Digital cameras: Taking pictures in low light with a compact camera. How?
Speed Graphic
by snapshot2
- 3/4/08 7:05 AM
In reply to: AAh the Speed Graphic! But a bit far from the thread by mike_july17
A favorite press camera.
Jimmy Olsen would be proud.
...
..
.
Trying to stay on thread - but failing
by martin1325 - 3/4/08 8:10 AM In reply to: Speed Graphic by snapshot2
As said in my first post I am a pro. photographer and there really is no comparison between film/transparency and digital. If Gloria SD wants wonderful, rich low-light shots she can use a relatively simple compact film camera with 400+asa film and hey presto! My sincere wish is that film v digital goes along the lines of LP v CD. LPs almost became extinct in the UK as manufacturers gave up on them. Luckily the present generation of youth, rather than having the cloth ears we suspected them of having, realised how much warmer the sound was and there is now a very healthy LP manufacturing industry. I really am not opposed to progress, and digital cameras can do far more technically and post shooting is amazing, but warmth and non-pixelated hard or soft definition? Bring on the day when my Leicas (from IIIf to M2}, Nikons (from F to F3s), Bronicas and two wonderful Thornton Pickard 10"x8"s can be returned to the fray. Sorry Gloria SD, will stop ranting now but still recommend a Fuji F31fd as the best option.
Used F31FD more expensive than brandnew F40 etc. models
by passionproductions - 3/4/08 9:31 AM In reply to: Trying to stay on thread - but failing by martin1325At least in Europe... If this is not an indication....
You are so right Martin
by mike_july17 - 3/4/08 3:00 PM In reply to: Trying to stay on thread - but failing by martin1325I do so agree Martin.
I was brought up on film and love monochrome.
I have yet to see a monochrome image taken on ANY digital camera, regardless of cost, to display the subtle graduation of tones that I can achieve on my humble Pentax ME super, a camera which stopped production in the 1970's I think.
However, for family snapshots, I use digital, a Canon EOS 300D (Rebel in the US) I also have a Samsung Digimax A6 that is pretty good.
As you can see, I am no gadget freak, and don't believe in ditching technology just because something new comes along.
as an aside - pentax super program
by udornthani - 3/6/08 4:51 AM In reply to: You are so right Martin by mike_july17Have three bodies plus an A3 with built-in winder and 20mm to 500mm lenses just sitting there for years. Picked up a BX Pentax with F1.4 for my dad and it made some really sharp photos during TET. I liked it enough to buy myself Pentax regardless of the 2nd tier status of the name. If the new Pentax 10MP were 15MP or at least 1/2 35mm size frame sensor which takes all my lenses I'd snap one up in a minute. Alas, it's not.
film vs digital
by hjfok - 3/4/08 6:46 PM In reply to: Trying to stay on thread - but failing by martin1325Agree with the posters. The tripod will go a long way for either film or digital cameras in low light still photos. The night scene preprogrammed mode usually will bump up the ISO and turn off the flash. Low light action however will need fast film or high ISO, along with fast lenses. And for compact cameras, Fuji has the best high ISO performance so far, but still short of D-SLR or film cameras. Sigma has the Foveon sensor that can record all wavelengths of light in each pixel, more like film cameras than the current crop of digital cameras. And Kodak is developing a new sensor that can also record all wavelengths in each pixel too, so there will be more digital cameras that have better dynamic range in the near future.
There is strength and weakness of each technology, old or new. Experience and familiarity with the equipment sometimes are more important than which technology one uses. Experience helps to optimize the strength of the technology and minimize or compensate for its weakness. There are some amazing work done on digital cameras that film camera cannot duplicate, and vice versa. Compact film cameras also have their fair share of mediocrity in the inexperienced hands of the mass, just like the compact digitals nowadays. At least we found out those bad shots right away with the digitals and have a second chance to retake.
