Group: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Other formats, tripods, projectors, bags etc.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Film vs. digital cameras
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion
On May 20, 10:35 am, anira...@gmail . com wrote:
> I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
Depends on exactly what you mean by quality and performance, and most
important, what FILM you are using. Modern 10MP digitals are about at
the performance of many film cameras with color film and moderate
speed. They do not have the dynamic range of good B&W film, nor
resolution of something like Plus X in dilute developer.
They have an edge in linearity over some of the faster films if you
shoot in RAW.
> I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
Depends on exactly what you mean by quality and performance, and most
important, what FILM you are using. Modern 10MP digitals are about at
the performance of many film cameras with color film and moderate
speed. They do not have the dynamic range of good B&W film, nor
resolution of something like Plus X in dilute developer.
They have an edge in linearity over some of the faster films if you
shoot in RAW.
The most important thing is the person tripping the shutter. Both film and
digital can give good results.
--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***
<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1179675324.915441.124080@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups . com ...
>I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
>
digital can give good results.
--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.
Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***
<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1179675324.915441.124080@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups . com ...
>I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
>
aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
Don't leave the lens out of the equation. I used to get some great
shots from my ancient Argus C-3 "brick", but Argus were renowned back
then for their optics. Similarly my old Minolta X-700 got great, sharp
shots with a sweet little Tamron 70-210 zoom, while both the lenses I
have for my Rebel G - the kit 28-90 and the EF 75-300 - are painfully
soft when compared side-by-side with those old Minolta/Tamron shots.
Pics taken with the same 75-300 on my Digital Rebel are no better or
worse than with the Rebel G.
> I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
Don't leave the lens out of the equation. I used to get some great
shots from my ancient Argus C-3 "brick", but Argus were renowned back
then for their optics. Similarly my old Minolta X-700 got great, sharp
shots with a sweet little Tamron 70-210 zoom, while both the lenses I
have for my Rebel G - the kit 28-90 and the EF 75-300 - are painfully
soft when compared side-by-side with those old Minolta/Tamron shots.
Pics taken with the same 75-300 on my Digital Rebel are no better or
worse than with the Rebel G.
<aniramca@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1179675324.915441.124080@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups . com ...
>I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
Depends on the cameras. One must compare high-end to high end and so on.
Many feel that the best current DSLRs have surpassed 35 mm film cameras.
Google and you will find sites such as
* w w w .normankoren . com /Tutorials/MTF7.html
* w w w .clarkvision . com /index.html
and many others.
aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
>
If you mean build quality, then it's simply the way of the world: once
upon a time it was viable to make things out of metal, especially where
the workings are all mechanical: the solid build helps accuracy.
With the advent of electronic control, manufacturers could get away with
less solidly built bodies, and plastic moulding became the norm, being a
LOT cheaper.
Everything is shoddily made from flimsy plastic these days, at least at
the consumer end. At the pro end of the photography market things are
better, but nothing, except maybe a Leica, has that solid tough metal
feel of old cameras.
With regard to picture quality. Well I can't see that any real advances
have been made in glass quality or lens design, except to make them
lighter, smaller, cheaper and the proliferation of very wide range
zooms. Use a brand new prime lens rather than the kit zoom, and you'll
find a world of quality away, much like it was when your older kit was made.
So I think where modern kit falls down is that we all supposedly want a
6xkit zoom instead of a good prime or two. A 6x zoom is still going to
be thrashed on quality by a prime of any age and price.
> I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
> that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
> touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
> used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
> shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
> now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
> never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
> compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
> condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
> Thanks for comment/discussion
>
If you mean build quality, then it's simply the way of the world: once
upon a time it was viable to make things out of metal, especially where
the workings are all mechanical: the solid build helps accuracy.
With the advent of electronic control, manufacturers could get away with
less solidly built bodies, and plastic moulding became the norm, being a
LOT cheaper.
Everything is shoddily made from flimsy plastic these days, at least at
the consumer end. At the pro end of the photography market things are
better, but nothing, except maybe a Leica, has that solid tough metal
feel of old cameras.
With regard to picture quality. Well I can't see that any real advances
have been made in glass quality or lens design, except to make them
lighter, smaller, cheaper and the proliferation of very wide range
zooms. Use a brand new prime lens rather than the kit zoom, and you'll
find a world of quality away, much like it was when your older kit was made.
