DSLR with 35mm image depth?

[walterh]

<p>" ... D3 about 12 stops, and D3X is close to 14 stops.."<br>

<br /> The "information" that the dynamic range of a D3x is larger than that of a D3 is spreading like a plague :-). The advantage of the D3x over the D3 seems to grow on a daily basis^^. Now the D3x is almost 2 stops better? Is there any proof, especially for the very general statement?</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>My walls are filled with 8"x10" to 20"x30" photographs from 35mm, medium format, and 4x5 film and several Canon DSLRs. One of my favorite games is to ask people (usually photo geeks, because no one else cares) to pick which is from which. No one has ever gotten it 100% right. I have one print from 35mm Royal Gold 25 (optically printed 2 decades ago) that is consistently chosen as digital. Once as a joke I added the Hassy V-marks to the border of a square cropped shot from a 5D. No photo-geek has failed to identify that one as "from film" yet. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Walter, I think this myth was started by the DxO site and their tests. I believe they rated the D3X at about 13.7 stops. They are of course, the only testers that have this figure. Looking at other sites, no one else has achieved a figure anywhere near that. I think DxO uses a different method of testing. Is it accurate.....I doubt it. Everyone else rates the D3 as having a higher DR.</p>

[sven keil]

<p>Walter - Yes, I simply took the data from the list of http://www.dxomark.com. I only can affirm that the S5 is ahead of D700 in terms of DR because of my experience...if you gave me D200, D300, D3X I could evaluate the image files and measure dynamic range ;-)<br /> Tom - I think (because of your photograph) its indeed a matter of DR, as your image is "illuminated" up to the darkest corners. For this reason D-lighting may have received its name ("DEPTH"-Lighting)<br /> Dave - I think it isn't much of a myth but it has its logic (see also the 24MP Sony flagship), because smaller pixels are less sensitive to light, hence you have an advantage in terms of highlights. Apart, you have a bigger spatial resolution, making the regions with blown out pixels smaller (however, by definition, this leaves DR untouched). Of course, if few light is available, this advantage gets relative - for this I love my D700.<br /> Regards</p>

[james_tye1]

<p>Lots of replies! I posted that last night and went to bed, not really expecting any answers especially as my question was quite vague, hence why slow to respond. As a few people have mentioned 'image depth' is a subjective term and hard to define (I'm not referring to DOF or colour range but something less quantifiable and perhaps only really noticable in a print). Ilkka mentioned the word 'thin', perhaps equally vague but seems to fit. Perhaps, aslo, it's to do with the fringing that all digi images seem to have, especially on high-contrast areas. I'll upload an image here, shot on the D200, which I feel lacks depth and you can see if you agree, or if there's some way I could improve on it at the processing stage. All my images are shot on RAW and processed in Lightroom (I confess I am not an expert in LR). I'm afraid I don't have a 35mm image handy to comapare it to but I would say that Tom's image of the guy with his dogs is a good example (now prove me wrong tell me that that is shot digitally!).... I remember a ex-tutor of mine, a purist printmaker, would tell me that digital images made her feel sick to look at! That's perhaps a bit of an overreaction but even with my less sensitive eye I can't help feeling that digital images lack something..</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>James, I hope you don't mind me giving you a direct answer. The problem with your bull fight image is the composition: the two subjects are both in the center of the frame. There are no lines to lead from front to back, giving you the perception of depth. The lighting also lacks contrast. A larger aperture that gives you shallower depth of field to blur out the background would also have helped.</p>

<p>You could have taken that same picture with a 35mm film SLR, a 6x7 film rangefinder, a digital point and shoot, a D200, a D3X or a Hasselblad medium-format digital back .... It'll have the same problems.</p>

<p>Tom Mickan's image of the man and dog has a much shallower depth of field. Even it is a small JPEG, you can see that the background is clearly out of focus. The contrast on it seems to have been enhanced also.<br>

