I was on a roll with Google today, so I found the following link. It’s a little dated, but I think some of the basic questions are answered. Maybe it will at least give you a starting point.
Hi BETH, Again you are jonny on the spot! I’ve read through and copied over a dozen pages and think I understand a little more. It does seem to be a more advanced feature of cameras and photographers. Since I’m looking at a new camera, it is nice to know about the better features …. eases my mind and gives me more clout to fight off the guilt of spending $$$. Thanks so much. Marty
One really great advantage of RAW is that it stores 100% maximum detail in minimum space. My Minolta Dimage 7HI raw files are about 9 MB, but when I open them then save them as TIF files the size increases to 25 MB. So by using RAW I’m saving 60% in storage space compare to TIF while maintaining 100% of the detail information. Can’t beat that! God bless, Robert
For more info on RAW formats, I suggest you do a search thru the Canon and Nikon forums on <http://www.dpreview.com>. Try using the search terms "NEF" for Nikon and "CRW" for Canon. I think you’ll find lots of people who only shoot RAW, and good reasons why they do.
My 2-cents worth…
If you’re serious about the quality of your photgraphs, if you’re someone who keeps and protects film negatives, I think RAW is the only way to go.
RAW is the digital negative, and it offers the most options for processing it. All the light / color info that hit the sensor is captured without artificial manipulation.
If you’ve shot a RAW picture, you can not only manipulate it in PS, but you have many adjustment options in converting from RAW. Some of the obvious helpful adjustments include, white balance, exposure, contrast, sharpness, etc. Sure you can do this in PS (and some people prefer), but the process in conversion software is more camera-like. For example, on some programs,you can change exposure + or – 2 EV steps. Still no replacement for good exposure in the first place, but pretty handy to save some pix you might otherwise discard.
My My, what a lot of help from you’all. Of course I’m not sure that it IS a help….to my budget, that is. I’m really eying the Nikon 5700 and waiting for a Christmas sale to show up. Thanks for helping me make up my mind. Marty
MARSH, I did look up the ..dpreview.. I have Nikon View 4 and wonder if I should get the free Nikon View 5. The latter (5) at the time of the article (2002) "did not uncompress NEF (RAW) files but left them intact." And something about "…IPTC not under Windows XP" I have XP. Are those two negatives really so important as to keep me from using the version 5? If not and I download 5 then should I remove 4 or just leave 4 on in case the 5 doesn’t do its job? Now there’s some dandy little questions!! Marty
My Minolta Dimage 7HI raw files are about 9 MB, but when I open them then save them as TIF files the size increases to 25 MB
Robert, I assume the TIFF files are uncompressed. LZW compression would reduce them by about one third. But I am really interested in the RAW files…why are they so small? They must be compressed. Can you (or anyone else) explain to me why RAW files would be smaller than even uncompressed TIFFs? I thought RAW files were uncompressed. Each pixel requires at least 24 bits, more if your camera can give channel depth greater than 8 bits. I would think that would be true for RAW or TIFF. Please, somebody explain what’s going on here… Bert
Chuck, Thanks very much for the link. I guess I should have known about RAW format…I’ve certainly heard a lot about it here, but I never wanted to fool with the special software, so I remained ignorant. Now I see why it is smaller than TIFF. Pardon me for asking a really stupid question! I might like to try it sometime, but I wonder…I upload my images using a card reader, not directly from the camera. Is there proprietary software to do that? Well, never mind…probably depends on the camera. I’ll see what Olympus has for my E-20. Bert
More than likely, copying from the card reader to your hard drive should just be a drag and drop procedure. Where the special software comes into play is converting the Raw images into something you can work with.
Richard, Yes, I should have been more explicit. I’m not worried about copying the files…I’m worried about the conversion process, which I thought maybe was designed to work with direct uploads from the camera only. I obviously need to research this a little and stop asking dumb questions here. Bert
Conversion from RAW is not part of the upload from camera process (at least not in Canon and Nikon, those are the 2 I’m familiar with).
It’s a 2-step process:
Step 1; Upload image files from the camera to the computer. This can be directly from the camera or via card reader. No matter how you do this, it’s just a disk to disk transfer. No matter what format, you’re strictly copying files. Drag and drop works great, but some of the proprietary programs simplify the process and make it look nicer.
The CF card is just another form of disk media. When transfering directly from the camera, the camera is merely acting as a card reader.
Step 2; Convert the files from RAW to whatever. Here’s where you need to consider what you want to convert with. Besides features, you need to consider how they fit your preferred workflow and the quality of their conversion algorithms. The one’s listed below get a lot of positive reviews.
Camera manufacturers include basic conversion software, but considering the "law of no free lunches," you usually have to spend some $$ to get better control over the conversion process.
Examples of "better lunches" include: BreezeBrowser (mainly for Canon), Capture One (for Canon & Nikon), NikonCapture (Nikon proprietary for NEF files), Adobe CameraRaw (wide range of camera support, but I think you now need to buy full PS). All these programs cost approx $75-100, but will give you great control over conversion.
BTW – Does Olympus use a RAW format? I once had a C4040, and it only shot in jpeg or TIFF. I’m not familiar, but I’ve come across little talk about Oly RAW formats. Just wondering.
You probably have nothing to lose by trying Nikon View 5.x. The installation program or Read Me doc should tell you whether you can run both versions in parallel. I’d guess you probably can.
Regarding the uncompression of the NEF files….this is a good thing. It means that the original NEF file will be left intact. Manipulation during the conversion process happens to a copy of the original.
Regarding the IPTC feature not working on XP, this was probably a bug that likely been fixed by now. The DP Review article was written in April, 2002.
Accept for pros, I don’t think too many people imbed IPTC data in their files. I save the EXIF data, but don’t bother with much else.
My E-20N does provide a RAW data capability. Data is saved at 10 bits/channel, and file size is stated to be "about 10 MBytes."
A plugin for PS is provided. I don’t know if it will work with PSE. I could contact Olympus Tech Support, but I think I’ll just try it and see what happens.
As shared earlier, copying from flash memory onto disk is lossless. The RAW file is just another file. In fact, the memory stick is just another device, just like a disk or a floppy. You can even save Word docs, Excel spreadsheets or any other file that will fit onto it, just like a disk and right alongside your photos. Digital cameras are effectively just little portable PCs.
Just a quick word re: RAW viewers etc. The camera companies’ raw viewers can be pretty basic and no-frills. My Minolta Dimage 7HI came with a pgm called Dimage Viewer. It’s ok but it has a couple of annoying habits:
1) it flashes a small Preview image prior to displaying the real one — there is a check box that unchecking will make that preview go away but the box is checked by default and there’s no obvious way to make unchecked the default….
2) it’s slow — takes 30+ seconds to open each picture.
But all that said, it’s still worth its weight in gold! RAW is the best!
