DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> slides are gorgeous
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 36 of 36, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/29/2005 04:33:38 PM · #26
Oops. Double post.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 16:34:10.
 03/29/2005 04:35:20 PM · #27
Originally posted by Niten:
If you are so convinced then why are you asking which camera you should be useing?

T


Where did you read that? I use whatever camera I have that suits me at the momment. Your reading a lot in to what was never stated.
 03/29/2005 04:56:45 PM · #28
Originally posted by scalvert:
Interesting that Popular Photography magazine just did a comparison between the Mark IIds and Fuji Velvia film (if memory serves) a month or two ago. For both color accuracy and resolution (enlargements), the film lost convincingly.


Which issue? I'd be intersted to get a copy to take to the local camera club.. :-) (I'm the only digital user there, and always keen to stir up some lively debate over the coffee and bikkies after the meeting!! )

Cheers, Me.
 03/29/2005 05:06:40 PM · #29
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Which issue?


I'll look for it when I get home.
 03/29/2005 06:15:43 PM · #30
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Which issue?


I'll look for it when I get home.


I can't find the article on their website.

-Chad
 03/29/2005 06:45:22 PM · #31
I couldn't either. I looked earlier.
 03/29/2005 07:13:06 PM · #32
Resolution discussions aside--

Velvia will KILL any digital camera out there. ANY of them - in terms of transition in the highlights, color saturation, etc. Digital sampling is linear, film is not.. thus, when it approaches highlights, film (slide or negative) retains the highlights much better than digital and the transition is more "natural".

Velvia is great for foliages -- greens just come out alive with Velvia. I wouldn't use it for portraits though, it's simply too much for natural skin tones.

BTW -- as far as "resolution goes" you can't compare most DSLRs with slides because most DSLR's are sampled only one color per pixel. As far as sharpness is concerned, the slide will look sharper because unlike DSLR's, every grain on it has all three colors sampled simultaneously (emulsion layers, remember?) Thus, DSLR's will be a lot less sharp at the resolution of interest (and usually it requires sharpening after interpolation of the capture) and color "consistency" is reduced.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 19:13:31.
 03/29/2005 07:20:53 PM · #33
Originally posted by paganini:
Resolution discussions aside--

Velvia will KILL any digital camera out there. ANY of them - in terms of transition in the highlights, color saturation, etc. Digital sampling is linear, film is not.. thus, when it approaches highlights, film (slide or negative) retains the highlights much better than digital and the transition is more "natural".

Velvia is great for foliages -- greens just come out alive with Velvia. I wouldn't use it for portraits though, it's simply too much for natural skin tones.

BTW -- as far as "resolution goes" you can't compare most DSLRs with slides because most DSLR's are sampled only one color per pixel. As far as sharpness is concerned, the slide will look sharper because unlike DSLR's, every grain on it has all three colors sampled simultaneously (emulsion layers, remember?) Thus, DSLR's will be a lot less sharp at the resolution of interest (and usually it requires sharpening after interpolation of the capture) and color "consistency" is reduced.


I think you just have to compare the results side by side. Talk about emulsion layers sounds like Sigma trying to sell their Fovon technology. In theory it sounds good, but in usage there is a great disparity in favor of high end digital.
 03/29/2005 07:23:32 PM · #34
[quote]
I think you just have to compare the results side by side. Talk about emulsion layers sounds like Sigma trying to sell their Fovon technology. In theory it sounds good, but in usage there is a great disparity in favor of high end digital. [/quote]

If Foveon fix the noise issue, it'll be HUGE. There are just some photos that i have seen froma Sigma that i can't see with any other dslr -- way better color rendition and general sharpness, but you can't shoot at anything above ISO 100.
03/29/2005 07:30:38 PM · #35
Originally posted by paganini:


If Foveon fix the noise issue, it'll be HUGE. There are just some photos that i have seen froma Sigma that i can't see with any other dslr -- way better color rendition and general sharpness, but you can't shoot at anything above ISO 100.


I understand it is a good idea with great potential. Just in practice at the moment it does not equal what a good cmos or ccd will do.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 19:31:46.
 03/29/2005 08:21:46 PM · #36
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by KiwiChris:
Which issue?


I'll look for it when I get home.


OK, so much for my vaunted memory. It was the January 2005 issue, but I was confusing two articles. One was a review of the Canon EOS1Ds Mark II, in which the reviewer noted that the resolution at ISO 100 and 200 was superior to film and the color accuracy was nearly double. The other article was simply a comparison of DSLR and film SLR cameras that more or less said that each had their place.

Message edited by author 2005-03-29 20:24:42.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 01:36:26 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 01:36:26 PM EDT.