<br />Now some poeple will tell us that the DX format gives us deeper depth of field because of the shorter lenses we use.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>The bull fight shot seems underexposed, but finally a shot from the bulls point of view! I've had problems trying to lift underexposed photos in LightRoom. It does give you flexiblity but if you have to adjust 2 or more fstops in exposure you'll lose shadow detail and get some flattening out of tones in the shadow areas. I've had to adjust exposure about +1 fstop on my camera to compensate. I prefer digital, because I like the crisp detail, my negative photos when viewed closely or with a loupe, look too soft for my taste.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>... contrast is probably the most important issue in Tom Mickan`s image. Simply change the color of the shirt to a darker one, lower that lateral highlight and the 3-D effect will be lost.<br /> Think on a white circle over a black square: the circle "pops"; in the opposite, a black circle into a white square turns a hole. The effect is even more pronounced if soft borders are added (like out of focus blur). <br /> This kind of effect can be easily obtained with almost any kind of camera, I think.</p>

[pisq]

<p>I think some of us are confusing, perceived depth into the frame, as opposed to what I understand the poster is interested in, which is the perceived roundness of each element of the photograph. That is, how deep does each element of the photograph seem within the image. I took the poster's image, and using Gimp added brightness (about 60%), contrast (about 50 %) and then sharpened a bit (1.4, 0.39, 1). Does each element then seem a bit deeper than the original?</p><div></div>

[r_johnston]

<p>Also what seems like a lack of "depth" in many digital cameras I believe comes from the use of zoom lenses on them. Every digital Ive had, had a zoom lens. Thus we are using a "telephoto" lens which compresses depth.<br>

Angles or composition and contrast also has a LOT to do with depth. Many are using automatic settings on camera's, which tend to make all pictures of the same type of subjects look similar. On film cameras when I began in the 30's there was no such thing as auto exposure and auto focus, so each image varied. <br>

Subject matter also has a lot to do with it, like the photo of the man with the dogs, people tend to focus on that subject, but to me there is still depth in the image as I can see the distance to the background. So in addition to the subject, it also depends on "what" the observer focuses on in the shot or what they SEE. As I look at everything, I may SEE more depth in many images than other observers.<br>

Those who like slide film, have you ever tried using the "Direct Positive" preset in Lightroom for some of your shots? It does not work well with all of them, but works very well with many.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[luisarguelles]

<p>James, I perfectly understand what you mean. This is the reason I primarily shoot film, although from time to time use the advantages of a digital camera. The best approach is to enjoy from both technologies. Two different flavors indeed.</p>

 

[swilson]

<p>With regards to the bull photo, the lighting looks very flat to me, a different camera is not going to change that.</p>

<p>

<p>You can punch up the photo some with post processing, this will not be nearly as good as taking the photo in better light, but it can add some small "depth" to the photo.</p>

<p>Would you mind if people took a shot at adjusting your photo and re-posting it here?</p>

</p>

[james_tye1]

<p>Ok, perhaps not the best photo to illustrate my point. Shun's right, the composition isn't helping and yes, a smaller DOF would have separated the subject from the background, but still it has a digital/acidy/crunchy/lightweight feel to it (I'm struggling for adjectives to make my point, Luis back me up here!) that if I'd shot it on film, it wouldn't have had. Thanks Carey for having a go but your version seems to accentuate the digital-ness of it! The fringing is more obvious, this is a jpg saved for web but close up even on a hi-res, digi print in eg The Photographers Gallery (London) I could still notice the unnaturally abrupt edges where light areas meet dark and an overall flatness. Maybe Luis is right, I should just chill out.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I've read many of them but none of them seem to cover the image quality regarding picture depth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>James, the simple answer to your original question is that DSLR reviews do not discuss this "picture depth" issue because it just does not exist. If anybody's image lacks this "depth," the problem is neither inside the camera (sensor, medium type) nor in front of it (lens); the problem is behind it.</p>

[charleseagan]

<p>I see. Sounds like you just need some anti-aliasing. There is a low-pass filter available for my camera that addresses the issue, though, so far I have not needed it. You may also find you have a problem with morrie patterns on fabric. I'm not familiar with Cannon cameras, but I would check into the options, if they have a similar low-pass filter or some camera option for reducing the effect.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Obviously the digital look is diferent from the film look for many reasons, like colors could be matter of taste, and thankfully digital cameras can be easily set to our preferences. Perhaps many times the problem is a correct or lack of customization rather than digital media problems.<br /> Abrupt borders, light areas meet dark, obvious fringing, digital-ness... Are you refering to this?:<br>

