Jump to content

Using a DSLR for landscape photography


Recommended Posts

I have been a film camera user for a number of years, and, like many others, I am considering moving

to the digital realm. One of my favorite types of photography is landscapes, and I want to be able to

achieve at least as good image quality in 13x19 inch prints as I now do with Astia 100f. However, I

have

read on more than one occasion that DSLRs are still not as good as 35mm film for landscapes. Is

there any truth to this statement?

 

BTW, I am considering one of the new generation of 10MP DSLRs.

 

Thanks,

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW3/large/53.jpg"><br>

Pigeon Point Lighthouse - Pescadero, CA 2003<br>

<i>©2003 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Canon 10D + 50mm f/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

Not all that you read is credible. Most of today's DSLRs perform at least as well as 35mm

film SLRs for landscape work, with appropriate lenses and skills on the part of the

photographer. I took the photo above in 2003 with the 6Mpixel Canon 10D, mounted on a

sturdy tripod. I only printed it to a large size (13x19" print) recently. When I did, I

discovered that that little white speck against the cliff in the distance, which I thought to

clone out as being some trash, was a nicely resolved seagull flying 25 feet over the water...

<br><br>

Fact is that landscape work can be very demanding, depending upon the style you want to

pursue, and much of it (particularly wide views made into large scale prints) is still the

realm of medium format and large format film. But much very good work can be done with

35mm film, and better work can be done with DSLRs in my opinion.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gonna depend on lots of factors I'd say (quality of shot taken, quality of printer and printing techniques (or if you have them done online), quality of post processing (takes practice to know what's just right and what's too much, especially compared to what's on your screen vs. what prints well), plus expectations (are you thinking of high speed films, IS0 50 slides etc...? Are you going to look at the prints with a magnifying glass or from a normal distance?)

 

I've shown work twice so far (one with the majority of shots at 12x18 and one with prints as large as 16x24) and have always surprised the attendees (many of them very much "in-the-know" as far as photography) when they find out which prints are film & which aren't (let alone the fact that all my digital is from the original 6mp dRebel).

 

I honestly don't think that you'd be able to spot the difference of the 12x18's hanging in my house or a similar size from a 35mm (and that's at 6mp. My own non-expert hunch would be to say that 10mp would bring you beyond 35mm quality for the most part and closer to medium format)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a Canon 5D. I also have a Mamiya 645 and I always thought that the quality of the medium format film was unbeatable (except for Large Format). The 5d smokes even the Mamiya - the quality is that good. I shoot landscapes exclusively. Forget what everyone else is saying and get yourself a good DSLR and more importantloy excellent glass - you will love the results!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landscapes are almost all I shoot (just an amateur though). Also I haven't printed beyond 8x10. But I'll say my Konica Minolta 5D (not the Canon 5D) is competing successfully against my Minolta 600si and my Contax RTS III using Velvia. And it's only 6.1MP.

 

You bump that up to 8MP or 10MP and I suspect you'd have no problem. You might even get away with using a digital like my Maxxum 5D at that size but I just don't know. As always, careful technique and a tripod are a good idea.

 

Number of MP's does seem to go directly to print size. Even when people on this forum say MP isn't the only consideration, most of them say that the higher MP's are better for printing large prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another amateur who shoots a lot of landscapes. I use a Contax RTS II with Velvia or Provia most of the time when I shoot film (though I like plain ol' Superia 100 for snapshots, it's a good all-purpose film).

 

I prefer Velvia to my A100 right now, but not by much. I'm confident that as I get more familiar with the camera and keep playing with the adjustments to the RAW files (I've only had the camera for about 2 weeks now) I will essentially have a tie between the A100 and Velvia.

 

Will I stop shooting film? No. Not unless it goes completely out of production. I don't have any rational reason to keep using it, but I like it and that's enough for me.

