Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
unfortunately they don't do business with customers outside of the US On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Christine Aguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jos from Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want to select before scanning. I expect 5 to 10 % that I will want to digitize. Can I tell to scancafe to scan only #6 and #24 of a set of negative strips? Jos: Scancafe lets you pic the scans you want--and you only have to pay for the ones you want! BUT, they do require you to purchase a 50% minimum--but that should be a problem when doing huge scan-jobs, right? The chances of you wanting at least half of your scanned images seems to be pretty high. You should check out the web site. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
Dear Group, I have lot of film material (negatives and slides) that I want to convert to digital. I have a good Minolta film scanner, at that time I paid more for it than a K20D costs :-). It delivers good quality but it takes far to much time to be used on larger quantities of pictures... So I want to work out a faster method using my K10D. July PUG gave a last push, because that black and white negative had to be digitized. I worked out the following, remarks, questions and suggestions are most welcome! _ The hardware_ Aim is to get a 1:1 image of the slide (36x24) on the sensor of my K10D (approx 24x18) I would like to use my SMC-M 100/4 macro or my SMC-M 50/1.7 because they are mechanically compatible with my Pentax slide copier. autobellows M with slide copier does not work: lens cannot come close enough to the body. I made a metal bracket to connect the slide copier directly to the body. 1:1 can be reached with SMC-M 50/1.7 with 20+12mm macro rings from PANAGOR Aperture of lens set to 11 as compromise for sharpnees / depth of field to allow some unflatness of the film and to allow for some misalignment of slide copier, lens and body. ISO 100 for best noise performance. Using flash light from behind the slide copier, Adjusting flash power and / or flash distance to get the histogram more or less in the middle. Contrast of negative film is low, so exposure is not really critical This set op allows quick reproduction Now the Software part. The image contrast on negative film is low and has to be increased a lot in the processing. Unfortunately the K10D does not have a setting for negative film copying. That would be nice if the contrast range could be adjusted to cover the full range of the AD converter, than 8 bits could be enough. We donot have that, so we must use RAW to get more bits. In the processing the higher number of bits has to be maintained till the contrast expansion is done. For the image processing I use Photoshop Elements 6.0 with the free downloadable plug-in SmartCurve this plug-in is very powerfull and increases the value of PSE a lot for me. After importing the file in PSE, do not forget to tick the 16bit square (remember 8 bit is not enough for negative film) rotate the picture 1 or 2 degrees if needed crop the picture convert to black and white by selecting gray tones Select filter smartcurve this curve allows to invert the negative to positive (vertical flip of the curve), to choose the white level and the black level (expand contrast to best possible value) and fine tune gamma (mid gray) if needed Now convert the immage to 720pixels voor longest side (PUG requirement) Adjust sharpness for best compromise at normal viewing distance (take care more sharpness can result in more visibility of film grain!) Go back to 8 bits to be able to save as jpeg Save as Jpeg while selecting maximum quality level with file size below 256kb (PUG requirement) and file name with max 8 characters (PUG requirement) This worked for me. Suggestions for quality or speed improvements are most welcome :-) Jos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Jos from Holland wrote: ... This worked for me. Suggestions for quality or speed improvements are most welcome ... I used to scan a lot of film ... probably up to five rolls of film a week, selectively ... and it is *always* time consuming, tedious and difficult to get top notch results. I've done it with scanners, with macro setups, etc etc etc. Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. I now only scan a few frames a year at most as I explore my film archives. For that level of endeavor, I use the Nikon Coolscan IV ED and Vuescan software to capture the image data. I do any required editing in Lightroom and Photoshop CS2. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Jos from Holland wrote: ... This worked for me. Suggestions for quality or speed improvements are most welcome ... Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. Yes, I've done a thorough read of ScanCafe's website, and I very much want to try them, but at one point their turn-around time was 8 weeks because business boomed, they've been scrambling to expand staff to accommodate the business. I've been meaning to check back. Maybe they've expanded now and can improve upon the turn-around time. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. Yes, I've done a thorough read of ScanCafe's website, and I very much want to try them, but at one point their turn-around time was 8 weeks because business boomed, they've been scrambling to expand staff to accommodate the business. I've been meaning to check back. Maybe they've expanded now and can improve upon the turn-around time. If I'm thinking of scanning 100-1000 negatives, 8 weeks is far less than the time it would take me to do the job myself... ! G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. Yes, I've done a thorough read of ScanCafe's website, and I very much want to try them, but at one point their turn-around time was 8 weeks because business boomed, they've been scrambling to expand staff to accommodate the business. I've been meaning to check back. Maybe they've expanded now and can improve upon the turn-around time. If I'm thinking of scanning 100-1000 negatives, 8 weeks is far less than the time it would take me to do the job myself... ! G True enough! Point taken :-) Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