So I think where modern kit falls down is that we all supposedly want a
6xkit zoom instead of a good prime or two. A 6x zoom is still going to
be thrashed on quality by a prime of any age and price.
aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
..
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance.
Personally I prefer a good cherry pie, but I also love a great apple
pie. They are both high quality and both are high performance in my
opinion. Some days I may prefer apple pie or even a dish of good ice cream.
That's about it. Both systems produce great images, but not exactly the
same images. Remember Kodachrome and Ectacrome (sp). They were both great
films. both different films. While both had religious followings in reality
no one could really say one was better than the other. Same thing with your
question.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
..
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance.
Personally I prefer a good cherry pie, but I also love a great apple
pie. They are both high quality and both are high performance in my
opinion. Some days I may prefer apple pie or even a dish of good ice cream.
That's about it. Both systems produce great images, but not exactly the
same images. Remember Kodachrome and Ectacrome (sp). They were both great
films. both different films. While both had religious followings in reality
no one could really say one was better than the other. Same thing with your
question.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
> aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> ..
>> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
>> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
>> performance.
With cameras, and any other long standing commodity with moving parts, the
quality in general is decreasing, and the performance is improving.
--
Mike Russell
w w w .curvemeister . com /forum/
> ..
>> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
>> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
>> performance.
With cameras, and any other long standing commodity with moving parts, the
quality in general is decreasing, and the performance is improving.
--
Mike Russell
w w w .curvemeister . com /forum/
On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:17:18 GMT, "Mike Russell"
<RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister . com RE-MOVE> wrote:
: > aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
: > ..
: >> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
: >> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
: >> performance.
:
: With cameras, and any other long standing commodity with moving parts, the
: quality in general is decreasing, and the performance is improving.
We all know what you mean, but objectively that statement is almost an
oxymoron, since performance is an inseparable component of quality. Would you
go back to your (or your father's or your grandfather's) old Nikon S-2 because
it was so well made?
Bob
<RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister . com RE-MOVE> wrote:
: > aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
: > ..
: >> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
: >> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
: >> performance.
:
: With cameras, and any other long standing commodity with moving parts, the
: quality in general is decreasing, and the performance is improving.
We all know what you mean, but objectively that statement is almost an
oxymoron, since performance is an inseparable component of quality. Would you
go back to your (or your father's or your grandfather's) old Nikon S-2 because
it was so well made?
Bob
In article <1179675324.915441.124080@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups . com >,
aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab.
I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.
A related issue is what you can get in the print. My old rule-of-thumb
was not to go over 8x10 with 35mm film, although many did with good
results. With inkjet printers, the rule-of-thumb seems to be to go
around 300dpi, although many go less with good results. If you want an
8x10 at 300 dpi without upresing, you need 3000x2400, which is 7.2Mb.
However, I have produced some decent 12x16 prints from a 4Mb camera.
The point is you can probably do better color work on the print in
digital.
Possibly an even more important point is that color prints from negative
film seemed to fade before your eyes. Color inkjet prints from pigment
inks may last as long as silver B&W prints.
Film is relatively more expensive than digital. Some people don't print
digital at all and when they do they can choose one or two images out of
hundreds.
So, for everyday use I prefer digital. For critical color work I would
use 4x5 slides, which can be scanned and printed if desired.
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family . com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce . com [Office]
aniramca@gmail . com wrote:
> My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
> at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
> performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
> (I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
> were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab.
I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.
A related issue is what you can get in the print. My old rule-of-thumb
was not to go over 8x10 with 35mm film, although many did with good
results. With inkjet printers, the rule-of-thumb seems to be to go
around 300dpi, although many go less with good results. If you want an
8x10 at 300 dpi without upresing, you need 3000x2400, which is 7.2Mb.
However, I have produced some decent 12x16 prints from a 4Mb camera.
The point is you can probably do better color work on the print in
digital.
Possibly an even more important point is that color prints from negative
film seemed to fade before your eyes. Color inkjet prints from pigment
inks may last as long as silver B&W prints.
Film is relatively more expensive than digital. Some people don't print
digital at all and when they do they can choose one or two images out of
hundreds.
So, for everyday use I prefer digital. For critical color work I would
use 4x5 slides, which can be scanned and printed if desired.
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family . com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce . com [Office]
Robert Peirce wrote:
> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> slides.
I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
* w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/manyara.sunset.c01.17.2007.JZ3F7144-9b-800.html
Roger
> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> slides.
