Film Q.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. Digital shooters get to worry instead about birefringence in micro
    lenses, sensor bloom, light-angle induced falloff, banding and a whole
    set of different issues. They also have to worry about paying for
    that latest and greatest camera every 2 years or so. Been there,
    still doing that.

    The funny thing is that I _don't_ worry about curves, toes, and the
    rest except in one rare circumstance. Once or twice a year, I'll
    shoot slow black-and-white film outdoors in medium or large format and
    do the quasi-zone system thing. Otherwise, I just grab the film I
    want, set the EI to my preferred value, load up and go.

    Yeah, once in a great while, I have to *gasp* go out and shoot a test
    roll to rate a new film, or at least one new to me. Such a burden!

    In most typical shooting situations, you can shoot at the
    manufacturer's suggested speed and get reasonably good results. You
    make decide you like the "look" of a different EI, but that's purely a
    subjective call. Don't let anyone else make it for you, whether you
    crank that difference in via EI or exposure compensation.

    But when the lighting gets both interesting and challenging, whether
    you are shooting digital or analog, you're going to have to make some
    tough choices. If you have the luxury of a static subject, a sturdy
    support, and sufficient shooting time, you can use HDR techniques. If
    you're not that lucky, then there isn't a generality in the world that
    can help you.

    My point in this thread is that the manufacturer's speed ratings on
    film, even when marked as an ISO rating, is a compromise between the
    engineers and the marketeers for a particular market. It doesn't tell
    you anything about exposure latitude, contrast, color shifts or any of
    the other non-linear response characteristics you see when you push
    the envelope.
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 11, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Doug Jewell Guest

    I wouldn't say we worry about the shape of our toes, I'd
    more say that we rejoice in the fact that film has a
    toe/heel (can never remember which is which). It is the
    non-linearity at extreme exposure that IMO is one of the key
    benefits of film over digital. What good is 8 stops of noisy
    shadows, if anything that is a bit bright in the scene turns
    into an ugly blotch of 255-255-255? Yes film has an exposure
    limit, and yes it's overall latitude may not be quite as
    high, but film (even slide film) is far more graceful in the
    way it handles that transition to blown-highlight, because
    of it's non-linearity.
    Doug Jewell, Mar 11, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. So what shape do digital sensor response curves have? Seems like some
    digital users think they're absolutely flat or some such, forgetting
    that these sensors are actually analog devices based on light-receptive
    elements that definitely *do* have non-linear response curves.

    Made From Pears: Pretty good chance that the product is at least
    mostly pears.
    Made With Pears: Pretty good chance that pears will be detectable in
    the product.
    Contains Pears: One pear seed per multiple tons of product.

    (with apologies to Dorothy L. Sayers)
    David Nebenzahl, Mar 11, 2009
  4. Annika1980

    Doug Jewell Guest

    shows how little I care about it then hey! I just know that
    that nice little bit of non-linearity at maximum exposure
    looks nicer than when a digital sensor blooms. Easy to say
    expose for the highlights etc, but sometimes a little bit of
    pure white doesn't hurt.
    Doug Jewell, Mar 13, 2009
  5. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    This is the same reason that valve/tube amplifiers can sound better than
    solid-state amps.
    Bob Larter, Mar 13, 2009
  6. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 13/03/2009 7:23 PM:
    Careful: you're talking to folks who consider a white-chested seagull shown with
    a grey chest as the creme de la creme of correct exposure...
    Noons, Mar 13, 2009
  7. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Seagull? Did someone say seagull?
    Annika1980, Mar 13, 2009
  8. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 14/03/2009 1:28 AM:
    Do you have one without the banding on the sky and the sharpening artifacts
    around the legs?
    Noons, Mar 14, 2009
  9. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I don't see the bandng Noons mentioned. The other is probably just
    the sand on the bird's legs. Noons isn't used to equipment that can
    capture such detail and hold it even at reduced sizes. He's a full-
    size crop of the bird's feet.
    Annika1980, Mar 14, 2009
  10. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    Won't make any difference with your photos mate. They all look like shit
    regardless of how much Photo shopping or manipulation you apply to them.

    Just ask for film scan of some of my 160 ISO stuff and I'll show you
    just how good a 5 year old wet-bed scanner digitises some $2.00 a roll,
    outdated film that needs no Photoslop to win awards.

    The difference between you, me, Noons and a dozen or so others that
    tried to help you is you never bothered to start with a camera.

    If Adobe and the crackers who let you keep using their demo versions
    went out of business tomorrow, your happy snaps would start to look
    pretty piss poor examples of some really bad camera techniques and
    shocking compositional faults. But then that's you, Isn't it? All piss
    and wind.

