Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-23-2014, 07:48 AM   #121
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,479
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
My understanding is film as more tolerance on highlight and digital sensor like K5 have more tolerance on shadows
To continue a little off topic and as a current film photographer, I will chime in here. Your understanding is definitely accurate in regards to highlights and only partially accurate for shadows. Current digital cameras have better dynamic range than past models (about 12 stops* for the K-3 at base ISO), but still clip at both the high and low ends of the value scale.

The better color negative films (e.g. Kodak Ektar 100 and Portra 160) will support 12+ stops of dynamic range with a high tolerance for over-exposure. Color slide films traditionally have somewhat less range (about 8 stops). B&W negative films can support 14+ stops with appropriate development techniques. Forum user Tuco regularly produces film images with elements spanning a huge dynamic range while maintaining detail and pleasing tonality throughout.

Yo Tuco's Pyro B&W on Flickr


Steve

* Dynamic range is generally expressed as "stops" of exposure or as EV, though some (following Ansel Adams) will use "zones".


Last edited by stevebrot; 08-23-2014 at 11:33 AM.
08-23-2014, 10:46 AM   #122
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There's is only one person I know of, who shot one image with a K-01 and one with a D800 and showed the images printed at A3 to an independent person who didn't know which was which... and the results were inconclusive.
That's actually something I keep saying all the time ... the advantages of a larger sensor are invisible in many cases. Just not always.

Even between my 1" RX100m3 and FF D800E, many of my images are indistiguishable if not pixel-peeped. Esp. at day light and within the 24-70mm range.

But this doesn't contradict my statement. My D800E simply delivers a minimum quality whatever be the circumstances no other camera I am aware of is able to today. Which made me stop caring about technical aspects, or at least be less obsessed with them. It is more forgiving. Which feels like "liberation" for my more creative side.
08-23-2014, 10:49 AM   #123
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
That's actually something I keep saying all the time ... the advantages of a larger sensor are invisible in many cases. Just not always.

Even between my 1" RX100m3 and FF D800E, many of my images are indistiguishable if not pixel-peeped. Esp. at day light and within the 24-70mm range.

But this doesn't contradict my statement. My D800E simply delivers a minimum quality whatever be the circumstances no other camera I am aware of is able to today. Which made me stop caring about technical aspects, or at least be less obsessed with them. It is more forgiving. Which feels like "liberation" for my more creative side.
Good point....
08-23-2014, 11:22 AM   #124
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,479
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
My D800E simply delivers a minimum quality whatever be the circumstances no other camera I am aware of is able to today. Which made me stop caring about technical aspects, or at least be less obsessed with them. It is more forgiving. Which feels like "liberation" for my more creative side.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Good point....
I don't own a FF digital, but I feel much the same in regards to my film work.


Steve

08-23-2014, 05:07 PM   #125
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: LONDON
Posts: 136
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
To continue a little off topic and as a current film photographer, I will chime in here. Your understanding is definitely accurate in regards to highlights and only partially accurate for shadows. Current digital cameras have better dynamic range than past models (about 12 stops* for the K-3 at base ISO), but still clip at both the high and low ends of the value scale.

The better color negative films (e.g. Kodak Ektar 100 and Portra 160) will support 12+ stops of dynamic range with a high tolerance for over-exposure. Color slide films traditionally have somewhat less range (about 8 stops). B&W negative films can support 14+ stops with appropriate development techniques. Forum user Tuco regularly produces film images with elements spanning a huge dynamic range while maintaining detail and pleasing tonality throughout.

Yo Tuco's Pyro B&W on Flickr


Steve

* Dynamic range is generally expressed as "stops" of exposure or as EV, though some (following Ansel Adams) will use "zones".
Whilst you're on the topic of film... is this a good method of film scanning and how do you digitalise your negatives?

How to Scan Your Film Using a Digital Camera and Macro Lens

Also, if you were to take a photo with a film camera and sake it captured detail requiring 14 stops of dynamic range, if we were to then scan that negative would the DR of the resultant digital file be at the mercy of the scanner? Or is DR more about getting the detail recorded and once it is on film then you do not need such a wide DR to digitalise?

