| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2004 05:55:56 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Anybody else see what I'm talking about? =] |
Yup - though it depends a lot on how much was cropped off to get that final image - it has certainly been cropped, the question is by how much.
If you zoom far in to an equivalent ISO 400 shot from a 10D you'd probably see that much noise too, depending on how much you adjust the shot and zoom in - it could be a 10% crop of a badly underexposed shot for example. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 05:59:32 PM · #27 |
ISO 400, 1:1. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 05:59:42 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by somedude:
I have never had the patience to deal with film. I *need* to see my results very quickly. I *need* to be able to look at and toss out, (without printing) crappy shots. |
Then you never will be a good photographer. It's all about patience. Well at least 50%. I think we should all use a large format camera from time to time, just so we would have to stop and think about the photo, it would make us all better photographers.
I am trying to get rid of the (very) bad habit of shooting away, and then just tossing out the bad ones. It does not make the "good ones" any better.
No disrespect intended. :)
J.
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 18:00:34.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 06:04:47 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by somedude:
I have never had the patience to deal with film. I *need* to see my results very quickly. I *need* to be able to look at and toss out, (without printing) crappy shots. |
Then you never will be a good photographer. It's all about patience. Well at least 50%. I think we should all use a large format camera from time to time, just so we would have to stop and think about the photo, it would make us all better photographers.
I am trying to get rid of the (very) bad habit of shooting away, and then just tossing out the bad ones. It does not make the "good ones" any better.
No disrespect intended. :)
J. |
I agree, what kind of large format camera do you shoot with? I shoot medium format from time to time myself... |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 06:05:33 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
ISO 400, 1:1. |
Thanks Paul. That's what I'm talking about when I referenced "buttery smooth". =] |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:16:31 PM · #31 |
ISO 1600 1:1
NO neatimage applied or any other kind of noise reduction post-processing.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:42:21 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by somedude:
I have never had the patience to deal with film. I *need* to see my results very quickly. I *need* to be able to look at and toss out, (without printing) crappy shots. |
Then you never will be a good photographer. It's all about patience. Well at least 50%. I think we should all use a large format camera from time to time, just so we would have to stop and think about the photo, it would make us all better photographers.
I am trying to get rid of the (very) bad habit of shooting away, and then just tossing out the bad ones. It does not make the "good ones" any better.
No disrespect intended. :)
J. |
Why should I wait a day or two to be able to view large versions of a large number of shots, just to see what worked and didn't work, as well as waste the money of having that film developed and prints made?
In the few months that I have had my SLR, my photos have become much better then they were initially. Going the film route, I would not be as far along as I am today.
To me, it is more wasteful in time and money to shoot film then it is to experiment, see my results, learn from my mistakes as well as from my successes rather quickly with digital.
If I wasn't looking to become a decent, good or possibly better photographer, I wouldn't be here, I wouldn't ask questions and read the answers to mine and others questions. I wouldn't post images and ask for comments.
No offense may have been intended, but I believe it was still a rude statement to make.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2004 11:19:32 PM · #33 |
The discipline of having to slow down, really make sure that you have things right prior to taking the picture can be very helpful. No one is saying you have to do it, but it is certainly a fine suggestion.
Your end result is always only as good as what you start with and occasionally having to stop, smell the roses and really carefully compose a scene is very beneficial, both for those shots and again later when you speed back up to how you want to shoot.
You don't have to take a medium format camera to try it either - just take one, preferrably small compact flash card, so that you can shoot maybe 5 images at most. Or just mentally say that you will only allow yourself to take 4 pictures on a given day - and go and spend an hour or two trying to take those 4 pictures. Use your meter to get the exposure right before you take the shot - not the histogram to check if you screwed it up afterwards. Spend the time to get it right before you take the shot. Don't look at them on the LCD. Don't even download them for a few days. The perspective that time will give you on the images is also something that often gets lost in the digital whirl.
Quality over quantity. Then later, once you get 4 great shots every time you try it, then you might find that when you take 200 shots, a lot more of them are useful.
