Question for the top snappers!

Does anyone know of a safe method to clean dirt etc off of negs and slides?

I used a product called Aspec on some old and badly marked slides- it did a good job – you can get it online from 7dayshop

Surely the big big bonus with digital photography is the ability for ‘average Joe’ to master the techniques of image manipulation on his on PC with modest cost by comparison. A dark room at your fingertips for free…well almost.Mark

I agree….although the ‘darkroom’ is scarcely for free! OK many homes now have a PC (or Mac, I have no bias) that was not a direct photography related purchase, but by the time the cost of software, a photo quality printer and possibly a scanner or two is factored in, the cost is much the same as for a basic darkroom set up. The real benefit is the convenience and as you rightly point out the ability to produce prints that rival, or better, those obtainable from typical commercial outlets, and without the wait, and with the option to have a commercial colour print made from a digital file if needed.

Excellent results from film are possible via the scanning film and digital route too. This is the reason I went this way with colour photography. Experience in black and white darkroom working showed me what was possible and consequently, buying commercial colour processing and printing was very frustrating. Put simply, I rarely got what I wanted; printing was often of poor technical quality (machine printing typically needs machine minders, not photographers!) and at best a compromise. By using film and scanning, I get the distinct look of a film image, a ‘hard copy’ of some recognised archival permanence and a print as I want it to look. The real additional benefit of course, is that the control possible over the colour digital image making process far exceeds that possible in a colour darkroom.

I will post a couple of aviation pictures to support my argument when the image posting problems here are resolved.

I see the problems are fixed now. I will post pictures later today….

Apples with Apples

A very interesting and educational thread.

Speaking as someone on the brink of making the major plunge into digital photography. I do not doubt that film photographers with direct access to their own colour lab or perhaps the lab of their employer, can achieve stunning results with film. For the ‘average Joe’ to specify to a commercial laboratory the very top level of potential output from film is not only time consuming but seriously expensive on a quantity basis.

Surely the big big bonus with digital photography is the ability for ‘average Joe’ to master the techniques of image manipulation on his on PC with modest cost by comparison. A dark room at your fingertips for free…well almost.

This was bought home to me vividly this past week. At the first flight of the 161 Spitfire at Duxford on the 13th of January at 16.00 in the afternoon, the sun almost set. Using just my baby Canon Ixus ‘back up’ digital camera. I was able to produce A4 prints from my inkjet Epson photo 950, the equal or even superior to, in my view, to anything Colab have supplied to instruction from my 35mm neg from my Canon T70/90s.

Mark

Thanks SPT,

I’ll give it a try on one of my duff negs (got plenty of them!)

Does anyone know of a safe method to clean dirt etc off of negs and slides?

This is probably not quite what you want to hear, but the easiest solution is to keep the negatives and transparencies as clean as possible in the first place by proper storage. Failing that, I use one of those lens cleaning puffer brushes to dislodge loose dust and the cans of compressed air sold for lens cleaning do a similarly efficient job for dry dust.

Other marks, such as grease, can sometimes be removed from the non emulsion side of film with a cleaning fluid. On the rare occasions I find this necessary, I use a soft microfibre lens cloth dampened with a lens cleaning fluid from the local opticians. It works for me, but try it at your own risk! I believe there is a cleaning fluid marketed specifically for film, but I cannot remember by whom (possibly Tetenal?). Try an enquiry to one of the more specialist photographic suppliers that advertise in the photo press.

Do not try to clean the emulsion side of film beyond removing loose dust. In this instance software cleaning options, or cloning after scanning, are the only solutions.

Hope this is of some help Tilleydog.

Thanks for the input APG and Robbo. I look forward to some comparative test shots Robbo.

Hi All,

This is nothing to do with the original question, but thought I’d ask whilst all the camera experts are on this thread!
Does anyone know of a safe method to clean dirt etc off of negs and slides? my scanner removes some but not all, and my scans are terrible.

SPT, you may want to look at the spec and read some of the reviews for the new Fuji S3 which has a whole array of different colour spaces to replicate film, alas its too slow for real action use but for other uses it seems to be going down a storm.

The 1DS2’s street price is actually nearer £5K than £6K.

£5000 or £6000, this is still a lot of money for a 35mm style camera that will be quickly superseded and for most users will not be used to its full capability. In all honesty, how often do you print larger than A4?

Personally, I rarely print even that large. A smaller well presented image works just as well, if not better, if it is to be passed around for appreciation. I find it difficult to take in the whole of an image bigger than A5 held in the hand. Hence the popularity of the typical 6×4 or 7×5 enprint?

Large images only really work well in the context of being hung for display. Then the distance at which they are viewed allows better appreciation of the whole, but possibly negates the need for the finesse of detail reproduction that the 1DS2 apparently yields.

