PM
Well guys,thanks to TE and you,I got the Minolta Dimage 7i....
Now trying to understand the functions and hopefully later post the first shot....please be kind and give it a good rating so the new piece of equipment wont get hurt...:)
George,i apreciate all time and effort and your input about digital vs regular reflex cameras but decided as you understood for digital.hope this will work for me.
well...thanks a million to all of you that pushed me away from video to the real thing!!
07-24-2003, 07:23 PM
You are right Darren. National Geographic does accept digital images. In the June 2003 issue the "Final Edit" image was captured by a digital camera and I'm guessing that the photo article "Boundary Waters" by Jim Brandenburg (who took the "Final Cut" shot) was all done with digital cameras as well.
07-24-2003, 07:24 PM
Congrats! Hope to see some good shots soon!
07-24-2003, 07:39 PM
I am sure that great shots will come out soon from you:-)
Looking forward for them....:-)
07-24-2003, 09:03 PM
Thanks allot George and Fil!
it looks a little complicated for now,batteries eater,will have to buy some more rechargables,cannot transfer to computer yet,trying to figure out how etc...just some observations from first couple of hours.
07-24-2003, 09:06 PM
I recently acquired a 7i myself. Functionality is very good, if a litle battery draining! Take comfort from the fact that the rechargables will last longer after 2 or 3 recharge cycles.
One bit of advice is that photo transfer to PC is a real energy drain, I have ordered myself a card reader that hooks up directly to the PC, so you don't kill your camera in the process.
Looking forward to seeing some 7i pics. Enjoy!
07-24-2003, 09:08 PM
thanks allot Piotr,its a big help!
07-24-2003, 09:15 PM
I think in the fairly near future, the preferred format for professional and consumers alike will be digital. Of course we will still see 35mm for years to come, almost certainly past our lifetimes. Just like we still see large format cameras today.
07-24-2003, 09:42 PM
"what i think is that with the same price of the Dimage 7i, and maybe less, you can have a film camera of the highest quality i.e Canon EOS1v,Nikon F100,Minolta Dynax 9 etc. plus a couple of lenses...So, i think it is much more logical to have one of these cameras and a good quality scanner and take the advantages of both worlds, digital and conventional...Just think about it:-)"
I went to www.pricegrabber.com and did some research. I found the price of the EOS1V body to be $1400, the F100 body to be $923, and the price of the D7Hi to be $867. (The D7i has been discontinued, you might find it for even less.)
Clearly one can't purchase one of the bodies that you list AND a couple of lenses for the price of a D7i/D7Hi.
Then you gloss over the 'good quality scanner'. That's going to add $500 to $1,000 to your costs.
Don't forget the cost of supplies. I used to spend $300 to $600 per trip for film and developing.
One of the 35mm film systems that you list will allow you take larger prints. A 5 meg digital will equal the quality of the film print up to 8"x11" and then film will pull ahead to allow a bit more print size. (Check the Miles Hecker article - 'Digital Camera Image Quality' on Luminous-Landscape.)
There are several non-monetary advantages to digital that you didn't mention.
Availability of a histogram to check your exposure settings.
Ability to change white balance and ISO from shot to shot.
Ability to bracket and experiment without film cost to get the best possible 'keeper'.
Ability to get a dust/scratch-free image into your computer almost immediately.
Ability to shoot hundreds of shots without stopping to reload.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't shoot film. I would shoot it in certain situations. I'm just suggesting that the best decisions are made when one collects the facts before making a decision rather than collecting facts to support a pre-made decision.
07-24-2003, 09:54 PM
Yes National Geographic has printed articles shot totally with digital. Look at the size of their pages. One could shoot for them with a 5 meg camera.
In addition, Sports Illustrated has printed two-page spreads (double trucks?) from digital.
Popular Science has, in it's August issue, an article about how the photographer shot a previously published story with digital.
Some of the news mags (Time) have apparently gone to digital for their photographers in the field.
I've even seen a story that Playboy has used digital capture. (I haven't read that article myself....)
It will take some time before every publication accepts digital. Some of them will go 'kicking and screaming', but they'll go or fold.
Right now you can get a digital body (10D, S2, etc.) for about the same price as a medium quality film body. Factor in the supply cost savings and convenience, and most working photographers are going to switch. The availability of large numbers of high quality film images is going to drop.
"the best decisions are made when one collects the facts before making a decision". yep, words of wisdom, Bob.
"several non-monetary advantages to digital that you didn't mention" You should also balance with the inconvenients that the 5Mpix brings in :
- shutter lag. For who takes serious street photo, the main problem.
- DOF ! gimme a digital set that will equal the smoothness of a 50mm 'cron wide open at f/2...
- digital sensors don't like contrast
- follows then : limited ability to take hands on manual everything (did you ever try to focus manually with a consumer digital cam?), noise, plasticky feel.
This is IMO why the assumption that a " 5 meg digital will equal the quality of the film print up to 8"x11"" is only a theoretical view sticking to counting pix, hardly standing the field test for long.