 

Does my A100 do everything I would want it to do? Yes. It's certainly not a perfect camera, but it does what I want it to do and has very good image quality. I'm quite happy with it.

 

A modern DSLR (any modern DSLR) should be just fine for landscape work, I think that you'll be happy with whatever you choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like some satisfied users., but I'm still not fully convinced. In order to

print 13x19 inches at 300dpi from a 6MP image file, considerable interpolation has to be

employed. In making such a print from a 5400dpi scan of 35mm film, no interpolation is

required. It is my understanding that films such as Velvia or Astia have resolution

approximately equivalent to 12-14MP How, then, is it possible for the digital camera print

to look better, other than the fact that it suffers less from grain/noise? . Is there not

some image degradation invoved in the interpolation (fudging) process? I'm not merely

doubting here, but trying to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm finding the Sony R1 lends itself particularly well to landscape shooting. It features a high 10.3 meg resolution and an excellent wide zoom, 24mm to 120mm. At ISO 160 it easily holds it's own in 13X19 " prints with 35mm, and I'd venture that the looks reminds me somewhat more of MF. It's quite a bargain at today's prices (generally under $700.00), especially considering the Carl Zeiss lens it has.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<Is there not some image degradation invoved in the interpolation (fudging) process?>>

 

The answer, of course, is that yes, there is some degradation involved, but not nearly enough to notice. Image manipulation programs have gotten very, very good and up-sized images are really quite good these days.

 

A 10MP camera will give you just over 200 DPI on a 13x19 which is still plenty of information unless you plan on viewing it from 4 to 5 inches away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<b>Godfrey said</b> <i> Not all that you read is credible. Most of today's DSLRs perform at least as well as 35mm film SLRs for landscape work, with appropriate lenses and skills on the part of the photographer. </i><p>

Beware of Godfrey! He slips in that phrase <i>appropriate ... skills</i> !<p>

Such is enough to ruin the prospects of a <u>Buy Talent Now</u> maven! Godfrey is suggesting that talent, or *gasp* education or experience, or indeed an *eye* makes a difference!<p>

It ain't so! If you spend enough, the Gods of Photography will bless your work and make you famous! <p>

Especially if you use an Apple computer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/large/31.jpg"><br>

Quays #1 - Gloucester, UK - 2006<br>

<i>©2006 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + FA35/2 AL<br>

ISO 1600 @ f/2 @ 1/10 sec, Av (EV +0.3)<br>

</i></center><br>

 

<i>Robert Goldstein:<br>

> Sounds like some satisfied users., but I'm still not fully<br>

> convinced. In order to print 13x19 inches at 300dpi from a 6MP<br>

> image file, considerable interpolation has to be employed. .... <br></i>

<br>

Printing digital captures to inkjet requires lower print ppi to achieve the same visual

quality compared to printing scanned negatives. Scanned negatives have all kinds of

issues from grain aliasing to emulsion defects to grain itself ... properly exposed digital

captures are very clean by comparison. <br>

<br>

So while your statement above is correct ... to print a 6Mpixel image file at 300ppi to a

13x19 inch size would require re-sampliing to approximately double the number of pixels

to

achieve that print density ... in general you can print with 40 to 50 per cent lower output

density to achieve the same print quality with digital capture. <br>

<br>

<i>

> ... It is my understanding that films such<br>

> as Velvia or Astia have resolution approximately equivalent to<br>

> 12-14MP ...<br>

</i>

<br>

That's unfortunately not correct. It is very rare that fine grained, high acutance 35mm

format film has more than 4000 ppi worth of image information, or about 6Mpixel. Many

films can't achieve that number, particularly anything over about ASA 100-200.