I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
* w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/manyara.sunset.c01.17.2007.JZ3F7144-9b-800.html
Roger
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net > wrote in message news:465116AF.4050902@qwest . net ...
> Robert Peirce wrote:
>> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color slides.
> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
This is amazing!
> and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
> mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
> these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:
>
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html
>
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html
Huh??? A four-frame mosaic hand-held, of two ***ANIMALS***?!?!?!
NEAT!
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/manyara.sunset.c01.17.2007.JZ3F7144-9b-800.html
>
> Roger
Interesting work, to say the least...! ;-)
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail . com
* w w w .donferrario . com /ruether
David Ruether wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net > wrote in message news:465116AF.4050902@qwest . net ...
>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>
>>> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color slides.
>
>> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
>> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
> This is amazing!
>
>> and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
>> mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
>> these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html
>
> Huh??? A four-frame mosaic hand-held, of two ***ANIMALS***?!?!?!
> NEAT!
Oops. The zebra sunrise was done hand held, but the two zebras
(mother and colt) where on a Wimberly mount on a safari vehicle.
I have many mosaics of animals I'm working on, some dozens
of frames.
>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/manyara.sunset.c01.17.2007.JZ3F7144-9b-800.html
>>
>> Roger
>
> Interesting work, to say the least...! ;-)
Thanks. Digital has opened up new worlds for me.
The other area where digital shines is low light,
high ISO, e.g.:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/m45-700MM-8534-8561_C16B-add27-v3-800.html
which was done from a light polluted city. Such
an image is impossible on film from a city and to get such an
image would require dark skies (no light pollution),
larger lens and longer exposure times.
Digital has higher signal-to-noise ratios than film,
and in higher ISOs much higher resolution. Here are
summary pages:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
and
* w w w .clarkvision . com /imagedetail/index.html#sensor_analysis
Roger
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net > wrote in message news:465116AF.4050902@qwest . net ...
>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>
>>> Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color slides.
>
>> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
>> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
> This is amazing!
>
>> and I've pushed my own ability for large pixel count
>> mosaics into new areas could never get with 4x5, e.g.
>> these hand held mosaics from a vehicle:
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebra.sunrise.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0891-6c-1200.html
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/zebras.c01.23.2007.JZ3F0584-91d-800.html
>
> Huh??? A four-frame mosaic hand-held, of two ***ANIMALS***?!?!?!
> NEAT!
Oops. The zebra sunrise was done hand held, but the two zebras
(mother and colt) where on a Wimberly mount on a safari vehicle.
I have many mosaics of animals I'm working on, some dozens
of frames.
>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.africa/web/manyara.sunset.c01.17.2007.JZ3F7144-9b-800.html
>>
>> Roger
>
> Interesting work, to say the least...! ;-)
Thanks. Digital has opened up new worlds for me.
The other area where digital shines is low light,
high ISO, e.g.:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/m45-700MM-8534-8561_C16B-add27-v3-800.html
which was done from a light polluted city. Such
an image is impossible on film from a city and to get such an
image would require dark skies (no light pollution),
larger lens and longer exposure times.
Digital has higher signal-to-noise ratios than film,
and in higher ISOs much higher resolution. Here are
summary pages:
* w w w .clarkvision . com /imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
and
* w w w .clarkvision . com /imagedetail/index.html#sensor_analysis
Roger
In article <465116AF.4050902@qwest . net >,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net >
wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
>
> > Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> > slides.
>
> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family . com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce . com [Office]
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net >
wrote:
> Robert Peirce wrote:
>
> > Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
> > slides.
>
> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>
> * w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
panoramas together.
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family . com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce . com [Office]
"Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family . com .invalid> wrote in message
news:bob-6D8882.15432724052007@news.verizon . net ...
> In article <465116AF.4050902@qwest . net >,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest . net >
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>>
>> > Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
>> > slides.
>>
>> I haven't taken a 4x5 film image in over a year now.
>> I've replaced it with digital mosaics.
>>
>> * w w w .clarkvision . com /photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
> Impressive but probably beyond my ability. I have trouble stitching
> panoramas together.
>
> --
> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
> bob AT peirce-family . com [Mac]
> rbp AT cooksonpeirce . com [Office]
>
Impressive indeed. From time to time one finds a jewel amongst all the NG
noise. Off to research Panoramic tripod heads, great, more gear to spend
$$ on.
Patrick Ziegler
w w w .imagequest.ifp3 . com
Next: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Previous: Digital camera review on long term test (and torture test)
