DSLR with 35mm image depth?

[petersowa]

<p>ok I messed up with attachments ...<br>

I'll try again</p>

[petersowa]

<p>what a mess I've done...<br />I guess, file 2 is missing</p><div></div>

[petersowa]

<p>File 3 Pic form negative</p><div></div>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>It is the same Bull, Matador, and lighting. But the impression of depth or illusion of depth has been increased by <strong>processing</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're right. Why even bother with lighting when you can just post process. Why even try to get it right in camera when Photoshop can obviously fix everything. Thanks for the information.</p>

[r_johnston]

<p>"It is the same Bull, Matador , and lighting. But the impression of depth or<br /> illusion of depth has been increased by processing<br /> <br /> <br /> "You're right. Why even bother with lighting when you can just post process. Why<br /> even try to get it right in camera when Photoshop can obviously fix everything.<br /> Thanks for the information."<br>

A Ridiculous statement and you know that of course. Not every picture can be captured under "perfect" lighting conditions, you have to do what you can do with what you have, when there. It is much better to "get the shot" than always wait for the time when you have _perfect_ lighting or conditions. <br>

I'll always capture an excellent shot under any conditions with any film. One of my images was in Life Magazine taken under less than desireable conditions in Korea. A Rabbi holding a 15 year old boy in his arms with tears flowing down his face. The Department of the Army discovered he used a false birth certificate to enlist. He was on his way home for discharge, when a mortar round hit the jeep and killed him.<br>

Ive been stating in many messages for decades about how much better it is to know your equipment and media, instead of buying bigger and better camera's or lenses in attempts to get better pictures. Ive taught Boy Scout troops Merit Badge classes for decades showing them HOW to get excellent results with fixed lens cameras or inexpensive used cameras under adverse conditions instead of putting them down because of what they had been getting. When you can do that, you can do better work in the long run, than anyone who waits for perfect lighting or conditions.<br>

Why throw the Baby out with the bath water, in spite of undesirable results. If you know anything, you know that the range of exposure in Digital and FILM is much greater than can be put onto a print. Both have a much greater range than many realize who have little experience. Why not teach them what is possible, with films other than the Chromes and digital. Teach them HOW to pull that range into the visible spectrum in both prints and for viewing on a monitor. Most images I see are losing a LOT of detail actually available in shadows and highlights and color...<br>

Just because Chromes do not have the range BW, Color Film and Digital have is no excuse for tossing images that can be salvaged, tossing potentially something that is much better than the run of the mill photo from a drugstore.<br>

Too many for decades have been "accepting" prints from the corner drug store or even some commercial processors who attempt to print only what will fit into their processing methods. Instead of letting your _ego_ about what you can do with Chromes, get in the way of helping others, use some of your knowledge to benefit them. <br>

Its no "big deal" to talk a good bit about what you can do, anyone can talk.<br>

Show them something you can do or how to do it.<br>

Maybe you could learn a thing or to yourself to improve your own images.<br>

Chromes are not the end all in Photography, most of the Pulitzer Prize winners or nominees were never taken on slides, I'd put any of them up against slides. Have never been nominated, but had many of my News Photos published in the Boston Globe, Herald, Record, NY Times, etc starting when I was a PRO when only 12 years old. They did not judge me for my age, but on my photography. Fortunately I had an aunt who began teaching me photography at six, instead of criticizing.</p>

<p> </p>

[pisq]

<p>in looking at the levels adjusted image and the film image, I do get a better sense of the contour of the baby's head in the film image vs the digital. As a consequence, I get a better sense of distance between the left side of the baby's head and the pllows. True, in the film image the pillows are farther away. But in the digital image it is harder to separate the head from the pillows.</p>

<p>The histogram is not a slam dunk, they are not the same, but the film histogram has found much more middle tones than the digital, although, the upper right of the film image is much darker than the digital, I would have expected the pixel count to have increased on the lower end of the film histogram.</p>

<p>Returning to contrast again, although James Tye was congerned about the object edges, I wonder if adding contrast to the adjusted digital image, so it matched the near blown out nature of the pillow and baby's lower right face, and a darker left side of the face, would help that sense of separation between background pillows and baby's face.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p >There is so much going on that is different between film and digital. I also think it is partly to do with the tonal curve. I have recently (through necessity of retaining highlights) found a good application to selectively boost the midtowns and change the mid tone contrast in PS Elements. I did the same to some extent in levels with my old Photoshop, but this tool had helped me identify (some) of the differences in the way digital sees things. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Obviously massive depth of field increase with most digital cameras changes our feeling compared to film. But putting that aside these is also the colour, which could be perceived to add more depth to an image. I.e. richer colours seem to have more depth.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And because film produces a (relatively) smooth tonal curve objects will appear more rounded or perhaps fuller? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also the softness will make a difference; dark areas tend to fade more smoothly with film, where as to me digital tends to pick out the small differences in the levels more. I.e. If we perceive detail across the whole image it could seem flatter than an image that has more areas of softness. In this way it may be an advantage that there is much less absolute pixel sharpness in film. It can give an image a very solid look not to have peaks, if you know what I mean (: . To me its like film is painted with some kind of lacquer that is just not there with digital. Is that not actual truth?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you perceive film to have more depth (for whatever reason) then it does, I guess that’s all that matters. Though this thread has helped me to quantify some of the other ways we might perceive it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

[ishi_p]

<p >This is just an example of one possible viewpiont.</p>

<p > <img src="http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n424/ishim42/nhh.jpg?t=1242842714" alt="" width="800" height="657" /></p>

<p > </p>

<p >It may be interesting to note that though the saturation is very different the work was all done in levels. To me the first picture is more film like. And has a certain kind of depth the other does not. But you will never get exactly the qualities of one medium in another. </p>

[pisq]

<p>Ishmael, do you have the resultant histograms for each of these?</p>