It would, providing that the subject isn't moving, no decisive moments to catch, that the film ISO is 100, that the light is not too dim, that the DOF chosen on the film camera needs to be over f/8, that the lens is not wider than 35mm. This makes lots of requirements...
While I agree you can make more instant rewarding shots with a Digital cam, you may also care more about your settings with a film camera to what will after become an habit. Another way of learning.
I'm definitely on George's side (not a coincidence that the only 2 Leica users on this site share the same view), knowing that a second hand EOS1 sells at less than 900euros and that an old Nikkormat with a fantastic 50mm/1.8 AIS Lens that will beat any 5Mpg digital cams on any points (and will last more) is worth 500 euros.
BTW, i've read extensively "the negative" from Ansel Adams, Zone system is more to me how to optimize the neg in order to reduce print manipulation. That would be translated in digital workflow as scan and no PShop manipulation. That would go more towards George's point.
Looking forward with great relish to seeing some smashing pictures, now you have the equipment to go with the flair.... :)
07-25-2003, 06:49 AM
-""several non-monetary advantages to digital that you didn't mention" You should also balance..."
Yes, I agree. I really didn't take the time to make a comprehensive list. I could probably add more pluses and minuses for both film and digital. (But, let me comment on your entries....)
- "shutter lag. For who takes serious street photo, the main problem."
A problem, not a 'serious' problem if you know how to work around the limitations. I do a lot of 'street photography'. I do miss the occasional shot. But I don't miss many.
BTW, the newer cameras do not have a shutter lag problem.
- "DOF ! gimme a digital set that will equal the smoothness of a 50mm 'cron wide open at f/2..."
Absolutely. I miss the shallow DOF that I used to get with my 35mm lenses. Until manufacturers match lenses and sensors this will continue to be a problem.
It's not a problem with the 'full frame' digitals. They will give you the exact DOF as a film camera and be smooth as a baby's butt.
BTW, there is thought that manufacturers are not designing in shallow DOF so that not-so-skilled users make fewer out of focus pictures.
07-25-2003, 06:57 AM
- "digital sensors don't like contrast"
I assume that you are referring to most digitals having less dynamic range than print film? Yes, digital cameras have about the dynamic range as slide/transparency film. This is one area that needs work. Fuji seems to be about to deliver a fix.
- "follows then : limited ability to take hands on manual everything (did you ever try to focus manually with a consumer digital cam?), noise, plasticky feel"
Well, my digital has manual everything. Including white balance and ISO. Some film cameras don't allow you to make manual adjustments. This is not a film/digital difference.
And, yes, some digitals are 'plasticky' - some are not. Same for film cameras.
(I think my cost analysis is fair. New against new. Even if you want to compare new digital to used film, please add in scanner and film/dev costs.)
-"This is IMO why the assumption that a " 5 meg digital will equal the quality of the film print up to 8"x11"" is only a theoretical view sticking to counting pix, hardly standing the field test for long."
Please go read Miles' article.
I can't see what your conditions have to do with the print quality of digitals. BTW, the film that he uses for comparison is Provia 100, if I remember correctly.
You passed up the largest advantage of film over digital. With digital you don't get those handy little plastic containers...
I'm not trying to do a 'digital is better than film'. I'm just trying to bring some balance to the decision. Any camera choice is going to require compromise.
And I'm not surprised that Leica users would be the most anti-digital. That's expected, isn't it? ;o)
I am reading and appreciating this discussion so much. Learnt a lot with it, really. I'm not so expert in photography as all of you in this thread, but I want to give my opinion as a consumer, just a consumer who wants to take good photos, as I think there should be some more in TE, maybe Rafi is one. This discussion got a so much pro approach! I won't sell pictures to National Geographic, I hope not to be in the middle of a war (I'd run, instead of shoot!), nor I want to change my kitchen into a darkroom. ;-)
I got a digital camera 6 months ago. It's obvious that people like me won't buy film cameras anymore in a couple of years. The digital experience - for common people, I insist! - is wonderful. How many times we take lots of pictures, in travel, in a family party, and in the day after we see how bad they were? You can't shot it again! With digital this won't happen as you see immediately that your 99 year-old grandmother closed her eyes at the "click", so you ask her to take another photo. Or you can take dozens of shots to choose the better one, what is normal for pro photography but is something that normal people wouldn't do.
I wouldn't take 10 photos a day - my average with the digi cam - with film. And above all, I wouldn't take so many pictures I shot just to try and learn the differences of speed, f-stop, iso, tele/wide lens. I wouldn't do it if I had to buy the film and pay and wait for the developing. With digital it's also easier to learn photography because you can try and see the results as you read a book or magazine, or tips from TE people!
And, most of all, we are loving the possibility of correcting red eyes at home before printing, without access to a darkroom. We're Dracula's family, all of us here look terrible under flash!!!
(continuing my boring long story...)
Well, I have a Mavica CD and I'm happy with it. But I'd appreciate your opinion/comments you have about this camera.
At the first place, I just bought it for the CD option. I was looking for 4Mb cameras - this would be fine for me - and though Mavica was about 30% more expensive than a 4Mb "consumer-oriented" cam, two of that flash cards of 128Mb matches the difference, and you don't need a computer to download in order to continue shooting, just change the US$0,70 CD. This made the difference for me, because I don't want to take a computer in my vacancy travels, my wife would kill me if I do!!!
