DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question

Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer.TakeThisOut@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
> Remember, too, prints only have about a 50:1 range

That doesn't sound right. Several web sources day
dynamic range of a CRT computer monitor is 90:1 or less,
whereas prints are ~ 40:1 depending on contrast level.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

> Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer DeleteThis @usfamily.net> wrote:
>>
>> Remember, too, prints only have about a 50:1 range
>
> That doesn't sound right. Several web sources day
> dynamic range of a CRT computer monitor is 90:1 or less,
> whereas prints are ~ 40:1 depending on contrast level.

"Negative films can handle a brightness range of 200:1 or more,
slide films and photographic papers are limited to around 40:1.
(source Eastman Kodak Corp)" --Steve Levine
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E3ff
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Kinon O'Cann <fuged.DeleteThis@bout.it> wrote:
>
>>Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
>>camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
>>cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600.
>
>
> Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
> If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji S5.

Or, shoot in RAW and process it to capture highlight and shadow detail
that would otherwise be lost when using JPEG.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

dj_nme <dj_nme.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
>>>camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
>>>cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600.
>>
>> Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
>> If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji S5.
>
> Or, shoot in RAW and process it to capture highlight and shadow detail
> that would otherwise be lost when using JPEG.

That only provides one extra stop of dynamic range according to
dpreview.com, <IRONY> a noted authority.</IRONY>

Despite aforementioned noted authority saying DSLRs have 8 stops range,
most real photographers feel they have about the same as slide film,
5 stops. Negative film has about 10 stops, sometimes more.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

"dj_nme" <dj_nme.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>> Kinon O'Cann <fuged.TakeThisOut@bout.it> wrote:
>>
>>>Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
>>>camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
>>>cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600.
>>
>> Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
>> If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji S5.
>
> Or, shoot in RAW and process it to capture highlight and shadow detail
> that would otherwise be lost when using JPEG.

Exactly.

With raw capture, the 5D at ISO 400 holds detail in zones I and IX, which is
two more zones than you need for the zone system, in which zone I is true
black and zone IX pure white. (More accurately, it's enough to support up to
the equivalent of N-2 developing.)

Here's the proof.
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/76131098/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/76131302/original

But color negative film can be overexposed 3 or 4 (or more!) stops and still
produce a decent print. C41 is seriously amazing.

Of course, there's no such thing as a print that really shows all nine zones
of the zone system (outside the very best of the B&W art prints, but we're
not in that world). So the question then arises as to whether it is
significant that color negative film can capture serious detail in zones X,
XI, and XII. When you make a print, the high end all gets mushed into one or
two zones. So if you've got a seven zone print (even this is serious
dreaming, but lets pretend), a correctly exposed 5D image compressed so that
the top end lives in zones VI and VII (here zone II is black and zone VIII
is pure white), you've got something like 4 or 5 stops of detail from the
subject compressed into zones VI and VII and everything above that in zone
VIII. Is that going to be all that different from a color negative print in
which seven stops of detail from the subject are compressed into zones VI
and VII?

I doubt it. (Actually, you'd probably prefer the 5D print, since the detail
would be useful. With the 5D, I find I need fairly heavy-handed sharpening
to bring out detail in the brighter zones. (Grumble: Lightroom has a trick
for masking edges, but it does the opposite of what I want. I hate halos,
but I like textures, so I want to hide the edges from the sharpening and
only sharpen the textures. Grumble.))

And I suspect that even the better 4/3 cameras at ISO 100 will do nearly as
well, if not just as well, as the 5D at ISO 400.

(If the zone stuff above didn't make any sense, "The Confused Photographer's
Guide to On-Camera Spotmetering" is an excellent (and basic) introduction to
zone system concepts. I also like "The Zone System for 35mm Photographers",
since it describes the nine zones of the zone system well.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

In article <472680ac RemoveThis @news.meer.net>, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Despite aforementioned noted authority saying DSLRs have 8 stops range,
> most real photographers feel they have about the same as slide film,
> 5 stops. Negative film has about 10 stops, sometimes more.

only 5 stops?? i question how 'most real photographers' are processing
their digital images.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> dj_nme <dj_nme RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your film
>>>> camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds, and
>>>> cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO 1600.
>>> Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
>>> If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji S5.
>> Or, shoot in RAW and process it to capture highlight and shadow detail
>> that would otherwise be lost when using JPEG.
>
> That only provides one extra stop of dynamic range according to
> dpreview.com, <IRONY> a noted authority.</IRONY>
>
> Despite aforementioned noted authority saying DSLRs have 8 stops range,
> most real photographers feel they have about the same as slide film,
> 5 stops. Negative film has about 10 stops, sometimes more.
>
Here is a partially completed study that quantifies print film,
and digital with raw and jpeg.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/exposure_latitude-1

It shows that digital raw has greater dynamic range than
comparable ISO print film, but the range is shifted to the
lower end. It also shows how digital has a higher signal-to-noise
ratio, and how raw is better than jpeg.

This page also shows similar results:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

For the OP, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> Here is a partially completed study that quantifies print film,
> and digital with raw and jpeg.
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/exposure_latitude-1
>
> It shows that digital raw has greater dynamic range than
> comparable ISO print film, but the range is shifted to the
> lower end. It also shows how digital has a higher signal-to-noise
> ratio, and how raw is better than jpeg.

Very interesting study. Why did you choose Kodak Gold 200
as the print film to compare? That has less exposure latitude
than some other print films. Did you test GB-6 or GB-7?
I have not tried GB-7; maybe it has more latitude than GB-6.

Wow, RAW has 5 stops wider latitude than JPEG at 90%, and
4 stops wider latitude at 20%, if I'm reading your graph correctly.
so <IRONY>noted authority Dpreview.com is proven correct again</IRONY>.

Too bad my digicam doesn't do RAW! It is slow enough with JPEG, anyway.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question 

? "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> ??????
??? ?????? news:47269329.4050207@qwest.net...
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
> > dj_nme <dj_nme.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Lastly, you can expect much better results at higher ISOs than your
film
> >>>> camera. Modern sensors are nothing short of amazing at higher speeds,
and
> >>>> cameras like the Rebel XTi can produce excellent prints even at ISO
1600.
> >>> Except for dynamic range, which still sux compared to negative film.
> >>> If you care about highlight detail (clouds, whitewater) look at Fuji
S5.
> >> Or, shoot in RAW and process it to capture highlight and shadow detail
> >> that would otherwise be lost when using JPEG.
> >
> > That only provides one extra stop of dynamic range according to
> > dpreview.com, <IRONY> a noted authority.</IRONY>
> >
> > Despite aforementioned noted authority saying DSLRs have 8 stops range,
> > most real photographers feel they have about the same as slide film,
> > 5 stops. Negative film has about 10 stops, sometimes more.
> >
> Here is a partially completed study that quantifies print film,
> and digital with raw and jpeg.
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/exposure_latitude-1
>
> It shows that digital raw has greater dynamic range than
> comparable ISO print film, but the range is shifted to the
> lower end. It also shows how digital has a higher signal-to-noise
> ratio, and how raw is better than jpeg.
>
And higher quantum efficiency.(According to wikipedia, film has 2%,while CCD
sensors have 70%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device
> This page also shows similar results:
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
>
> For the OP, see:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
>
> Roger


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR v. 35mm SLR Question