Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day (March 2008)
- Thread starter Grimace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hey Eric,
Whats the chance of doing an HDR using 4x5" film.
Thinking of getting a 4x5 camera. When I visit the galleries, them prints are huge, colorful, and so clear. My D300 is just not going to come close to them images.
Found a nice Tachihara, with glass, and a few accessories for $500.
Ken Rockwell states the 4x5 scanned with a good scanner, is like a 100 megapixel camera.
Whats the chance of doing an HDR using 4x5" film.
Thinking of getting a 4x5 camera. When I visit the galleries, them prints are huge, colorful, and so clear. My D300 is just not going to come close to them images.
Found a nice Tachihara, with glass, and a few accessories for $500.
Ken Rockwell states the 4x5 scanned with a good scanner, is like a 100 megapixel camera.
In my experience that's the hard part.. For the few prints I've had digitalized from film I've gotten them developed in the largest possible format and then scanned professionally.
As for HDR-ing, maybe your best bet would be to work with the JPEG image..
So the grain is due to the fact that the scanner used to scan the image wasn't able to pick up as much detail as it should - or was it the fact that the print being scanned wasn't very large?
(Unless by 35mm Film scan you meant that the negatives were scanned)
I read on wikipedia that with an excellent lens, high quality 35mm film could capture the equivalent of 22 megapixels per exposure. So theoretically if you get a large print and a high quality scanner, you should be able to transfer your images quite crisply?
I'm scanning film transparencies ('slides') in a Nikon scanner, and, yes, the amount of 'information' in each slide is remarkable. And why not... there's 150 years of continuous development embedded in the acetate.
I only took up digital 'cos my favourite film - Fuji Vevia - was being discontinued. Now, of course, you just choose a 'Velvia' plug-in for PS... But it isn't the same. People will continue to use film - or re-discover it - 'cos it has qualities that digital can't yet replicate...
The grain in film was a lot more pleasant than 'noise' in digital; many people used it to create particular effects (as well as coping with it in low-light situations)...
Some really fantastic images here.
This is one of my latest. Taken at St Andrew's, in Scotland.
HDR From Single RAW Image.
David
I like it. I like the subject and the light. Perhaps it would benefit if you cropped off some of the top.
St. Andrews. Brings back memories from St. Andrews Static Language (SASL)..
I guess I don't get what the point would be. Aside from funky effects Valdore goes for and the fact that it seems to be the 'flavor of the month' here, the purpose of HDR with digital is because digital can't match the dynamic range of film. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that there would be any reason to HDR a 4x5 image. You said it yourself: prints from a 4x5 are huge, colorful, and clear. Why would you need to HDR them?
So the grain is due to the fact that the scanner used to scan the image wasn't able to pick up as much detail as it should - or was it the fact that the print being scanned wasn't very large?
(Unless by 35mm Film scan you meant that the negatives were scanned
I read on wikipedia that with an excellent lens, high quality 35mm film could capture the equivalent of 22 megapixels per exposure. So theoretically if you get a large print and a high quality scanner, you should be able to transfer your images quite crisply?
It's not really grain. It's noise. The film scanner that did this is an older scanner that had a more limited dynamic range than the newer ones, so the shadow detail (what there was in the underexposed neg) was very difficult to extract. Some techniques since then are the multi-pass scans, something like doing HDR except via scanning for shadow detail with multiple scans while maintaining highlights.
Also, the scan was not a big scan, more like 2000x3000, converted to jpeg and resized probably several times before getting here.
My newer scanner is a Nikon Coolscan V, which has an improved dynamic range and can scan at 4000 dpi. If you figure a color scan of a full negative of 1" x 1.5" at full resolution that would be like 4000 X 6000 pixels (24meg) x 3 for NEF file or .tiff file, so it's way more than 22meg per exposure at highest resolution scan.
Bottom line: Some negatives are much trickier to scan than others. The best scans still come from professional drum scanners worth 1000's of dollars. And, grain ain't all bad, if it's really grain. Each film type has its own grain characteristics which gives it its "look." You really ought to take a look at some T-Max 3200 black and white prints. Done right, it's hard to duplicate the look, and it can be very creative. Anyway, that's another subject...
Noise is another matter, and is a digital thing.
My first picture with my new dSLR. I just bought a Nikon D60 today. I am very pleased
ISO Speed: 100
Focal Length: 55mm
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure: 1/100
ISO Speed: 100
Focal Length: 55mm
Aperture: f/6.3
Exposure: 1/100
Siletz Bay at low tide
Model: NIKON D50
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/640 sec
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 185mm
Model: NIKON D50
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/640 sec
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 185mm
I like the way the pic is broken up into planes, but I'm wondering if you could increase the contrast a bit. OK, you'd lose some shadow detail in the rocks... but you'd have more 'separation' between foreground and the hazy background. Just a thought...
Thanks for the thoughts Pdx, Otter, and Doyle.
I know its a slow tedious process to get one good print from a 4x5, but when I look at all the pretty pictures here and there, I cant help but think they've had a lot of PP to each one. It seems it would be a fun challenge to get a great shot, especially without the help of a computer.
I know its a slow tedious process to get one good print from a 4x5, but when I look at all the pretty pictures here and there, I cant help but think they've had a lot of PP to each one. It seems it would be a fun challenge to get a great shot, especially without the help of a computer.
Lovely composition, and great colours. I like the soft, natural feel to this image.
Now, I have a dilemma. It ain't often that I feel a photo works well in both B&W and colour, but I'm stuck with this one and the colour version I posted yesterday:
wow, for only the first week of march, im glad to see so many photos! Good work everyone!
I havent posted many in the past few weeks, ive been super busy with work. I will post some in a week or 2, that i need to finish post processing, (i took them in feb).
PS: Last month i got my avatar allowed status, but am still trying to pick one!
I havent posted many in the past few weeks, ive been super busy with work. I will post some in a week or 2, that i need to finish post processing, (i took them in feb).
PS: Last month i got my avatar allowed status, but am still trying to pick one!
One from last summer:
Click the above for EXIF.
Ouch. Great moment captured.
edit: Nevermind, I think he's doing that on purpose.
this is my favorite picture out of all the pictures that have been in these threads. Could you send me a larger res picture of it?
I have a dilemma. It ain't often that I feel a photo works well in both B&W and colour, but I'm stuck with this one and the colour version I posted yesterday:
Has to be colour for me. It's a colourful world out there...