DSLR with 35mm image depth?

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Most of the people blaming the camera for a bad images, instead to blame themselves, for a lack of technical and artistic knowledge. Seeing the posted image of the imitated bull fighting, your image would be the same with a Hasselblad or Leica, loaded with Velvia, in this lighting situation and composition. Photography is capturing a light, paint with light, and flat light producing flat images.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>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!)....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>James, no this was shot with Sensia 400 tranny film and used a Lecia 2/35mm ASPH Summicron lens. Shun, absolutely no post processing was done on this image apart from a levels adjustment. Can't be bothered messing about in photoshop.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Here's another that shows what I think is image depth.</p><div></div>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>Images look flat due to processing or lack of it, not due to lighting.<br /> <br /> Depth is an illusion created by processing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I completely disagree. Unless you want to spend hours and hours painting shadows/highlights onto things in Photoshop with the burn and dodge tools, it is all about lighting to get that 3D look. Lighting also affects perceived sharpness almost as much as your equipment.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure if your comment is a troll, or you are really serious, Robert. Either way your comment is incorrect. Its all about the light. Processing won't fix a bad photo. Sorry dude.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Eagle is in focus. He looks flat due to the diffuse light which has softened the image, but if you look close you will still see quite a bit of detail on the eagle. I have more examples from that day, I'll put a couple up later once I get home. They all look flat, because it was overcast, I have very sharp photos with the same lens, but on better lighting days. The blue section of sky in that photo was only there for a moment, and it only fills the frame because of the compression from the telephoto lens (which was equivelent of 900mm on my DX camera) this is why I said to ignore the blue section, it makes it look like the day was sunny, which it wasn't. I will find an example w/o the teleconverter (which I did note degrades the image).</p>

[matroskin]

<p>Shun,<br /> James is not talking about perception depth. i call it color texture, but in any case here is what he means, i think. and i does't seem to me at least that digital can do this yet. i say in 10-15 years. and you can see similar result in my gallery here http://kostyanakazny.com/Peru_Rural/peru_rural.htm . it was taken on Reala 100 and superia 400.</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Sometimes this stuff shows up better (in terms of conversation) on more pedestrian photographs (where nobody is <em>trying</em> so hard). A simple, casual after-dinner shot of two friends, as below. The lighting (a single off-camera strobe, held at arm's length and bounced off of a nearby wall) is an important part of why they don't look like cardboard cutouts. It's not about whether there's anything extraordinary going on, here, but whether or not there would be more "depth" or something more or less textural if this were on Velvia instead of the D200 that I happened to use. Those factors are nothing compared to the fact that the light isn't flat.</p><div></div>

[petersowa]

<p>I am not an expert, but would like to put some new light on the subject. If you compare the pixel histograms (meaning levels) from films and digital pics you'll see an interesting thing. Film generally shows a smooth transitions either up or down, whilest digits are quite busy with peaks, somehow looking like a filtered bandwith of tonal range with missing gaps. Looking at the films levels you'll see the smoothness, however busy one. I know, sounds a bit scientiffic. In other words, the histograms show clearly organic, linear feel of silver chemistry and stochastic cristals in comparison with a super organised pixel array of digital sensors.<br />Pictures of the man with dogs and the bull are good for trying, but I might be wrong...</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>For cyring out loud!</p>

<p>The whole lot of you are talking about these nebulous concepts like "depth" as if it's so completely obvious what it means, but NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU has explained just what this mysterious yet apparently self-evident thing is. I challenge you:</p>

<p>What is "depth?"</p>

<p>Explain using concepts that clearly apply to the resulting image. For example, what kind of color saturation is involved? Contrast characteristics? Perspective? Lighting? Sharpness? What objective properties do you SEE in the actual image that tells you it is "deep?" Because if you can't describe it in ways that are measurable and concrete, you are just spewing nonsense. Consequently, you're all having a discussion about completely different things. It's absolutely pointless.</p>

<p>And if you think that I'm being unfair because the purpose of the photographer is to simply take the shot and present it to the viewer to make their own decisions, then I should point out then that it's facetious to make such a claim and then state that "film is better than digital." Better HOW? Or that something has "depth."</p>

<p>Seriously. This is just the most inane, laughable discussion I've seen. Utterly useless.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Well, Peter, there have been several calls (see above) for the OP to do just that: to articulate, in useful terms, what it is he actually means. And he pretty much comes right out and says that he can't describe it. I think (if you dig through the weeds), you see it described here and there in this thread, though. Choice of focal length, aperture and composition that all contribute to separate the subject from the background. Light that demonstrates, rather than destroys the subject's three dimensionality. Media (film or digital) that has (or can have processed from it) a response curve flattering to the subject matter. And of course, a photographer that chooses to shoot something that's interesting enough to <em>someone</em> to make all of this hair splitting worth talking about.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>I think you've got a loaded question there, James :)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>It`s all about the light... like Matt says. Of course camera matters, but IMHO nothing to do with perceptions and optical illusions. Three-dimensionality (if that`s the topic, it`s not clear yet) is an illusion. Perhaps the media could have a little influence, but I believe that is almost negligible. I`m thinking on Escher`s drawings, 3-D effect is obtained with geometry, light and shadows.<br>