Anyone know of a faster 3rd party utility that supports Minolta?
Robert, Yeah, I know about card readers. I have two…one for CF and one for SM cards. I bought them a long time ago before the "universal" type were common. I use them for transferring all different types of files between my two computers. Thanks to you and others, I’m now a little smarter about RAW files. I still have a couple of questions, though:
1. My Oly E-20 has menu options to turn off most image processing…both sharpening and contrast enhancement. That leaves only the interpolation process, I think. If the interpolation process performed in the camera is the same as that performed in the PC, then the only advantage of RAW images over highest quality JPEG is the loss due to JPEG compression. Is this correct?
2. This is probably a dumb question: If you are shooting in RAW, can you review the image on the LCD monitor on the camera? i.e., does it do a special processing of the image just for that display?
Bert, when I gave you that website to read about RAW, I had googled for it because I didn’t know the answer either…! And I’ve been using RAW for more than 18 months… Oh, well….!
Bert, on my Canons, the review process is the same for RAW and JPEG, probably because what you see on your LCD is a mini-JPEG created by the camera. Also, the software I use for conversion shows a small version of the photo before it’s converted. No use wasting time on one of those pictures where I thought it triggered, only to find that it finally did so after the camera was pointing at my feet…
Re the question of interpolation in RAW vs. compression in JPEG, I am back to clueless about RAW again… I get the impression that there’s more to the difference than that, but I just don’t know.
I can’t explain it, but one thing I did notice is that, since I started shooting RAW, 4~6 weeks ago, my pictures look much more better. I’ll confess that I’m not using Canon’s software anymore. C1LE (Capture One Limited Edition) has helped a great deal.
But, software asside, you can easily make a mistake by feeling the picture is ok on the LCD screen of the camera, but realizing that the picture isn’t exactly what you’d hope for once you get back home. That’s where RAW comes to play. You can adjust the picture, correct the White Balance, make any kind of manipulation very rapidly. Of course, almost all of this can me made in Photoshop (Elements and not), but it usually takes more time, and the result (at my level of competence) aren’t always what I’d expect them to be.
RAW saved several pictures when I thought the flash had fired, or when I was underexposing when I should have actually slightly overexposed my pictures. All this without introducing grain in the pictures.
Since then, RAW is the only way to go for me. Unless what I shot isn’t really worth it, or space becomes very limited. On a 512MB card, I can put about 60 pictures. That’s not a lot.
Ray, some good points you’ve cited. I’ve had occasions where the view on the LCD showed details present in the shadows that were absolutely gone when I opened the JPEG – then I wished I had been saving in RAW….
I won’t pretend to be more clued in than Chuck 🙂 (actually he’s very clued in, to say the least), but here’s my take on it based on his url and one or two others I checked.
RAW format is a bit-for-bit transfer of the CCD data onto the memory card. Light values in digital cameras are converted internally by the CCD into a stream of binary values (0’s and 1’s) e.g. 10001111010111…. etc. This same exact stream of bits is written to the memory card without any change or interpolation at all.
(NOTE: If you’re familiar with ftp in unix or windows, it sounds like roughly the same principle as binary transfer compared to ascii transfer. Binary ie. ‘bin’ transfer is lossless and bit for bit identical to the original source file. ASCII transfer re-formats the source file into ASCII format, which is lossy for non-ASCII source files. )
Each viewing device interprets and displays the raw file in its own way. The advantage of RAW is that each device interprets and displays the original, not a copy/interpolation/interpretation – sort of like listening to a tape compared to a listening to a taped copy of the same tape, except it’s digital.
From my personal experience the Minolta Dimage 7HI seems to use as little interpolation as it can, and displays accurately what the camera actually recorded. I can see if a shot is overexposed or off-balance colorwise. It even enabled me to shoot a stage show hand-held in a dark theater and the pictures turned out just great (as long as you know how to control exposure for high-contrast, hot spots, etc.) including a shot with a spotlight on an actor and the rest of the stage completely dark.
The only issue is that the LCD display is a bit coarse (the newest ones are sharper) but the color and exposure are accurate.
The Dell 1703FP flat panel monitor is equally excellent, plus much sharper.
P.S. According to one article I read JPEG is worse than TIFF because each time you save a JPEG file it degrades, until it finally becomes unviewable — like recording a tape onto another tape, etc.(though that could take lots of saves, I imagine). Since JPEG is lossy compressin, that makes perfect sense if the JPEG image is re-compressed each time it’s saved.
Has anyone experienced that? If so, would pay to always keep the raw and/or tiff files around….
P.S. According to one article I read JPEG is worse than TIFF because each time you save a JPEG
file it degrades, until it finally becomes unviewable — like recording a tape onto another tape, etc.(though that could take lots of saves, I imagine). Since JPEG is lossy compressin, that makes perfect sense if the JPEG image is re-compressed each time it’s saved.
Has anyone experienced that? If so, would pay to always keep the raw and/or tiff files around….
You can trully see degradation in picture quality after the 4th save, sometimes earlier than that, with JPEG format. I always burn the RAW + TIFF files on any CDs. This way, if I want to use any particular picture, it’s already available. Besides, Photoshop Album 1 didn’t recognize the RAW files of my Canon. And the RAW is like an original, something you never throw away 😉
I’m well aware of the "lossy" compression in the JPEG format…but I still save my backups to CD as JPEG’s, and here’s why: My Oly E-20 is a 5 megapixel camera. I bought the camera from a friend with a stack of 128MB SM cards. If I saved in TIFF format, I would get 8 pictures per card. If I saved in RAW I would get 12. I’d be shuffling cards like a Las Vegas dealer! OK, I could buy some larger cards and throw away those six SMs. Um, well, I guess I’m not that rich. Also, I go on some long trips overseas, and I don’t want to carry a laptop to download cards. I’ve thought about an electronic wallet, but it’s just another thing to carry, and I’m already loaded down with camera gear, and many of the places I go restrict the weight I can carry. I do extend the capacity of the SMs somewhat, by using a 1GB IBM Microdrive, which I use for image storage. The E-20 has both CF and SM slots, and allows file transfers between slots, so when the SM cards are full, I transfer the images to the MD and then reformat them for reuse.
So…I save in JPEG format, the highest quality, called SHQ, as it is on all Olympus cameras. The files vary from 3 to 4 megabytes. I can usually get about 33 shots on a 128 MB card. Ok, I’ve got a JPEG. Why should I convert that to TIFF or PSD before archiving it? Any image I work on gets immediately converted to PSD, of course, so there never is any JPEG compression loss…except that very first one on the camera. I have looked long and hard at my images, and yes, if you blow them way up and look closely, you can see the JPEG artifacts. I have decided that for me, it’s acceptable. I guess I’m just not that much of a perfectionist. I want to learn about RAW, though, so that if I wanted to do a few really high-quality shots, I could use it. But most of the time, I expect to keep on keepin’ on with JPEG’s. bert
Incidentally, found a great way to improve RAW file handling.