As for the LPs, who will not miss the warm sound punctuated by those annoying static noise? Playing a CD in the cheap system from a discount store is very different from a top of the line system using EMM Labs DAC6e six-channel DSD converter and Halcro amplifier with Wilson Audio's Alexandria X2 speakers. If you have heard the CD through this awesome system, you will then realize the pure noiseless warm and powerful sounds of the digital. Again this depends on your experience and knowledge of the technology and systems. Perhaps it is the MP3 that really needs to play some catch up with the sound quality, but who can beat the versatility of the ipod vs the couple of thousand pounds monster audio system.
It's different for me
by kalel33 - 3/6/08 6:23 AM In reply to: film vs digital by hjfokI don't miss the film days at all. I had a very nice Fuji zoom lens from a time long ago. Those pictures don't hold a candle to my pictures now or from my Canon G2 that I used for so many years. Disposable cameras are junk, how can those take better pictures with their plastic lens than a Canon A series with a great lens. I don't miss those underexposed, bad red eye, and those shots that turned out pure white or black. It wasn't just my camera, I have not seen a compact zoom lens film camera that did what my G2 produced. It's everyones preference though and that was just my opinion.
opinion
by udornthani2 - 3/6/08 6:55 AM In reply to: It's different for me by kalel33I think the main thrust of the comment might have been that a 25MP 1 x 1 1/2 inch high res sensor equivalent, beats the heck out of 99% of the digital cameras out today. Granted, cheap lenses might bring that down to a 15MP equivalent and the very sharpest lenses and old kodachrome 25 might really be more than 25MP, you'd be hard to compete with them. And, you can't compete on color depth. A well exposed kodachrome 25 or now, 64, has over 16bit x 3 (48) color equivalent. You have neither the sensors nor software that handles that color depth in digital.
Are you offering anything more than your opinion?
by Kiddpeat - 3/6/08 9:30 AM In reply to: opinion by udornthani2I remember a presentation and other references that placed film in the 16 megapixel range. Do you have an authoritative source that puts film into a 25 megapixel world? If so, how does one move that resolution into the digital world? If you can't move it into digital. the discussion is over. Digital can do far more than film ever dreamed of doing.
Film is a very expensive, hit or miss kind of environment.
BTW, if memory serves, Canon, for one, has moved beyond the 25 megapixel level.
I found this
by kalel33 - 3/6/08 4:57 PM In reply to: Are you offering anything more than your opinion? by KiddpeatThis is a great article with film vs. digital. Gives marks and negatives to both sides and what they're better at in different situations.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
Agree with kiddpeat
by hjfok - 3/6/08 7:39 PM In reply to: Are you offering anything more than your opinion? by KiddpeatDr. Roger Clark has this web article comparing film vs equivalent digital MP:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
It is somewhat at or below 16 MP for the 35 mm films.
16MP
by udornthani2 - 3/7/08 3:59 AM In reply to: Agree with kiddpeat by hjfokIm one of them there ol' dinosaurs, don't mind me.
In previous discussions (2 or 3) I've read, 25MP seemed to be the agreed upon full frame 35mm equivalent. Mr. Clark and another he mentions seem to think 16MP is about right. The film and it's proper processing is equal to the sensors on digital camera. I admit to being unfamiliar with side by side comparisons. But film is not limited in color depth (color film has 48+ bits in slow versions)I will say that 13 x 19s from panatomic-x rated at 40 and processed in D-76 1:1 were about grainless and tack sharp and I needed only the slightest dodging in the deep shadows to give me satisfying detail. If I wanted larger grainless prints, I went to ADOX R-14 and KB-14. Back in the 50s, there was some talk about slightly incomplete panchomatic sensitivity, but I only came upon it once. Badly oxidized red painted fire hydrants came out darker than I thought they should be. The BND, the West german Intel service used the film. How much of a color print is made using a digitial darkroom which limits you to 24bits or 32bits as far I'm informed? In film, I remember the rodinal school which gave the appearance of sharpness using a pointelist style? Which part of the elephant are we describing? pjk
film vs digital
by hjfok - 3/7/08 1:20 PM In reply to: 16MP by udornthani2I don't think anyone is saying one format is superior in every way. Like I said before, each has its strength and weakness. Digital SLR for the most part is only competing with the 35mm film SLR. The digital medium format cameras are still too expensive for most casual users. And medium and large format film cameras still have not faced too much competition from digital yet.