Try it - you might be surprised.
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 23:21:13. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 06:33:52 AM · #34 |
I have always taken time in composing my shots. The issue is one of technical skill. A few friends that have been amatuer photographers for many years have mentioned that I have a good eye, I just need some work on the technical aspect of the art.
That's why I am here. I have learned a great deal and have had fewer and fewer failures as I go along.
Perhaps my explanation here hasn't translated very well.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 08:57:12 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
I have always taken time in composing my shots. The issue is one of technical skill. A few friends that have been amatuer photographers for many years have mentioned that I have a good eye, I just need some work on the technical aspect of the art.
That's why I am here. I have learned a great deal and have had fewer and fewer failures as I go along.
Perhaps my explanation here hasn't translated very well. |
The point of the exercise is to try and shift focus. Digital is really powerful in that you can make mistakes quickly, look at them, learn from them in a really tight loop - it is great to experiement, get things wrong, get things right, learn from it quickly. EXIF is also a great tool for this - no more making notes in the field if you don't want to.
But occasionally it is worth trying to shift the emphasis from learning from mistakes, to not making any mistakes at all. I find that second a much harder task and a vastly more important skill.
Learning from your mistakes is a great way to learn. It is a great way to play with technical things to understand those too. But there comes a point where it is worthwhile learning not to make them in the first place too. It very much depends on the types of photography you are interested in. For many things people shoot, you have the luxury of taking lots of shots, checking them, reshooting. But after a while you might find you are having the opportunity to take one shot only of a fleeting subject - the first kiss at a wedding, the tour de france as it blows through another small town, the first birthday candles being blown out - whatever you might want to take shots off. For these, it is worth having spent the time to learn to get things right in the first place - you don't get a second chance.
I find even doing the one shot - get it right or get nothing for the day exercise described above to be really useful in learning some of these skills too. My pictures got better for it - before the fact, not afterwards when I looked at the collection of things I'd snapped away at. Really working a subject, looking at it, distilling what you actually wanting to show and capturing it well - in one frame, is the essence of really good photography - occasionally it is worth practising it when the shot isn't on the line.
Though on other days I also look at my camera as a sketch book, I shoot ideas as I grope towards the thing I want to show - I take hundreds of throw away frames - that I know capture elements of the final shot I want to take - and there is nothing wrong with that approach either.
And of course - if you don't want to even consider doing things any differently than you do right now - that's also an approach that I'm sure works for some people.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 11:06:23 AM · #36 |
As I said, I am not the best at describing my efforts and goals here.
I am working towards learning not to make mistakes. With digital, I have the luxury of discovering if my efforts are successful more quickly, without the waste of time and money, that shooting film, waiting for the development and then waiting for the prints to be delivered.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 11:25:04 AM · #37 |
There may be some times when "shooting away" is the only way. I follow my two year old around all the time with my camera, and that is the only way to get photos of her! Waiting to compose a photo with children is a disaster most of the time, you will almost always lose those perfect looks or expressions. Just thought I would mention that...
-Danielle
BTW-I think that being able to see your work quickly shortens the learning curve, but I also think that you do need to train your brain and eyes to see what the results will and should be before you snap the photo, to learn what the camera is seeing, so you can get better shots. I think that using digital technology has helped me learn faster, and when I am setting up a shot, or have time, and/or control, over the subject, and/or area, that thinking about the composition, lighting, etc. before snapping the shutter, is ideal. It just isn't always possible.
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by somedude:
I have never had the patience to deal with film. I *need* to see my results very quickly. I *need* to be able to look at and toss out, (without printing) crappy shots. |
Then you never will be a good photographer. It's all about patience. Well at least 50%. I think we should all use a large format camera from time to time, just so we would have to stop and think about the photo, it would make us all better photographers.
I am trying to get rid of the (very) bad habit of shooting away, and then just tossing out the bad ones. It does not make the "good ones" any better.
