A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 22nd 08, 01:27 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Doug McDonald[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Colin.D wrote:

Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to
color film without color shifts.



At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true.
The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier"
direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no
trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the
worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable.

Doug McDonald
  #22  
Old September 25th 08, 11:21 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:


Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your
claim?


Once again, you are demonstrating your complete
ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron.


and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as
I said, that image sucks. As do you.


Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it!




The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a
bull**** artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with
bull****. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes,
in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might
recognise another one when it comes along.


You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron,
COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post
of yours that demonstrates you are capable
of ANY smidgeon of reasoning.
Take some time off with the sheep, you need it!
plonk
  #23  
Old September 25th 08, 11:23 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Doug McDonald wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 10:27 AM:
Colin.D wrote:

Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to
color film without color shifts.



At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true.
The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier"
direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no
trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the
worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable.


Oh for Pete's sake! Do you even BOTHER
answering this idiot moron?
Last time he used film Kodachrome 25
didn't even exist!
  #24  
Old September 25th 08, 11:27 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 12:14 PM:

I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have.
Here is the demonstration:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...escue-98461919
same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour
saturation DIFFERENCE!


So you boosted the saturation? So what?


No. I left the sat exactly at default.
THAT, is the little flaw in your argument!

The color balance looks much more natural in the 5DII pic, and there
is details in the shadows as well. In your pic the shadows are gone.


When was the last time you saw an orange boat that looks
EXACTLY the same in the shade as in the sun? You call
that "natural"? NO WONDER you can't see the problem...


Oh yeah, it is no great feat to read wrting on a boat that is sitting
on a trailer. Try doing it on a speeding boat and get back to us. I
have a few of those shots myself.


Bret, don't be thick, ok? It's demeaning, even for you!
You can read SMALLER text in that image, then on the hat
it disappears?
Can't you pull your head off Canon's arse for long enough
to even reason that is simply NOT natural and is IMPOSSIBLE
unless there is something very wrong with that processor?
  #25  
Old September 25th 08, 07:25 PM
Harold Gough Harold Gough is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by PhotoBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 31
Default

The dynamic range is not all that great and the shadows on the horse lack any detail. I don't know about print film but a decent reversal film would do at least as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noons View Post
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:24 PM:


This is the kind of scene that is good for a test, bright light on the
highlight and very deep shadows.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103253296/original


Yeah, I know:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...mp-02-91534639
is an example. Once again, Superia 400. Not even Velvia
or Astia!


If you load that into photoshop and adjust so that you expand the
bottom 20 levels to go from 0 to 255 you will see that there is a lot
of detail in the shadow in those bottom 20 levels.

With the detail there I can, if I wish, pull the detail out of the
shadows with a bit of dodging.



Or if you scan for shadows and correct curve for highlights
like I did in the above example, you end up with detail in all
of it. That's DR compression and is what negative film has
been doing for eons.
"compression", because most srgb monitors and printers have
difficulty showing more than about 5-6 EIs, even though
8-bit colour video cards can *theoretically* show 8.



The only real way to compare film vs digital is to shoot the exact
same scene, having someone skilled with digital shooting the digital
shot and someone skilled with film doing the film shot.


Absolutely. Why do you think I have a D80 and film?
I *did* such comparisons regularly. And quite frankly,
there is simply no difference. With film, saturation
is easier to accent. With digital, you get less noise
problems. Overall, DR is the same in both. Medium
format is different, though. I still haven't worked
that one out, still trying to get it under control.

I reserve my opinion on this for raw files from the new
crop of dslrs, like the D700 and the 5D2: 14-bit colour
DR is some really serious stuff! If nothing else,
the resulting compression range will be amazing.


I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


Actually, I disagree here. Negative films can do very well,
but need proper placement of exposure in their dynamic range.
Usually this means correct zone system placement, rather than
just the usual "open up 1 stop". Slide film will cover 5-6
EIs easily, which if exposed properly is *more than enough*
for the VAST majority of monitors and printers out there.
Although of course dynamic range compression is less the
if the scene is more than 6 EIs, you gotta do some trickery
to get slides to cover it.


Over all I don't think DR is a large problem for either film or
digital, but the film fans that keep using the high DR of film as a
reason to shoot film often don't have a clue about what they are
talking about.


Exactly. In most cases it's not even high DR, it's just
different DR compression levels and ratios.
Most digital displays use 6-7 EIs at best and that's a physical
limit not easily overcome. Even less for most digital printers.
The workaround is to compress a higher DR into that range.
Which can be done with film or digital, it's just a means
to an end.
  #26  
Old September 26th 08, 05:58 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Colin.D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 217
Default DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Noons, 9/25/2008 10:21 PM:

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 9:31 AM:


Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating
your claim?


Once again, you are demonstrating your complete
ignorance: read the WHOLE thing, you moron.


and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so,
as I said, that image sucks. As do you.


Prove it, moron. Don't just make empty claims: PROVE it!




The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're
a bull**** artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle
with bull****. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you.
and yes, in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so
you might recognise another one when it comes along.


You're a complete ignorant and a demonstrable moron,
COlin. There is not ONE instance of ANY post
of yours that demonstrates you are capable
of ANY smidgeon of reasoning.
Take some time off with the sheep, you need it!
plonk


Clearly Noons is nonplussed by logical argument, so the usual ad hominem
attacks ensue. A sad case.

Lessee, what words descriptive of Noons come to mind? Argumentative,
yes; truculent, often; abusive, mostly; belligerent, nearly always;
bellicose, the same; ignorant, certainly; word-challenged, well proven;
repetitive, obviously; knowledgeable, only in his dreams; a credit to
his country, not likely; foul-mouthed, to the nth degree; a useful
contributor to general photographic knowledge, not often.

Yes, a truly sad case.

Colin D.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D! Noons Digital Photography 24 September 26th 08 05:58 AM
high dynamic range in P&S ?? minnesotti Digital Photography 4 October 27th 06 03:03 AM
Measurung dynamic range... Volker Hetzer Digital Photography 16 August 14th 06 05:23 AM
dynamic range Paul Furman Digital SLR Cameras 36 February 22nd 06 05:05 AM
Are we ignored regarding dynamic range? ThomasH Digital Photography 43 January 2nd 05 12:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.