DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
40D.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original

This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
other than cropping.
Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
detail, but are not quite down to true black.

I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.

 

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 3:57 PM:

Superia 400, to match the 400 iso you used, no crop:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice wheels.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/upside down world.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/urban gold.jpg
Would you like to see Velvia 50 6X6?

 

+**** YOU wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 11:01 PM:

It's not upside down, dipshit. But you're
too stupid to realize that, aren't you?
Go back to school, moron.

 

Hey Noons, Nice work. I thought the "upside" was inverted until I
looked a little closer. Nice illusion. Keep at it.

Velvia 50 6x6? Now that would fill the screen alright.


Draco

 

Lotsa blown highlights there. Thanks for illustrating my point.

 

In the first one
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice wheels.jpg
You can see the film struggling, the sky is full of noise, even with
the reduced size image.
The shadows have gone to close to black and there is no detail in
them.
If you like the high contrast look that is fine, but it does not show
much DR at all.
The other two photos don't show any more DR.

I am not saying the low DR makes them bad photos, just that they don't
have much DR. A whole lot of good photos have been taken over the
years with reversal film, and I have very small DR.

Now before you get all mad, I have to say that Bret's photo also is
not good at showing high DR, is has some whites in it but no good
shadows that are in focus. Would the 40D have done better on your
scene, hard to know.

Scott

 

This post is off-topic for this newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
which is concerned with film cameras that use 35mm film, not digital
cameras that look like 35mm SLRs (DSLRs).

Since this post concerns such cameras, the appropriate place for it is
rec.photo.digital.slr. Please post there in the future.

 

Seems to me this is a thread comparing digital to 35mm film, whereas
any number of people may not be keen on the thread, it is on topic.

Scott

 

Seems to me this is a thread comparing digital to 35mm film, whereas
any number of people may not be keen on the thread, it is on topic.

Scott

Hey Scott, I have finally killfiled that stupid guy, please don't respond to
him, he will think someone cares.

 

Roger Clark did a comparison some time ago
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/index.html

Had he over exposed the film he might be gotten more shadow detail,
but for a normal exposer
film, at least Kodak Royal Gold 200, has very poor range in the
shadows.

Slide film is of course much worse yet.

Scott

 

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 2:36 AM:

Actually, it's called clouds. Not noise.
And exactly which detail do you expect to see in clouds in
the sky? But let's not allow reality to get in the way of
a good anti-film rant, shall we?

Actually, the shadows have no noise and are full of detail in the
high rez version. But of course shadows are shadows: if you
expect to see pores in the bricks then it might be a good idea
to actually take a photo exposed to said bricks?
Also: I'd love to see what a dslr would do to that corrugated
iron roof. Most likely it'd be full of moiree...

Doesn't it? Prove it: demonstrate to me where is it that
you can see high DR? Of course, do not come back to me
with an example where all tones are the same intensity:
that is just the drap watercoloured digital mush that some
folks call "high dr". And no: an image made out of multiple
raw stitched together is NOT high DR: it is just another
example of watercoloured drab, non-constrasty, non-saturated
digital mush.

Really? Why? Did you look at the shadows in the verandas?

Like I said: demonstrate what you call high dr.
Just claiming that everything in sight is not high dr because
it is not digital is pretty poor form. And no: a drab old
non-contrast dslr image with washed out highlights
and shadows smeared out of existence by the anti-noise processing
is NOT an example of high dr.

Exactly. Problem is: I do have a D80 which has taken a photo
in the same place, same lens, same exposure parameters.
I won't post it because it might shock Rita...

 

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 8:04 AM:

Funny how that site is "good" to demonstrate
"bad film" but is "bad" to demonstrate digital
weak points...

That is indeed true. And also of most of the
"comparisons" in most of the sites out there:
made years ago, with bad scanning technique of bad
film and badly exposed images. Not surprising that
it looks so bad overall...

Actually, it isn't.

 

Draco wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 12:43 AM:

Yeah, surprising what happens when one uses
eyes as they are supposed to be used, instead
of just accepting whatever is shown as reality...
Thanks, I certainly shall!

It does:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/

 

There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
Good luck printing those.

In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.

 

I am not sure what you are thinking here, slide film has maybe 5 stops
of range, I don't know of any negative film that is that narrow. The
output of some slide film is on the order of 10 stops, because it is
so high in contrast, but the capture range is very small.

Scott

 

This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
highlight and very deep shadows.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original
If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.

With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
shadows with a bit of dodging.

The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.

I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.

Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
talking about.

Scott

 

Down size that by a factor of 2 and you have one sharp image.

At full resolution it is a bit soft.

An easy test, down size to half and back up, not much difference at
all.

I will point out that the output of DSLRs is not perfectly sharp
either, and will shrapen up with a bit of down sizing, but the limit
for most DSLRs is down sizing by to about 70% or so.

Put it all together and I figure you image would roughly match a DSLR
that had about 25 MP, and a really good lens.

This is still very impressive, just not 72MP impressive.

Of course when comparing a 6x6 camera to a DSLR it all comes down to
what aspect ratio you want, if you what 1:1 then the DSLR is going to
have to crop out 33% of its pixels, if you want 2:3 then the 6x6
camera is going to have to crop out 33% of its pixels.

Scott

 

Dude, you're talking to Noons. Thinking doesn't enter into it.

 

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:56 PM:

yeah, sure...

ANY digitised image at full resolution
is a "bit soft"! Any other pearls of
idiocy you'd like to share?

yeah sure: downsize and upsize a "lossless" file like jpg?
Are you for real or you think everyone is an idiot?

Sure. Try this:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
Shit: there goes the 5d2 rez, eh?

BWAHAHAHA!
Any other bullshit you'd like to propose?

Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it?
And no amount of crappola from the likes of you
is gonna change that.

wouldn't that be why I provided a cropped image as well?
Or did you miss that little detail in your haste?

 

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:

No problem whatsoever. It's called full dynamic range.
Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".

Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside
200,200,200 and 100,100,100?

You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range
and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented
a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had
quite a few more zones than just 4-6.
That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing
images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality,
it's not really that hard and quite rewarding.

I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good
in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most
of the time, I'll let you know!
Try this for REAL detail:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
LOL!