Light Meters

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Charles E Hardwidge, Apr 11, 2011.

  1. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

    Again you are missing my point ,, which is that you can reshooot
    Digital a thousand times but it stiill wiill not gain the DR of
    Film :)
     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Interesting. Where in the JPEG format is it defined that it
    can't be 10, 12, 15 stops? Or are you saying that a greater
    dynamic range will cause visible banding in some cases?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 16, 2011
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

    No Nikon DSLR can come near medium format film , hey I see that with
    my own eyes.
    Nor can any Nikon , or other, DSLR replicate the 3D effect of medium
    format film unlless you use an f1.2 lens wide openn , thatt might do
    it for Digital, I don't know as I've never used the Canon 50/f1.2,
    there is no camera available in Digital that can render the narrow
    depth of field that film does , this iis well-known in
    cinematography.
    Look at your soap opera in TV- shot on digiital ,, everything is in
    focus, now switch over to any popular Hollywood movie shoot on film -
    the hero leaps out at you in that special 3-D effect that it is
    impossible for Digital too get, though it is coming close nowadays
    with digital still camera lenses , the Canon 50/f1.2 etc. but stilll
    can't get that wonderful film effect that has always made the best
    film camera Professionals stand out from the mmob, such as bailey,
    Donovan,,John Minihan etc etc etc.
    That, and with much better DR too under normal everyday shooting
    circumstances , film still cannot be beaten, even by the likes of the
    Nikon D3 - BTW This thread seems to be composed of millionaires with
    all the top Nikon Armouur being brought out to bolster up digital!
    And BTW this is why more pics on film make the gallery walls than from
    digital.
    Here in Ireland you have another consideration that the worst
    photographers are employed as accredited freelances on digital by
    local newspapers , especially on all the freesheets - many of them
    openly boast that they haven't a clue about film, all of them could
    not use digital as well as the posters here on this newsgroup.
    So they would not be having this discussion at all :)
     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #83
  4. Charles E Hardwidge

    Alan Browne Guest

    You're missing the point that it does not matter in most situations.

    And in fact, with far fewer than a thousand (3 or 4 will do) one can get
    immense dynamic range through HDR methods - at least for static scenes.
    Aesthetics and methods aside, such techniques blow away any single
    film frame. (And people did HDR with slide film - a tedious process at
    the time even with photoshop).

    And of course cameras such as the Fuji FinePix S5 6 Mpix cameras, a
    couple stops of DR are available due to the unique low sensitivity pixel
    for each normal pixel. Alas, seems they can't break the 6 Mpix barrier
    - or haven't tried hard enough anyway.

    Stop beating the same drum - we've all heard it, we don't disagree that
    film has its advantages. Simply that the need for those advantages is
    marginalized.

    For that matter, when I shoot film it's usually E-6 which has a
    shallower DR, and higher noise, than most any digital SLR made in the
    last 7 years or so. In fact my a900 has at least 1/3 to 1/2 a stop more
    margin on the highlight end over slide film and goes much deeper into
    the shadows. Can't match negative color film on the high side to be
    sure. (Last roll of Portra 160 I shot was over a year ago...).

    In the end, the advantages of film are not often of use to most
    photographers most of the time. If film was truly superior more of the
    time, then digital would be marginalized - and it certainly is not.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 16, 2011
    #84
  5. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

    It may help, outside of all the mathematics ( Mathematics lecturer
    friends of mine admit that they are dreadfull photographers, though
    one former Computer Science lecturer of minne does try really hard on
    his Flickr a/c!) to see DR , not so much in bit numbers( where most
    decent DSLRs are 14-bit now) as stretching from deepest black to
    brilliant white simultaneously, that no DSLR can achieve , no matter
    what.
    This is why a manufacturer has brought out a DSLR that shoots five
    frames in virttuall microseconds and on its in-camera processor merges
    these almost instantly into one image to try to achieve film-like DR.