No disrespect intended. :)
J. |
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 11:29:46.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 11:57:02 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
I am working towards learning not to make mistakes. With digital, I have the luxury of discovering if my efforts are successful more quickly, without the waste of time and money, that shooting film, waiting for the development and then waiting for the prints to be delivered. |
I think the point is though, that the time and money isn't always wasted. That there are benefits to having to think some more before you take the shot (because you feel it costs more - even though it doesn't really - with digital you just paid for it all upfront) and there are benefits to having to wait for a while before you look at the results - because you have some more emotional distance from how you felt when you took the shot and you are probably more able to evaluate the end results dispassionately.
It might not work for you, but I know I've found it useful in the past. This doesn't ignore the other benefits of the instant feedback and unlimited frame opportunities of digital - but it just recognises that there are disadvantages to it too.
Some of the best photographers of our time had 1 glass frame per shot, that they packed in on a mule. Would they have taken better shots if they could have made 500 exposures and picked the best one, or if they had to take the time to make sure it was right, first time, the only time?
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 11:58:41.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 12:01:17 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by dccloss:
There may be some times when "shooting away" is the only way. I follow my two year old around all the time with my camera, and that is the only way to get photos of her! |
That is true - but if you practice doing the design, composition and technical camera settings in a non-hurried environment (say with a subject that isn't moving) and get to the point you can get the shot right, first time, without mistakes - then that translates to the times when it is hectic and you don't have so much time to think. You'll have internalised the approach, it'll be second nature to get generally better shots, more often.
Increasingly I'm finding the musical analogy of scales useful - nobody listens to people playing scales for fun (don't bother finding an obscure example to prove the rule ;) ) but the practice is required to have a great performance - practice an approach - getting it right first time - means that when you don't have the opportunity to get it wrong and blast away, you might just get the shot.
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 12:01:49.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 01:27:26 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some of the best photographers of our time had 1 glass frame per shot, that they packed in on a mule. Would they have taken better shots if they could have made 500 exposures and picked the best one, or if they had to take the time to make sure it was right, first time, the only time? |
First, that depends upon the photographer.
Second, if they are/were indeed the best photographers of our time it is likely they would have taken 500 shots, equally or near equally as good.
If someone is already great, it wouldn't matter if they took one or a hundred shots. They would likely take the same care and attention to detail with every shot they took.
With my schedule, shooting film would leave me, at times, with weeks between shooting my photos, dropping film off film for development and then picking up the prints. The places I would take film to are open hours that are at odds with the reality of my job. Who the heck keeps a retail shop open from 10am to 6pm M-Sat? If they were open until 9pm, that would be less of a problem.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 01:50:31 PM · #41 |
I don't think that ant macro is a fair example of noise on a d70. So to compare with the 300d shots that have been posted, here's a d70 shot at ISO 500, completely unedited except for resize.
You can judge for yourself if it's buttery smooth enough for your tastes.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:01:33 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Who the heck keeps a retail shop open from 10am to 6pm M-Sat? If they were open until 9pm, that would be less of a problem. |
Most of the rest of the world works on a 9 til 5, M-Sat schedule for retail shops. Amazingly people do still manage to shop.
But in general, if you don't feel that different approaches are useful to you, that's great for you. There is something to be said for not knocking things until you try them. Who knows - you might be surprised.
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 14:04:05.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:11:16 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by wingy:
I don't think that ant macro is a fair example of noise on a d70. So to compare with the 300d shots that have been posted, here's a d70 shot at ISO 500, completely unedited except for resize. |
The fact that you resized it makes in an unfair comparison.
The ISO 400 shot Paul posted and the ISO 1600 shot that drnick posted are from the DRebel at "1:1" -- meaning those are the actual pixels, at full sensor resolution, just cropped out of the full-frame. I assumed Mehmet's ant macro was as well; if it is that noisy and has been resized smaller, it is really noisy!
If your shot at ISO 500 really is "buttery smooth" and want to show that, post a 100% crop (go into your editor and at 100% magnification, select a 400x300 pixel area and crop to that, removing 95% of the pixels captured) and upload without any other editing / resizing / etc.
Then it will be a fair comparison to the DRebel shots... resizing smaller always makes noise less noticeable.
