Is this the work of a $2000(US) lens and a high-end film scanner? Here's the best my $300 Canon Rebel G (with the standard 28-85mm lens) and an HP S20 film scanner can do. Both photos were shot with Kodak Royal Gold 200 print film:
Pretty pathetic in comparison to Chris's scans, if you ask me! I'm willing to spend some money on good equipment, but how much do I need to spend for SHARP images? Can some of you post some of your pics here and explain what type of film/camera/lenses were used? Thanks much!!!
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3924 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
Quite frankly Scott, your shots look very nice to me. Perhaps the AF is a little soft to to the shallow depth of field, and may be you might want to tweak the contrast a little in your imaging program. Overall though your work is rather nice, and your scans appear to be every bit as crisp as Chris's.
I believe what you may be looking at is the quality of light, your AW shot appears to have been taken at mid-day, where as your AF shot appears to have been taken on a overcast day, this can effect the overall quality of the photography. Where as Chris's UA shot was taken on a sunny day where the sun was behind the camera.
Often we are overly critical of our work. I often say to myself " If Johan accepts it, then there must be something to about it". And it would appear that your work appealed to Johan, otherwise it would have not been accepted.
Rindt From Germany, joined May 2000, 930 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1669 times:
For starters, I find that most people who shoot slides have better pictures. When I say this, I mean higher sharpness, and overall quality. I'm not saying that print-shooters are bad, but in general, slide-scans seem to come out better.
While I have recently upgraded camera equipment (and how!), I did use cheap-stuff for years, and achieved satisfying results.
The two pictures below are examples of slides scanned with a 15-20 yr old camera(which I still use by the way!), a $200US scanner (which I still use) and a $300US 28-300mm lense (which I don't use, obviously). Basically, the cheapest equipment you can get.
Keep in mind though, there is full-sun in both shots, which is a major factor.
I have recently replaced my 28-300mm lense for a 35-70mm F3.5 Nikkor lense, along with an F2.8 80-200mm Nikkor lense, but these two lenses alone are about $1500-1750 together, definitely a major investment. While newer cameras offer faster focusing, I always use manual focus, and with the 80-200mm lense you can visually tell that you are IN focus, where as I'm sure many of you know how hard it is to really tell if you are IN focus with a cheaper lense. It's a pain... actually, for me, that WAS a pain
To do an exact comparison with Scott, the photo below (although shot with the new lense)is taken at the same spot (NWA Cargo) at LAX, of the same aircraft, an Air France B747-400, even F-GITC, however, in much better weather, and with Kodachrome 64 slide film. My shot was scanned with the cheap $200 scanner, a Tamarack 2400FS. I edit (basically just resizing) with PSP 5.0
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Hey guys...thanks for the replies. Yea, I guess I never really knew how much good light can effect the outcome of the picture. I spent a little time browsing through some pictures on this site, and the ones that had the most impact to me were the ones shot in a stong lighting condition. No more cloudy day shooting for me!
Oh...BTW, I downloaded Vuescan (like Jasonm suggested), and I am WAY IMPRESSED!!!!! I didn't know my S20 could scan like that! Thanks!
Ken757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1588 times:
Ok Scott, it's not your camera.. It's your FILM.. Mainly the images you see are from K64 slides not print film.. Start shooting in Kodachrome K64..U will also need alot of Sun light to shoot..with this film but the quality is great and really clear images..
F-WWKH From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
Actually that United aircraft is not sharp, you can not even read the reg or the 'Worldwide Services' on the nose. As for the rest, is has been summed up already but would just like to comment that while slide films provide the best results during sunny days it is not everybody's attitude to let a great motive go just because there is no perfect sun. Some aircrafts/color schemes only come once in life. For such moments I tend to say that slide shots without sun look crap - films might be the better choice there.
Pascuzzi From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
There may be multiple solutions to your troubles, and first, I'd get some good software, such as Corel PhotoPaint 9.0, or Adobe Photoshop, which permit you to really clean up and sharpen images from either poor or even good scanners. I use the former, and you can compress images and then reduce them in size to create a sharper looking image, as well as play with a number of other things. Also, try investing in a good scanner, and scan from prints and not negatives (even though prints are enlargements of negatives). Also, light is everything in obtaining a sharp image, as is the quality of your lenses. Are your lenses fully coated, or just coated? How many elements in them? Are they flat field corrected? Are they plastic, or glass? While of course many sports lenses are great for aviation photography, they usually cost as much as a car, and most of us don't care to jump that far into our hobby. Also, are you using 35mm or medium or large format? Larger format negatives give much sharper and crisper images, so you may wish to get a Mamiya 645 or Pentax 6x7 camera,...but again, you'll need a second mortgage to do so.
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1477 times:
You are recommending all the wrong programs! Why empty your wallet when you can get a program JUST AS GOOD for free?! I use The GIMP for Windows. It is 100% FREE, NOT shareware, NOT demoware! It is a VERY powerful program, I'd say it's twice as good as Paintshop Pro($110)! I say it's in the business. I paid $40 for my scanner(HP 3200C). I scan at 400DPI. Then I use the GIMP and do all the editing, and images like these:
Nikonman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
Two things I see wrong with that picture...Bad borders (You cannot have WHITE borders in a picture, it looks like schitt) Secondly, the ramp is all washed out, I'm not sure what you metered off of, that sometimes happens, but try to avoid that, as it's quite distracting, maybe get down low and shoot...
As for 6x7 cameras or MF ones, they are wonderful, if you have the room, money or paitence to load the 6x7 film sheets. A 6x7 is not the best for AV photography...