danny_rose

I have a 10d and i'm sure it will suit you fine. You should be able to pick one up for well under a grand. The 1d is a lot of camera to carry around if you are not a pro.

Thanks for all the help but I've downloaded Pano Tools 2.6 and followed the

instructions, I've put the Pano12.lib file in my System folder but it does not

prompt me to put it in the Extensions subfolder as stated, so I put it their

manually. I then put the Photoshop plugin in the Photoshop > plugin > filters

folder, but no luck. Perhaps I'm using an old version? The other programmes

look good but I like to find a freebee if possible.

 

Thanks again.

Hi Guys

 

I'm trying to correct barrel distortion from a wide angle shot with Photoshop

CS. I've tried doing searches and have downloaded a plugin called Pano

Tools but it does not seem to work with Mac OS X. Does anyone have any

ideas how I can correct this without spending money? (I'm a photography

student)

 

Thanks in advance

Resolution of digital cameras are very good, probably better than film. But as it has been mentioned, all the resolution in the world doesn't make up for flat un-natural looking images (skin tones, harsh highlights etc).

I'm an eos film user but I am on the market for either a new 20d or a

second hand 1d. In New Zealand the price is similar, perhaps slightly

more for the 1d. I will be using it for professional fashion and

portrait photography. Both cameras have the features I need but would

like to know how the image quality compares? I understand the 20d has

2 times the pixels but the 1d has the bigger sensor, which would also

be handy for wide angle shots etc. So I guess I need magazine quality

and the ability to print poster size if I have to. So is there much

or any difference in overall image quality? Thanks for your help.

Sorry, I think I got a bit off the topic with my last comment. Please disregard = )

I think making reference to audio is acceptable. OK so most recording is now done on digital equipment but I know many bands prefer to record drums on reel to reel tape, as natural compression is created when levels start to peek out (as opposed to harsh distortion with digital). They then record the tape to digital so editing can be done. This is similar, in my opinion, to recording an image on film then scanning to a computer (film handles highlight/shadow detail in a similar way). I can tell the difference in the final print but I know the average viewer probably won't, and probably won't care even if they could. On the other hand I think the marketing and the convenience of shooting digital could be analogeous to eating at Mcdonalds, sooo convenient. The results however are usally alot better, so long as you spend a couple of grand on a camera.

While I find prints from a good digital camera such as the 10D very good as far as resolution goes, eg my last shots on kodak pro b/w film were not as sharp as the same shots on a 10D, I too find they dont look as natural as film. Both in colour and B/W. When flicking through mags I can usally spot the digital shots, they just have a different look about them. Which stands to reason as it is a different format. I believe many people don't notice the difference as they dont know what to look for. It seems companies are constantly pushing their latest digital cameras, marketed as having more auto focus censors, more pixels on the same small censor etc on consumers.

But it does not avoid the fact that it has a 'digital' look.

 

I do find digital very convienient and very 'slick' looking but no it does not look as natural and of course does not have the dynamic range of Professional film. I also wonder if people are comparing consumer film to digital.

 

I prefer the look of professional film over digital myself.

Thanks for all your feedback. I am fully aware of the advantages of shooting

digitally - instant feedback, no film costs etc, but this is not my interest - on this

post anyway. As an aspiring pro and lover of photography and art in general I

will happily use whatever medium is appropriate, digital or film (and I have

conducted tests with slide/negs vs digital using the school's large format inkjet

printer, our local pro lab digital prints and darkroom prints). But, I guess the

reasoning behind my question is this, It seems so many non-pro

photographers post questions such as "I 'm a non-pro and looking to buy a

10d/1dmk2/very expensive camera, what L series lenses should I buy to get

max resolution?" or the like. There is nothing wrong with wanting the latest

technology and if you can afford it, why not? But my feeling is that if you're

that worried about getting the best shots then why not simply go get yourself

a simple film body and lenses - Preferably fixed if you want best quailty and

learning experience - and find a lab that will do wet prints or enlarge them

yourself? I know a digital darkroom offers convenience and can be cost

effective - great if you're a pro and want to shoot thousands of pics and sell

them to married couples etc - But I just want to put things in perspective.

Think about what you, as a photographer/artist/enthusist are creating or want

to achieve, for me, it's time to slow things down and spend some time thinking

about each shot . With the decline of labs that will do good quality wet prints,

photography is now very reliant on new technology. What once was a organic

process is being replaced with a digital process where the image is

inherently made up of geometric shapes - perfect little squares or pixels - yes

they will look cleaner, which is in many cases great , but sometimes the slight

randomness and texture of grain to me is beautiful. I'm trying not to sound like

a hippy here, just thinking out loud.

I'm a photography student, currently in my second year of full time

study and have been using the school's canon 10d digital and both

35mm and med format film, which I often scan to the computer or print

myself in a darkroom. My question is to all photographers out there

who are advocates of digital photography. Why all the hype? the

quaility is not as good as film. What I mean is, from my own

observation and from talking to professional photographers, it is

clear that taking a photo on a pro/semi-pro digital camera, then

sharpening the soft pixels using softwhare just doesn't compare to a

wet print straight off a slide/neg. When I observe a darkroom/wet

print through a loupe - and I realize this irelevant to the average

viewer - there is a whole new world of detail that cannot be dicerned

by the naked eye, but this is not so with a digital print, as they

are generally printed at around 300dpi. I just don't understand why

so many people from photo.net are changing to digital and claiming

better quality prints, are there others out there who feel the same

or am I ignorant?