It sounds like you've optimized this process, and I'm sure your results will be more than acceptable. Thje only thing I might suggest is using a good evenly lit light box for illumination. That being said, a high quality film scanner will undoubtedly do a better job, and I doubt that you'd spend any more time at it. The setup here has to be quite time consuming. -- Original message -- From: Jos from Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Group, I have lot of film material (negatives and slides) that I want to convert to digital. I have a good Minolta film scanner, at that time I paid more for it than a K20D costs :-). It delivers good quality but it takes far to much time to be used on larger quantities of pictures... So I want to work out a faster method using my K10D. July PUG gave a last push, because that black and white negative had to be digitized. I worked out the following, remarks, questions and suggestions are most welcome! _ The hardware_ Aim is to get a 1:1 image of the slide (36x24) on the sensor of my K10D (approx 24x18) I would like to use my SMC-M 100/4 macro or my SMC-M 50/1.7 because they are mechanically compatible with my Pentax slide copier. autobellows M with slide copier does not work: lens cannot come close enough to the body. I made a metal bracket to connect the slide copier directly to the body. 1:1 can be reached with SMC-M 50/1.7 with 20+12mm macro rings from PANAGOR Aperture of lens set to 11 as compromise for sharpnees / depth of field to allow some unflatness of the film and to allow for some misalignment of slide copier, lens and body. ISO 100 for best noise performance. Using flash light from behind the slide copier, Adjusting flash power and / or flash distance to get the histogram more or less in the middle. Contrast of negative film is low, so exposure is not really critical This set op allows quick reproduction Now the Software part. The image contrast on negative film is low and has to be increased a lot in the processing. Unfortunately the K10D does not have a setting for negative film copying. That would be nice if the contrast range could be adjusted to cover the full range of the AD converter, than 8 bits could be enough. We donot have that, so we must use RAW to get more bits. In the processing the higher number of bits has to be maintained till the contrast expansion is done. For the image processing I use Photoshop Elements 6.0 with the free downloadable plug-in SmartCurve this plug-in is very powerfull and increases the value of PSE a lot for me. After importing the file in PSE, do not forget to tick the 16bit square (remember 8 bit is not enough for negative film) rotate the picture 1 or 2 degrees if needed crop the picture convert to black and white by selecting gray tones Select filter smartcurve this curve allows to invert the negative to positive (vertical flip of the curve), to choose the white level and the black level (expand contrast to best possible value) and fine tune gamma (mid gray) if needed Now convert the immage to 720pixels voor longest side (PUG requirement) Adjust sharpness for best compromise at normal viewing distance (take care more sharpness can result in more visibility of film grain!) Go back to 8 bits to be able to save as jpeg Save as Jpeg while selecting maximum quality level with file size below 256kb (PUG requirement) and file name with max 8 characters (PUG requirement) This worked for me. Suggestions for quality or speed improvements are most welcome :-) Jos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
I have more than 200,000 negatives that I've never printed or scanned. Probably 10,000 that I'd REALLY like to have scanned. Many of those are BW shots of my kids when they were toddlers -- thirty years ago. I should look into this. Paul -- Original message -- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. Yes, I've done a thorough read of ScanCafe's website, and I very much want to try them, but at one point their turn-around time was 8 weeks because business boomed, they've been scrambling to expand staff to accommodate the business. I've been meaning to check back. Maybe they've expanded now and can improve upon the turn-around time. If I'm thinking of scanning 100-1000 negatives, 8 weeks is far less than the time it would take me to do the job myself... ! G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
Thnx for your reaction Godfrey, I did not think in the direction of having it done, yet. Economicly you're probably right, working a few days and use that money leads probably to more scanned film than I could do myself in those few days. The same holds for painting my house, but I still do it myself, maybe I'm stupid But, another thing is the issue of selection (for every solution there is a problem :-) : 40 years of driven amateur photography gave me 10 to 20 thousend slides or negatives plus 10 thousend family slides from my father. I want to select before scanning. I expect 5 to 10 % that I will want to digitize. Can I tell to scancafe to scan only #6 and #24 of a set of negative strips? For the slides I already decided not to use a projector, but select on a light table, but if I have to take every slide in my hands, it is not so much time to put an approved slide in my set up and click, I could even make a footswitch to do it faster :-) Jos Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Jun 26, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Jos from Holland wrote: ... This worked for me. Suggestions for quality or speed improvements are most welcome ... I used to scan a lot of film ... probably up to five rolls of film a week, selectively ... and it is *always* time consuming, tedious and difficult to get top notch results. I've done it with scanners, with macro setups, etc etc etc. Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. I now only scan a few frames a year at most as I explore my film archives. For that level of endeavor, I use the Nikon Coolscan IV ED and Vuescan software to capture the image data. I do any required editing in Lightroom and Photoshop CS2. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