I just installed my Minolta Dimage Viewer onto my new computer (2.8GHz P4 w/ 512MB RAM and 7200 rpm disk) and it worked much faster than it does on my 1.4GHz laptop w/ 5400 rpm disk and 512 MB RAM.
I tried Dimage Viewer vs. BreezeBrowser demo vsn and found that on my Dell flat panel display the Dimage Viewer image is noticeably sharper with noticeably better color than BreezeBrowser delivers when opening the same RAW image.
I’m definitely sticking with Dimage Viewer. I always liked the quality, just not the speed. Now speed is no longer a problem.
Guess the best recommendation I can give now is to get a fast cpu and use the camera manufacturer’s included RAW file program viewer. Should work just fine and you can always save as TIFF if you want to use Adobe. Maybe that’s why Adobe discontinued the Camera Raw plug-in, it’s not necessary any more w/ fast CPUs, can’t say for sure. I just know I’m happier now than I was just an hour ago.
I’m not trying to convince you of the virtue(s) of RAW. To each photographer is own prefered format. One thing though, never throw away any card! Even if you buy bigger ones. I kept all my old cards when I got the 10D (2 x 128, 1 x 96, 1 x 32) and believe me, they’ve all served at least on two occasions. It’s like have spare change in front of a vending machine 🙂
There’s a reason why I use TIFF as a method of saving. I’m using other graphic packages (I confess, I’m a cheater!!) and when saving the work, the JPG would get recompressed on each occasions. Using TIFF is a way to avoid that recompression.
Ray, Don’t worry, I’m not throwing away any cards. I even kept the little ones (8 and 16 megabytes) that came with new cameras. I use them for file transfers between computers. Re TIFF format: TIFF is kind of a universal format accepted by most applications. If you can use LZW compression, it reduces file size by about one-third, but not all apps recognize it. I use TIFF for all my scanned images, rather than JPEG. My film scanner resolution is 2820 ppi, so a 35mm slide is about 10 megapixels, which means file size, uncompressed is 30 megabytes (I use 8-bit color depth since PSE doesn’t handle 16). Even sith LZW compression, files are still around 20 MB. I just added a second HD (160 GB), and I have about 150 backup CD-R’s. TIFF files are BIG!!! Bert
Have been looking for a new camera, and the Olympus c-750 feels good in the hand and has good reviews. In view of the discussion re RAW, it seems that this camera does not have this option. See below: 3,200 x 2,400 SHQ, HQ (Optimum Enlargement Mode) 2288 x 1712 TIFF SHQ, JPEG 2288 x 1520 (3:2 MODE) TIFF, HQ, JPEG 2048 x 1536 SQ1 High JPEG 1600 x 1200 SQ1, Medium JPEG 1280 x 960 SQ1, Normal JPEG 1024 x 768 SQ2, High JPEG 640 x 480 SQ2, Normal JPEG 320 x 240 @ 15fps QuickTime Motion JPEG 160 x 120 @ 15fps QuickTime Motion JPEG Should this deter one to purchase this unit? Ken
Ken, I don’t think I’d make the absence of RAW a big part of the decision – there’s a TIFF option and of course the very large JPEG’s. That 10:1 optical zoom is certainly an attractive feature. Steve’s Digicams has a favorable review; the only issue I see that would concern me a little is the electronic viewfinder’s dimness in low light. Other than that, everything is thumbs up!
The first reviews I saw of the C-750 said the image quality was mediocre, but more recent reports have given it good marks on optical performance. Conventional wisdom is that zoom lenses are not as sharp as fixed-focal length, and that extreme zooms like the C-750 and the Nikon CP 5700 (8x) are hard to build and the necessary compromises in the lens design degrade image quality. FWIW… Bert
That has not been my personal experience. Early zoom lenses had that problem but that was solved some years ago. Nowadays, for most good zooms, most zoom degradation is only theoretical, i.e., no longer visible to the human eye. However, as so often happens in life, the reputation continues long after the change has been made.
My Minolta Dimage 7HI has a 28-200 optical zoom that is tack-sharp corner-to-corner at every focal length so far.
But even prior to going digital, my Nikon zooms were razor-sharp and I stopped carrying around a cadre of fixed-length lenses some years ago and just carried 2 macro-zooms. Needed a longer tele-zoom but never got one.
Now I’m glad I didn’t. With the Minolta Dimage 7HI I’m now a complete convert to digital. Besides the 28-200 zoom it also has 2 macro settings, one at 28mm and one at 200mm. It also has technology that gives its minimum f8 aperture much more depth of field than a mechanical camera, the equivalent of f16 at least, from what I can see.
And there’s more — it has a digital doubler that effectively doubles the zoom range to 400mm. Plus it has a remote flash port (removing my final hesistation to buy it), electronic cable release, built-in ground-level viewfinder, and on and on and on. It even has night vision.
And with 7HI + Adobe Photoshop Elements + Dimage Viewer I don’t need as many filters, can do better after-shot tuning and do it faster.
I no longer have to carry a bag of lenses and equipment, just one camera, 3 filters (skylight, polarizer, 81A), memory cards and batteries+charger in a small camera bag. Talk about travelling light. It’s a dream come true for me. Nowadays for me ‘travelling heavy’ means carrying a tripod 🙂
Chuck and Bert, Thanks for your input. I tried out the c-740 at Best Buy in the store (they don’t stock the c-750) and focus was OK for me. My old Kodak digital is definitely difficult to focus under dim illumination. The new Kodak DX6490 has a larger screen, but the camera seems bulky in its configuration. I know that I would need my tripod to take full advantage of the zoom even though I don’t have a tremor. Joe Henry bought the DX6490 and I am expecting him to repost as to his findings. When all is said and done, it will be a compromise. Film is still the gold standard it would seem. Ken
A lot of people share that view. I am thinking of going back to film once in awhile, mostly as an experiment, and as a way to get a 10 megapixel camera without spending a ton of money. My film scanner gives me about ten megapixels from a 35mm slide. I would like to take some identical pictures with a good 35mm SLR and with my Olympus E-20 and compare the resultant images, blown up in PSE. I would like to find out if, after you digitize the film, there is a significant difference in quality. I’m sure there is if you take the negative and make a print directly with an enlarger, but there is NO way I am going to go back to setting up a darkroom in my house. Bert
Bert, I’m with you. Have a complete dark room that has been unused for at least 15 years – enlarger, trays, timer, lights, etc. Looked at pictures which I took with my Minolta Vectis APS camera recently, and even that equipment eclipses what I can produce with my digital camera, hence my quest for a new camera. I really don’t expect the level of perfection that someone like Leen gets with his professional equipment. The Kodak picture CD’s that one can order at the time of development of film produce marginal results in my opinion; I understand that photo CD’s are available for a price, but I have no experience with them. Ken
Ken, Photo CD’s are basically high-quality scans of slides; at my local higher-end photo processor, they’re $2…..per image! At that rate, a film scanner like Bert’s could be a good investment…
Though in sympathy I’d like to agree, I reluctantly beg to differ on this point.
