Ken Norton wrote:
>> Still, do you have to exaggerate so much? Why not stick to extolling those
>> areas where the OMs and film have a real advantage?
>
> Whoa, there Cowboy!
>
Let me semi apologize. I was working from only your original post, which
was only links, and the content on Zone-10. Now that you talk about a
bunch of other stuff, I've looked back and see I missed you lengthy
reply to Chuck in the sea of Iowa and BBQ posts.
Might I suggest that you include some of that content in the Zone-10
posting? There is no mention there of the difference between TTL and
conventional exposure, differences between films and between them and
digital sensor systems, etc.
> Moose, I very specifically did not talk about noise.
Mea culpa. I should have replied to your post and Chuck's separately.
Haste makes waste.
> Chuck brought that up and he has a 5D just like you. The noise argument is
> long since over. ... I'm not going there. How you read into my essay that
> film was superior to digital in this discussion is beyond me.
OK, what did you say here?
"Provia has ... The highlights in this case would have busted a digital camera
image and would have been extremely difficult to have captured without getting
out-of-gamut colors.
I did attempt this shot with the E-1 (for proofing purposes) and the entire
middle band of sky went white on me and the reds went yellow with red fringes."
> I'd prefer that you not automatically read into everything I write an
> anti-digital and anti-canon bias. I don't mean to be snippy, but I think you
> are off base and out-of-line.
>
Let's make a deal. I'll try my darndest not to assume anti digital bias
from you - and you do your darndest to not assume that when I talk
digital, it's only about Canon. Deal?
I'm well aware that Canon isn't the champ at everything and don't assume
that all digital vs. film comments from you are specifically
anti-Canon.. I even mentioned in my post that Nikon is the current high
ISO leader.
> Secondly, to your specific point, yes, I did extol those areas where I felt
> that the OMs and film have a real advantage:
>
> 1. OTF based auto-exposure. As the light was rapidly changing DURING the long
> exposure (of the dozen images I took, not two were the same), a
> viewfinder-based auto-exposure system would not have given the same exposure.
Different, probably, how much, I don't know. A spot reading for
highlights might be just right.
As I said, a DSLR exposure would almost certainly be much shorter.
Possibly, as Chuck pointed out, even shorter than I calculated, as
digital has no reciprocity failure. Thus the issue of light changing
during a dSLR exposure might be quite a bit less than you experienced.
> Better or worse, I do not know, but it would have been different--especially
> if the metering was more center-weighted. OTF has its flaws, but in my 23.5
> years of experience with the OM system I've learned that for longer exposures
> the system not only works, but works extremely well. I definitely could not
> get a usable meter reading from the sky using my handheld meter.
>
> 2. I identified two flaws in film and discussed them at length. ...
>
> 3. I acknowledged the non-linearity of film and the self-attenuation ...
>
> 4. I mentioned the use of digital and the result it gave.
As above, these three points aren't in the original posting or on
Zone-10. I would have considered them if I'd read them.
> The E-1 might suck when it comes to sensor noise, but I'll put it up against
> your 5D in color fidelity and practical dynamic range. The latest/greatest
> have been making improvements in this are, but only incrementally. A digital
> camera would have given different results--most likely requiring HDR to get
> anywhere close to the narrow contrast range needed for the sky.
>
Color fidelity -
I've never used an E-1, so I have no practical experience. I was
surprised when the ShootSmarter shoot-off rated the 5D on top for JPEG
skin tones. I'm not saying it's better or worse than any E-thingies,
only that it's apparently not bad.
On the other hand, nobody knows what the true colors of this image were.
You admit both that they couldn't be seen by the naked eye and that the
film used has differential color channel reciprocity failure. So the
colors are only an impression or approximation of colors we wouldn't see
in a "true-to-life", close to all black, web version or print.
Your comments about this shot and many others on film talk about the use
of different films to get different color results. How does that jibe
with a lot of talk about color accuracy? My supposition is that you want
accurate/good skin tones without post work when shooting all those
people at events, but are more interested in effecting your vision of
what the image should look like in nature.