Films no doubt still have the advantage of having better color depths, and digital still has problems with highlight and shadow clipping. But the digital world is advancing quickly, and closing the gap. High dynamic range HDR photography combines multiple exposures and yield very good dynamic range using softwares. And the digital manufacturers are developing panchromatic sensors that will become closer to film in the future. These gaps inevitably will be closing in the future. But digital cameras are a more powerful tool for most (lay nonprofessional) people for a different reason.
I'm old enough to have a little experience using film cameras, compact and SLR. Although film has better dynamic range, but to get the best results from film is a tedious process. I still remember those 1hr photo shops, hardly can get what I want. And I still remember those dark rooms and the smell of those toxic chemicals, spending hours to develop what I need for publications. Knowing what film to use and how to process the film is an art that many SLR newbies don't have. Many don't even know about the basics, and they are mostly taking photos by trial and error. Having the ability to review the photos instantly (ie instant feedback) help the newbies grow in their skills and take better photos. Most will have a better chance getting a good photo with digital than film. Can you imagine a newby bringing the new film SLR on a once-in-a-lifetime trip, only to find out that the photos look crappy because of using incorrect film, wrong exposure, bad framing, etc. Now we have a chance to review on site and retake the photo right away. That is something film can never do. And this is the reason why digital camera and D-SLR take over the film cameras like a storm. Digital cameras also become part of our life and culture, sharing photos online with far away relatives and friends. Sure you can scan your photos from film cameras, but most people don't have the patience these days to do that.
So this is a long way to say that even though film has the potential to take photos with better color depths, few will have the knowledge like yourself to benefit significantly from it. On the contrary, the instant feedback from digital SLR helps more amateur photographers learn by experimenting. The ease of experimentation is not limited to amateurs, but also allow seasoned photographers to become more creative. And we do see a new crop of creative photos from D-SLR that were not seen in the old film SLR days.
From a practical standpoint, I chased after my 3 year old in and out of the house to snap some photos for memories (the main reason for photography for many parents including myself). The ability to change the ISO and white balance with a turn of a dial is something film SLR cannot do. If you use a fast film outdoor or vice versa, will give you more horrible results than the digital highlight/shadow clippings.
The knowledge and skill to use films and develop prints are restricted to a small number, mostly pros. Like I said, most people will take better photos with a digital than a film camera.
rockwell
by udornthani2 - 3/7/08 2:26 PM In reply to: Agree with kiddpeat by hjfokInteresting, but one man's aversion for taking the camera to a shooting location. I can remember days when it was hard to unwrap my fingers from the frame of a Speed Graphic so I could slide my hand out of the strap-body space. It would just sit there secure at the end of my hand humping the boondocks and bombing ranges. My small case had a Schneider 90mm wide, 10 double sheet filmholders (that made you think before shooting, a couple filters, sunshade, M5B bulbs, rarely did I need a tripod. I rarely used a light meter (horrors) a bad habit I learned as a kid growing up with a cheap 21/4 and no light meter. I soon realized there was the reciprocal speed rule and used it often the rest of my life - well until I bought cameras with light meters in them, though sometimes they weren't as accurate as my eye. Laziness is a programmed exposure. I plead guilty.
The process you describe is far too expensive in
by Kiddpeat - 3/7/08 4:27 PM In reply to: rockwell by udornthani2several different dimensions. The film itself is hugely expensive considering how much must be used just to go through the learning process, and remains hugely expensive to purchase, process, and store. In addition, film cost is rising as producers exit the business, and facilities that can process it disappear. It has huge delays waiting for results, and huge opportunity costs when something goes wrong in storage, shooting, or processing. That's a big reason why it is disappearing even among the pros.
FWIW, digital images, if I understand your bit depth reference, are now frequently captured and processed using 48 bits.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