    Don't you actually have a clue about contrast alteration by
    development/ISO alterations? Basic rule #1. Understand a film's
    characteristics before loading it in the camera. For you, frequently run
    a new pin through the hole in front too. It'll help with sharpness!
    D-Mac, Mar 14, 2009
  11. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 15/03/2009 9:17 AM:
    You need to tune up that crap monitor of yours.
    I've been seeing serious banding in most of your shots for the last year or so.
    It's real bad and getting worse.
    some call it sand.
    mostly in the eyes...
    I'm used to equipment that craps all over what you call "detail".

    All is clear now. Apparently, in your language "legs" == "feet".
    No wonder you don't have a clue what is being said about your fabricated images.
    Noons, Mar 15, 2009
  12. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    David Starr wrote,on my timestamp of 15/03/2009 8:18 AM:
    You bet. Most of Bret's shots are 90% photoshop, 10% camera.
    Noons, Mar 15, 2009
  13. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    Do. The 50/1.8 is amazing value for money.
    I now have the 50/1.4 USM & am very happy with it, but I have a huge
    number of great shots I took with 50/1.8.
    Bob Larter, Mar 15, 2009
  14. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    Don't you guys do anything new? You keep trotting out these old
    captures. This is Peter's great-great-grandson. His grandfather
    immigrated to America during the Great Australian Fish Famine:

    Not as sharp as yours, not as detailed, but it's recent work.
    tony cooper, Mar 15, 2009
  15. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    Hey Tony...
    Since when has "recent work" got anything to do with art or great

    FYI Almost all of my award winning photos were taken before the turn of
    the century. Just a little trivia here... Those I sell through my agents
    and Gallery clients are still providing me with a nice income. Call it
    what you like but from where I see it that makes them timeless, does it not?

    Here's a more recent Photo for you. Not as ugly or out focus as your
    example but it was taken this year! ROTFL.
    D-Mac, Mar 16, 2009
  16. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    The great artists and great photographers who aren't dead keep
    Were you the Official Photographer for Sir Edmund Barton's campaign
    for Prime Minister? Oh, wait, you mean the *next* turn of a century.
    Agents, hunh? I'll bet those boardwalk stalls that sell Tim Tams,
    Polly Waffles, and your postcards bring in the dosh.
    You either forgot to include a link, or you forgot your camera that
    tony cooper, Mar 16, 2009
  17. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    What link? I just showed you my "recent photos". It's a bit hard taking
    them from a hospital bed mate!

    Boardwalk stalls? Oh yes, I remember now. Mark Thomas who then called
    himself Charlie Stevens as he tried to impersonate a photographer, ASIC
    investigator and motoring writer while he claimed to have the only
    colour correct monitor in the world started that one.

    My memory is fading but I vaguely recall him sneaking into the gallery
    while my wife went for a toilet break and the next week claiming his
    eyesight was so good he could tell my canvas prints had less than 180
    LPI of resolution. Brilliance in that lot, for sure.

    My postcards eh? Yeah. The only cards of local regions 57% profit
    margin. What's the profit margin on your stuff Tony? Or do you have a
    problem selling those out of focus "recent photos" of yours? LOL. Those
    lovely pair pixies in the first link who are now grown into beautiful
    teenagers are saving their earnings from postcard sales so they can buy
    a car when old enough to drive... All from what I started for them,
    making post cards.

    You'll go a long way with that sour attitude of yours Tony. If you
    really must keep taking out of focus and poorly composed photos... Try
    reducing their size and sticking them on matchboxes, no one will notice
    (or care) if it's sharp or not, once it's covered with some text. ROTFL.

    Hell! I just gave you an idea for making money. souvenir matchboxes!
    What next?
    D-Mac, Mar 16, 2009
  18. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 15/03/2009 9:53 PM:
    They don't. They only do when it's from the PS champion.
    My opinion is that some folks are so used to kissing arse they can't even see
    the obvious.
    is a very bad job of over-sharpening and it has so few bits left in the blue
    layer the sky has more banding than a scottish plaid kilt.
    If it was done with Photoshop or notit's immaterial: it's a poor image.

    Don't. It's ridiculous.
    Noons, Mar 16, 2009
  19. Annika1980

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Network Timeout

    The operation timed out when attempting to contact

    The requested site did not respond to a connection request
    and the browser has stopped waiting for a reply.

    * Could the server be experiencing high demand or a
    temporary failure? Try again later.

    * Are you unable to browse other sites? Check the
    computer's network connection.

    * Is your computer or network protected by a firewall
    or proxy? Incorrect settings can interfere with Web browsing.

    * Still having trouble? Consult your network
    administrator or Internet provider for assistance.
    Doug Jewell, Mar 16, 2009
  20. Annika1980

    Doug Jewell Guest

    oops - my fault, left the dash out. sorry doug.
    Didn't get past the first page tho - Ohhh Dannny Bork-de-bork.
    Doug Jewell, Mar 16, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.