Always disapponted by my (digital) pictures

On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:13:03 +0000, Roy G wrote:


"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
richness.

I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
analogue.

Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
satisfied?

I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!

Mike

Hi.

I have read this thread, and I do agree that the images straight from a
Digicam, (mines is Nikon D70), seem less saturated, less contrasty and sort
of dull compared to well exposed slides.

This just seems to be the way they work, it is not neccessarily a fault, it
is a after all an entirely different medium.

I always apply some post correction to the images, and if this is done
manually and carefully, you will end up with images which are at least as
good as your film ones.

I have scanned Fuji Slides at 5400 Dpi and my 6 Mp DSLR can match them for
quality.

I would NOT advocate altering the In-Camera settings to enhance Saturation,
Contrast or Sharpness, because any damage caused by those settings can not
really be undone.

I would also not apply any Auto corrections in your Editing Program, do it
by eye.

If you are considering changing your Camera, ensure you get one with RAW
capability, because you will then be able to control the image processing to
give the results you want.

Just remember Digital is Different from Film, and probably better, but Very
Different.

Roy G

Brings up an interesting point. My previous two digital cameras (Kodak
DC210+ and Minolta dimage s4) seemed to produce better photos 'out of the
box' than current cameras. It seems that the more flexible and capable the
camera, the more you can do to 'tweak' the images - the more you HAVE to.

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
richness.

I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression etc.,
but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of the best
analogue.

Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
satisfied?

I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!

Mike
It is impossible to know without knowing what camera you have been
using. If it is a VGA P&S, then I can understand your problem.
However, most non-professionals would agree than digital has advanced to
the point where even P&S cameras make as good a picture as a similar
film camera with the same features. At some point, the benefits
decrease percentage-wise as you spend more.

Dave Cohen wrote:
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel
Pentax Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the
standard of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME
Super. When I look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without
exception analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and
lacking in richness.

I always use the best quality digital settings, least compression
etc., but nothing I've taken has the depth and richness of colour of
the best analogue.

Has the quality of digital improved over the past 3 or 4 years? If I
upgrade my camera to something with more MP am I likely to be more
satisfied?

I would be grateful for any advice from you experts!

Mike

I doubt a different camera will solve your problem, which isn't to mean
there aren't better models out there. Take a good look at the mass of
on-line samples taken with various cameras. See if these match what you
are getting. Download a few sample files and see if the print results
are satisfying. I have a lot of trouble seeing significant differences
between my old film and current digital shots.
Dave Cohen

I can see the differences, and they are dramatically in favor of the
digital camera.

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
jeremy wrote:

You fail to mention exactly what characteristics you don't like.

Digicams with small chips tend to produce more noise--especially as
the number of pixels increase.

Difficult to be specific, it's just a general dissatisfaction with a
sort of uninvolving "flatness", just an imporession of a drear
unexciting effect.

I think the problem you are referring to is the characteristic curve
of digital versus slide film. Digital cameras have characteristic
curve most similar to print film. However while both print and
slide films have a "toe," digital does not. You can see these
compared at (e.g. Figure 8b):

Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

It is the toe that is set to black in a print or on screen that
"clears up the fog" and make the image snap.

The solution is to add a toe using a curves tool. Here is a good
article on using curves:

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/c...1/curves-1.htm

There is a huge advantage (and fortunate necessity) of the
digital characteristic curve: you maintain detail in the shadows.
While digital can clip the highlights, especially well below where
negative film saturates, digital goes way lower on the shadow
side. Thus, digital must be exposed and processed differently
than print or slide film.

So, to get the best out of digital, you must post process.
The advantage for me is I find after using the curves tool
on digital, I produce a nice image, with less contrast but more
shadow detail than I could get with slide film (I mostly
used velvia in 35mm and 4x5).

Photo examples on my web page: http://www.clarkvision.com


Digicams that use autofocus may not always focus as you would have
done manually.

Digicams have large depth-of-field--and I personally like to shoot at
shallow DOF, to visually isolate the main object from its
surroundings. I also like creamy bokeh--especially from Pentax
(analog) lenses. Little digicams cannot produce those effects.

What about "big" digicams, such as SLR, although my days of carting
around several pounds of equipment are behind me.

Depth of field is controlled by lens aperture and circle of confusion
in the final image. Achievable DOF is also dependent on
pushing the camera to its limits (e.f. small aperture = longer
exposure times and/or higher ISO = lower signal to noise ratios).

e.g. See: http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/dof_myth

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:


Immensely helpful reply, very many thanks.

Roy G wrote:

I have read this thread, and I do agree that the images straight from a
Digicam, (mines is Nikon D70), seem less saturated, less contrasty and sort
of dull compared to well exposed slides. This just seems to be the way they work, it is not neccessarily a
fault, it
is a after all an entirely different medium.

An excellent description of the problem.

If you are considering changing your Camera, ensure you get one with RAW
capability, because you will then be able to control the image processing to
give the results you want.

Yes, my existing camera has TIFF not RAW. I'm leaning now towards
getting a SLR, and will insist on RAW.

Just remember Digital is Different from Film, and probably better, but Very
Different.

Roy G

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
Jim Townsend wrote:

What are you comparing? Are you looking at your camera images on
your monitor while holding film prints in your hand?

No, I've scanned all my old slides on to pc.

Do you realize that you can edit your Pentax images to increase the
brightness, contrast and saturation and that most people usually do
this?

Yes, but as I said elsewhere, this seems to be an admission that the
digital camera is inherently inferior at capturing a satisfactory
image if I always have to manipulate them later with additional
software.

I understand that thinking, and don't want to "cheat" either. On the other
hand...with film, we often choose something like Velvia, which is known for
its super-saturated greens... So is that cheating too? Opinions will vary,
but for some reason...if it's FILM that's the culprit of the "cheat," nobody
seems to complain. "Digital Velvia" should be equally legit...or equally
not so. There are extremes which I always find troublesome, but there's
some wiggle-room in BOTH camps.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
: Roy G wrote:
:
: I have read this thread, and I do agree that the images straight from
: a Digicam, (mines is Nikon D70), seem less saturated, less contrasty
: and sort of dull compared to well exposed slides. This just seems
: to be the way they work, it is not neccessarily a fault, it is a
: after all an entirely different medium.

: An excellent description of the problem.

Don't you know? With today's cameras, its not a problem, it's a bonus
feature.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

On Thu, 03 May 2007 17:47:39 +0100, Mike O'Sullivan
wrote:

Always disapponted by my digital pictures, I've had a 5 megapixel Pentax
Optio for a few years, but nothing ever seems to come up to the standard
of my best analogue pics, taken mostly with a Pentax ME Super. When I
look at my hoard, the pictures I most enjoy are without exception
analogue. My digital pictures by comparison seem flat and lacking in
richness.
Mike

I have not seen this nonsense for years. Are you trolling the list?
If not you are either inept or ill equipped.

DLS

"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
Keep in mind that when a commercial printer does printing on a film
print, the processor there does similar post processing to what is
required for a digital print. So BOTH film and digital images are
usually "post provcessed".

Yes, good point, BUT I use almost exclusively to take pictures on colour
reversal (slide) film. I've always been suspicious of just the kind of
manipulation that took place in print centres when films are printed. I
have since scanned all of my slides on to hard disc. These are what I'm
comparing my digital pics with.

I you take the same shot with 6 different slide films, you'll get 6
different photos. Every film has a unique colour balance and saturation, so
it's not really fair to compare. Regular Ektachrome looks flat compared to
Ektachrome VS.

Bob