Getting drawn into digital or technolgy sucks

Discussion in 'Digital Discussion & Q&A' started by Hair Bear, Dec 23, 2006.

  1. Hair Bear

    Hair Bear TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I've been fighting with this subject now for about a year. Even buying an old Yashica 35 GSN chanting 'its not the kit, its the photographer that counts' Then yesterday i received a CD in the post from a friend who wants me to do a book for them. They saw something I had done last year and the version the photographer had done was ****e so can i sort it for them? Not knowing what the images would be like and guessing they might be the problem, I was expecting low res bad exposure stuff. but no - I have CD full of big, and I mean big 60 x 40 cm at 240DPI, images and sharp too! You cant help but be impressed They all need tweaking as with most digital shots I have ever seen (only 365 to do) but they are great images in terms of size and quality. I don't know yet what kit was used to shoot these but I am surprised at the quality of the image and it makes my scanned 35mm negs seem a little too old school. So here I am looking for a digital, staying with the Nikon and being lured into a D80 or even a D200. Any thoughts or anything to add (please take care of my wallet and pride) I know lens is important so if I finance I might need to get a good one then.
     
  2. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    I could be wrong here, but 60 x 40cm at 240dpi doesn't sound like an image from a 6 to 10 megapixel dSLR to me, sounds more like at least 16mp, which would suggest a high-end Canon, or maybe digital medium format. That's assuming the images were digitally captured as opposed to scanned from a larger film format. Are you certain they weren't? Of course they could have come from a 6 megapixel camera and been enlarged with interpolation, but you would generally be able to see the difference between a 16mp or medium format image, and a resized 10mp one. Basically what I'm saying is if they're from a camera with a significantly larger sensor and pixel count, then the images you can get from a 10mp DSLR may not be as detailed at 60x40cm as the images on that CD. 30x20 however should be no problem at all. I'm not saying you can't get good images at 60x40cm, but it's not really what current APS-sensor dSLRs are designed for and it's not what they do best.

    Having said that, I'm not trying to warn you off buying a dSLR; far from it. The D80 and D200 are great cameras. Which is better for you is something better discussed among your fellow Nikonites. What I would say re lenses is look at your existing collection and consider which lenses you use most, and then consider the 1.5x crop factor. Because for example if you use wide-angle lenses a lot it'll cost quite a lot to buy a comparably wide lens for the DSLR, and you don't want to buy the most expensive body you can afford and then realise you can't afford the lenses you need :)
     
  3. fmw

    fmw No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,594
    Likes Received:
    135
    For Zaphod, his images are scanned from film, not taken with a DSLR. You can get about any file size you want scanning film.

    For the OP, After spending some time with current model DSLR's, my opinion is that they produce better image quality than 35mm film. Personally, I don't think it is even a horse race. I'm sure others will disagree. I have a D80 and see no purpose in having anything more personally. Maybe I'll get a D3 whenever it happens but, for now, the D80 outperforms 35mm film for me. It doesn't yet outperform medium format film but I'll bet it will in the not-too-distant future.
     
  4. Hair Bear

    Hair Bear TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I farily sure these arn't scanned, they don't have that 'look' about them. They do have some sky issues and this normally a give away for me regarding the digital. Its in the blue sky and white clouds.

    I'm also fairly sure the arn't inlarged 6 or 10mb files. The detail is there in the hair and faces. I have looked at a D80 file, its not as clean as these. And there would be no reason to enlarge the images for the client as I doubt they would know the difference.

    But of course I might be all wrong, they could have been shot on a large format and scanned but my gut feel is they are on digital.

    I don't shoot on the larger format so my comparison would only be 35mm and therefore the 10mb file should be better etc.

    I would like to get a good lens with it but I think budget will drive me into a kit lens, although I have read that the 18-200 Nikon is a great alrounder.
     
  5. Hair Bear

    Hair Bear TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    With regards to my current lens, its a nikon 30-70mm - I have three as they all came with the backs I have.

    I have been trying to get a 1.4 50mm and or a 150mm. But I am finding the lower f stops on the yashica hard to work with. You need to get your focus exactly spot on although this would be a lot eaiser witht he nikons.
     
  6. digital flower

    digital flower No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    What does the File Info Camera data say? (Assuming you are running PS)
     
  7. Hair Bear

    Hair Bear TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    0
    They say D20 on the info file, I thought that was a 6mb file capture so I was wrong and they have been enlarged. They look great a lot better than the sample images I have seen from the D80. Although it was a very sunny day so there is lots of detail.

    Thanks for tip Digital flower
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

technolgy sucks