If anyones interested

RE: If anyones interested

frdyd

RE: Film versus digital

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-10-02 AT 07:57 PM (GMT)]Good point. I did indeed. What sort of halfwitted idea was that? Hoho. Change it webmaster! HTML indeed.

(Read the instructions Snapper, read the instructions!)

RE: Film versus digital

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-10-02 AT 06:06 PM (GMT)]It’s going to be great in 20 years time when your CD’s can’t be read.

Well, I use 35mm (Canons), I use Medium Format (6×9) and I use a D30. Different applications for each. However, unlike most people, I shoot aircraft with Velvia slide film – thats very slow, very fine grained, and very sharp. I must say that I find digital capture to have a very limited latitude (which is also true about slide film). I hate how it looks too smooth too – my eyes can’t quite get comfortable with it. I also don’t like the poor gradation between colour and tone. However, I love the lack of dust and scratches, the ability to change ISO between frames, and the White balance adjustments. I am a photographer (have been for ten years) and a printer (I manage a Digital minilab. My third.) My preferred medium is still, on the whole, film, but thats only down to personal preference. Quality / resolution is no longer an issue, though economics are.

It’s going to be great in 20 years time when my slides change colour.

It doesn’t like my picture. Have to click on it to get it up.
Attachments:

RE: Film versus digital

>Futurshox
>Hard disc- not a problem just burn images to CD and index,
>its quicker retrieval than a slide box.

Fair comment.

>Still this is an interesting debate, i note that you had
>scanned at 4000dpi, why when photopaper is optimised for
>300dpi.

Not necessarily true. I have a packet of Epson photo paper sitting next to me that is rated up to 1440 dpi.

If I scan something at 4000 dpi, then by the time I’ve resampled the image to be 8×10 inches printed, the resolution drops to somewhere between 300-600 dpi anyway.

>I need some tuition in what the optimum resolution ,size and
>file type should be for printing purposes. I curently scan
>slides (when my bloody scanner works) at 300dpi and save a
>largish file as a BMP then save a compressed Jpeg version
>for web/ e-mailing purposes.
>Advise please.

I take the view that the scan should be done at a moderately high resolution even for web/email usage. For my website, I usually scan at 300 or 600 dpi, then reduce the image down to 600 pixels wide or so. The reduction in size on the computer gives a smoother image than a straight scan at 100 dpi.

For printing, scan as high a resolution as you can (but don’t bother with interpolation, it’s a little like digital zoom on cameras!) and use your image software (Photoshop or whatever) to resample to the print size you want. Works for me.

RE: Film versus digital

This is quite an interesting debate, and despite it not being specific to aviation, a lot of us use cameras to record our interest in aviation subjects.

I have a personal interest in the comments raised by all of you. I am currently involved in a major imaging development and digital printing project for my employer (A major UK retailer). This involves looking at the existing requirements of the 35mm user and the “life” of silver halide technology.

Digital is a massive growth area in imaging products, as you are all aware. From the printing side, you can print at home or get your pictures printed by a printing company. My colleges and I have recently introduced such a service for customers, that I have been further developing. These services will allow you to print large pictures, and have them delivered to your door. As the camera resolutions get better, and Digital body’s for existing lenses become cheaper, the digital world becomes a lot more attractive.

Storage on CD is as safe as a slide, and can be stored in less space. Image capacity on a disk, depend on the size of the image file. With DVD recordable, you can get 4.7GB of data on 1 disc!

Watch this space….

Please feel free to E-mail me direct if you with to ask any questions off forum on this.

Regards

Darren

RE: Film versus digital

Futurshox
Hard disc- not a problem just burn images to CD and index, its quicker retrieval than a slide box.
Still this is an interesting debate, i note that you had scanned at 4000dpi, why when photopaper is optimised for 300dpi.
I need some tuition in what the optimum resolution ,size and file type should be for printing purposes. I curently scan slides (when my bloody scanner works) at 300dpi and save a largish file as a BMP then save a compressed Jpeg version for web/ e-mailing purposes.
Advise please.

Phil

RE: Film versus digital

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-10-02 AT 06:55 AM (GMT)]Well, here’s my opinion for the melting pot.

I don’t believe film/slides are dead at all. We’re all talking here about 10-100MB files, for a start. Even given the fact that hard discs are cheaper and bigger all the time, how many of you really want to trust your entire image archive to computer hardware that has a nasty habit of breaking when you most need it? And how much space would you need to store, say, 50,000 images? A box of slides isn’t going anywhere and can be referenced whenever you like.

Of course digital cameras have their place, and I’d like to get a D60 or better at some point in the future. The news reporters I saw at Duxford the other day were all using D60/D30/D1Xs, with a battery of laptops behind them. There are reasons for this as you all know, and fair play, that’s where the world is going in terms of reporting.

For another comparison of film, I can offer the two images below. One is the full frame of the Shuttleworth SE5A, the other is a crop of the full scan at 4000 dpi. Camera was a Canon EOS 1V at 400mm, scanner is a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000. I don’t have a digital version of the shot but it may offer people a useful comparison with Damien’s film image. For the record, it prints very nicely at 8×10 inches (my printer only goes to A4 size).

Edited to add: This would have been on Fuji Superia 400 at 250/s.
Attachments:

RE: Film versus digital

The D60 is a digital camera made by Canon. It has a 6.000.000 CMOS capability, and is one of the best digital slr’s on the market at the moment. All the canon Eos EF lenses can be “hang” on this camera. Many of the editorial staff pictures in FlyPast are made with the D60 and the older D30. It is a very good camera, if not the best around at this time (can be different next month). It can produce 30 by 40 cm prints without any difficulty.

RE: Film versus digital

Damien.
Can you expand on the D60, what is it, make model format etc?
Thanks.