Film is not the gold standard any more.
And even in the few cases where it may still be, it will not be for long.
At the high-end photo shop where I bought my Minolta Dimage 7HI there are 20" and larger blowups from 4MP to 6MP cameras printed on high-end inkjet printers on glossy photo paper that are as clear and color-rich as any 35mm enlargement I’ve seen at that size.
The same shop has on its wall poster-sized advertisements done by a Leaf Systems 30MP digital back that are every bit as clear and color-rich as medium format film, if not large format.
Finally, there are 150MP backs for 4×5 cameras that are better than film.
Higher-end digital backs are very expensive still, but for enlargements up to 16×20 and possibly 20×30 digital can match 35mm film nowadays even in the 4-6MP range, with the possible exception of ultra-fine grain films like Kodachrome 25.
I was skeptical of digital until recently, when I saw that fantastic print quality and a full-featured professional quality 5MP (which the Minolta certainly is), but now for me there’s no looking back.
I have a Mamiya RZ67 that I almost stopped using when I bought the Minolta (and I only had it for a few months!). I keep for its unique 180mm VariSoft portrait lens but as soon as digital backs for it become affordable I’ll switch to them immediately.
Robert, the technology may be there for digital imaging that’s close to the quality of film, but to purchase the equipment you cite (digital backs) one probably needs a gold mine to finance…The price/performance ratio needs to improve quite a bit more before the rush to professional or prosumer digital becomes a flood. A 20 megapixel SLR for under $1500 would be my kind of breakthrough (believe that was on Grant’s wish list a week or so ago….)!
hey, remember the price of VCR’s when they first came out ??? Remember how everyone wanted one and it was the new ‘in’ thing in technology to have ?? Well, it wasn’t that long ago and look how far we’ve come..no ‘they’ve’ come. I give it 5 to 7 years and then everyone will be able to afford one. Oh, and the cameras we just bought will be laughable 🙂
James replies: I think I paid $599.00 for the first and $59.99 for the last one. I still haven’t made the switch to DVD other than on the computers. It drives me nuts to sit still long enough to watch a movie. The last movie I saw at a theatre was the original release of Jaws.
Is your Apex DVD the one made in China that can also play CDV’s (movies in CDV format are cheaper and widely avialable in SE Asia)? If it is, you got yourslf a good one. My son has one of those and the picture quality is almost as good as DVD.
I don’t have extremely expensive equipment, just an ordinary digital SLR, just like many of you. I just only dream about a Hasselblad H1 with a Xpress back. I can buy it, but I cannot justify the expenses to my wife. In my opinion -and my experience- digital 5 and 6 Mp cameras are superior to 35 mm film. It is different and you have to get used to blue skies without grain… When scanning the film you are scanning the grain too! You can add that to your digital noise.
Ken, Photo CD’s are basically high-quality scans of slides; at my local higher-end photo processor, they’re $2…..per image! At that rate, a film scanner like Bert’s could be a good investment
Chuck, No way I would pay $2 per image. My film scanner only cost $250. The problem with this stuff is that there are a lot of businesses out there trying to make a buck. I don’t have a problem with that, but as a hobbyist, their prices are totally outta sight! I’d like to have a 10 megapixel camera, but TODAY the price is outta sight. In a few years, it won’t be. In the interim, what’s the best workaround to get the best possible image quality at the lowest price? Maybe, just maybe…the best bang for the buck is 35mm film and a good film scanner. I don’t know that for sure…but I’m gonna find out. Stay tuned. Bert
Couldn’t agree more. I’d be broke as a skunk without my wife and would never have achieved what I have through God’s grace. And I know Bert is joking (just shared this thread w/ my wife 🙂 )
Incidentally, she just told me I can’t have a Hasselblad either 😉
But she really cracked up laughing when I told her (while trembling) the price of a 30 MP digital back for my Mamiya RZ67 that she let me buy recently — just love her up, Bert & Leen, she’ll say yes 🙂
Incidentally, it’s about $20,000 — makes the Hassy H1 look cheap. You can bet I’m waiting for the price of that one to drop!!!
Finally, in all fairness the companies are not as greedy as it seems from their prices. Hasselblads, Leicas, high-end Nikons/Canons etc. are *very* expensive to design and manufacture and the sales volumes are *very* low compared to the more popular (or even less popular) 35mm cameras we all know and love. So the costs have to be spread over fewer units = higher price per unit.
Eventually digital will surpass film just like CDs have surpassed cassette tape. It is literally the laws of physics of digital vs. analog everywhere – as you pack more data onto chips and chop it smaller the resolution gets better until no matter how large it’s blown up there is no visible degredation.
Chuck is right. In 10-20 yrs we’ll have giga-pixel cameras w/ 1000x zooms w/ near-zero distortion throughout the zoom range. Under $1500 to boot. And we’ll be able to fit 1,000 ultra-high resolution pics on a memory card. And have re-chargeable batteries that last for the full 1,000 frames 🙂 Until then we pay – dearly 🙂 and wait patiently.
But with all things digital, unlike all other things, time is on our side — not only do megapixels get cheaper with time, the products get better as prices drop. Can’t beat that with a stick!
Robert, You’re right, of course. My wife and I have a sort-of informal understanding. We share the decision-making on large purchases, but we grant each other some leeway to spend some "mad money." We just get out of each others’ way. She’s a travel nut…I’m a gadget nut. It works out. As for the prices of high-end cameras, etc…there must be a demand or the prices wouldn’t be there. Bert
My husband and I have a deal – I don’t complain (too much) when he buys yet another guitar, and he doesn’t complain when I buy camera/computer gear – although as he is currently the chief breadwinner my own sense of guilt and financial resposibility tend to reduce my purchases. He doesn’t have that constraint….
although as he is currently the chief breadwinner my own sense of guilt and financial resposibility tend to reduce my purchases. He doesn’t have that constraint….
That can be a problem in single-breadwinner families. Marriage is, of course, a partnership, with each person contributing in different ways. I am (was) the breadwinner in our family, but I had the same feelings you do when I wanted to buy a new toy. That’s why we worked out the idea of "Mad Money" that each of us can spend without consultation. It has worked for us. Bert
Same here. Neither my wife nor I are spendthrifts so it works out well. Even with two breadwinners both have to be somewhat responsible wrt spending or it can cause a lot of undue stress on the more moderate spouse.