Just curious

Charlie
08-23-2014, 09:51 PM   #126
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 815
The one place I see where FF and even larger formats have a big advantage in is astrophotography, deep space in particular because you get a wider field of view. However this is actually a disadvantage when it comes to planetary photography.
08-23-2014, 10:50 PM   #127
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,479
QuoteOriginally posted by chaza01 Quote
Whilst you're on the topic of film... is this a good method of film scanning and how do you digitalise your negatives?

How to Scan Your Film Using a Digital Camera and Macro Lens
I have a pair of film scanners that I use and have no experience with this technique.

QuoteOriginally posted by chaza01 Quote
Also, if you were to take a photo with a film camera and sake it captured detail requiring 14 stops of dynamic range, if we were to then scan that negative would the DR of the resultant digital file be at the mercy of the scanner? Or is DR more about getting the detail recorded and once it is on film then you do not need such a wide DR to digitalise?
Dang! That is a difficult to thing to explain. The short answer is that neither your monitor nor most (all?) printers is capable of native display of 14 stops of dynamic range with full tonality. A quality scanner is generally capable of dealing with the full range of negative density, though it may require some tweaking or even multiple passes to do so. Part of the magic of a good scan and expert printing (you may also add traditional darkroom printing) is the art of working with the range of light.

Did I do a good job of not answering that question?


Steve
08-23-2014, 11:24 PM - 1 Like   #128
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
The DR of (negative) film is evident during capture. You can safely expose for the shadows, in some cases, by up to three stops while you get to keep your highlights from clipping. This is not the same as digital capture where you tend to expose for the highlights and try to push the shadows in post processing.

08-25-2014, 06:57 PM   #129
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 121
I've got 2 Leica M240's and they are not much better than the Fuji X. Really, I like the Fuji sensors better, but I like the Leica controls.
08-25-2014, 07:49 PM   #130
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,918
There are a plethora of people new to photography who see 'professional' photographers with full frame cameras and think that is what they NEED in order to take a quality image. They don't realize there is a such thing as Post Production involved in a lot of those artsy photos and that many smaller, more affordable cameras can do the same job for the majority of their applications.

Then those people buy on the second hand market.. which is thriving for both Nikon and Canon digital full frame. On the Buy/Sell/Trade local groups I see people with no clue about cameras asking for good deals on Canon 5d's and such..
08-25-2014, 10:51 PM   #131
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I have a pair of film scanners that I use and have no experience with this technique.



Dang! That is a difficult to thing to explain. The short answer is that neither your monitor nor most (all?) printers is capable of native display of 14 stops of dynamic range with full tonality. A quality scanner is generally capable of dealing with the full range of negative density, though it may require some tweaking or even multiple passes to do so. Part of the magic of a good scan and expert printing (you may also add traditional darkroom printing) is the art of working with the range of light.

Did I do a good job of not answering that question?


Steve
Steve. Good job not answering the question.

In reality I agree with you. While the camera or scanner might be able to capture this dynamic range, you can't print it or display it readily

So the question is, how to make use of something that is lost in the display. For me, this is where proper correction etc comes in. Maybe compress the middle and add more DR from the extremes, although this generally makes images look flat (like highlight and shadow detail protection can). It's a good question.

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 08-26-2014 at 11:34 AM.
08-26-2014, 03:25 PM   #132
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
I've been debating a reply to this thread for a while, but I think I've narrowed it down to two specific cases where I *think* I prefer images made on larger sensor bodies over smaller sensor bodies; either MF > FF, or FF > APS-C for example.

Case 1 are images that are fairly wide angle with shallow DoF, but a razor sharp subject. I can get close to that look with my Sigma 30mm 1.4 (at 1.4 or 2.0 depending on subject-background contrast), but it's not wide enough for my liking. I'm thinking 24mm? Dunno, I haven't researched it, because research is the first step to LBA...

Case 2 are portraits that are moderately tele, say between 85mm and 135mm on FF, again with good subject isolation. I can get close to what I want with either a 50mm or the short end of my 70-200, but I'd much prefer to have the perspective of 85-135mm for portraits. This is one case where random images on the interwebs doesn't help, because it's person specific. Is that persons nose really that big? Do their ears really stick out like that? If it was shot at 85mm, yes. 16mm, probably not... But clients sure can tell the difference when it's a person familiar to them! I should actually sift through my clients selects and see if there is a preference for longer focal lengths... hmm...

