Allen Herbert Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Ooops.....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnycake_.1 Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 IMHO, At this time, it seems to me that low light film tones, even with the mandatory digital "post-processing," have a greater dynamic range than the tones of most "primary digital" images after "similar" post-processing. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/35/73720247_eae011b0db.jpg?v=0"> Dig or fil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/34/73720271_45291b702a_o.jpg"> ???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <i>At this time, it seems to me that low light film tones, even with the mandatory digital "post- processing," have a greater dynamic range than the tones of most "primary digital" images after "similar" post-processing.</i><p>Mine was film, does it show that? Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/61/159851868_60ce723248_o.jpg"> ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/34/74065737_390e29d85a_o.gif"> Dig??? film???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/100/262072083_86667eb1db_o.jpg"> This? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/91/243641657_47fb489903_o.jpg"> ???film??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 <img src="http://static.flickr.com/92/221837268_a4e526fedb_o.jpg">4 are digital 3 are film, you call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Is the goal of this thread to obtain <i>absolute proof</i> of one thing or another or to display pictures and share thoughts? This is slightly more recent than my last-October 2006. M3, 50mm Can-'cron.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Same evening, same camera & lens:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Forgot to mention the film. Kodak 400 C-41 B+W. TCN I think it's called. Here's a colour shot from same night. OM-2, fuji 400 Superia 20mm Spiratone 2.8. Good old Mr. Spyros. All hand held-can ya tell?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Didn't have a helluva lot of light for this one either. Same roll as previous.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 "At this time, it seems to me that low light film tones, even with the mandatory digital "post- processing," have a greater dynamic range than the tones of most "primary digital" images after "similar" post-processing." Well thinking about that, I would say it depends on whether the film was "normal" speed film with longer exposure time in which you can let the tones extend, I would then agree. But on the fast films, like 1600 etc and even more or pushed films, I think tonal curve is drops much faster, less shoulder and thus more like digital, so at a certain point, I think its a wash. Where that is, I dunno, don't think it matters that much for street shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnycake_.1 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Jeff (www.spirer.com), oct 21, 2006; 11:15 p.m. "At this time, it seems to me that low light film tones, even with the mandatory digital 'post- processing,' have a greater dynamic range than the tones of most 'primary digital' images after 'similar' post-processing. Mine was film, does it show that?"<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_lo_..._t_o Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 For some #*! reason there is s grey square over one of my pictures on my computer. No naked people either. I believe this is where one says "WTF!"<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongraham1 Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 GRD 1600 iso bw modehttp://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/data/6001/R1000283afilteredweb.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 Barry made some logical conclusions. Under extreme lighting, both are washed out. Be glad you got the shot you wanted. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5107683-md.jpg"></a> d50 1600, sigma30/1.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 I think the only thing separating the 2 in such circumstances would be the grain structure. Even that is a matter of taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Johnnycake,<p>heh, heh, nice pick up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Excellent thread, Travis, as alway.Of course it prove absolutely nothing. Having said that, Barry, has sussed where the deal is with the bowl of cherries......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 heh heh, that is a shot on Tri-X. I put the EXIF into it. Obviously you don't judge by the appearance of the shot. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Ha, it all seems to me like a load of........<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Oh, I get it, pretty impressive, embedding a false EXIF into a TriX scan-- whoa, that'll show those dopey Leica guys. I'll call the Times, see if they want to pick up the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now