I see on this one from the wed pics a bit of "pop" effect, similar to Michael`s one (sorry for the repost):<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SZPn-111571584.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D700 with a classic 105/2.5AiS. It`s all about light and DoF.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>When 35mm cameras started to become more popular the people who shot with medium format and large format equipment noticed the increased amount of depth of field shown in photos taken with standard and wide angle lenses made 35m images look flat. By comparison with the larger formats, photos from 35mm film taken with these lenses looked pretty sharp all over. This was especialy true in bright light. If I look at photos taken with my Minolta 16 or with my Pentax Auto 110 the taking lenses are so short, everything is in focus. This was also true of disc photos but those had a lot more grain so overall image quality suffered. Over time people got used to the look of photos taken with 35mm cameras. Lenses for the DX sensor digital cameras are so short compared to those used with 35mm film cameras that there a lot of depth of field. If you are using a kit lens where the maximum aperture is f/3.5 you will be hard put to show a selective focus effect. The 20-60 IX Nikkor I use with my Pronea SLR cameras has tremendous depth of field at the 20mm setting. That can sometimes make things look a little flat. I consider the 20-60 to be an excellent lens where sharpness and contrast are concerned. I think the depth of field issue is partly what makes the 50/1.8 AF Nikkor popular with Nikon DX DSLR users.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>This one with a 24-70 at 24mm. Do you feel the depth and proximity?<br>

(Jeff, my post is not an answer to yours. I think you`re right.)</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I think Jose Angel's latest image is providing a subliminal message about this thread, echoing Peter Wang's complaint. :-)</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>As promised, here is a better (or worse depending how you want to put it) example of the Eagle, and being a flat image due to cloudy lighting.<br /> <br /> Shot with Nikon D200, 300 f/4. No teleconverter this time, but cropped from 3872x2592 to 1445x967 before resizing to 700 wide. Aside from the lighting being diffused and not making much for shadows, there are no other cues to give that 3D feel.<br /> <br /> The only post this image got was the brightness scale being turned down (I exposed the image to the right to being with) and cropping. I don't think a different camera or any type of post processing would have given this image more "depth". A longer lens might have helped by allowing me to frame the subject more, but I still feel it would have come out flat.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>LOL, Shun, don`t believe it! I`m a <i>huge</i> naive... :D</p>

[swilson]

<p>As others have said lighting in very important if you want photos that have depth.<br>

Below is roughly the same photo taken in very flat light close to noon and in fairly good light taken late in the day.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/112535034/original.jpg" alt="" width="712" height="474" /><br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/112535035/original.jpg" alt="" width="712" height="474" /></p>

<p>Of course other things matter as well, the subject, the FOV, contrast, saturation etc.<br>

But if you don't have decent light there is not much you can do, IMO</p>

[james_tye1]

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet here you are Shun, still discussing it..<br>

I can see this will run and run, boy what a passionate bunch you are! Film vs Digital, art vs technology, it's fascinating. I'm not sure we're any nearer to defining the indefinable (interesting though about the smooth transitions and peaks you mentioned Peter Sowa, and for someone who's 'not an expert' you seem to know quite a bit!) but it's been fun trying.<br>

Thanks to all the contributors so far, and for the whiners thanks for giving up your valuable time for a discussion you don't believe worthwhile.<br>

I look forward to the next installment!</p>

<div></div>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>Another "subliminal" photo with depth...<br>

I started on film and have used 35mm & MF 6x4.5 as well. When I made an investment into digital I never noticed the depth difference.</p>

<div></div>

[pisq]

<p>I enjoyed this discussion immensely, I was not at all bothered by the subjective nature of it, and indeed how else do we experience this visual medium except subjectively.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>R. Johnston said:<br>

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

and,<br>

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

<p>So you're saying lighting doesn't matter?<br>

Or composition?</p>

<p>Then R.J. said:<br>

> Why process every shot the same way?</p>

<p>Well, back in ye olde days of shooting transparencies, we didn't have much choice, especially with Kodachrome. Its processing is very complex and requires a high degree of precision and repeatability.<br>

Everything was done in-camera. The lighting, composition and exposure had to be right at the moment the shutter was released. Then the film was processed and the <strong>finished</strong> product came back.<br>

I can put 30 year old Kodachromes on a light box and look at them through a loupe, and my god, it's like being there. I can see into the slide. To me it's particularly pronounced with Kodachrome. I'm not just looking at the image, I'm looking into it. Projecting the slide looks almost as good. Prints from those slides can't match either. In printing the goal was not to enhance the image on the slide, the goal was to get as close as possible to its quality.<br>