Bert, you’re right, there are people w/ enough money or bonafide need that there is demand. In addition, the elite companies invest in technology that has more marketing value than practical demand for most buyers, but the ripple effect is tremendous.
Take Nikon, for instance. They’re the only 35mm to make a 2000mm lens. They sell for $16,000 and they only sell 10 a year (so they’re losing money on those on a per-unit basis, most likely) but for the 10 photographers on the planet that need them, they have them. They make other hard-to-get gear as well.
What that does for Nikon is that they keep the top pros really loyal and that has a tremedous ripple effect into the everyday buyer market (95% of pros use Nikons so by buying one I identify w/ them….) which pulls in additional sales and profit from less costly gear.
Those corner cases are what separates the elite from the rest of pack.
God bless you all richly and Happy Thanksgiving!!!!! Robert
Robert, I have never owned a "real" Nikon. (Coolpixes don’t count) I must say, I have lusted after a few, though. <grin> I really wanted a D100 when they first came out, and I suppose I could have afforded it, but I just couldn’t justify spending that much money on a camera. As you say, spouses have to be somewhat responsible if they are going to look their "other half" in the eye. Instead, I was fortunate enough to find a friend with a practically new Oly E-20 which he wanted to sell, since HE had just gotten a D100 for his birthday from his wife! So, it worked out well. I got a really nice camera for a very good price. I just filled a 128 MB card with family photos at Thanksgiving dinner today. Love that camera! Bert
I’m going to try to resurrect this thread. In post #48, I mentioned that I wanted to do some comparison tests between scanned 35mm film images and digital cam images. Well, I have some early results. I borrowed a very nice old Canon EOS 620 35mm camera from my brother-in-law. It’s about 1988 vintage. My initial tests have been with Kodak Gold 100 print film. I took three shots in my back yard with the EOS and three with my Olympus E-20. I posted them in my website so have a look if you are interested. <http://community.webshots.com/user/bigelowrs> The images are in the "Film vs. Digital" album. It should be the top one in the album list. I reduced the image size on all the images to 800×600, and it will be a little difficult to compare resolution. However, there are significant differences in color, particularly the sky. Part of this may be caused by the fact that I had some sharpening and contrast enhancement turned on in the Oly. I need to take some more pix with it turned off. The film images were MUCH flatter and softer, which may be partially due to the scanner,dunno. I did B&W point adjustment in Levels on all images…in R,G and B channels, and did a mild sharpening. Anyway, have a look and tell me what you think. Bert
Bert, to my eye, film wins Round One. One thought: color print film reportedly has much more exposure range than digital or slide film. I wonder how the comparison would have been using a color transparency film instead of the Gold 100? Of course, then you have the issue of scanning a 24x36mm slide instead of a 4×6 print…
I’m going to have to figure out a way to get into this game; I have the camera bodies but they share a lens set; need to plan my workflow..
Bert, I’m really fascinated by the comparisons of your images! In looking further at the first pair of images, I note that the utility wires are completely missing from the digital shot but very clear in the film version; not sure exactly how to explain that, but the overexposure of the sky in the digital version may have just overwhelmed the ability of the CCD to capture the detail of the wires. I wonder what would have been the result if you had dialed down the exposure of the digital by one-third to one-half stop in order to preserve the highlight detail…? I was able to balance the digital image contrast a bit by using the Contrast Masking technique discussed here this week (duplicate layer/invert/remove color/gaussian blur/overlay mode)but the wires are still nowhere to be found.
Bert, another observation: the depth of field/depth of focus is noticeably different on the first two images. In the digital, the berries in the foreground are in sharp focus; in the film version, they are out of focus. May speak to Grant’s concern about the difficulty in controlling depth of field in the digital domain…
Calculation of depth of field is a very complex formulation based on things like circles of confusion, focal length, and aperture among other things. A good rule of thumb is that for similar apertures the shorter the focal length the greater the depth of field. It is easy to see that a 10 mm lens has a greater depth of field than a 50 mm lens and this is regardless of the camera it is on. It just happens that 10 mm is close to a normal lens on a small digi and 50 mm is normal on a 35 mm camera therefore greater depth of field on a digi. A 10 mm lens on a 35 mm camera will give the same depth of field as on a digi, although not the same coverage of view. As I said these are rules of thumb and when you factor everything in there is a slight variance but it is slight.
As an aside Ansel Adams got wonderful depth of field not because he shot in 8×10 format but because he shot at f64.
Grant: I certainly feel like I spend a great portion of each day in a "circle of confusion"….not here, but at work!
Seriously, that’s a very helpful primer on depth of field. Is it fair to say that the smaller lens on a mini-digi acts more like a pinhole camera with its very large depth of field?
The depth of field of a pinhole camera is based on aperture not focal length for the most part.
As a note the normal lens on your dSLR is a 35 mm and 50 mm on you film camera. So we still have a depth of field difference although not a bad one.
Knowing these things can help at times. We all know or should that smaller apertures give greater depth of field but we should be aware of the focal length as well. If you are doing macro and you really want the most depth of field use as wide angle as you can go with the smallest aperture and you will have it. Then again you will have to deal with foreshortening but that is another problem
Now I am really off to the kitchen making a peach and pecan pie and corn bread today. Will drop back from time to time.
Bert, you’ll find that there’s a downside to using the exposure compensation: the resultant image can be very flat and lacking in contrast. However, a levels adjustment and/or curves adjustment will snap it right back in most cases and you’ll have your highlight detail and a pleasing image!
Nancy, I asked myself that same question…re sky color. I don’t remember, unfortunately. The sky in the film images is more natural looking, but notice the "haloing" effect around trees, etc. where it gets much lighter. I don’t know what caused that. I didn’t have any prints made, so I can’t compare the scanned images to prints. I just had the film processed without prints.
Chuck, I didn’t scan from prints…I scanned from the negatives at 2820 ppi, which gives me a 10 megapixel image, compared to 5 for the digital. I also noticed the greater depth of field in the digital shot. The EOS has a nice feature…in "auto" mode, you can turn the thumbwheel and change shutter/aperture combinations. I did this to try to keep the settings similar for both cameras. I think I will go to aperture priority for the next tests so I can keep the aperture the same. I’ll also try to keep the ISO settings the same so the shutter speed will be as close as possible. Since I haven’t got my tripod yet, I had to hand-hold the cameras, although I did try to steady the camera against something, and I took two shots with each camera, and then compared them to make sure I didn’t move the cam during the shot. I really should be using a tripod for this kind of thing. Print film has a very; wide exposure latitude. I think that’s why some of the "hot" spots in the digital image look better on film. I’m going to try some slide film next. Also, I’m going to turn off the sharpening and contrast processing that the camera is doing. I think that I will get a better comparison if I do all the processing in PSE. Anybody have any suggestions for other tests I could run? Any more comments? I think this is really interesting, and I’m having fun doing it. Bert
Bert, thanks for the explanation. Your scanner does a great job, considering that it’s working with a very small negative and it has to not only scan but convert to a positive! I’ve found that in contrasty conditions that I always have to set my digital exposure compensation to -1/3; that was recommended in the first book I read on digital photography (Ben Long’s "Complete Digital Photography") and it’s turned out to be good advice. I agree with the approach of getting a ‘neutral’ image from the camera and adjusting in PSE; do you also have adjustments working in the scanner software? It’s a great comparison – glad it’s fun for you!
do you also have adjustments working in the scanner software?