P.S. your sign shot looks underexposed; the white in the sign is a middle gray, about 130-140 (out of 255). If you look at the histogram of the image, the "hump" should be much further to the right (not in the middle) because of the large white area.
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 14:19:32. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:18:53 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some of the best photographers of our time had 1 glass frame per shot, that they packed in on a mule. Would they have taken better shots if they could have made 500 exposures and picked the best one, or if they had to take the time to make sure it was right, first time, the only time? |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
First, that depends upon the photographer. |
I dunno, the "spray and pray" approach that you advocate seems more wasteful than doing work to setup the shot BEFORE you start shooting. I know, with digital, you never waste physical material, but you are wasting time and energy. My time and effort are worth more than that. I would guess that as busy as you sound, that yours is too and that you would relish the opportunity to optimize their use.
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Second, if they are/were indeed the best photographers of our time it is likely they would have taken 500 shots, equally or near equally as good. |
Some of the best photographers shot amazingly little film for their work.
Originally posted by Nelzie:
If someone is already great, it wouldn't matter if they took one or a hundred shots. They would likely take the same care and attention to detail with every shot they took. |
They likely practiced that care and attention while learning and making crap photos too.
Originally posted by Nelzie:
With my schedule, shooting film would leave me, at times, with weeks between shooting my photos, dropping film off film for development and then picking up the prints. The places I would take film to are open hours that are at odds with the reality of my job. Who the heck keeps a retail shop open from 10am to 6pm M-Sat? If they were open until 9pm, that would be less of a problem. |
There are many pro labs in New York or Los Angeles that offer mail order service. You do have access to the USPS and/or FedEx, right? It may take a few days, but certainly not weeks. Most pro-labs have extended hours as well, many with 24/7 drop off.
Check this forum thread on pro photo labs in the Detroit area that should give you a few places to try.
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 14:24:41.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:19:31 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by wingy:
I don't think that ant macro is a fair example of noise on a d70. So to compare with the 300d shots that have been posted, here's a d70 shot at ISO 500, completely unedited except for resize. |
The fact that you resized it makes in an unfair comparison.
The shot Paul posted from the DRebel is a "1:1", meaning those are actual pixels from the camera, which is what I assumed Mehmet's ant macro was as well.
If your shot at ISO 500 really is "buttery smooth" and want to show that, post a 100% crop (go into your editor and at 100% magnification, select a 400x300 pixel area and crop to that) and upload without any other editing / resizing / etc.
Then it will be a fair comparison... resizing smaller always makes noise less noticeable. |
Ah.. my honest apologies as I was thinking of 1:1 as "full frame". In which case, I might add, I am indeed impressed.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:26:26 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Here is a good example between the D70 and the Rebel.
Click here
Rebel is clearly better.(for image quality that is) |
Interesting... This article does show the 300d to be better with ISO noise. Seems as though everything else favored the D70.
The first thing you notice is the difference in color balance between the two cameras, in this respect the D70 is more accurate, the EOS 300D's image looking warmer than it did in real life, the D70's greys are almost perfectly grey. The D70's colors also look slightly more saturated than the 300D. For absolute resolution it's very close, although there are definitely some areas of the image where the D70 has resolved more detail (and appears sharper) than the EOS 300D. To counter that we do have a little moiré appearing in the D70 image (although really nothing that spoils the appearance of the image).
One notable difference is that the D70's sharpening algorithm appears to be better than that of the EOS 300D, there are almost no visible sharpening halos in the D70 image, there are some in the EOS 300D image.
Lastly there does appear to be some noise visible in the sky of the D70 image (approx. 1.75 std dev), less so in the EOS 300D image (approx. 1.10 std dev) this is consistent with our ISO noise measurements presented earlier in this review. Remember that the EOS 300D does offer ISO 100 which will deliver even cleaner images with virtually no visible noise.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:35:21 PM · #47 |
(Quote)Interesting... This article does show the 300d to be better with ISO noise. Seems as though everything else favored the D70.