And image appeal is not always about absolute technical quality……

The current 1DS2 is widely regarded as superior even to medium format film:

I have looked at the Luminous Landscape articles on the 1DS2 but I admit not to having had time to read and digest the information thoroughly. However, I have gleaned enough to consider the information to be very persuasive and well argued by someone who certainly knows his photography; but what the article does not assert is that the 1DS2 is superior to Medium format film quality. The relevant phrase in the conclusion is:
“And, easily challenging medium format film quality.”

That I would go with, because in terms of lack of grain it certainly does challenge medium format film quality…..

I also agree with the outlined concept of measurable and perceivable image superiority. I have grown up with film and used film for many years. I like the image quality that film gives. To me it remains perceivably superior to any digital images that I have seen, but maybe I have not seen the best that is possible? From what I have seen, I consider that the average amateur photographer is being seduced by digital camera technology. A great deal of money is being spent to achieve image quality that is certainly no better than that obtainable for film, and in my experience often worse. Reviews in the reputable photo press often concur with that opinion, especially with regard to the money that ‘film comparable’ digital cameras cost.

What matters of course is the image. If you (and your clients) are happy with the quality of image and print enlargements that digital gives you, for the investment in equipment you have made, then great. It is right for you.

My perspective is different. I can obtain images that meet my personal quality criteria by scanning film. Yes, this is more time consuming and arguably needs a better knowledge of digital techniques than the digital capture route, but I like the control it gives me; I have a darkroom background after all. All I require is a small portfolio of quality images and I as yet see no need to spend money on a digital camera when a film camera gives me as good a result.

One further point is different film types have different qualities. Fuji Velvia is very different from Fuji Provia, which are different again from Fuji Reala. Scanning film allows these qualities to be easily retained and exploited, a further perceivable advantage of film for me. No doubt these qualities can be replicated using digital capture. The saturation and colour temperature options available in camera or via RAW processing probably go some way to achieving this, but at the cost of needing highly tuned experience of colour perception and theory. This is the point that someone pops up to say that a Photoshop plug in is available to replicate colour film types! There is, after all, already one available to replicate the specific characteristics of various black and white films.

This is all getting seriously off topic now, so I’ll stop!

…..when the film grain is so obtrusive that your image is nothing but a mass of noise when scanned at very high res

www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm is worth a look on the subject of grain on film scans. All is not quite what it seems perhaps?

Happy?

I was never unhappy thanks; merely attempting to clarify an issue raised in this thread. I stand by what I wrote, which was similar to the explanation offered by Robbo amongst others, but with the qualification below.

Magnify: to make (a thing) appear larger than it is, as with a lens.

A photographic example of magnification as defined above might be enlarging a 35mm negative to print from it. The print image is physically and apparently larger than the negative. It has been magnified.

However, consider a 400mm lens that may be mounted on both a 35mm camera body and a DSLR. The image it projects on the film plane or sensor plane is the same size in either case. What is different is the area of image recorded. Therefore, a subject such as an aircraft, will fill more of the sensor recorded image area than the film recorded image area. Thus it will appear larger in the sensor recorded image and is thus magnified by the terms of the definition above. It is however in reality, no larger physically than the same subject in the film recorded image. Only the cropping effect of the smaller sensor makes the subject appear larger.

This works in reverse with a medium format image. If the same 400mm lens could be mounted on a medium format body and brought to focus, the same subject would appear smaller because it occupies proportionally less of the larger image area, although in reality it is still the same size as in the examples above.

So the magnifying effect of a typical consumer DSLR is real but is a product of our visual perception of the image, not of a physical increase in size of the image, hence my use of the word apparent.

The current 1DS2 is widely regarded as superior even to medium format film:

I have never seen any reference to the 1DS2 being superior to medium format apart from in Canon advertising (I think), but thanks for the link. I will follow it up. I regularly visit this site but must have missed this!

As to such an assertion in Canon advertising; excuse my cynicism, but they would say that! Anything that can help a potential customer rationalise parting with £6000 for a 35mm style camera body, that is not a ‘collectable’ Leica, and from the evidence of some of the other posts on this thread may not even prove to be that reliable anyway, has got to be worth a try!! £6000 will, after all, buy some good medium format film kit.

While I can understand that the absence of grain in an image from this camera may be on a par with a medium format film image, I find it hard to believe that it can compete with the subtlety of tonal gradation that medium format film yields, and that it can give the detail possible from medium format. I would be of the opinion that the sensor size is too small for those medium format qualities. However, I am open to convincing, so thanks again for the link.

To get back on thread; equipment and technique are the essential tools to make good images and there is some sound advice posted here. If I can offer anything else, it would be to practise, and to practise more, and more….and to constantly look at other photographers work. Not just pictures of aeroplanes either. Try to appreciate why some images appeal and ‘work’ for you, while others do not and put what you learn from this appreciation into your images.

Be your own harshest critic too. Do not accept second best; only show what you consider to be your very best work, but do try to work out what went wrong with images that you reject. It is also often helpful in this process to review images some months after they were taken. The passage of time reduces the emotional link with the event photographed and makes objective decisions about successful and unsuccessful images much easier.