- Original Message - From: Jos from Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want to select before scanning. I expect 5 to 10 % that I will want to digitize. Can I tell to scancafe to scan only #6 and #24 of a set of negative strips? Jos: Scancafe lets you pic the scans you want--and you only have to pay for the ones you want! BUT, they do require you to purchase a 50% minimum--but that should be a problem when doing huge scan-jobs, right? The chances of you wanting at least half of your scanned images seems to be pretty high. You should check out the web site. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have more than 200,000 negatives that I've never printed or scanned. Probably 10,000 that I'd REALLY like to have scanned. Many of those are BW shots of my kids when they were toddlers -- thirty years ago. I should look into this. Paul -- Original message -- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jun 26, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Christine Aguila wrote: Most of the professionals I've talked to in the past year are now outsourcing this work to ScanCafe (http://scancafe.com/). The results look very good, and at $190 to scan a thousand negatives ($240 for a thousand slides), it is great time and money savings. FYI, those prices are for color negs. BW runs a buck per photo. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Work flow to convert a BW film negative to a digital file for PUG
TNX Paul, My Minolta Dimage ScanSpeed does a better job than the macro set-up with my K10D, pixel count is effectively three times higher in case of colour, but it is sooo sloow: high resolution scanning takes 45 seconds! I only want to spent so much time if the picture has to be printed on larger format. The light box is a nice idea. I tried also my laptop with a white page, together with the diffuser of the Pentax slide copier this gives avery homogeneous lighting. Finaly a used the flash to have shutterspeed fast enough to avoid vibration blurr. Idealy I should construct a lightbox with constant light to ease focussing and flash to avoid blurr. Jos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like you've optimized this process, and I'm sure your results will be more than acceptable. Thje only thing I might suggest is using a good evenly lit light box for illumination. That being said, a high quality film scanner will undoubtedly do a better job, and I doubt that you'd spend any more time at it. The setup here has to be quite time consuming. -- Original message -- From: Jos from Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Group, I have lot of film material (negatives and slides) that I want to convert to digital. I have a good Minolta film scanner, at that time I paid more for it than a K20D costs :-). It delivers good quality but it takes far to much time to be used on larger quantities of pictures... So I want to work out a faster method using my K10D. July PUG gave a last push, because that black and white negative had to be digitized. I worked out the following, remarks, questions and suggestions are most welcome! _ The hardware_ Aim is to get a 1:1 image of the slide (36x24) on the sensor of my K10D (approx 24x18) I would like to use my SMC-M 100/4 macro or my SMC-M 50/1.7 because they are mechanically compatible with my Pentax slide copier. autobellows M with slide copier does not work: lens cannot come close enough to the body. I made a metal bracket to connect the slide copier directly to the body. 1:1 can be reached with SMC-M 50/1.7 with 20+12mm macro rings from PANAGOR Aperture of lens set to 11 as compromise for sharpnees / depth of field to allow some unflatness of the film and to allow for some misalignment of slide copier, lens and body. ISO 100 for best noise performance. Using flash light from behind the slide copier, Adjusting flash power and / or flash distance to get the histogram more or less in the middle. Contrast of negative film is low, so exposure is not really critical This set op allows quick reproduction Now the Software part. The image contrast on negative film is low and has to be increased a lot in the processing. Unfortunately the K10D does not have a setting for negative film copying. That would be nice if the contrast range could be adjusted to cover the full range of the AD converter, than 8 bits could be enough. We donot have that, so we must use RAW to get more bits. In the processing the higher number of bits has to be maintained till the contrast expansion is done. For the image processing I use Photoshop Elements 6.0 with the free downloadable plug-in SmartCurve this plug-in is very powerfull and increases the value of PSE a lot for me. After importing the file in PSE, do not forget to tick the 16bit square (remember 8 bit is not enough for negative film) rotate the picture 1 or 2 degrees if needed crop the picture convert to black and white by selecting gray tones Select filter smartcurve this curve allows to invert the negative to positive (vertical flip of the curve), to choose the white level and the black level (expand contrast to best possible value) and fine tune gamma (mid gray) if needed Now convert the immage to 720pixels voor longest side (PUG requirement) Adjust sharpness for best compromise at normal viewing distance (take care more sharpness can result in more visibility of film grain!) Go back to 8 bits to be able to save as jpeg Save as Jpeg while selecting maximum quality level with file size below 256kb (PUG requirement) and file name with max 8 characters (PUG requirement) This worked for me. Suggestions for quality or speed improvements are most welcome :-) Jos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Hi! BD Thus it is with my daughters taking pictures. With the SLR's (bigger BD cameras), I would have to take them out to shoot. With the small PS, BD they would take them on their own to shoot events they were involved BD with. With the digital PS, they take them to events and play around BD (experiment) at home. The quality of shots is the same or better with BD digital for them, especially since they immediately review their shots BD and correct mistakes and failures. They are also willing to try BD things with no thought about wasting money on film and developing. Very well then. Digital PS it is... For your daughters. I really can only wonder what kind of photography tool would use my daugther. She is slightly above one year old now bg. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Direct Cognitive Transfer Technology. You just think really hard about something and it appears on a 35 mm piece of plastic. After years of training, Buddhist monks will be able to do this for 6 x 7 . Very well then. Digital PS it is... For your daughters. I really can only wonder what kind of photography tool would use my daugther. She is slightly above one year old now bg. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625 Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Why not direct transfer to finished print. After years of training you could transfer to large size prints (11X14 +). VBG Bruce Thursday, January 30, 2003, 10:23:50 AM, you wrote: SD Direct Cognitive Transfer Technology. You just think really hard about SD something and it appears on a 35 mm piece of plastic. After years of SD training, Buddhist monks will be able to do this for 6 x 7 . SD Very well then. Digital PS it is... For your daughters. I really can SD only wonder what kind of photography tool would use my daugther. She SD is slightly above one year old now bg. SD --- SD Boris Liberman SD www.geocities.com/dunno57 SD www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625 SD Steven Desjardins SD Department of Chemistry SD Washington and Lee University SD Lexington, VA 24450 SD (540) 458-8873 SD FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Not true. These cameras also appeal to new users who don't already have any lenses. Every day thousands of people move up from PS or buy an SLR as they discover photography for the first time. Appeal outside existing user base has to be a long term goal, you need to go for new users - not those already committed to another brand. -Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 January 2003 22:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won For all the excitement over Sigma's DSLR before it came out, no one seems to be interested in it now. Folks who typically spent big bucks on 35mm SLRs in the past want their DSLR to be able to use their Canon and Nikon lenses. No matter how cheap Pentax sells their DSLR it will only appeal to their existing user base. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... digital slr sales might be less brand value driven than film slr's or it might not. Pål
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
I've never been able to get my 9-year-old son interested in photographing with his Spotmatic (actually, after four years of disuse--I gave it to him when he was 5--I sold it), but he loves to take my digital camera and go fill up a card. He's not attached to the pictures at all; he looks at them once and then that's that. But he enjoys taking them and seeing them. I think the thing with kids is that they love the bells and whistles. My 9 yr old son had absolutely no interest in taking photographs with an MX. Yet at PDML UK 2002 at Duxford air show, he picked up the (Pentax supplied) MZ-S and instantly latched onto it. He adored it. So, I splashed out on a Z-10 for him. It makes noises, auto-focuses, the flash pops up (endlessly) and more to the point, he uses it! It actually inspires him to photograph, and at the end of the day, that's what matters to me. You could argue that he should be using a K-1000. I would argue that he would rather be upstairs glued to his Gamecube. Kids. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Hi! Bruce, without disrespect, the aesthetical qualities of the snaps your daughters shot with their DPS - how good are they? Don't misunderstand me, I am not against Digital. However, I think that instant feedback will have some kind of negative impact of, how to put it, uninspired perhaps, amateur photographer. Let me give an example from my profession - programming. Debugging with trace which I did quite a lot somehow had me thinking much more as to where could be a problem __before__ I'd go to the lab again and have the sucker executed once more to get me more evidence. At the same time, debugging with full of bells and whistles interactive debugger can be very long. The beauty of the beast just kills my will to actually think the problem through - I can have infinitely more runs at the same time I would get one trace from the lab. To translate it to photo-language I'd try. Film photography, especially towards the end of the film cartridge makes you think very well as to why, how and when you're taking the shot. Actually, even when the film is just loaded one is already limited to 36 exposures. Digital photography however is about - keep shooting until you get what you want. Sometimes it is good - say for M Reichmann who recently seemed to have shot some wild birds. Sometimes it is very bad - you just missed the moment that would never come again, and because you have this wondrous alumo-box full of electronics and software - you did not care to set up it quite right. Furthermore, I have MZ-6 which is a smart little camera. To tell you the truth I am in process of buying an ME-Super so that I would be able to learn more of the way things are done, instead of just relying on Pentax programmers and electronics engineers. Again, if you're just shooting for snaps and not in order to study the craft (don't kick me all around because I called photography craft, ok? bg), then PS or DPS is the way to go. And of course DPS is way more convenient. Just my cents. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Boris, A wise health therapist in the area was once asked What is the best exercise? His reply showed great wisdom The one that you'll actually do. Thus it is with my daughters taking pictures. With the SLR's (bigger cameras), I would have to take them out to shoot. With the small PS, they would take them on their own to shoot events they were involved with. With the digital PS, they take them to events and play around (experiment) at home. The quality of shots is the same or better with digital for them, especially since they immediately review their shots and correct mistakes and failures. They are also willing to try things with no thought about wasting money on film and developing. Bruce Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 9:18:15 AM, you wrote: BL Hi! BL Bruce, without disrespect, the aesthetical qualities of the snaps your BL daughters shot with their DPS - how good are they? BL Don't misunderstand me, I am not against Digital. However, I think BL that instant feedback will have some kind of negative impact of, how to BL put it, uninspired perhaps, amateur photographer. BL Let me give an example from my profession - programming. Debugging BL with trace which I did quite a lot somehow had me thinking much more BL as to where could be a problem __before__ I'd go to the lab again and BL have the sucker executed once more to get me more evidence. At the BL same time, debugging with full of bells and whistles interactive BL debugger can be very long. The beauty of the beast just kills my will BL to actually think the problem through - I can have infinitely more BL runs at the same time I would get one trace from the lab. BL To translate it to photo-language I'd try. Film photography, BL especially towards the end of the film cartridge makes you think very BL well as to why, how and when you're taking the shot. Actually, even BL when the film is just loaded one is already limited to 36 exposures. BL Digital photography however is about - keep shooting until you get BL what you want. Sometimes it is good - say for M Reichmann who recently BL seemed to have shot some wild birds. Sometimes it is very bad - you BL just missed the moment that would never come again, and because you BL have this wondrous alumo-box full of electronics and software - you BL did not care to set up it quite right. BL Furthermore, I have MZ-6 which is a smart little camera. To tell you BL the truth I am in process of buying an ME-Super so that I would be BL able to learn more of the way things are done, instead of just relying BL on Pentax programmers and electronics engineers. BL Again, if you're just shooting for snaps and not in order to study BL the craft (don't kick me all around because I called photography BL craft, ok? bg), then PS or DPS is the way to go. And of course BL DPS is way more convenient. BL Just my cents. BL --- BL Boris Liberman BL www.geocities.com/dunno57 BL www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Henry wrote: Digital camera has got an increase of 66.4% in production while the production of film camera dropped 13.6%. This is an interesting trend displayed for awhile: It seems like digital isn't increasing at the expense of film in an 1:1 ratio. It seems like digital to a large extent is an addition to film photography and/or that it also attract new consumers previously not heavily into camera gear consumption. The drop of film cameras is speeding up when comparing with figures of year 2001. The prediction for year 2003 production is: 31.45million unit for digital cameras, 2017million units for film cameras. The numbers seem to indicate that your headline for this thread is grossly premature! Pål
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
On 1/28/03 9:24 AM, Iren Henry Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh... I've made a typing mistake. The correct one should read as: The prediction for year 2003 production is: 31.45million unit for digital cameras, 20.17million units for film cameras. Hi Henry, :-)) What you should have included in your post (maybe you already have, I just skimmed through this thread) is the fact that the large increase in the digicam sales is really at the sacrifice of PS film camera. People who used to buy film PS are shifting to digicam by a huge mass. I am sure this will be proliferated to more upscale market, i.e., DSLR as soon as their price comes down to certain level. But this indicates to me that Pentax has even more reasons to shift their emphasis toward the digital arena because the film PS was their bread butter market. No wonder they are busy coming up with various digicam models now. PS digicam is bloody competitive while the DSLR market is still the one for the traditional camera makers. I have no doubt that Pentax are going to come up with something attractive, competitive and affordable when they release their version of DSLR, because it is almost a matter of life or death situation for the camera maker. For this reason, I just cannot see why Pentax would wait too long for the release of DSLR, although it is almost given at this time. It would be a matter of time that Minolta also is going to enter into the DSLR market (I read somewhere that they are carefully measuring the timing of entry, just like Pentax have been doing), unless they drop the camera biz altogether which seems unlikely at this stage. Cheers, Ken
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Dear all, What you should have included in your post (maybe you already have, I just skimmed through this thread) is the fact that the large increase in the digicam sales is really at the sacrifice of PS film camera. People who used to buy film PS are shifting to digicam by a huge mass. I am sure this will be proliferated to more upscale market, i.e., DSLR as soon as their price comes down to certain level. Maybe Ken is in a better position to translate the original report. http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20030127-0021-zdn-sci The report appeared to mention that the rate of decrease in film SLR is similar to that of film PS! Some of the more-advanced digital cameras, like Canon G3/Nikon 5700 might have eaten part of the lower-end film SLR market of EOS300/Nikon F65? There are many friends around me bought D100/D60 in 2002 but I don't know personally any one bought a F5/1V last year. Regards, Henry Chu 28/1/2003 _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Do those figures include disposables? At 10:24 PM 1/28/2003 +0800, you wrote: Dear all, The prediction for year 2003 production is: 31.45million unit for digital cameras, 2017million units for film cameras. The numbers seem to indicate that your headline for this thread is grossly premature! Pål Oh... I've made a typing mistake. The correct one should read as: The prediction for year 2003 production is: 31.45million unit for digital cameras, 20.17million units for film cameras. Digital will win film by 3:2. Regards, Henry Chu 28/1/2003 _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Henry wrote: The report appeared to mention that the rate of decrease in film SLR is similar to that of film PS! Some of the more-advanced digital cameras, like Canon G3/Nikon 5700 might have eaten part of the lower-end film SLR market of EOS300/Nikon F65? There are many friends around me bought D100/D60 in 2002 but I don't know personally any one bought a F5/1V last year. 35mm slr's probably suffers from some of the same symptoms as medium format. It isn't so much that everyone is shelving both 35mm slr's (exceopt for the low-end cameras who are definitely being canibalized by digital PS) and medium format for digital, but the fact that few are buying into new film gear now. Few are recruited into medium format nowadays as most 35mm slr owners, where new MF users traditionally has been recruited from, now are expecting to upgrade to digital at some point and hence are not willing to make large financial commitments to expensive film based systems. Pål