The first thing you notice is the difference in color balance between the two cameras, in this respect the D70 is more accurate, the EOS 300D's image looking warmer than it did in real life, the D70's greys are almost perfectly grey. The D70's colors also look slightly more saturated than the 300D. For absolute resolution it's very close, although there are definitely some areas of the image where the D70 has resolved more detail (and appears sharper) than the EOS 300D. To counter that we do have a little moiré appearing in the D70 image (although really nothing that spoils the appearance of the image).
One notable difference is that the D70's sharpening algorithm appears to be better than that of the EOS 300D, there are almost no visible sharpening halos in the D70 image, there are some in the EOS 300D image.
Lastly there does appear to be some noise visible in the sky of the D70 image (approx. 1.75 std dev), less so in the EOS 300D image (approx. 1.10 std dev) this is consistent with our ISO noise measurements presented earlier in this review. Remember that the EOS 300D does offer ISO 100 which will deliver even cleaner images with virtually no visible noise. [/quote]
Sorry, I should of been more precise and said noise level quality instead of image quality.
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 14:35:46. |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:43:29 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Who the heck keeps a retail shop open from 10am to 6pm M-Sat? If they were open until 9pm, that would be less of a problem. |
Most of the rest of the world works on a 9 til 5, M-Sat schedule for retail shops. Amazingly people do still manage to shop.
But in general, if you don't feel that different approaches are useful to you, that's great for you. There is something to be said for not knocking things until you try them. Who knows - you might be surprised. |
The rest of the world also typically calls it quits earlier in the day then most of the United States. Us poor bastards in the US often have some crappy work hours, mine, for instance, are typically 8am till 5:30pm, on-call the remainder of the day, yes on-call 24 hours everyday.
That's beside the point.
I have done the film thing with a P&S camera. I grew bored of the hobby. Several years passed and I picked up a Digital Camera, the crappy one in my profile. It was at that time that I was bit by the 'shutterbug' and started taking quite a few more images.
Film is simply, not for me. It doens't make film bad in my mind, it's just not my bag.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:44:38 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by G4Ds:
Here is a good example between the D70 and the Rebel.
Click here
Rebel is clearly better.(for image quality that is) |
were you reading the same review I was? |
|
|
|
08/06/2004 02:53:12 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
First, that depends upon the photographer. |
I dunno, the "spray and pray" approach that you advocate seems more wasteful than doing work to setup the shot BEFORE you start shooting. I know, with digital, you never waste physical material, but you are wasting time and energy. My time and effort are worth more than that. I would guess that as busy as you sound, that yours is too and that you would relish the opportunity to optimize their use.
|
You aren't really paying much attention are you? I am not advocating "Spray and Pray". That's all I have to say on that. If I work to explain myself further, I will be wasting time.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Some of the best photographers shot amazingly little film for their work.
|
Good for them. Think about when you say 'Some' by saying that you are also saying that there are others that shoot more to quite a bit more film and could also be called 'the best'. This only reinforces my "It depends upon the photographer" and "If they are already great, they would likely shoot a larger number of 'great' images taking the same care and attention to detail" sentiments/statements. (See immediately below.)
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
If someone is already great, it wouldn't matter if they took one or a hundred shots. They would likely take the same care and attention to detail with every shot they took. |
They likely practiced that care and attention while learning and making crap photos too.
|
Which is exactly what I am doing, but you seemed to have ignored my earlier statements about how I am learning from my mistakes and I am working towards not making those mistakes.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are many pro labs in New York or Los Angeles that offer mail order service. You do have access to the USPS and/or FedEx, right? It may take a few days, but certainly not weeks. Most pro-labs have extended hours as well, many with 24/7 drop off.
Check this forum thread on pro photo labs in the Detroit area that should give you a few places to try. |
Even mail order service is a bit long for my needs. Plus the whole cost thing crawls up. Thanks for the link, if I pick up a film SLR or happen across my old P&S I may check that out. BTW, I am not a 'digital snob', anymore then you are a 'film snob', it's just that film photography isn't my bag. That's all.
|
|
