Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is This Shot Digital?  
User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Hey guys!

I found this shot, shot be Vasco. Very beautiful. Would like to know if it is digital, if so, what kind of camera/lense?

I see a bit of grain in the sky, but still digital quality.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



Lets here it.

-Dmitry

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3670 times:

Date Taken : August 21, 2000

It aint digital! AFAIK but im pretty sure

LGW


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

I am pretty sure this one is scanned, not digital.

Regards,
Frederic


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

just look for the scan dirt and you can see that it's not digital. also, look at the grain.

mike


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Definetly not digital, or else it's a pretty poor digital cam. And I know that Vasco shoots slides, so there ya go.

User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3511 times:

This one is just another clean, old fashioned film scan by Vasco. Rumour has it - he may be moving into the digital world sometime in the next year or so. Would love to see it. Inevitable - sooner or later the "dark digital" side will claim enough to declare superiority over film... Wait - what is that you say? Ah yes - I realize this... many of my friends do not like digital music - they still are in love with vinyl - and listening to their favorite tunes on old fashioned turn tables (record players).

Vinyl - film - digital photos...

whatever... to each his own


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

I've also been told that digital is "cheating" ...

But where do you draw the line?

People using these high-tech film bodies have all the good stuff - pinsharp, amazingly fast autofocus, numerous automatic modes, a truly "live" view from the viewfinder...

 Insane

-Shawn


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Those people would shit a brick if they were given one of the old, full-manual film bodies like I have. That's "real" photography.

User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3457 times:

D,

thanks for the plug, but this sure is no Digital.
I like the shot a lot, but did not use a Digicam then and have no one right now.

Vasco



User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3438 times:

Vasco, what film did you use?

-Dmitry


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3432 times:

D,

Sigma 170-500 f5.6-6.3. shot at 500mm (afternoon light)
Kodak Elite Chrome 100.

I am sure if I rescan the slide today, it would look somewhat different!

Vasco


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Great results! Has that nice shiny look. How come you shoot on Elitechrome?

-Dmitry


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

1.) I am not a slide trader
2.) I don't like K64
3.) K14 processing stinks




User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

You don't like Provia?
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

Jan,

I have been shooting Elite Chrome for about 2 years!
Since most pros either shoot K25/64 or Provia 100F I bought 2 rolls of Provia and tried it the other day.

Looking forward to the results!

Vasco


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

one of the old, full-manual film bodies like I have. That's "real" photography.

Having shot extensively on both old cameras (and I mean old - no built in light meters, nothin!) and the latest and greatest (D60), all I'll say is that I have more options and flexibility now than I ever had before. Sometimes I shoot full auto, sometimes full manual - usually something in between, depending on circumstances. I find I'm working more "with" the camera rather than "around" the camera, if you see what I mean.

I remember going to a lecture given by a noted commercial photographer who sold fine art images at huge prices. His gear was Hassleblad. When question time came round, someone asked if he had ever tried stretching his artistic development by using only a box brownie ... actually that's the gist of the question, the actual question was much more convoluted and full of long words. But the answer was succinct - "why the hell would I want to do that!?"

"Real" photography? Don't know what that is ... what I do is try and make pictures that look the way I intended when I pressed the shutter ... call it photography, digital imaging, whatever.

What I do know is that I have far more control over my pictures since I used a computer rather than a film lab to make my prints, and I also think my "picture taking" has further improved since I went digital - but I'll leave you to decide that for yourselves ... most of my pics have equipment details.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Hey Colin!

I think is great when you include the settings you use on each photograph, please keep doing so. And, keep those sweet pics coming!

-Dmitry


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3298 times:

Tell tail signs:

Grain in the sky, this is sooooooo characteristic of a slide scan, digital grain looks alot different (it looks digital, surprisingly).

The shadow side of the aircraft is not 'clean'. There is grain caused by the darker areas of the shadows, which is also a characteristic in a slide and something you do not get with digital (no grain in shadow areas especially on high end digital cameras). Only digital fault is that everything will be distorted if it is a low end digi-cam, not just grainy.

Most of all, this pic is very contrasty, which would explain the 'digital' look.

dan  Big grin


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

Welcome back Dan.

Vasco, was this still on the tired S20?

If so, it still outputs some pretty good scans. I am curious to see what you can do with provia!

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3300 times:

Wietse,

well back then, Aug 2000, the S20 was only a couple of months and some hundreds of scans old.
There are some other images I could point out from older uploads which could be also "digital".

If I have time, I'll do so.

Vasco G.


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

yeah, I'm not that impressed by the S20 but this is a pretty good image, and i assume it was the scan that was originally uploaded?

Especially considering you were shooting the aircrafts dark side!!! Tribute to a great (non-K64  Laugh out loud) photographer I might add  Big thumbs up.

thanks Wietse  Big grin


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

Vasco,

I didn't have a look at the date on which it was added.... I figured it was a recent upload. I am sure that when the scanner was still new it produced some perfect scans. (result can be seen here)

You are not getting into a new scanner no right? Weren't you saving up for a D100?

Wietse




Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

Nope, no new scanner for me!
For my way of shooting, Digital is the way to go! Now I have to save up some money! 600mm f2.8 will be a killer!

Yes I am aiming for the D100.

Vasco







User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5494 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3187 times:

I have yet to try Provia 100F, I have 2 rolls still in my bag. The S20 is a pain in the butt, I can't get rid of the pink/purple horizontal line on the prints and negs.

User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Vasco, how come you want the D100 instead of the S2? Any particular reason for that choice?

-Dmitry


25 AKE0404AR : Well, If I have a choice, I would go for the successor of the D1X........ Seriously, right now I have not made up my mind, but tend to go with the Nik
26 Post contains images EGGD : I see why Vasco would go for the D100 as he is such a proud nikon user (ps. nikon sucks ). I'd take the D100 ove the S2 as well as the results from th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is This Shot Framed Correctly? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 17:29:59 by AIRBUSRIDER
Is This Shot Level? posted Fri Aug 5 2005 12:38:45 by FlyingZacko
Is This Shot Level? posted Mon Mar 28 2005 17:15:26 by Crank
Is This Shot Level? posted Fri Nov 19 2004 05:04:32 by Clickhappy
Is This Shot Salvagable? posted Fri Jul 23 2004 20:28:58 by BA
Why Is This Shot A Badouble? posted Mon Jul 5 2004 18:16:53 by Hisham
Is This Shot Worth Appealing? (size Rejection) posted Mon Jun 16 2003 19:38:06 by Clickhappy
Is This Shot "greatly Oversaturated"? posted Mon May 5 2003 00:14:06 by Shawn Patrick
How Is This Shot Possible? posted Fri Oct 4 2002 02:14:18 by BR715-A1-30
Is This Shot Worth Uploading? posted Sat Jul 6 2002 09:22:17 by Bruce
Is This Shot Worth Appealing? (size Rejection) posted Mon Jun 16 2003 19:38:06 by Clickhappy