OT Digicam DRange (was OT: D1s review)

2002-09-29 Thread Rob Studdert
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Change of subject just in case the post got lost in the noise: There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide, and not print film when it comes

Re: OT Digicam DRange (was OT: D1s review)

2002-09-29 Thread Bruce Rubenstein
For me, the biggest give away that something was shot with a direct to digital camera is that the image looks a little flat. I'm not used to seeing so much detail in the highlights and shadows. To make things look more like film I apply a bit of a S curve with Curves in PS. Having the option to

Re: Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-28 Thread Rob Studdert
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide, and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the highlights. It's easy to check

Re: OT: D1s review

2002-09-27 Thread Anthony Farr
It appears that in recent comparisons film has been downgraded from earlier estimates of either 70 or 40 megs (I recall both numbers at different times). There might be a confusion over capture resolution and resultant file size, and it would be helpful if the writers of these essays could be

Re: Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-27 Thread Rob Studdert
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide, and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the highlights. It's easy to check

Re: Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-27 Thread Rob Studdert
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide, and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the highlights. It's easy to check

RE: Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-27 Thread Rob Brigham
Shadow detail may be there but, from everything I have seen, it is full of SERIOUS noise. -Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 27 September 2002 02:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: OT: D1s review There has been a longish thread

Re: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Ryan K. Brooks
I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a superior media after seeing these pictures. -R Mike Ignatiev wrote: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml A pretty impressive comparison 35mm vs 645 vs Canon D1s -- seems like D1s is a

Re: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Robert Soames Wetmore
I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a superior media after seeing these pictures. -R [Ryan K. Brooks] Maybe because there are considerations for some of us other than absolute image quality. Even if you don't agree, other perspectives shouldn't be inconceivable.

Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Mike Ignatiev
agree. money is definitely one of them :) mishka -Original Message- From: Robert Soames Wetmore Subject: Re: OT: D1s review I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a superior media after seeing these pictures. -R [Ryan K. Brooks] Maybe because

RE: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread tom
I'd like to see how well it performs at ISO 800 and above. tv -Original Message- From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: D1s review I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film

RE: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Peter Alling
Probably poorly. At 10:59 AM 9/26/2002 -0400, you wrote: I'd like to see how well it performs at ISO 800 and above. tv -Original Message- From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: D1s

Re: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread William Robb
From: Ryan K. Brooks I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a superior media after seeing these pictures. One of the great failings of this, imo, is that we see pictures from completely different mediums and think we are making a valid comparison. Unfortunately, the

Re: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Bruce Dayton
Mike, The one tricky thing about these comparisons is how much image manipulation the camera software is doing. Things like sharpening and contrast changes. It is very hard to do an apples to apples comparison. Expertly applied sharping can do wonders for an image especially as you size it up

Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Bruce Dayton
Ryan, Aside from the inability on the web to really show things well (how were the files doctored for display at various sizes, etc), one huge factor for film is the ability to pick various types of films - wide latitude, narrow latitude, chromes, negs, various saturations, corrections for skin

Re[2]: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread Bruce Rubenstein
There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide, and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the highlights. It's easy to check the histogram in the camera to make sure. Shadow

RE: OT: D1s review

2002-09-26 Thread tom
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: D1s review Probably poorly. At 10:59 AM 9/26/2002 -0400, you wrote: I'd like to see how well it performs at ISO 800 and above. tv -Original Message- From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:25 AM