    But it may be the case that DR does not matter that much to certain
    photographers, it would certainly seem so. It obviouslly did not
    matter to the legion of pro's who deserted film for digital from about
    2002/2003 when DSLRs then ( outside of the Fuji S2 Pro , an awkward
    camera, I've used it , eats batteries too) were nowhere in sight of
    film for DR. Yes, your big Nikon and Canon armour has caught up a lot
    since and Lenses are a great help with Canon Digital , they are
    probably even necessary with DSLR buut strangely not with film SLR- I
    found the original Canon 5D the best digittal I used for DR , up
    beside the Fuji , it has a fab sensor too that I prefer to the newer
    Mark 11 ( dust was the big problem, otherwise think it's better than
    the Mark 11 for IQ. )
    I'm still most comfortable with the Canon 40D, the 50D was horrible,
    the 7D suffers from far too many pixels as well , better than the 40D
    on high ISO butt WORSE on the lower ISO that I almost always use as I
    don''t work for the National Coal Board. Too much concentration on
    pixel marketing has cost Canon the lead over Nikon in the past four
    years, where the Canon marketinng department is in charge rather than
    the design engineers at Canon - who are probably better than their
    counterparts at Nikon!

    This is why some of us see DR as the next battleground - IF the
    marketing departments can explain what DR is to Johnny Public ( that
    will be a tough proposition) , and this is why see DR as the most
    important issue in Digital Photography right now.
    If YOU can come up with a simple TV advertisement that will explain DR
    to the mass camera consumer brigade, you'll never have any financial
    worries for the rest of your natural life.
    Throw away all your D1's, 5Ds and 7Ds , go out and buy a 40D until
    Canon learn to behave themselves !
     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #85
  6. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

    Para three above , correction : 'L' lenses!
     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #86
  7. Charles E Hardwidge

    David Kerber Guest

    The dynamic range is limited by the number of bits used to encode the
    data, which is 8 bits per color, for a total of 24 bits. That is the
    absolute maximum range that they could possible encode, and if you
    saturate any one of the colors you have lost some DR.
     
    David Kerber, Apr 16, 2011
    #87
  8. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

    I think you've got it wrong there, Floyd, eight is not the maximum bit
    number per colour, it's 14 at the moment contained in two bytes and I
    believe we would have four bytes at our disposal as soon as the
    technology catches up to the theory, the hardware to the software - if
    you did it, remember your Assembly programming.
     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #88
  9. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #89
  10. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #90
  11. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #91
  12. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 16, 2011
    #92
  13. So you say there is no way to spread gamma-encoded 8 bits per
    color over an arbitrary dynamic range? I beg to differ.
    That is the absolute maximum resolution of a dynamic range.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 16, 2011
    #93
  14. Charles E Hardwidge

    Savageduck Guest

     
    Savageduck, Apr 16, 2011
    #94
  15. Charles E Hardwidge

    Peter N Guest

    Never say never
     
    Peter N, Apr 16, 2011
    #95
  16. JPEG is 8 bits per colour, but that is *after* gamma correction, which is
    something of the same sort of logarithmic encoding as u-law or A-law in
    telephone systems. So JPEG's 8 bits (can) represent about 12 bits of
    linear dynamic range (RAW). Modern digital cameras often have some pre-
    jpeg processing that can boost shadows a bit, so the recorded dynamic
    range can be a good bit higher.

    Personally, I find that my D700 has better dynamic range than colour
    slide film. Black and white negative film is awesome, though.

    Cheers,
     
    Andrew Reilly, Apr 16, 2011
    #96
  17. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

    True, and either digital or fiilm camera has to be in the riight
    hands!
     
    The Bailey, Apr 17, 2011
    #97
  18. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 17, 2011
    #98
  19. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 17, 2011
    #99
  20. Charles E Hardwidge

    The Bailey Guest

     
    The Bailey, Apr 17, 2011
    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.