After that, I discovered it has other good qualities as full manual control also, something that I didn't even imagine what it was for when I bought it... but I'm trying...:-)
07-25-2003, 12:29 PM
You are right about Dimage 7Hi price Bob...But still it is quite expensive compared with consumer oriented 35mm SLRs...even with some pro models as Nikon F90xPro...and if we want to compare the pro models prices...then the difference between pro digital cameras and pro 35mm SLRs is out of any comparison...Pro digital are even more expensive than medium format cameras such as Hasseblad, Rollei, Contax, Mamiya, Bronice etc...
Luko covered me completely for the rest:-)
But, as we all know this conversation could last for ages with each side having its points...
"I'm not saying that one shouldn't shoot film. I would shoot it in certain situations. I'm just suggesting that the best decisions are made when one collects the facts before making a decision rather than collecting facts to support a pre-made decision."
This is very wise Bob and I agree 100% with you...The main thing is that with digital or film cameras we are enjoying our love for photography which is the most important...
"And I'm not surprised that Leica users would be the most anti-digital. That's expected, isn't it?"
You got it, Bob ;-)
I don't like to say that but it's almost a world apart. Even before digital had broken through, we -Leica users- were getting regularly flamed in any photo forum as snubbish and conservative jerks, buying their equipment in the aim of displaying it on a shelf.
Non Leica users may not understand that the M serie camera is an optimized tool for a certain approach of photography that was best conceptualized in some of HCB articles as "zen archery" (the general idea is be swift and discreet, understand your subject to the point you ARE your subject, control all of your settings, time -later called by his publisher the decisive instant- is the target). It's limited though (no macro, no longer lenses than 135mm...) but if it does fit your style it's the best camera that was ever thought. And I fear it is sometimes antinomic to what digital cam boasts nowadays.
About your comments : "I can't see what your conditions have to do with the print quality of digitals""
The important word I wrote is "field test", to understood as "street test" . I read LL's article. While I agree on the fact digital matches film for details, grain, etc -and broadens perpective to all macro photographers-, I was pointing that the comparison could only be made with almost still subjects (because of shutter lag even if you say you can cope with that, I haven't tested yet a digital camera that I don't want to throw away because of the lag), with limited contrast (sensor issue), with sufficient light (see my catacombs photo, what could I do with a digital cam?), with plenty of DOF (see my singapore sling shot, how do I get such?), etc.
I can understand users that enjoy digital for many reasons. Specifically I think that digital wins hands down for macro, however I don't shoot macro overland but only underwater (and this is not TE's purpose).
For my case, my wife has bought me a Oly 4Mpix digital cam and a UW housing, I'm looking forward having great fun with it.
However I took it for first tries in Paris streets : I thought I was becoming blind and started getting on my nerves with the shutter lag, I missed everything I could, I set it on manual exposure, it takes years to change settings, the ergonomy isn't thought for that, I have some habits assessing shutter speed, most of my pics where blurred because of the lightweight and unstableness of the camera.
I'll see this Aug whether it performs better for UW macro. If it doesn't I won't have any remorse opening the housing 30m underwater...
07-25-2003, 08:25 PM
Well, I can certainly agree with you that the perfect digital camera has been made for every condition at this point in time. I'm still longing for a ~5 meg version of my C2100z with no shutter lag, the ability to shoot higher ISOs, and shallower DOF.
All of those problems have been overcome in other digitals.
Casio has released a consumer 'rangefinder' body camera with a 0.01 second shutter lag. The technology is there.
Some of the higher end digitals can produce excellent shots at ISO 1600 (possibly higher). That takes care of your catacombs problem.
Shallower DOF simply requires sticking a broader front glass on any existing camera. I think I reported the common assumption that manufacturers are not providing shallow DOF to cut down on the number of out of focus shots - to keep the casual shooter happy. (And to keep glass cost down.)
It's just that 'MY' perfect camera hasn't been released with all 'MY' goodies in one package.
You might want to check out the Canon G5. While it might not be your 'perfect' camera, it's getting close. Maybe the next version...
07-26-2003, 12:44 AM
I haven't used one for any significant length of time, but when I tried a Canon EOS 10D in my local photographic store shutter lag wasn't noticeable to me - at least in comparison to my EOS 30 (film based SLR). When I have the funds I shall be down to the store to pick one up :-) They're so much more versatile than film IMO. The ability to "see" your exposure was correct, the ability to bracket without cost, the ability to change ISO at any time, no (known) x-ray sensitivity. These are all pluses, the drawbacks? Initial cost, and (on the 10D) slightly less image quality than Provia 100F - the focal length multiplier can be a boon, but it can be a pain too...
Some of the older digitals are pretty useless though from an AF and shutter lag POV though, for example my DSC-F505V doesn't handle fast subjects at all well... The difference a couple of years has made to the market is amazing!
07-26-2003, 12:44 AM
Congratulations, keep us "posted" :-D