Ansel Adams was referring to B+W prints from negatives. He didn't relate well to color, and the few Kodachromes he took show it. No criticism from me there; he saw in the idiom of B+W, and did so magnificently. Mr. Adams said "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance".<br>

With transparency film, the finished transparency is both score and performance.<br>

I shoot slides by preference. I'm used to creating a complete image in-camera. I only have a small number printed, and there's no doubt that digital post processing is a handy tool for attempting to replicate all that is in the slide.<br>

I do shoot digital casually, and find I don't like having to mess with each shot. Digital processing is a fantastic tool, but it still holds that the more you do before the moment of exposure, the less you have to do after.</p>

<p>To Peter Wang: I know what you're saying; however:<br>

Some things defy simple quantification or explanation. I used the example of audiophiles. For years they tried to explain to manufacturers that no matter how closely their RMS graphs of total harmonic distortion approached perfection, their products just didn't sound as good as old tube machines with funky graphs. Sort of like the megapixel wars. And as with megapixels, informed users stopped putting so much stock in numbers. Gradually, the dynamics of hearing perception have become better understood, and the manufacturers stopped waving around numbers so much.<br>

I know what the OP is getting at. I don't think digital is the reason the example shown was deficient, at least not primarily. But I know what he means. It's in the way digital renders. Before digital existed, it was in the way different films render. And lenses. And different formats.<br>

I think as digital improves, criticisms will diminish.The images from digital already are really good and will continue to improve, and as time goes on the dynamics of rendering will be better understood. Even now, some prefer the images from one or another machine, even from the same manufacturer.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>For the last time, it's not the subjective nature of the medium that I find problematic. Art is subjective. It <strong>must</strong> be subjective.</p>

<p>What I find problematic is having a discussion in which people arrive at sweeping conclusions based on a set of criteria that nobody has agreed upon because they behave as if those criteria are self-evident when they are not!</p>

<p>The audiophile analogy is perhaps more fitting than you realize. A lot of audiophiles speak of the sounds they hear in equally vague terms. But who has ever done a double-blind study on these self-proclaimed lovers of sound? Who has done such a study on photographers who say they can spot the difference between film and digital, or Leica versus Canon? You won't see this happen because the egos--and wallets--involved are too great. If something in a printed image is not quantifiable--that is to say, it is purely subjective--then how is it reasonable to expect that everyone ought be able to see it? That defies the very notion of subjectivity. Again, I don't claim that photographs cannot or do not elicit a subjective response from people. But if "depth" is subjective, then one is logically forced to conclude that not everyone will see it, much less see and interpret it in the same way as everyone else.</p>

<p>Consequently, if depth is subjective, then one must also allow that the equipment used to generate the image cannot be an absolute determinant of whether the image can or cannot have depth, or else you have now indirectly quantified the notion of depth via the equipment used. It would be akin to saying that you cannot express the concept of jealousy by using watercolor as opposed to oils.</p>

<p>And although I have no concrete evidence, I think the whole debate, much like the Leica versus Canon/Nikon/Pentax/pretty much anything non-Leica, has a lot more to do with the <strong>perception</strong> of elite status, and when challenged to demonstrate the difference, the only thing such people can do is gesticulate to the picture and say "isn't it obvious? It's subjective, you can't possibly explain it in words, it's art...." This talk about "depth" is mostly about ego. It's about "my eyes are more refined than yours."</p>

<p>It's not that I can't see what you see; nor is it that I must be inferior if I can't see what you see. It's that I don't <strong>want</strong> to see what you, the photographer, or anybody else sees. I want to see what <strong>I</strong> see in the image. I want to make up my own mind about it. And that's why the whole discussion of "depth" and "which equipment is better," blah, blah, blah.... is just so...high school. There are far more eloquent ways to discuss the subjective nature of photographs.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>As this conversation really doesn't have a lot to do with Nikon specifically. I'm moving it to the Casual Photo Conversations forum where more people will have the chance to see it and <s>argue</s> discuss.</p>

[Nowhereman]

<p>Argue is right for this weird thread. Someone states that his digital camera produces flat pictures without the depth of film and then posts, sorry, a bad digital picture to "prove" it; and then a whole bunch of people rend their vestments — I haven't read every single post — to determine how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, in what seem to be the reactions elicited by a troll: who else would speak of "whiners" as the OP does?</p>

<p>And Luis — I can't resist this although it is a cheap target indeed — your picture of the Rolls Royce (not cheap) could have been produced with the same "ugly" bokeh (yes, a subjective view), and the same blown highlights, if you had used a digital camera.</p>

<p>—Mitch/Bangkok</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Man. Some of oyu take this WAY to personally. Why get angry about it ? There are lots of things in the world of art that are hard to nail down and describe. There may indeed be differences, and unless you are losing money because of some people's perception, I fail to see the reason for being defiant about it.</p>

<p>Besides, all we can do here, is look at a digital reproduction of any image. Doesn't that bias what ever we see in the forum ?</p>

<p>Stop being so defensive, guys.</p>