(non post-processed RAW converted to JPEG in NX2)</p><div></div>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>for lack of a better way to describe it, more 3d than other dslr's I have either owned or had a chance to use</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Making your images look "3D" is more about the lighting than which camera you own.<br /> <br /> The caveat is, that it is much easier to make images look flat with the newest biggest sensor camera than it is to make an image look "3D" with any camera. There is a lot of technique involved and I don't care how many auto settings a new camera has, its up to the photographer in this regard.</p>

[luisarguelles]

<p>James, this is apples and oranges. No digital camera on Earth can achieve this:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/3419042&size=lg</p>

<p>And we are speaking here about watching it from a computer monitor. Enlarged at 40x50cm, this image has such a soul that looks almost 3D.</p>

<p>Digital cameras offer a different workflow, a different timing and a different attitude towards photography. Cameras and sensors (either film or CCD devices) are only tools that gather photons in a different way, producing different interpretations of this world. Only choose the mood you feel in a given day.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm one of the editors of the Spanish magazine "Film und Foto", a publication enterely dedicated to film photography. Yes, we know we are mad, but the number of subscriptors is growing steadely :)</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>Camera's are essentially a dumb box. As if this entire thread forgets why we buy certain lenses. Which is why I've converted some of my FD lens to EOS mounts. However, that said, we know that some films are better than others, and so it is with a digital camera, in regards to film, that you are utimately stuck with the one sensor, and unlike film, cannot swap it out.</p>

<p>Now I have taken both my Mam 645 loaded with Portra 160VC and a 40D, and shot the same scene. In the cases were the 40 images look flat verses with film, that is, looking at the film shot, it's like being there 3D look. It's an issue in resolving details, and density. Where I've solved the issue by shooting pan and stitch, with brackets, with a sharp lens of good contrast, thereby creating a 30meg density shot. Much improved. However, who shoots like that all day?</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Here are two examples <strong>taken with the same camera</strong> .<br /> <br /> This image appears very flat to me. The light that day was actually very diffuse (ignore the blue sky) because the sun was behind clouds. The lens used was a Nikon 300 f/4 ED-IF, which is very sharp, however I had a tele on it which degraded the image quality. But the most important factor here wasn't the equipment, it was the diffuse light which made the image look soft and flat.<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8818652-lg.jpg" alt="" width="699" height="468" /></p>

<p>This image of my dog appears to be much more "3D". A wider aperture was used and I was closer to the subject, but more importantly it was taken in very direct/contrasty sunlight. The lens used here was the Nikon 50 1.4 afs, stopped down. But the fact is that the light it was made the image look the way it is. I would have gotten a very similar image with a D1 and 18-55 kit lens.<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8917399-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="469" /></p>

<p>Both images taken with the same camera (D200). One looks like crap and is very flat (eagle) the other looks much better and more 3D looking (my dog). Perceived sharpness is also a factor of the quality of light. Diffuse light tends to make things looks soft, whereas contrasty light gives that sharp look.<br /> <br /> I hope this illustrates my point <em>that getting that 3D look</em> is more about the quality of light and the technique used than what camera you are holding.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>You know you're treading on thin ice when you start trying to explain differences between film and digital in terms that are completely subjective and vague. Notions like "soul" and "depth" are problematic when describing images because they don't have any intrinsic meaning.</p>

<p>For the record, I don't dispute that there may be quantifiable differences in the resulting images produced by film versus digital. It is entirely reasonable and possible that such a difference exists. However, to date I have yet to see anybody accurately, consistently, and objectively quantify such a difference. All we ever hear is "look you can't do this with digital" or "this is just so much richer," to the point where such claims become more anecdotal truth than reality. I submit that the burden of responsibility to prove that there exists a difference lies with those who believe that there is, not with those who believe there is not.</p>