RE: Film versus digital

Interesting stuff Damien.
I am hoping to change my equipment next spring and was pretty set on the F100 with 80-400VR, somewhere in the region of £2000-2200 I hope.
But having seem your enlarged areas and other digital work I might reconsider, however, does this help or hinder me commercially ?
Phil

RE: If anyones interested

Snapper,
Thats good info thanks.
My current scanner/ printer set-up is nothing short of crap.
I bought, in good faith of course,an Epson 1250 perfection scanner and 895 photo printer last December.This coincided with buying a new high(at the time ) spec 2ghz PC . All the bumph I read said that this was a good mid-rage scanner/ printer combo capable of producing hgh quality A4 prints.
Well, it worked until early last month , although I have never got any high quality prints out of the printer yet !.Now the bloody scanner driver has been chucked out by XP (something called the ‘class installer’), Epson and Microsoft both blame each other, both are waiting for each other to fix it and in the meanwhile I cannot use my scanner, p****d off or what.
One honest techie at Epson told me that I might as well right it off and go get a new model that does work with XP as its unlikely that they will waste their time writing software fixes for old product.
The old ‘it does what is says on the box’ does not apply here, because it clearly said XP compatible.
It stinks.

RE: If anyones interested

I have the Canon FS4000US, and it is absolutely superb. II thoroughly reccomend it. I scan in 42 bit colour, at 4000 dpi, and that gives me about 113mb files. I then (in Adobe Photoshop) drop it down to 24 bit, and resize to 12″x8″ at 300 dpi, as a Tiff file. This will print a VERY good 12″ x 18″ on true photographic paper on a Konica minilab. I usually archive them at 12″x18″ at 300 dpi, but for printing from, I gain no more than at 12″x8″ (and true photo paper only holds 300dpi).

One thing with the Canon that I would reccomend is getting a decent scsi card. The Nikons have firewire, which is very quick, but the Canon gives only the choice of scsi or usb. I had to get scsi due to a usb issue on my motherboard, and to say I am impressed is nothing – both my Epson 1640 and the Canon literally fly! The overall quality is very high though, perhaps second only to the Imacon Flextight – and if you have the spare change for one of those, then you could buy a couple of EOS 1Ds bodies and a bagful of L series lenses!

Try www.photo.net for opinions and info and opinions.

RE: If anyones interested

I am afraid it is a losing battle. I doubt if the big “names” will continue to produce high end slr’s for film users. On the other hand, if digital is good, I have no objection, other than the price, of switching. At the moment the Eos 1Ds (the 11,7 mil. pixels one)is too expensive for me, and even if I had the money, should be “old technique” in a year time, and only worth a fraction of its today value on the second hand market. As I shoot slide (100 iso Kodak), but never even frame them, let alone view them on the big screen, I am looking for a max of A3 in glossy. Think it is time for me to buy a filmscanner. Any recommandations? I thought the new Canon 4000 isn’t bad in performance and price, or is there something better? I need a 4000 scanner to get my A3 in 300 dpi.

RE: If anyones interested

Oh, and the high street labs aren’t worried. They are all buying digital minilabs like the Fuji Frontier, Konica QD21 etc now, so prints from smartmedia, compact flash, microdrive, Zip, Floppy, CD etc are all easy (and cheaper/better quality than home PC’s) to print than negs / slides. No dust being one major factor. The lab manufacturers are all going digital. Film will be here for a while, but how long? Canon and Kodak have just announced 11 and 14 megapixel full frame sensor SLR’s, so once the developing world goes digital, the factories will shut (First world is not the only consumer, so we have a little time left). The decline has begun – look at the range of film Kodak has killed off lately (or messed up!).

Umm, sorry. That wasn’t very aviation related. I’ll get my coat.

RE: If anyones interested

The Sigma 170-500 is a good airshow lens (I shoot Velvia handheld predominantly at Duxford, which aint easy, but with a faster film, you are fine). In Canon fit, its F4-5.6. Stick it on a Canon D30 and it goes up to 800mm. 500 is plenty for me though, and 800mm brings its own problems (plus I would rather scan my slides than rely on the crap I get from my D30).

Oh, this is a Hawker Nimrod I think. Velvia (50 ISO) at Legends this year. The original tranny is nice and sharp. I seem to recall it was around 1/500 – 1/750 at F5.6. But then again, it was a while ago.
Attachments:

RE: If anyones interested

Yes you are right Roger, it has got harder, or at least more expensive, to get better pictures. As you know quality 400mm lenses are not cheap and as you say they are not always big enough. There is one exception though, Old Warden, a good 300mm is enough there to get first rate shots, i very rarely used 400mm there.
The other thing, as you say, is digital, will this push out 35mm?. I believe that it will in the print market, conventional 35mm and APS are really up against it now, digital camera resolution is increasing and the price is falling.The high street photo labs must be very worried.
However I’m not so sure about slide, I think that there is still enough pro and serious amateur market to sustain it, or at least i hope there is.
I must admit though, I do scan many of my slides and burning these to CD for presentaion would be a lot easier that carrying boxes of slides around with me, just need to find a CD projector at the right price!.

RE: If anyones interested

Sorry Philo, if I was in the neighbourhoud I should come but I am “over the Channel”. Here in Holland we also have this kind of “shows/presentations”. Always interesting to see (and learn) from other photographers. Succes! Looking back at my airshow “career” I remember the days (not so long ago)that a 135 mm was good enough for airshow work while today (“thanks to Ramstein”) a 400 mm is often not big enough. It is getting more difficult every year. I wonder when the times come that “we” trade in our slides for the “digital world”. I am afraid that in a few years time slides will be hard (and expensive) to get.