Chuck, I’m using VueScan with the scanner, which is a Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II. It does a Preview scan, and then makes gain adjustments in the scanner before doing the final scan. I can get a RAW image if I want to, I think, but the adjustments still leave a very flat image compared to the one from the digital cam. With the processing turned off, the digital images will be similarly flat.
Grant, Yes, I know that exposure latitude on slide film is narrower. And, I think I have read that color saturation is better too. It will be very interesting to see that comparison.
Oh, one more thing I’m going to do is go to TIFF images from the digital cam. That’s what I get from the scanner, so it’s one more variance I can eliminate in the test conditions. Bert
Did you scan in 4×6 photos? or did you scan in the negatives? Also, what was 1) the dpi for the scan? 2) the megapixel count/image for the digital camera?
Chuck is right, the film shots take this round, but my Minolta 7HI will do very nice blue skies. Getting them to display and print correctly has been really tough but that is a handshake issue between the software and devices, not a digital image issue per se.
If the pics were scanned 4×6’s, then there was color correction already done by the machines that printed them. That needs to be taken into account, as you may not have done the same color/contrast/saturation/etc. levels as the print machine did.
I’ve found that in contrasty conditions that I always have to set my digital exposure compensation to -1/3;
I’m not sure what you mean by "digital exposure compensation." Do you mean underexpose 1/3 of a stop? I find I usually have to nudge the RGB center point to the right in Levels on outdoor pix to get good color saturation. I can do the same adjustment on the camera, but I never have. It’s easy to do in PSE. I do it last, after setting the B&W points on each channel (R,G and B).
Bert, yes, I’m talking about underexposing when taking the original photo; otherwise, I ‘blow out’ the highlights in a contrasty picture (my review function on the LCD depicts that with blinking areas where blowout has occurred). If the detail isn’t captured in the original image, no amount of post-processing can bring it back.
Chuck, Yeah, you’re right…if you look at the bird feeder image, you can see where it "blew out" part of the post due to sun reflection. The film image looks better there. Hmmm. Maybe I better start making that adjustment too. THanks for the suggestion. Bert
the resultant image can be very flat and lacking in contrast
Chuck, That’s the way the film images looked after I scanned them. But, PSE fixes that kind of thing easily. I’d rather have a flat image than one that is too contrasty or overexposed. It’s much easier to fix. Bert
Bert, why are we comparing two completely different things? In my opinion this comparison has hardly any value, except for people using the same film, the same processing, the same filmscanner and the same camera and the same settings. There are too many variable factors that will influence the outcome. I just only do mention other variables like lens quality, algorithmes and other processing problems. Film and digital are two completely different things, the only thing they have in common is the andresult: an image on a piece of paper. It is almost like comparing an etching to an oil painting.
I appreciate what you are doing, but testing this way just only works for you personally and the way you are perceiving how an image should look. This only works for you.
When you want to compare two techniques you should be able to work from the "ceteris paribus" principle and change just only one factor at a time. Unfortunately this is impossible in this comparison.
Leen, I must humbly disagree with you on the value of this comparison. Bert, like many of us, has two options to capture the same scene – one film, one digital. If he has to decide which one to use in which circumstance, some side-by-side comparisons may be very instructive. To my eye, the differences are fairly dramatic. Some of the anomalies can be corrected with post-processing, but others go back to the basic image capture and cannot be ‘Photoshopped’. It may also be that the exposure range difficulties experienced in the digital images can be partially corrected in the future with camera meter exposure compensation; the film images gave a taste of what was really there to be photographed.
Yes, Bert’s specific comparison may not be universally applicable, but it has encouraged me to perform a similar experiment with my film Canon EOS Elan and my digital Canon 10D. My camera bag accommodates both, along with a small number of lenses. Perhaps I’ll start to recognize situations where film may be preferable, or perhaps I’ll find that in most cases digital will be fine and I won’t have to go through the extra steps and costs associated with film. Perhaps I’ll find that I like the film images better and will use the digital only to help define composition.
While the comparison has too many variables to meet the rules of a scientific study, I still think it can (and in Bert’s case does) show provide educational and practical value. I’m looking forward to performing a similar survey early next year.
Chuck, I think the comparison Bert makes is right. But IMHO any conclusion will only be right in HIS situation with HIS equipment. His results will most likely be different from other peoples experiences.
Moreover, just only the way the film is processed can be quite different depending on who processes the film in which way. When was the last time the chemicals were replenished, how constant is the temperature etc. Sometimes I needed a 1 hour processing, usually my films were processed by a professional laboratory. I can see the difference in my prints depending on who processed my films. Despite this 1 hour minilab deserved at least 2 Kodak awards for their film processing quality.
Of course sometimes film is a better choice than digital; especially when you are shooting in high contrast situations as B&W and CN film have larger exposure latitudes.
I don’t want to underestimate at all the work Bert does, but this research is so specificly tailored to his needs, it will be extremely difficult to come to a general conclusion as there are too many variables involved.
Leen, I agree with your points…difficult and perhaps misleading to generalize. However, it’s still a comparison I want to make for my situation and, to that end, Bert’s work is instructive and has increased my eagerness to try it. Thanks Bert!
Leen, You are absolutely right. As soon as I started this project, I realized the impossibility of really doing any kind of scientific procedure. There are simply too many variables! So, it is just an interesting exercise for me. I never expected that my results would have any universal application. I’m not even sure how valid it is for me personally! For one thing, I am not happy with the film processor. I see a lot of spots and scratches on the negatives…worse than some of my thirty-year-old slides and negatives! I think I need to find a new processor. What I hoped to learn from my efforts was whether it would be worth the effort and expense for me to keep a film camera for those situations where I wanted a "special" result. My photographic needs are quite different from yours. Most of my pictures are in the "snapshot" class, travel photos, etc. I probably should not have even posted those initial images. As soon as I looked at them, I realized a number of mistakes I made with both cameras. Nevertheless, the results were interesting, don’t you think? Bert
Chuck, I hope you do some similar tests with your cameras and post the results. You can eliminate some of my variables…in particular, you can use the same lens for both film and digital photos. I think your results will be very interesting. Bert
Bert, I don’t think there is any importance in the quality of the images you posted. The importance is in that you try to come to a conclusion with the stuff you have got to see what works best for you personaly.
