Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Crazy Film People Feel Left Out...  
User currently offlineDeaner From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 42 posts, RR: 7
Posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

...of all this digital RAW talk. We have "raw" photos too, though we usually have to work on 'em for a while to make 'em acceptable. This is what one of my good old 150mm as-usual-not-flying shots looks like fresh out of my scanner. I scanned the underside of the Prime Minister's wing at 600 DPI and compressed it to jpeg level 8 in PShop to bring it down a little from 18 meg. I envy those RAW digicam files for their smaller (yet lossless) sizes. There is next to no dust visible here because I was using Astia Quickload. No curves. No levels. No adjustments. Just Nature's remedy. The depth of field was wonderful.


http://www.members.shaw.ca/dallchin/polished_wing.jpg



Deaner




12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirbus_A340 From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

Deaner, that's lovely! Glad to see us film users can do the same as those digital!

Trevor



People. They make an airline. www.cathaypacific.com
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1603 times:

Deaner - the small RAW files is a little misleading ... afterall you can't DO anything with a RAW until you convert it - a 16 bit TIF extraction of a D60 RAW actually comes out at 36mb.

No question (in my mind) that slide film is still a superior medium to digital in absolute terms ... the problem is that a slide by itself is of limited use (for me anyway) - I have to scan it or print it to get a useful finished item. So much is lost in this interim process that the DSLR, in my opinion, can hold its own or even get the advantage over film.

Of course I'm talking about 35mm here ... I think you're moving the goal post just a tad with your steup !  Smile

Lovely shot (as usual).

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

Nice like usual!

-Dmitry


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Here is my go at this, a Sensia 100 slide scanned on the Minolta Dual II, only saved as jpg (quality 10) in Photoshop. No editing done.

Click here

Staffan


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

While I may discuss digital alot, I still do plenty of good ole scanning of my slides and still shoot alot of slides so i'm on both boats here and support both platforms

Joe


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1411 times:

Have a look at this...

Full size tiff on Nikon Coolscan IV of a Provia slide. Only converted to Jpeg with no compression.

WARNING 7MBs

Click here



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineLewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3622 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1398 times:

In my opinion, digital can be better than 35mm scans. But I believe that no digital photo from a DSLR can be as good in quality as this medium format scan from deaner.

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1378 times:

Right now as I see it scanned 35mm slides, are nice overall but the smoothness of the colors just aren't there as you see it in digital.

Though Deaner's Medium format scans (which format are you using exactly), they seem to have that smoothness, probally has something to do with the scan size.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

PPGMD, thats because he only scanned it at 600 DPI, Wietse and I scanned ours at 2700 DPI, which means that grain will start to be visible.
Deaner's photos are really great looking!

Staffan


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2717 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1352 times:

All I can say is poor digital guys. I have a drum scan of a Velvia transparency that is 9000 x 6000 pixels. This is a 154 meg file size and when printed on glossy photo paper at 150 dpi on a high resolution commercial printer gave me a print of 40" x 60" and the quality is awesome. It looks stunning on my living room wall.

Maybe someday digital will catch up. But for now, top quality demands transparencies, at least if you plan to go big.

Steve


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1342 times:

Steve, in absolute terms you are correct - but life is full of compromises. I'm happier with D60 output than 35mm up to around 8x10in. Things even out at around 11x14in. Beyond this, given optimum processing, film still outperforms (latest Kodak and Canon may change this).

But, being realistic, I considered how many really large prints I make (or perhaps more to the point sell) - the answer, very few. My work tends to centre around the 8x10.

If I were regularly working with large prints, I probably would have opted for medium format rather than digital.

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1331 times:

The new Hasselblad lets you switch between a film back and a digital back, it's rather pricey though..  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Staffan


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...
Bringing The Film Camera Back Out posted Fri May 27 2005 05:21:50 by Flpuck6
Help! Film Ripped Out Of Spool While Shooting. posted Sun Feb 16 2003 03:25:33 by BO__einG
Gonna Try Out A Black And White Film Sampler posted Sun Jun 30 2002 15:13:33 by L-188
Out Of Date Film/Expiry Date posted Wed Oct 17 2001 20:05:45 by G-CIVP
Clear Enough? Scanned From Film. posted Sun Aug 26 2007 05:07:15 by Opso1
Another Motiv Rejection - People posted Wed Aug 15 2007 12:26:38 by Walter2222
Scenic View Out The Office Window... posted Thu Aug 9 2007 03:07:44 by Opso1
Taking Shots On Film. posted Thu Aug 2 2007 16:42:42 by Farcry
I Wish People Would Just Ask. posted Thu Aug 2 2007 04:59:20 by Psyops
Is "burn-out" A Problem? posted Tue Jul 24 2007 02:00:49 by DC10Tim