Considering the high resolution films, sampling such as with a 5400 ppi scanner helps

reduce noise by reducing grain aliasing,

but the image data is not substantively improved once past 4000 ppi, except for cases of

extremely high resolution, low grain films. Technical Pan, APX25, and various microfilms

processed for continuous tone can achieve up to 150-200 lp@mm acutance, but I don't

believe there are any continous tone color emulsions that can get close to that.<br>

<br>

<i>

> ... How, then, is it possible for the digital camera print to<br>

> look better, other than the fact that it suffers less from<br>

> grain/noise? . Is there not some image degradation invoved in the<br>

> interpolation (fudging) process? I'm not merely doubting here,<br>

> but trying to understand.<br>

</i>

<br>

There is a basic difference between film capture and optical enlargement vs a fully digital

capture to digital print process: <br>

<br>

With the film/optical enlargement process, the apparent resolution of the print is on a

continuous downwards curve since the enlargement process is simply magnifiying the

image and all its defects linearly. The limits of film to optical print enlargement are

generally considered to be 16-20x at most for high quality prints. Scanned film introduces

defects due to the scanning process itself, as mentioned above grain-aliasing, scanner

focus issues, and other defects of emulsions are all captured and affect the quality of the

print output. Oversampling so that a 300+ ppi print output is achieved is a way of

masking those problems. <br>

<br>

With digital capture to print, the game changes. Presuming a well matched optical system

as with film, the number of pixels you have to work with is constant regardless of how you

size them for printing. The result is that digital capture to print quality improves in

perceptual sharpness and resolution until the pixels become individually visible, then the

apparent resolution drops off quickly. This

happens at around 150-180 ppi, at normal viewing distances. Dimensionally, that means

that visible pixels are about .006 inch in size ... If you keep the pixels under .005 inch in

size,

their edges blur together in the printing process and allow the illusion of smoothness to

be preserved. Since there is no grain, only noise to contend with, good image processing

technique can greatly improve the apparent sharpness and smoothness of the printed

image. <br>

<br>

Godfrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very probable that I lack the ability to tweak a RAW file in Photoshop to my satisfaction. After hearing about digital's favourable comparison to film, on these same forums, in late 2004 I bought the Canon Digital Rebel. Well, the pictures sure looked good on a monitor. However, I could never get the prints to generate the depth I am accustomed to with my film prints. The digital prints just seemed 'flat'. Additionally, I had a great deal of trouble tempering digital's propensity to clip highlight detail (at a wedding). With b&w film, I wouldn't even think twice about burning out highlight detail. I guess I just found the whole experience aggravating.

 

I use the film formats 35mm, 645, 4x5, and 8x10. I have made prints (scanned and printed by West Coast Imaging) of varying sizes from all the listed formats. I'm assuming, therefore, that I am aware of what the best of film can offer. Let's just say that even the 35mm prints made my digital prints look bad. Really bad. Ya, I know all the counter-arguments, so spare me. I'm a Photoshop dunce, I'll be first to admit. I am sure things have progressed, and I am always looking at those new cameras with their users awe-struck by the Image Quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>Will I stop shooting film? No. Not unless it goes completely out of production. I don't have any rational reason to keep using it, but I like it and that's enough for me.

 

Does my A100 do everything I would want it to do? Yes. It's certainly not a perfect camera, but it does what I want it to do and has very good image quality. I'm quite happy with it. <<<

 

That's just where I was. If you want to stay happy, don't buy a DSLR. BEing able to see your shots right after the shot and know if you got clipped highlights or too dense blacks is pretty addictive. And reading them off the camera saves time over scanning.

 

>>>Sounds like some satisfied users., but I'm still not fully convinced. In order to print 13x19 inches at 300dpi from a 6MP image file, considerable interpolation has to be employed. <<<

 

You'd think so, but somehow it doesn't work that way. My 6.1MP images from my Konica Minolta 5D are very close to my Velvia images. And the lack of grain (and relative lack of noise at 100-400 ISO) results in an image more printable than it should be.

 

Borrow a DSLR, use it seriously, and prepare for a shock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... films such as Velvia or Astia have resolution approximately equivalent to 12-14MP..."