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Pål, My personal opinion is that DSLR sales will be just as BRAND driven as film SLR sales. It is the system and marketing which makes the difference. On both counts Canon and Nikon have Pentax beat. They are going to have to come up with a nice alternative to make any inroads. I think that price is one of those areas. $2000 for a camera body is still pretty steep for most of us. Bruce Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 10:59:55 AM, you wrote: PJ I agree. Fortuately Pentax have three slr platform or system which to built DSLR's. Unfortunately, Pentax have been too busy with PS the last decade and their slr's systems have suffered; PJ particularly 35mm. It may be difficult to change their image. On the other hand, digital slr sales might be less brand value driven than film slr's or it might not. PJ Pål
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Bruce wrote: My personal opinion is that DSLR sales will be just as BRAND driven as film SLR sales. It is the system and marketing which makes the difference. On both counts Canon and Nikon have Pentax beat. They are going to have to come up with a nice alternative to make any inroads. I think that price is one of those areas. $2000 for a camera body is still pretty steep for most of us. I believe you're right but not entirely convinced for the following reasons: 1. Digital sales and image will probably be sensor quality driven. Theres no guarantee that those with the strongest image from film photography will be the same who wins out in digital. Interestingly, the image for 35mm slr has been driven by the photo journalist usage. However, as photo journalist most likely will never be the main users of high resolution digital, as thir priorities are elsewhere, their benchmark status may be reduced as I again suspect that pure image quality will be the image driving force for digital. 2. The design and coolness factor. Digital is very much a novel gizmo at present and as such sales may be driven somewhat by cool design and style. Style should not be underestimated as image builder as digital cameras is very much a lifestyle product at present. 3. The current lenspool will have less impact than most think, except initially. Most camera manufacturers are of the opinion that the usage of older lenses is basically just a marketing trap and that newer, dedicated lenses are needed anyway sooner or later in order to take full advantage of digital. We cannot even be sure at this stage what standards emerge. Also, many DSLR buyers will be first time slr buyers and hence don't own lenses the camera needs to fit. Lets not forget that most slr owners owns only a couple of zoom lenses anyway, so buying another brand of DSLR isn't such a big deal. Nothing of the above need materialize but the playing field is changing and how things settles is anybodies guess. Pål
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
On 1/28/03 7:15 PM, Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, many DSLR buyers will be first time slr buyers and hence don't own lenses the camera needs to fit. Lets not forget that most slr owners owns only a couple of zoom lenses anyway, so buying another brand of DSLR isn't such a big deal. This is true. In fact, it was Pentax that created the frenzy to more affordable SLRs (at least in Japan) when they introduced MZ series (MZ-5 to be exact). A lot of people who were content with PS suddenly realized that SLRs were affordable (and probably many did not even know what SLR really meant and what it could do). Canon Rebel and Minolta Alpha Sweet etc were enormously benefited from this. Nikon jumped on this frenzy too by F60 and U etc. I always thought that Pentax's marketing dept did have brain in their head, cultivating the mass of their PS users and later pushed them to SLRs. Yes, N/C are ahead in DSLR market for now, but in a way, the rapid development of DSLR market gave Pentax a brand new opportunity to start fresh, as it did to Olympus (although I have no idea if their 4/3 system would be successful). Development of the downstream infrastructure (direct printing w/o the intermediary computer for the mass market users who won't bother with PhotoShop) is also important and Pentax is right there. And they now have more digital PS users among the big 4 (not counting Sony etc). It is good for all of us that we will have choices, be it N/C/P or even M., and I am sure that Pentax DSLR will again be the well thought-out product with affordable price tag. Cheers, Ken
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
The Canon Rebel (EOS 1000) was introduced in Oct. 1990 (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html). This was about 5 years before the MZ-5 was introduced. Low cost SLRs were a response to PS cameras that were first introduced in the early 80's. Fabricating history is a little silly when it's so easy to do research. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is true. In fact, it was Pentax that created the frenzy to more affordable SLRs (at least in Japan) when they introduced MZ series (MZ-5 to be exact). A lot of people who were content with PS suddenly realized that SLRs were affordable (and probably many did not even know what SLR really meant and what it could do). Canon Rebel and Minolta Alpha Sweet etc were enormously benefited from this. Nikon jumped on this frenzy too by F60 and U etc.
