From: Peter Marshall (petermarshall@cix.co.uk)
Date: 06/27/03-04:11:13 AM Z
>
> Hi Yu -- I respectfully, disrespectfully, rashly and circumspectly
> disagree with your comments re "We don't want to lose or alienate
> members." And, "Off topic posts weaken the list's position as THE
> leading
> source of ALT Photo information." Etc.
>
> As I see it (after, can it possibly be 8 years on the list ?), the
> threat
> to "leave the list" is childish, like saying I'm going to hold my
> breath
> and then you'll be sorry.
>
> The list was, is, and will be special, with an incredible range of
> temperament, knowledge, information and ideas. If someone can't take a
> little guff, chatter, kerfluffle, INCLUDING the actually quite rare
> offtopic kerfluffle, they are --- well, in my opinion overly controlling
> and/or excessively fragile. Equally to the point, it's their loss, not
> the
> list's.
>
> As I've said before, we're not selling advertising. We don't need the
> numbers. Certainly folks have gotten in a tangle & left in a snit, but
> IME, the *threats* are ....uh, how to say this -- um, how about never
> yet
> has such threat come from a serious contributor ? And almost anything
> can
> alienate somebody... like a simple quote from Thomas Jefferson, of all
> things!
>
> So, to prove that I for one refuse to tremble, I admit that, much as I
> appreciate it, so far I have hardly understood the VERY savvy sounding
> digital camera advice. I've been coping with an 809-tooth, no make that
> 80
> tooth carbide tipped blade, among other disasters today, including 95
> degrees F on the streets of NY, and it's already 3:20 AM -- but I will
> try
> (tomorrow, or the day after) to submit a few of the intriguing and/or
> provocative sentences for clarification.
>
> Meanwhile, here's one to start-- I've heard everything from $800 to
> $8000
> dollars from folks willing to talk price... Is it possible to mention a
> price range here -- or is that just too crass?
>
> OK -- here's another. Upsampling? Downsampling? OK, they're in the
> Realworld Photoshop 7 book.... but I haven't spent my $8000 or $800
> yet. I
> want that camera. But don't really know when I can schedule the learning
> curve, being in another set of hills. Is there a digital camera with a
> straight line learning curve?
>
> cheers,
>
> Judy
>
Judy,
First can I agree totally with your comments about the list. Bite your
tongue as you say, and learn where the delete key is. It doesn't make
sense to reply or pester the list owner, the best way to deal with such
trolls is to ignore them.
I melt at 30 degrees Celsius by the way, so I'm glad not to be in NY now.
Digital cameras are part of a whole system, which all of us are still
learning. You can't expect to be able to jump in and win the swimming
titles.
You could of course get good results from cheaper cameras, and there are
certainly plenty of Dianas in digital, and a lot to be gained from
exploiting their possibilities.
Incidentally, I've just been looking at the Robert Frank London/Wales
pictures (unfortunately I wasn't at the Corcoran, had to make do with the
catalogue) where he was shooting with a Leica in near-zero light, and
technical image quality would get subzero marks, but they are some of the
strongest images I've seen in quite a while.
You get more or less what you pay for in digital. Cheaper cameras
generally give images that are not technically as good as the more
expensive professional models.
You do need to remember that not all pixels are equal. The size of the
sensor cells is important - and generally the larger the better (at least
up to a point.) A consumer digital has smaller sensors than a professional
model. This means less photons being captured in each cell for the same
exposure time, and it also means more electrical noise through
interference and amplification in the chip. So the data that is produced
isn't as reliable or clean with the smaller cells.
Also, the smaller the cell the better the lens has to be, but of course
the cheaper cameras combine smaller sensors with poorer lenses.
It looks increasingly as if we are going to see a standardisation for
digital replacement for pro 35mm cameras on sensors around half the size
of a 35mm frame, at around 5-10 Mp and a 4:3 aspect ratio. There may be
'full frame' cameras, but these are likely to be marketed as replacements
for medium format.
6Mp may not seem much, but I'm putting work from the D100 in an online
agency as 50Mb 24bit tiffs, alongside work from film at the same size. Can
you tell the difference? Yes, the digital doesn't have grain, is usually
sharper and the colour quality is generally better.
At the moment, if you want reasonable similar to 35mm quality you can get
it from cameras such as the Canon EOS-10D, Nikon D100, Fuji Finepix S2 Pro
and Sigma D9. Each has their strong and weak points, and I wouldn't
recommend one above the others. If you have Nikon lenses, then probably
you wouldn't chose the Canon. This week saw the announcement of a new
Olympus E1, which may rewrite the picture slightly, but we are waiting to
see the results for its imaging quality.
You will also need Capture One DSLR software for best results from the raw
files you will undoubtedly want to shoot. I tried this out and found it so
good I even paid for it. Some cameras can use the LE version, others need
the Pro, and this makes a difference of several hundred dollars to the
total cost.
Photoshop you will have anyway, but it doesn't do much of a job of
upsampling and downsampling. So add a few dollars for QImage (for PC) to
handle your printing and it does the upsampling without you having to lift
a finger. If you use a Mac, its a little harder (unless you use PC
emulation that can run QImage), but you can buy Photoshop plugins that
improve its performance in this area.
I print images from the D100 mainly at 15x10 and the results are generally
better than prints from 400ASA 35mm colour neg or b/w. I've blown up parts
of negs quite a bit larger (using QImage) with acceptable results. They
get noticeably different from film at high enlargement - no grain. I've
not used them to print negs for alt processes, but I don't think you would
have a real problem at 16x20. You might want to add some grain in
Photoshop as the prints do look too smooth.
If you want to get colours right in prints, then you will have to tackle
colour management. More learning and more dollars. The real pro level
stuff costs several thousand and includes hardware like
spectrophotometers. The new Colorvision PrintFIX gadget has got some
glowing reports and costs around $300 at the moment, though you also need
the monitor calibration spyder etc, so perhaps more like $500.
I've written perhaps a dozen features around this stuff for 'About
Photography' in the last year or so, trying to pin down the basics as
simply as possible, on things like choosing a digital camera, software
for printing, colour management...
For Photoshop, leave the 'Real World' on its shelf until you really need
it and take a look at Scott Kelby's 'the Photoshop book for digital
photographers' ISBN 073571236 which tells you exactly what you need to do
painlessly (except his 'humorous' style sometimes gets up my nose.) p68-9
goes through how to make the most of the limited upsampling capability of
PS. The book is worth every penny of what I paid for it on Amazon, even
perhaps its marked price!
Best wishes,
Peter Marshall
Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/
email: photography.guide@about.com
_________________________________________________________________
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
and elsewhere......
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 07/09/03-08:31:13 AM Z CST