 

This is true, but only in an academic sense. Check out http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html for a very good technical treatment of why this is the case.

 

Roughly, film starts to lose contrast very quickly as scene detail increases. Digital sensors behave much more nicely.

 

Take a look at the attached curve for Velvia (RVP.) 50% MTF is the conventional measure of sharpness; for this film it's at about 40 cycles/mm. Since a minimum of two pixels are necessary to record one cycle, this works out to be 80 pixels/mm. This rounds up to about 6MP for a 36mm by 24mm piece of RVP.

 

There is definitely more information recorded than this on the film than this. How useful it is depends on the particulars.

 

"How, then, is it possible for the digital camera print to look better ... image degradation invoved in the interpolation (fudging) process?"

 

And this is no different with film. It doesn't matter at how much higher resolution the scan is when the film media itself completely peters out at 60 cycles/mm. Beyond this, the scanner is essentially doing a mechanical interpolation (or the enlarger doing an optical one.)<div>00IdTR-33273584.jpg.6f334ad1ac920904e0c0da0cabe00618.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rory, <br>

<br>

The key thing is to realize that digital image processing is just as much skill and art to

master as a darkroom process. The technology of digital imaging is progressing at a

breakneck pace ... what was state of the art in 2004 is now behind the crest of the wave,

particularly with respect to print rendering. <br>

<br>

No need to feel bad about it. If you are getting what you want out of film work, go ahead

and enjoy it! If you want to move into a new realm of photographic process, buckle down

and do some study. I strongly suggest reading ... "Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop

CS2" is a seminal work on RAW processing, there are several books on digital printing,

color management, etc that are must reads to move forward efficiently. <br>

<br>

I've been involved with digital image processing for almost 22 years. The past four have

been nothing short of amazing. And it's not done yet, although I think the big plateau has

been achieved now. <br>

<br>

Do photography, with whatever technology works for you. I'm working almost exclusively

in digital capture now, but my interest has be piqued by doing some subminiature and

medium format film again. It's all good work and good fun, and can be exceptional art.

<br>

<br>

best, <br>

Godfrey<br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<b>Godfrey asketh:</b> <i>who is Pico diGoliardi ...

and what is his quest?

LOL! </i><p>

Pico is dedicated to the proper capitalization of "di" prefix Italian names! (Ah, so he's screwed up for fifty years spelling his own, WTF?)<p>

But most of all, Pico is here (at least for the moment) to promote the vapours (note the Oxford affectation) of all things advertised as The Ultimate Truth! Scholars bedamned! Picoans wish to live in the bliss of ignorance, peeing our hard-earned dollars away so that we live on the eternally moving brink of greater prospects of purchasing excellence! <p>

Data Point: Picoans do not know Ducatiese, but they are inclined to BeeEmDoubleiese.<p>

To the rest: if those terms of consumerism don't ring a bell, then just surf the Leica adverts. Same friggin thang.<p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital photoraphy is the crack cocaine of the art world. And I'm addicted. They used to

say that f"ilm was the cheapest thing in photography, so use lots of it." Well, I guess it is

cheap...if you're a National Geographic staff photographer and they give you a huge sack

of film and then process and print it for you.

 

For years I've been using slide film. Mail order (locally it's twice as much): $5 per roll for

Provia or Velvia. Processing: $5 via mailer. Cheapest possible scan: $1 per slide. Guess

what?

If you had every slide scanned, it would cost $46 for that roll! And if you need a really high

quality scan, one that would do it justice, the scan could easily cost $5-6 per slide.