About the problems with your filmprocessor. Most problems occur with machines in which film is led through chemicals instead of pumping the chemicals along a stationary film. Unfortunately you can find these better machines only in professional laboratories and you will have to pay at least 2x the usual price. In my opinion these extra costs are well worth the money, because if any negatives are damaged, these particular ones always seem to be the most important ones on the whole film.
Although our needs are obviously different, there is one thing we both strive for: the best possible quality. As it concerns myself, about a year ago I made the decision to go entirely digital. I think digital DSLR cameras provide -although different- better results than any 35 mm camera, due to the lack of grain.
Leen, What I meant was that I needed to do a better job of eliminating the variables in my testing, so that the results have some validity! But I am losing some enthusiasm for the project, as I am coming to the conclusion that you already reached that the results may not be meaningful even to me, let alone to anyone else! I think Chuck can do some better tests with his two Canon cameras, sharing lenses. Bert
Leen, I found your final statement interesting. I thought grain size in most modern films was much smaller than the pixels from even the highest resolution digital cameras. Bert
Bert, if grain size is smaller than the pixels from Hi-res cameras, that isn’t that important. You cannot compare the two. The main difference between digital and film you an find in parts of your image with just one or blending colours. Film based images always show grain in these areas, digital doesnot. Film can be superior in extremely structured areas or at edges. Fortunately most areas of our images are made up of one or blending colours. Some people still consider film superior to digital as it can show more lines per mm, but on the other hand, most manufacturers of lenses have had to redesign many of their lenses as this is required because of the quality of digital cameras.
Very interesting. Thanks. I obviously have a lot to learn about photography…even though I have been an amateur photographer for…let’s see…almost fifty years! Bert
With the very good questions raised by Leen, I think it would be more appropriate if you were to carry out the comparison check on your Canon gear. The lenses you use will be the same. The only steps that requiring outside help may be those of film developing and scanning. Unless of course you found a scanner in your Christmas stocking. 🙂 Part of the variables are eliminated. Of course, what we are not going after definitive research in scientific terms. But it will be instructive to get a fair inkling of the basic merits/faults of the film vs. digital under the same shooting condition.
From just looking at Bert’s comparo, my personal preference is for the film shots. They seem to have a better tonal range and neutrality in color balance, even allowing for the web pictures and my less than perfect eyesight.
You have the best of both worlds. Two types of camera bodies sharing the same lenses. What more can a person ask for? Except maybe a good scanner and a sturdy tripot.
Shan, good afternoon to you! Hope all is well in the City by the Bay!! I agree with you on the preference for Bert’s film shots, at least in this initial test. Regarding my future testing, I don’t have a film/slide scanner; it seems to me that in the interest of science I should acquire one, don’t you agree?!
Chuck, I think it would be hard to do justice to the film without a film scanner. Some people claim that the film adapters for flatbeds do a good job, but I am skeptical. I also prefer the film shots in my initial tests, but I am going to make some changes to my procedures which will give the digital a "fairer" chance. Bert
Bert, I’m looking forward to your next phase! And yes, I wouldn’t even attempt to scan film or a negative with my old Epson Perfection 1250, which isn’t really up to Epson’s standards IMHO.
Chuck
p.s Merry Christmas to you! Thanks for sharing your adventures with us in pictures and words!!
There’s bad stuff going around. I’m still coughing and hacking from a bug that I think my wife brought back from her Africa trip in November. She denies that she gave it to me, but you can never trust a woman on such subjects…:) Bert
"Yes, Bert’s specific comparison may not be universally applicable, but it has encouraged me to perform a similar experiment "
There is some good coming out of this thread. ***********************
Leen
"His results will most likely be different from other peoples experiences."
While this is true I suspect the trend will be the same. ************************ Leen
"I think digital DSLR cameras provide -although different- better results than any 35 mm camera, due to the lack of grain"
hmmmm you are loosing me on this generalization. I guess the converse is that film doesn’t have pixilation 😉
Knowing that a media has grain or lack of grain is only a tool. The advantage is applying this knowledge at the appropriate time. The same thing can be said about resolution or lack of resolution.
************************ Bert
"I think it would be hard to do justice to the film without a film scanner."
Woops I have a big problem with this one. The best way to do justice to film is not to scan it but to make and view a print. Scanners, even the best, alter the image by compressing the dynamic range, alter the colour and lessening the resolution of film. If you want to compare it to a digital, a dodge endeavour at best, compare prints to prints.
************************
Now my thoughts about making comparisons both Bert and Chuck are right, you should compare, you should look deeper. In this way you will get a feel for your equipment and hopefully have a better understanding of how to use it. Now Leen is absolutely right you should not make broad statements based on what you find as these results may only work for you. If you do this you are like the lesser thinkers of old who tried to find out how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Leen is also right in pointing out that you must eliminate as many variables as you possibly can.
When it comes to testing digital cameras against film cameras you should decide if you want to test camera against camera or both images brought into Elements and then see what happens. Adding the Elements step merely adds obfuscation. Take a photograph with your digital camera, properly exposed and focused, at the optimum settings of camera. Then take a film photograph the same way using film of the same ISO and field of view. Print or have printed excellent quality images of both and compare them. I think you will find that both film and digital are very different but each one will have their strengths and weaknesses. When you know the this you will be on the way to being a better technical photographer.
My complaints with digital is not in the quality of the image but in the cameras. Then I am comparing a top of the line 35 mm camera against a "prosumer digital" and that is not really fair. Heck all but one of my lenses cost more than the Canon G1.
Oh yes and if I can add a bit of gas to the fire film is still a whole lot cheaper than shooting digital 😉
Grant, I guess the converse is that film doesn’t have pixilation
That is true, but don’t we always print at a resolution at which we cannot see those pixels? Moreover, don’t we accept an image, shot on film, to have a certain degree of grain?
This is IMHO what counts. Like you stated, the only reference is a print. If this digital image has no visible grain or pixelation and the analogue image shows any signs of grain,which one will be the best? That is a different question than "which one do you prefer" as we are "programmed" to accept some "grain effects" in an image.
Colour differences aren’t quite an item IMHO. There are so many films with so many differences, so many processing variables and so many operaters that print a film like they prefer and on the other hand so many different colour characteristics between the various camera makers and the way people enhance their images in Photoshop.
As is said before this is not an attack on digital. There are differences and these differences should be understood.