<p>But as someone who likes precision in thought and communication, I honestly do get tired of hearing and reading about people who use completely vague and meaningless terms to describe how film has some kind of "look" that digital does not. A photographer--especially one that carries some prestige--should be able to quantify that difference and express it in language that is at the bare minimum more precise than words like "depth."</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>The first shot of the bull fighter does look underexposed. I think that has a lot to do with it. The modified image, though the highlights blew out on the horns, has more punch. Also, there is not a lot of color except for the little bit of the red cape. The combination of flat and soft light and little color work against you. I should say that I consider flat light to mean "the same everywhere" like high noon on a sunny or cloudy day, while soft light means "diffuse". So light can be either flat or soft or both at the same time.<br /> Flat or soft light does not always make an image look flat. I have found flat light if soft often accentuates contrast between colors, though obviously not between light and shadow. For example, a pink or red flower against a green background will look good in bright overcast due to the pleasant color contrast. Also, soft light makes dynamic range more manageable.<br /> Your complaint is a common one regarding digital. It is hard to quantify; it's just a certain "something", and it seems to me that certain subjects do better with it than others. The quality of images many famous photographers are getting with digital is very high. I suspect they have learned how to optimize their results, just as they did with different films.<br /> That certain "something" also existed before digital. Some lenses are highly regarded for it, Leica lenses being the obvious example. Some like the rendition of Pentax's screw mount lenses more than the later K-mount ones. And that certain "something" certainly exists with regard to film.<br /> I prefer film. There's just something about that I like better. The only thing I can really point specifically to is highlight rendition, especially in high-key situations.<br /> And films tend to look different from each other. Some films have that certain "something", and it will be different films for different people. I prefer Kodachrome. It is very sharp; that is, it has high acuity, and a naturalness to its color. It has, to my eye, a 3-D quality compared to others. I don't like Velvia, except its fine grain, but many others do, and prefer its color rendition. While it has a lot of pop, which can give a "3-D" effect, I find the effect superficial. I don't think it has the same sense of physical depth as Kodachrome. One problem I have with heavily saturated films is the loss of fine gradations of color. To me those fine differences, which get overwhelmed by heavy saturation, give a sense of dimension and detail. I wonder if the "digital look" has something to do with gradation.<br /> An important thing to remember is that numbers never tell the whole story. Audiophiles are well aware of that, as they have seen technical specifications that looked good but didn't sound good.</p>

[r_johnston]

<p>Images look flat due to processing or lack of it, not due to lighting.<br>

In the darkroom we would not print every shot with the same contrast paper.<br>

Why process every shot exactly the same way? <br>

In the above examples post processing could make the shot of the eagle look like it has more depth by adding contrast and selective sharpness. In the one of the dog, it could be made to look flatter in processing. It is entirely the decision of the photographer to make, according to what we personally like, we just need to learn how. <br>

In the shot of the eagle it appears the camera was focused on the tree limb in front. If focused on the eagle that would also increase the sharpness, and give the "appearance" of more depth.<br>

Artists in other fields like oil paintings would vary contrast, colors, perspective, etc to increase the illusion of "depth" in a painting. The difference in film or digital in my opinion has nothing to do with the Camera, but the "illusion" the Artist creates using it. <br>

A camera as one said, is "just a box" it is what you learn to do with that box, when you learn its fullest capabilities that results in the best images, no matter how you describe them. Many keep going out and upgrading camera's or lenses looking for a mechanical way of producing better images. <br>

Learn HOW to use the camera you have and to process the end result, will produce better images. Ansel Adams once said, "80% of photography is what you do, AFTER you snap the shutter." (paraphrased) It is still true, it does not matter if it is digital or film. The most expensive camera made, can produce the worst shots, in the hands of a person who does not know how to use it. Learn to do the 85% of the work required after creating an image, film or digital, and you will be more satisfied with either. </p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>I have a friend who sold all of her film gear to buy a D70 at the suggestion of her brother. She was disappointed that the images were lifeless, compared to shots taken with Velvia. </p>

<p>I did mention post processing, but she said that even with that there was something lacking in the digital images compared to film.</p>

[r_johnston]

<p>Depth is an illusion created by processing.<br>

In Photoshop, I captured the Bulls head and horms,<br>

added color and contrast to make it appear closer.<br>

Sharpened and added contrast to the Bullfighter.<br>

Captured the stands, used the blur tool to blur them to push them further away.<br>

In layers, selective color, neutral, darkened the ground a bit to give it depth.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>