Personally, I shoot human skin in only a very small portion of my work.
I am generally some what interested in color accuracy, but in a
different way. Given my druthers, my outdoor images mostly are shot
outside the high sun hours. That means the colors aren't what would be
seen in "daylight". It also means there is no way to know what the
colors of the subjects actually were. I work instead to create something
like what I remember, perhaps even my impressions of the light and
colors. So really high color accuracy isn't a high priority to me.
Other folks, other needs.
Dynamic range -
I'm not sure just what you mean by "practical dynamic range". In the
dpreview tests of DR, E-thingies generally have had somewhat less
recoverable highlights and their greater shadow noise has limited their
shadow range, with the result that they have had less DR than other
brands. Their E-1 test was before they introduced this test, so I have
no information there.
My guess is that my 5D, and at least some other brands/models, have more
practical DR than the E-1, but absent a direct comparison, I don't know
how to know for sure.
More DR, plus HDR -
I'm not convinced that the dynamic range of your image is that great. A
shot of a sunset with both direct sun in the frame and deep, deep
shadow, has considerable more brightness range than this image. I'm also
convinced that most complaints about DR and the vast majority of uses of
HDR have nothing to do with inherent capability of the tools and
everything to do with inadequate user skills and/or the desire for the
super-real look so many HDR images have.
I'm doing some examples, but that's not for just now.
> 5. Implied, but not mentioned--I accomplished this photograph with a $5 roll
> of film and $5 of processing. $10 and all total, there were about 12 shots,
> so 1/3 the cost or about $3.33.
My 5D cost $2,620. I've taken almost 7000 shots with it. That's about
$0.37 per exposure. Looking back at the invoice, the amazing thing is
that a 2GB Sandisk Ultra II CF card cost $86!
> As I don't usually shoot this kind of subject and my low-end E-1 handles all
> my normal paying work, I can't justify the cost of even a used 5D right now,
> much less a new one or a
I wasn't and am not suggesting that you should have anything but what
you are using. You are doing excellent work and enjoying it. Why look
any further until that changes?
> D700 which has substandard pixel-count.
>
Where's the smiley face?
> I never once mentioned the advantage or disadvantage of film/sensor speed in
> making this photo.
No, you didn't. It seemed implicit to me, though, as with shorter
exposures, much of the advantage of the OM-4T and film seem to me to
become less important.
> I shot some 2-3 minute exposures this trip specifically for the look that a
> long exposure gives me. Had I used a 5D Mk2, I'm sure I could have shot it
> in 8 seconds or less, but the look would not have been what I was seeking.
Hard to argue with personal taste. On the other hand, I don't see
anything in the finished web version that makes it stand out as
something unique to film.
> I wouldn't mind having ISO 6400 performance that looks like Velvia 50, but
> that isn't always the goal. It is a nice option, though.
>
Halation and all? Or does one use a blur filter to accomplish that? ;-)
As usual, I'm mystified by why one would go to a lot of trouble and
expense to use a film with demonstrably inaccurate color. You want funny
colors, you can always do it in post. I'm quite serious. I'm sure an ICC
profile to convert E-1 colors, for example, into Velvia colors should be
possible. With that, Velvia on demand is almost instant.
> I'm sure any photographer worth his/her salt could have created a decent
> photograph with whatever imaging system at his/her disposal. But let's be
> honest with ourselves--how many of us go out to photograph a post-sunset sky
> when it is nearly dark? ISO 100, F2.8 and 2 minutes. Do the math.
>
I've put it on my agenda, but it will more likely be ISO 800 and 15 sec
or less. I've taken many post sunset shots, but not that far post.
> Moose, I'm not sure what your issue is, but this time I actually met and
> exceeded your request. If you think I'm exaggerating, as you claim, prove it.
>
I hope I've at least made a start.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|