But naturally, I don't--and can't afford to--scan every slide. So I try to be selective by

throwing most away from the light table (now totally wasting most of a roll of slides and

their mounts). Even with a loupe, sometimes I'm wrong, and the scanned file comes back:

maybe a critical part was out of focus, or the exposure wasn't dead on. Or maybe....it's

just a boring picture and doesn't have the luminosity it had when light was being shown

through it. So for every decent finished photo, there's huge waste involved. Let's say I

actually put together a darkroom. That's more waste, especially expensive paper, because

I'll have to make a large number of prints to nail the contrast and exposure, the burning

and dodging. And at the end of the night, all those chemicals go down the drain and into

our local watershed, where salmon and steelhead are trying to spawn. Time? Ok--I'm not

normally the instant gratification type, but consider: processing mailer: 10 days. Scan: 10

more days. And that's if I rip the film out of the camer early, thereby wasting most of the

roll. Otherwise I have to wait till the roll is done, probably another 7 weeks. As it is,

working with film has made it so I don't trip the shutter unless I'm absolutely in love with

the shot--it's too much time and money to experiment. And let's not talk about the hours

of fixing the scratches and dust that appear in the scanned files. There's a reason I

abandoned photography for so many years: too much time and money down the drain.

Digital has made photography fun again.<div>00IdUn-33274084.jpg.56f7d149c8a773e1a861c7257ed561d5.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actual reality, 13x19 inch (Super B size) landscape prints from a 6MP DSLR can be stunning; I know and I am picky. It comes down to technique at the capture and then your post processing skills to the final print.

 

8MP will be slightly better and the full frame Canons are unbeatable (starting at nearly 13MP). What is your budget?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Les, I do my own scanning on a Minolta 5400 and have large prints made by West Coast

Imaging on their Chromira printer. I am highly satisfied with the results but want to

explore digital capture for its greater convenience and reputedly better quality. If it is

indeed better, I will be delighted. Right now, my top contender is the Pentax K10D, but

I'm waiting for reviews and user reports before making a decision.

 

I am fully aware of the fact that a frame of film contains a limited quantity of useful visual

information and that scanning at ever higher resolutions cannot increase that quantity

even as the file sizes become larger. But, damn, the scans I can get from Astia 100f are

pretty amazing, and I would gladly put them up against any 6MP camera.

 

Thanks to Godfrey and others for their explanations of some of the technical aspects of

digital imaging.

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably good to distinguish really excellent landscape photography with that of

taking

photographs of landscapes. The former, yielding outstanding results, is a very labor

intensive

process with a very specialized workflow. A couple of local photographers that practice

that

are Charles Cramer, Bill Atkinson, and David Hibbard. You can google their names and see

how they approach the genre.

 

The latter, simply taking photographs of landcapes, can be done with almost any camera

and

by any person. The results (ie seeing large prints on a wall), both aesthetically and

technically, will be far different. I'm not a big fan of traditional landscape photography,

but can still be blown away by those (like the people mentioned above) who are seriously

engaged with the genre.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I>"a 5400dpi scan of 35mm film"</I><P>

 

. . . is almost always a waste of time. Robert Lee is on the right track. Even discounting any issues of grain, a 5400 ppi scan means 106 lp/mm. Very, very few lens-and-film combinations can record any significant amount of detail at this level. If you accept 50 lp/mm as the limit of much detail for good lens-and-film combinations (and if you don't, take a look at Fuji's MTF curves for Velvia and Astia, to say nothing of, oh, Pro 400H), you get 9 MP. Yes, I realize that Bayer-sensor and Nyquist issues mean that almost all DSLR's only have about 80% of their nominal linear resolutions (using the 50% MTF criterion), but their MTF curves don't slope off the way films' do, so the net effect appears to be roughly a wash.<P>

 

Remeber, a 13x19 print from 10 MP is 199 ppi, and from 6 MP is 154 ppi. From typical viewing distances that can look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In amongst all this technical discussion I would suggest a basic point that in addition to your camera that you also need a good editing programme and skill in using it. Likely you will be somewhat disappointed with images out of any DSLR you purchase until you work them up in editing. Whereas with Astia you have a processing lab doing quite a bit of the work for you, with digital you are on your own .. except for thousands of folk willing to help you with your problems :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...