It is very true that we tend to print so that we can’t see the pixels. This lack of pixels are both an artefact of the printer and Elements. If we blew up the images large enough and didn’t resize it in Elements and didn’t use a printer that interpolate the data we would see pixilation. For example take an image blow it up 300% and print it on a laser and then you will see pixilation. When we up size an image we resample. This re-sampling hides the pixel but the effect to the pixels are still there because we do not get any more resolution. Pixels like grain are what limits resolution (Not whole true but, a good starting point) The converse is true that is if I want to limit the appearance of grain in a film I just have to print through a mild diffusion filter. When I did this for money I used one of Doreen’s cast of nylons to do the trick, this removes both grain and added soft focus to the final print. What I lost was a degree of resolution with this trick what I gain was a print that was perceived to be softer. The wonders of products like Elements is that now I can do this digitally and I do not need Doreen’s nylons.
To add yet another variable to the equation. One of the draw backs to the race for larger mega pixels is noise. If you increase the number of targets on a chip without increasing the size of a chip you run into the problem with noise. This is best seen with 5+ mega pixel prosumer cameras as dSLR have not reached this state ….yet. This noise takes on the appearance of grain! So now we have the appearance of grain with not much gain in resolution hmmm we do live in an interesting time.
I do agree that the acceptance of a print with grain or not grain is a matter of choice or "programming" or ascetic. While a groom may love to see his bride without the "flaws" of grain, in the fashion industry a product may be marked with an avant-garde look heightened by grain.
I do agree that there are many variations on colour based on film choice, lens quality, sensor used and even the length of time of exposure to name only a few. Then couple this with the personal taste of the printer and we have a great deal of variation. While scan scanning does shift colours this can be restored in Elements. What can’t be restored is that the colour range is compressed during scanning.
Leen I to like this discussion I am leaning a whole lot from it.
I think it would be hard to do justice to the film without a film scanner."
Woops I have a big problem with this one. The best way to do justice to film is not to scan it but to make and view a print
Grant, My statement was in the context of film scanner vs. flatbed scanner. I was responding to Chuck’s comment about having doubts about his scanner. But, I should add that I do not view my tests as an academic study of film vs. digital images. I am seeking "real world" results for me. That does not include going back into the darkroom and fooling with enlargers and chemical trays! Therefore, one of the premises of my tests is that the film will be scanned. I realize that darkroom methods could theoretically produce a better result. However, in practice, the things I can do with Photoshop, even as a relative beginner, surpass anything I could ever have done in the darkroom, so I suspect that a print from a scanned 35mm negative would be better than one from my enlarger. That may not be the case for you or for many others, particularly Leen. Bert
Adding the Elements step merely adds obfuscation. Take a photograph with your digital camera, properly exposed and focused, at the optimum settings of camera. Then take a film photograph the same way using film of the same ISO and field of view.
Grant, Not to beat a dead horse here, but this statement from your post #100 illustrates the crux of what I was trying to say. I (and I think many others) do not CARE which method results in the best "raw" picture…straight from the camera. That is an interesting intellectual exercise, but I believe most people are interested in "which one will give me the best results?" And maybe more importantly, "How much additional effort is required to get those results, and are they significantly better?" Of course, each individual has to answer these questions for himself. There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. This is why I did quite a bit of editing on those comparative photos that I put on my website. I did the best that I could do with each one, because that is what I would do before I made any prints or slide shows with them. You might say those images represent my "bottom line." And in the end, that is what is important, don’t you think? bert
"And in the end, that is what is important, don’t you think?"
No! 😉
I was talking about "test camera against camera" also earlier Leen suggested lessening the variable something that I agree with. At that point I was talking about "my thoughts about making comparisons" and this in no way reflected on you personal quest. I still feel that the way I suggest will give a better understanding of the differences between two particular cameras.
I suspect most people are interested in preserving a memory and not interested in the "best results" or "effort". Disposable cameras out sell the sum of all other forms of cameras combined. On the other hand people who pursue photography as a hobby or profession are generally interested in effort and/or results. In our particular cases we just approach the goal in different ways.
I suspect that a print from a scanned 35mm negative would be better than one from my enlarger. That may not be the case for you or for many others, particularly Leen.
Wrong 😉
1- I am a lousy printer. 2- Today most negative prints are made without an enlarger. Modern laboratories scan the films and print the scans.
Item #2 is one of the main reasons why comparing is such a tricky thing. Modern printing machines scan the negative, enhance the scan according to standard algorithmes and print the scan. Printing with an enlarger always adds some diffusion and that’s why grain is so much sharper than ever before. This automatic enhancement usually means reducing contrast in contrasty scenes, saturating blues in the sky etc. Because of this modern technique our analogue prints today are much better than about 5 years ago. Just take the test and have a contrasty negative, older than about 5 years reprinted with one of these machines and you will be surprised by the difference.
Leen, would a consumer-grade negative scanner employ similar algorithms to enhance the results? Or is that like comparing a Yugo to an Aston Martin..? 🙂 Chuck
Chuck, I ‘m afraid neither you and I own an Aston Martin.
These algorithms are found in professional mass production printers. But I suppose we can do the same thing -and even better- with Elements as our production is custom tailored!
If you still like to compare: no production line Aston Martin, but a real stylish, mainly handcrafted Bentley!
BTW, I don’t own a Bentley either, just a simple small and lovely Hyunday. Colour: the most awesome green one could imagine; the dealer smiled when he finally found someone volunteering to drive a car with that colour. Now, two years later, everyone in our town recognises my car with my URL on the hood. 😉
Because of this modern technique our analogue prints today are much better than about 5 years ago.
The more this thread continues, the more I learn. But here, you confuse me, Leen. It sounds like these are not truly analog prints if they are scanned…or are you talking about an analog scanning process like video? Bert
I suspect most people are interested in preserving a memory and not interested in the "best results" or "effort".
Grant, This is certainly true of the general snapshotting public. The "most people" I was referring to were the people in this forum. And now it is my turn to apologize to you. You were talking about "mano a mano" comparisons of cameras as a study to understand the capabilities and limitations of each, and I was trying to relate your comments to my personal little project which, rather selfishly, concerns itself with what I can accomplish with the equipment I have available. Apples and oranges. Bert
Bert, modern printing machines do not print the analogue way any more. By means of scanning, enhancing and digital printing the negatives there will be more satisfied customers who will never know it was a machine that made them "great photographers". It is not like video, it is just like we are doing….
Some of the techniques applied by these machines are just like in another thread on this forum about contrast masking
I have recently purchased an A1 and done some research. Here is a link to a converter that appears to get really high reviews at dpreview.com and elsewhere. He provides a free trial, and lots of docs. It’s only $20 to get the full version, so well worth a look.
It’s a photoshop plug-in that also works in Elements. Now the browser will show your RAW images just like it does TIFF/JPG. When you open a file, it provides all the options.
The consensus for serious photographers (I’m not one, but like to read what the ‘pros’ have to say) is that various interpolation methods return varying results depending on the picture. Some interesting discussions at dpreview.com in the forums regarding this.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
