Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · How far have we progressed in Digital?
  
 
Justin Huffman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


pburke wrote:
After shooting the "pro" Nikon D1 12 years ago in a pro environment, I gave up on digital once I got out of that job. It was only good for fast turnaround, but the images were garbage compared to a good film scan. I didn't own a digital camera between 2000 and 2009 because of that experience.

However, in 2009 I realized things had changed and bought a refurbished D40, and yes, it killed the D1 in all aspects. I was converted to digital. Since then it's been incremental changes for me from D40 to D90 to D7000 to D600, each
...Show more
as a friendly defense of digital in general and d1 bodies in specific i feel your examples are skewed.
the D1 shot is clearly a grab shot with possible poor WB flash popped off camera. the film shot is clearly an amazing opportunity for a great capture... and well made at that just my POV

on edit i noticed the copyright on the second image.... im guessing its one of your personal fav's



Feb 11, 2013 at 02:47 AM
williamkazak
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


My first digital body was a Nikon D70 after a lifetime with film bodies, including Nikon F3's, Hasselblad 500CM and Nikon F6. I wound up replacing the D70 with a pair of D70s bodies. I currently have a pair of D300 bodies and a Nikon F100. I noticed that the D300 bodies are much better in the colors for faces. If I can recall this correctly, the D70s bodies had a higher (better) flash sync speed. The quality of higher ISO of the D300 is an improvement, auto WB is better and the AF is certainly improved and with more focus points. Battery life is also excellent. I am missing full frame compared to the F100, however, but changing ISO on the fly and chimping results seems to be a major advantage of digital. I hardly want to go backwards but with a lifetime of shooting film, before the D70, something still seems to be missing. I guess that is B&W negatives and prints. I do have three B&W film rolls to develop right now and I am curious to see some "grain" from my recent efforts.


Feb 11, 2013 at 03:21 AM
kinconorb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


I'd have to go look through the external hard-drives. I too started with a D100 then once I got into sports photography upgraded to a D2H followed by a D200 then D2X and finally a D700 and maybe a D3 soon.

In the course of owning these camera I've also grown as a photographer, which has likely made each new camera seem "better" than the last. In the grander scheme of things a 4Mp D2H vs. 12MP D700 in decent light produce similar results; I have images taken with a D2H that are phenomenal (color, sharpness, clarity). The advances in low light are were newer cameras really shines! There are images that I've taken with a D700 that would not be possible with a D200, D2X, D2H, D100. The low light capabilities of the newer cameras is just off the charts! Megapixel count is not really a major improvement 4mp 6mp 10mp 12mp ect.. Its nice for cropping or if you want to print bigger, but in reality low light is where its at.

Memory card prices have improved too I've got a cup full of 512MB and 1GB cards that are now useless most of which cost me $25 or more. Now you can buy a 16GB card the same price





Feb 11, 2013 at 05:07 AM
pburke
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


Justin Huffman wrote:
as a friendly defense of digital in general and d1 bodies in specific i feel your examples are skewed.
the D1 shot is clearly a grab shot with possible poor WB flash popped off camera. the film shot is clearly an amazing opportunity for a great capture... and well made at that just my POV

on edit i noticed the copyright on the second image.... im guessing its one of your personal fav's


you are welcome to look at hundreds of those images - and no, it is not my fav, just one of the same car. Poor WB on D1 - ah - yes, exactly, every time.

you are welcome to look through the galleries at that site and if you get into the 2000 images, you will always make out what's film and what is D1. Before 2000, we didn't use digital at all.


example page with some D1, some film
http://champcar.com/gallery/gallery2000/10toronto/index1.html



Feb 11, 2013 at 05:51 AM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


To be fair to the D1-shot, it does certainly seem to be:
a) taking the WB from the fill-flash you used
b) misrepresented from Adobe RGB into sRGB.

Assigning Adobe RGB (giving more red strength and deeper blue) and correcting WB and a slight over exposure made it look like this:


Using digital is also about knowing your equipment and development, just like back in the film days. It's just quicker and more accessible.



Feb 11, 2013 at 09:20 PM
michaelwatkins
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


pburke wrote:
I still have a hard drive I bought in 1992 - 512MB SCSI drive. It cost me $1200 back then.


My first hard drive - early 1980's - 5MB (yes, five whole megabytes) - cost a few thousand dollars and was huge, slow, and prone to fail. I recall it cost more than the PC it was attached to.



Feb 11, 2013 at 09:51 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



pburke
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


theSuede wrote:
To be fair to the D1-shot, it does certainly seem to be:
a) taking the WB from the fill-flash you used
b) misrepresented from Adobe RGB into sRGB.