I guess what I'm saying is that I may not be able to tell all the images apart that others have made, but I do know the kind of images that I'd like to make, and I don't think it's as easy as it should be on APS-C... and very similar to the prior comment that the D800E sets a fairly high minimum bar across a wide range of shooting situations.

Now if I could actually mount my current glass to a FF I suppose I could take similar shots on ...ahem... 'equivalent' glass, and see if I can tell the difference. Then buy the FF anyway
08-26-2014, 04:16 PM   #133
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by noser Quote
Case 2 are portraits that are moderately tele, say between 85mm and 135mm on FF, again with good subject isolation. I can get close to what I want with either a 50mm or the short end of my 70-200, but I'd much prefer to have the perspective of 85-135mm for portraits. This is one case where random images on the interwebs doesn't help, because it's person specific. Is that persons nose really that big? Do their ears really stick out like that? If it was shot at 85mm, yes. 16mm, probably not... But clients sure can tell the difference when it's a person familiar to them! I should actually sift through my clients selects and see if there is a preference for longer focal lengths... hmm...
Not sure I really got it here...

You doesn't seem to say that subject isolation is a problem.

But you explain you want 85-135mm, I suppose as 35mm equivalent. That's 55-90 range. You can easily achieve that with DA50-135, or with maybe 2 primes. (DA55 + FA77 for example). Where really the problem then ?
08-26-2014, 05:45 PM   #134
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Not sure I really got it here...

You doesn't seem to say that subject isolation is a problem.

But you explain you want 85-135mm, I suppose as 35mm equivalent. That's 55-90 range. You can easily achieve that with DA50-135, or with maybe 2 primes. (DA55 + FA77 for example). Where really the problem then ?
The problem is that the focal lengths on APS-C are a smidge too wide, but just a smidge. Around the 85 range is where there is acceptable overlap between the two formats - it's just long enough to be flattering. But the sweet spot of working distance, area of subject in frame, etc is pretty specific.

At the longer end I've shot portraits at 135mm on APS-C, but the angle of view is like looking through a soda straw... I end up standing a mile away and shouting at the subjects to get the framing I want.

I just want the 'missing' area around the APS-C sensor back in the print. Same working distance, same subject.
08-26-2014, 06:21 PM   #135
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
Im pretty sure your absolutely right.


Most of the images on FF are stunning, whereas most of the images on APS-c are Shite.


Im convinced of this and that's without even looking and ill tell you why.


APS-c is chosen usually as a first "serious" camera, and the photographers who buy are usually clueless beginners, so they take crappy images and proudly publish them.


They take more and more thinking quantity equals quality, I know people who take 500 images in a day, ive met people who take 800 images in a day. I heard today of a guy who takes 4000 in a day, are these going to be anything other than a complete waste of time.


Very few of these idiots will progress into competent photographers who are capable of stunning work. And yes their APS-c images will be stunning by then.


But lets face it for every stunning APS-c image published there will be 100,000 garbage images, its no wonder you cant find any good APS-c images.


I have recently heard that photo stock libraries now are saying that all they receive day after day is garbage. This is the reality of the digital age.


On the other hand the photographers using FF are very likely to have already transitioned into competent photographers and so you will see plenty of outstanding images in FF.


The evidence does not support the view that FF produces superior images to APS-c images, it supports the view that APS-c users don't know what the hell theyr doing.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, advantage, aps-c, camera, charlie, colour, dslr, experience, ff, ff images, finger, flickr, frame, full-frame, fullframe, gear, image, images, lens, lenses, macro, mirrorless, mp, pentax, people, photography, range, sensors, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How & Why Sensor Size Affects Image Quality (APS-C vs FF vs compact) Adam Photography Articles 28 01-02-2015 09:38 PM
APS-C & FF cameras combination yusuf General Photography 3 06-05-2014 06:05 AM
Practical FF resolution is 30-40% better than sans-AA APS-C ElJamoquio Pentax Full Frame 257 04-26-2014 07:58 AM
Pentax at P&E2013: FF under development, APS-C compact camera and more Mistral75 Pentax News and Rumors 82 04-30-2013 06:30 AM
Tech Question: Why are FF DSLRs so Large? Sailor Photographic Technique 50 07-20-2011 08:48 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top