From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 06/30/03-03:50:38 PM Z
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Peter Marshall wrote:
> 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.
I can't remember who it was, but I remember Beaumont Newhall telling the
story: when he was curator at MoMA he got some very fine printer (Ansel
Adams?) to reprint the negatives of--- oh it'll come to me in a day or so,
it could have been Moholy N. -- because the prints were so crude.
Newhall's punchline was that the "fine" prints didn't work as pictures the
way the "crude" ones did. Which is to say, those Franks might not be so
smashing with 10 zones (or are there 12 ?)....
> 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.
That's good to know, and certainly not true for restaurants...
> 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
How do you tell a "consumer" digital camera from a "professional" model ?
Is there a code? Simply by price? Something you know if you're a
"professional"?
> 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.
Didn't you just say the consumer digital has smaller sensors than a
professional model? Or am I confusing sensors with CHIP?
> Also, the smaller the cell the better the lens has to be, but of course
> the cheaper cameras combine smaller sensors with poorer lenses.
The friend who plugged Canon said they had a great zoom lens from (by
memory) about 35 mm to about 135 -- MUCH better than the old zoom lenses,
he said. I have about 5 Nikon lenses, but they're old -- AND HEAVY -- the
thought of one for all is very compelling -- I can't carry a lot everyday
& almost always have the wrong one.
> 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.
You mean the "frame" of extant digital cameras is half as large as 35 mm?
> 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.
When you say "film at the same size" -- you mean 35 mm film?
> 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.
You mean you need Capture One rather than just going directly to
Photoshop?
> 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 I'm printing gum, the grain will take care of itself.... or can easily
be made to.
> If you want to get colours right in prints, then you will have to tackle
> colour management.
Again, gum earns its keep -- the color is entirely optional... and much of
the point is it's not SUPPOSED to be "real."
> 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...
That's your website?
> 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!
Another point in its favor is no "Dummies" in the title...
Many thanks for all the good information. It's a bit daunting, however,
that one who has put in so much brain power still finds ifs ands and buts.
It makes me understand the urge to fundamentalism...
best wishes,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 07/09/03-08:31:14 AM Z CST