Assigning Adobe RGB (giving more red strength and deeper blue) and correcting WB and a slight over exposure made it look like this:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kcqXTSso2Q0/URlfyW5aJ1I/AAAAAAAAFAA/x_ZmwCymacU/s0/D1color.jpg

Using digital is also about knowing your equipment and development, just like back in the film days. It's just quicker and more accessible.


regarding correcting the images - yes, today, not too hard to do. Back in 2000, this was more like black magic at best in Photoshop 4.0 or whatever we used. Clearly, imaging software has come a long way since then to accomodate digital cameras. This was in an era when we all carried slide scanners in our luggage, scanned each night in the hotel, knew all the local photo labs that were open late on weekends.

In 2000, nobody shooting that D1 had much of a clue about things like white balance - no fill flash here. same car/colors:







And just like you, with today's Photoshop, I can convert this to something nice, too - camera raw, white balance picker on the neutral colors, add some contrast, saturation, black levels, vibrance, and the ugliest digicam picture does come to life. Nothing funky going on with RGP or sRGB or whatever - just a flat image that doesn't have the proper white balance.







However, that's the thing - all digital images you saw back then looked like the one above, because nobody had the tools or even the time to do these corrections. The D1 images were the "nice" stuff you saw, so we found the above acceptable, and thought that is what you're gonna get. So we only shot the digital stuff for fast turnaround.

Another factor back in the early days was that we only shot digital when the light was not worth shooting film, so we would save the processing costs in those sessions. Nobody would touch our digital images for anything but tiny web news anyway. When the light was great, it was time for film, because only a proper Provia or Velvia slide would sell to an ad agency, which is where the money was in that type of shooting. The whole world was still thinking drum scans and film when the D1 arrived.

So I stand corrected - the D1 was probably much better than our images in 2000 showed, but part of the evolution of these tools includes the software and user awareness of what you need to do to correct images. When you just dropped $4995 on a camera body, you didn't expect to have to learn a whole new set of skills, plus, those images, as flat as they look today, were among the nicest stuff you would see online that didn't come of a film scanner, so we didn't even consider investigating what may be wrong with our output.

So for me, the original above is what digital cameras were like in 2000 - that's what was published. The Canon guys shot their $13,000 bodies and their images were even worse, but they had voice annotation













Feb 11, 2013 at 10:09 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


D*mn.... That's some ugly yellow in the first one I will have to believe in your color memory making the second one more "true to life".

I certainly don't remember that tendency from the D1x (never handled the D1 more than in historical interest)...

One thing you say that is indeed very true is the change in capabilities of normal photographers to post-process in a productive way. Also: The software possibilities have increased almost exponentially. When I get requests for older images I tend to do them from scratch again, and the results I get today are certainly a lot better than what we could do ten (or even five!) years ago.

Even though I still despair when I see some (otherwise brilliant photographers!) really mangle the colors in their shots. I mean - how hard can it be to use the correct white balance? And after that: How hard can it be to SEE that skintones should not be greenish yellow (mostly sports shooters and on-site documentary) or almost pure magenta (as some wedding photographers I've met/seen)?

But that was true about many AD and pre-press coworkers in the analog era too. Or even worse - PR department people...



Feb 12, 2013 at 12:28 AM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


I am printing 40x60 prints of starscapes with very little visible noise, and no star trails. Sometimes the stars appear as reflections in the water. I couldn't do that with my 10D.


Feb 12, 2013 at 01:22 AM
tuantran
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


You guys are still shooting still pictures?


Feb 14, 2013 at 02:30 AM
mike-in-ak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


To quote Scotty, "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

By this, I mean that while systems / cameras have grown exponentially in capability, they have also become more susceptible to failure from a wider variety of sources.

We marvel at the storage capacity of devices that are on the market at reasonable prices but forget that coders have managed to increase the size of their programs to fit. Program, OS, and smartphone updates routinely run in the 800Mb to 1Gb size.

We allow the camera system to control the exposure to the point where it sets DOF, focus point, shutter speed, and ISO. And we are left with framing the subject.

The first thing I suggest to someone who wants to be a better photographer is to take the camera off of "P" or "Auto" or any kind of "Scenic" mode.

Just my humble opinion.



Feb 14, 2013 at 06:11 PM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · How far have we progressed in Digital?


Jumping in to this in 1976 with a Nikon F2a to shoot for school and freelance work for a local rag in Toronto at night. We have come a long way in this crazy thing.

My Mother say to me all the time (at 92) "There are very few pictures of you between the ages of 6 and 15.... Every time your Dad would take out the camera, you'd loose your mind and he'd have to put it away to shut you up".. I would settle for playing with his light meter instead..

After seeing the spam hit my desk back in 2001 for the D1x. I'm sorry.. I pulled that trigger in 2 days. I've never really looked back, and don't miss the small of C-41 developer or tray chems whatsoever. I do see a huge improvement in bodies between my D1x, and the D2x, which is where I stopped. I waited a few years to see REAL improvements in sensors and firmware before upping to the D3x.

Now gone and to be replaced by the D4 this month. I can't see needing more before I leave this earth



Feb 17, 2013 at 04:32 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password