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
On 1/28/03 8:37 PM, Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Canon Rebel (EOS 1000) was introduced in Oct. 1990 (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/f_camera.html). This was about 5 years before the MZ-5 was introduced. Low cost SLRs were a response to PS cameras that were first introduced in the early 80's. Fabricating history is a little silly when it's so easy to do research. Bruce, you are so quick to jump on conclusion again here. I never said that Rebel (called EOS Kiss in Japan) was made after the MZ-5. I always assume certain fundamental things are given, requiring no elaboration. I only said that particular segment of the market benefited from the introduction of the MZ-5 and the frenzy it created. This fact is very well known in Japan. If I remember correctly, the young women were the ones who contributed to this trend. I do not know if the same thing happened elsewhere in the world. Nikon was a bit late in catching up in this trend. Again, a nice try but you are two down. Your mind and constant attempt to pick on someone else's point always make you embarrassed. But thank you for bothering to take time to do a little search and give me your advice anyway. Ken
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Last night, my daughters performed in a piano recital held by their piano teacher. Her policy has been, no flash photography while a child is playing. But last night she didn't even try to stop the parents who did so, using digital cameras. I suspect that many who buy digital cameras are surprised to learn how poorly they perform at EV0 to EV5. Unlike camcorders, few digital cameras can shoot above ISO 400. And in a dimly lit room like last night's, ISO 400 won't cut it. I didn't take pictures last night. When I do, I shoot at f/2.5, using 800 color print film set at ISO 1000. I have the film push-processed one stop. Next time, I'll probably shoot Delta 3200 black-and-white and say goodbye to color problems. People who buy digital cameras may not realize what they're missing until it's too late. There are times when you want the shutter to activate the moment you press the button. You simply can't do that if your camera waits till you press before it focuses, or fires off a series of pre-flashes. My older daughter is pressing me to get her a digital camera for her 15th birthday in April. What features are important to you? I asked. Small size? Ability to shoot in low light without flash? Resolution? Ease of transferring to disk? Number of shots it can hold? I dunno, she replied. Just make it smaller than a breadbox. I just want to be able to share pictures right away with my friends. She doesn't know it, but I think she's become hooked on the 6.1 MB scans provided by Dale Labs. I wouldn't get her anything below 3 MB. The new Pentax Altoids box camera is intriguing because it would always be with her. Actually, Dale Labs provides the Photo CD image, too, in Kodak's YMCK format, which I can open at a mind-numbing resolution of something like 12 MB. In PhotoImpact, I can open it directly into RGB colorspace. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just a different view from someone who has been around the block. I have 4000+ shots on my Coolpix 990, have a full 35mm system (MZ-S) and a P67II. My girls have used ZX-10 SLR's, 35mm PS, APS PS and now small digitals. The greatest features to them are SIZE and instant feedback. The greatest features to me are their interest in using (SIZE) and cost (digital - lack of needing to print and buy film). Bruce i am sure your daughters email the images far more than they want to get them printed too. Herb...
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Point-and-shoots suck, you can say that again, point-and-shoots suck, --Mike Yes, they do, but the 90WR sure comes in handy when it's pouring rain and I fear for the health of my MZ-S or 645. Bill
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
For all the excitement over Sigma's DSLR before it came out, no one seems to be interested in it now. Folks who typically spent big bucks on 35mm SLRs in the past want their DSLR to be able to use their Canon and Nikon lenses. No matter how cheap Pentax sells their DSLR it will only appeal to their existing user base. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... digital slr sales might be less brand value driven than film slr's or it might not. Pål
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Herb, You are correct. They were thrilled to move to APS size PS's at first and now far happier with the instant-ness they get with digital. I gotta say, for youngsters, digital PS is the way to go. Bruce Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 7:53:15 PM, you wrote: HC Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Just a different view from someone who has been around the block. I HC have 4000+ shots on my Coolpix 990, have a full 35mm system (MZ-S) and HC a P67II. My girls have used ZX-10 SLR's, 35mm PS, APS PS and now HC small digitals. The greatest features to them are SIZE and instant HC feedback. The greatest features to me are their interest in using HC (SIZE) and cost (digital - lack of needing to print and buy film). HC Bruce HC i am sure your daughters email the images far more than they want to get HC them printed too. HC Herb...
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: I suspect that many who buy digital cameras are surprised to learn how poorly they perform at EV0 to EV5. Unlike camcorders, few digital cameras can shoot above ISO 400. And in a dimly lit room like last night's, ISO 400 won't cut it. But you forgot to take into account one important factor - the lens. For PS, digital has much faster lens than the 35mm counter part due to the much smaller required image circle. Pentax Optio range has zoom lens around F2.6-4.8. Pentax newest 35mm PS 140V has a 34-140mm zoom lens at F5.8-11.8!!! How many times have you seen people trying to shoot at night with maximum zoom? For comparison, Canon G3 has a 34-140mm 35mm equilvalent lens with F2.0-3.0. That's fast - even for SLR lens standard. So for PS users, digital would more likely get better results than 35mm in low light. -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Iren Henry Chu wrote: Digital camera production has suppressed film cameras for the first time ... The prediction for year 2003 production is: 31.45million unit for digital cameras, 2017million units for film cameras. HAR! w/ 2017million film cameras to be made in '03 I suppose film is on the comeback and poised to whip some digital butt ! !8^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital - THE ANSWER
From the photographer: The discussions were interesting and the answers were intriguing as to why some people chose one over the other. Several said a difference could not be told in a web sized version, but it is possible. One sure give away is the color fringing, or halo, around the lights in the candelabra. This, as I understand it, is a major problem of digital...almost all digicams have problems with this effect. The photo on the right, the one with the ropes, is digital. The other is film. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