Hope this is some help.

yak139

I have a copy of Extensis Portfolio which I use to collate everything. No very easy to use well but its ok.

I would go along with advice to buy the best glass that you can, doesnt matter if you have a D70/300D or D2X/1D2 digital will show up any weakness in a lens.

Never had any problems in using 1GB storage apart from an early IBM Microdrive which gave up the ghost, the latter Hitachi ones are of a higher spec and seem to be okay.

I agree with Damien that the current bunch of DSLR’s are more than capable of producing images that are the equal/if not better than film and certainly for commercial use they are much better.

Paul (Waiting for D2X to arrive)

My wife has bought me a digital SLR, and I would be interested in knowing what software you are all using for organising the storage and the editing of photographs.

Yes this is correct. The typical DSLR sensor is smaller in area than a frame of 35mm film. Therefore, at a particular focal length the a DSLR sensor effectively crops an image compared with the same image on 35mm frame. Thus, a subject such as an aircraft appears to fill the image frame better at a given distance from the camera with a DSLR, than with a 35mm SLR, assuming both have the same focal length lens. Exactly the same effect can be achieved by cropping the 35mm frame. The magnification effect is apparent, not actual.

So…why not use a ‘medium format’ set up and have a bigger negative to crop from in the first place?
Its all in the term ‘format’: 5×4, 6×7, 35mm (135), 127, 110… Digital is a different format. It might use the same lenses as 35mm, it might use the same characteristics as 35mm and have SLR cameras that have little to distinguish them from 35mm SLR film cameras (as opposed to medium format SLRs, some of which look like they have been force-fed steroids), but the ‘film’ is essentially a different size: its usually smaller for a start (obviously the industry does not use the same size chip across all designs), hence the magnification difference.
Anyone wanting to quibble over apparent lens lengths might want to try comparing the equivalent standard lens lengths for all the above formats, and then try claiming the effect is apparent magnification, not actual.
Happy?

Flood

Many thanks guys, I will take your advice have look at some of the sites you have recommend. I could just wait and win the lottery
and buy the EOS 1MK3.!!!

Thanks again

Dave

Cameras

Hi all

My 3 cents worth.

I use a Canon 20D (just upgraded from a D60) with L glass (100-400 and 70-200). The shots I posted earlier this week where from the 70-200 and a 1.4 converter. All my prop aircraft are shot at 1/200th to get good blur on the prop and also the background. This does mean that you get some blury shots, practice will help. Any faster and the prop starts to look stopped. Jets are shot at a aperture of around 8, this tends to give a fast stutter speed and less blurry shots.

Yes do use L glass or at least the best glass you can get. It does make a big difference.

I use high end compact flash cards and have never had any problems. I believe some of the cheaper brands aren’t so good though.

I have found the 20D to be a very good camera, much better than the D60, although I would love a 1Dmk2, but the bank said no. I have read all the gripes about the 20D, but too date haven’t had any problems.

As for exposure, meter on the subject not the whole frame, that way back lit aircraft will be better exposed. Of course with digital, you can check your shots as you go and not wait until they are developed to see how you went and change settings as required.

The best advice is to just go and buy it, use and learn from your results. And of course post some of the photos here.

As for adding to your shutter speeds to go along with the ‘zoom’ factor, that makes sense for the simple reason that DSLRs produce images that exceed the level of detail found in negative film, so minor shake that wouldn’t show up on film can do on digital. A little extra safety on the speeds does not therefore go amiss.

Huh? Surely this cannot be the case? Granted the new 16MP Canon is probably close to film quality images (and so it ought to be at the price!!!), but from evidence I have seen, the typical consumer DSLR is some way short of film quality images. My 4 year old film scanner can yield 25MB 8 bit, or 50+Mb 16 bit, images from a 35mm frame and is good enough to resolve the patina and texture of the paint on an aircraft if the image is properly focussed. I have yet to see images from a DSLR that can do that.

Also, as I understand, the typical DSLR sensor is of the Bayer type and uses four pixels to resolve one detail point of a particular RGB colour value (one red, one blue and two green sensitive pixels, if I remember correctly?) Thus the true resolution of a 6MP sensor is actually 1.5MP in terms of the actual discrete points of detail that can be resolved. Film on the other hand is a continuous tone imaging medium and the limiting factor on resolution of detail is more to do with the resolving power of the lens and the quality of the subsequent processing and printing.

Screen images from a DSLR undoubtedly look better than the average machine print from negative, but this is down to the generally poor standard of mass market machine printing and not because consumer a DSLR yields more detailed images. I also think that JPG files sharpened in camera probably give an illusion of better detail because of the way the sharpening accentuates dominant detail in an image; e.g. aircraft panel lines. Any actual advantage of consumer DSLR image quality over film image quality is only in the minds of marketing departments (they want you to buy the camera remember!), and in the perfectly natural tendency for the new digital camera owner to want to believe that their new expensive toy is better than the old one.

I await the brickbats!!!!