Well if you know nothing about photography at all there is a clue here I think. It has nothing do to with photo technique. I'll write Shel privately to see if I'm right. And as a couple of others pointed out already, they are both digital now. :) annsan (I don't want to blast my idea to the whole list to spoin fun but if you must know or came to same conclusion for same reason let me know OFF list ) Peter Alling wrote: Very true. At 10:34 PM 1/24/2002 -0600, you wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:04 -0800, you wrote: I am sure all here will immediately be able to tell which is the digitally captured image. They've both been digitally captured. Else one could not see them on the web. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is it Film or is it Digital
I suppose that digital camera doesn't have the aperture blades, so the 2nd picture (with caption Or is it digital?) will be the Leica film photo, as there are clearly visible star-shaped lights. Edward Anyway I scanned the Velvia slide and have posted both images to the Apple site: http://homepage.mac.com/whmcclary/PhotoAlbum5.html for y'all to look at and see the differences. I am sure all here will immediately be able to tell which is the digitally captured image. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
I`ll guess the first one too. The way the lights in the chandelier glow looks to be a film characteristic as the whole bulb seems to be burnt in, whereas photo number 2, it looks like you can see the actual filament in the bulb, where the film picture would probably be a longer exposure and the bulbs would be burnt in like they are. Picture number 1 just looks like film. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 5:44 AM Subject: Re: Is it Film or is it Digital Number 1 appears to be the film photo. The range of colors and light is much greater. Bill KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
I don't expect the digital camera's zoom lens to have less distortion then the Elmarit, although that could be corrected digitally. So the film one should be the Is it digital (look at the stripe on the wall near the right side). Ciao, Flavio - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
I also feel that #1 is the film photo. It just appears to have more depth to it and the highlights appear to have more detail. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Is it Film or is it Digital
The lenses used on Canon D30 digital cameras are standard Canon EF lenses. They *do* have aperture blades, so I guess the only thing that you may be able to say is that one lens was apparently shot wide open and the other was shot stopped down somewhat. The only problem I have is that the lens was stated as being a 16-35mm zoom and, to the best of my knowledge, that should have been stated as a 17-35mm lens because I don't think Canon made a 16-35mm EF zoom. Len --- -Original Message- From: Edward Kreis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Is it Film or is it Digital I suppose that digital camera doesn't have the aperture blades, so the 2nd picture (with caption Or is it digital?) will be the Leica film photo, as there are clearly visible star-shaped lights. Edward - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
The first image requires more work -- contrast is lower, black level is weak, colour balance seems slightly cold. It also looks like it has a bit more distortion in the horizontal of the join between the wall and roof. Second image looks slightly warm (but pleasingly). At this resolution, I could take a slightly out of focus image and make it appear pin sharp (and...s...I have), so we won't learn anything about the lenses or the resolutions of the different setups. The Barbie camera can also make great images if you look at them small enough. ;) -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
Without picking at them in Photoshop: The image with the ropes is the digital one, since the Leica picture was taken for a commercial job, and they would have removed the ropes and taken care of the ugly reflection on the table for something like that. If the guy wants people to tell from the picture quality itself, he should provide full-res images. Scale the Leica neg scan so it is the same size as the digital picture, crop to a size that is manageable via the web, and we'll see. Or send 11x14s in the mail. :-) On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I don't know which was taken with the Leica, nor do I know what scanner was used - yet. IAC, I wouldn't mention it here. BTW, I think the idea was to judge the photos by looking at them, not picking them apart digitally and then telling everyone what you found. -- --- Juan J. Buhler | Sr. FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.com --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Is it Film or is it Digital
From another list ... thought it might make an interesting discussion: I re-did a photo I made several years ago. The original photo was made about 5 years ago using a Leica R8, velvia, 24 elmarit. I was a staff photographer for a publishing company back then.The photo I made this past week was made using a digital Canon D-30, 16-35 2.8L with the ISO set to 100 and the file size on the RAW setting (highest quality of the camera). I am now freelance so I own what I shoot, hence I can use this image for other publications than the one I was shooting for should I ever want to. Anyway I scanned the Velvia slide and have posted both images to the Apple site: http://homepage.mac.com/whmcclary/PhotoAlbum5.html for y'all to look at and see the differences. I am sure all here will immediately be able to tell which is the digitally captured image. == -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
At web resolution it's hard to tell, but having saved them to disk and examining them in Photoshop polk01 looks better - polk02 has some horizontal artifacts. Do you know which is the Leica? And do you know what scanner the photographer used and how good a scanner he/she is? Maris - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 7:42 PM Subject: Is it Film or is it Digital | From another list ... thought it might make an interesting discussion: | | | I re-did a photo I made several years ago. The original photo was | made about 5 years ago using a Leica R8, velvia, 24 elmarit. I was a | staff photographer for a publishing company back then.The photo I | made this past week was made using a digital Canon D-30, 16-35 2.8L | with the ISO set to 100 and the file size on the RAW setting (highest | quality of the camera). I am now freelance so I own what I shoot, | hence I can use this image for other publications than the one I was | shooting for should I ever want to. | | Anyway I scanned the Velvia slide and have posted both images to the | Apple site: | http://homepage.mac.com/whmcclary/PhotoAlbum5.html | for y'all to look at and see the differences. | | I am sure all here will immediately be able to tell which is the | digitally captured image. | | == | -- | Shel Belinkoff | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ | - | This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, | go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to | visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . | - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:04 -0800, you wrote: I am sure all here will immediately be able to tell which is the digitally captured image. They've both been digitally captured. Else one could not see them on the web. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Is it Film or is it Digital
Very true. At 10:34 PM 1/24/2002 -0600, you wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:04 -0800, you wrote: I am sure all here will immediately be able to tell which is the digitally captured image. They've both been digitally captured. Else one could not see them on the web. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
