120 Chromes Vs. 20- D Digital

[chase237]

I just got some test shots back and I'm very perplexed. I was shooting quilts, I shot each with an RZ with a 90 mm lens, then I used my 20 D with a 70-135Canon Lens, I also tried a 17-35mm. I used auto focus (using the center single focus spot) shooting at F 16-22. I also tried it with manual focus.

When I got both shots printed, the Chrome shots were tack sharp, great contrast ect.. But the digital shots were kinda flat, not much detail and blown up to 8.5x11 they just wern't sharp. I don't know why they turned out so lousy. Any thoughts?? I know it's tough to comment w/o seeing the shots. When I checked them on my small screen on the camera, after zooming in, they just didn't look sharp either. They were all shot at 15th and on a tripod and large fine files size.

Thanks

[elTwitcho]

Well two things have to be said.

I don't know film at all really, but if "120 chromes" refers to a medium format, medium format will blow the doors off digital in terms of quality if you're printing at bigger sizes.

Secondly, I do know digital, and I do know that you have to do some post processing on an SLR to get decent results. Primarily contrast and sharpening. it doesn't have to be indepth, but it does need to be done. As an example, here is the same shot before and after sharpening from a recent set I did

http://www.pbase.com/eltwitcho/image/62833442.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/eltwitcho/image/62833443.jpg

The difference is pretty drastic. A shot may seem "good enough" but compared with a sharpened version, there's a world of difference.

[coreypolis]

we really need to see examples and know the actual problems you're having with the results, and know what the end result will be (large print, small print, web, banner etc)

chromes will generally give you either more accurate color or greater color saturation, though digital gives you far greater versatility, especially with iso options. most good chromes are iso 100 or less

which lens were you using? I've never heard of a 70-135, and the canon 17-35 hasn't been made in over a decade, so either you have an older copy (still no excuse) or its a 3rd party lens

which paramaters did you use on the camera and what post proccessing was done?

[chase237]

I've attached 2 of the digital shots. Check them out.. Big difference in YOUR shots Eltwitcho. I didn't do any post work on my originals. I'll try some. But don't you think that they should at least be sharper and more detailed?

[chase237]

I kno.. I kno... they're too small to see.How do I post them a decent size?

[chase237]

Not sure what the paramaters are. Whatever the default is I suppose. The 17-35 is a Sigma and the Canon lens is 28-135 Sorry about the misquote. Also. the marking for image stabilizer says I-0 when is it in the activated position???

[basroil]

if you really need the extra print size/range, you could always go for a digital medium format back... ain't gonna be cheap though...

as for images, embed them after hosting them offsite, imageshack/photobucket are good free ones.

[ssim]

But don't you think that they should at least be sharper and more detailed?

It all depends on what your in camera settings were with respect to sharpening. I have yet to have an out of camera image that I thought was sharp enough to let it go as is. You have to do some sharpening. It's a necessary evil in the digital SLR world.

If you look around here long enough you will find many threads that deal with what settings different photographers are using for sharpening in camera.

[chtgrubbs]

A few suggestions:
1) Don't use a zoom. They just don't have the quality for this detail. Use a macro lens, even the inexpensive 50 compact macro will outperform a zoom.
2) If you use continuous light, even with good tripod, use mirror lock-up and a remote release. Especially at 1/15 second. For some reason, shutter speeds in the 1/30 to 1/8 range show the worst effects of shutter and mirror vibration. Turn IS off when using tripod and mirror-lockup.
3) All photos will need some sharpening in the post-processing to get the best quality. I will usually download every shot into the computer (laptop on location) and look at the image at his resolution to check for final quality before I move on to the next subject.

[DocFrankenstein]

Properly printed MF chromes at ISO 400 or less will blow 20D out of the water in terms of image detail.

elTwitcho gave a pretty drastic example of what I consider oversharpening - ie bringing out detail which isn't there in the first place. It makes the shot look grainy.

When you want really sharp prints with 10 lines per mm, current 8 mp SLRs can't give you a print larger than 7*10 inches.

[tim]

elTwitcho gave a pretty drastic example of what I consider oversharpening - ie bringing out detail which isn't there in the first place. It makes the shot look grainy.

Agreed - way oversharpened.

[elTwitcho]

Tim, Doc - Thank you for your uninvited critique on my photo and reminding us all of the pitfalls of falling into the narrow minded dearth of creativity that can happen when one looks at photography merely through the viewpoint of one's own prefferences. I often times forget there are people stuck in the notion of "my way is the only way", perhaps because of their tendency to get left behind in the jetwash of progress, but it is nice to be reminded that you guys are indeed still out there.

I am nonetheless somewhat confused about the specifics of your commentary. While I do understand the mindset of "Portraits have always been shot with the intention of smoothing out those details classical views have held as unflattering" (wrong as it may be) I was wondering on a more literal level; how does one "bring out detail that isn't there in the first place"? To do so would imply I drew the lines in with the paintbrush, which I should hope you would realize I did not do. Perhaps what you should have said, was "elTwitcho brought out the detail that I normally chose to smoothe out in accordance with my adherance to the paradigms of 'classical' portraiture", yes?

Of course, on a personal level, I would ask that you don't give me **** for the way I choose to take photos under the guise of trying to point out a technical flaw, as you don't see me commenting on your photos and saying "same monotonous stuff you always produce" and I might think a little bit of consideration in return would be the courteous thing to do.

But not to randomly slam you guys as that would be quite uncouth, I'd like to offer you guys a hand and let you know that there's a Sears Portrait studio in every corner of the world that would just love to have photographers of your creativity and vision.

And as an aside, National Geographic ran a portrait of a young geisha in training in which every pore on her face was quite visible under her foundation of white makeup. Very sharp indeed, one could get lost in the detail brought out by the "oversharpening" and contrast. I'm quite sure they, much as myself would be quite interested to know of your narrowly dogmatic approach to photography, give them a call sometimes. I can find the relevant contact information if you would be so interested.

[adam*]

Whilst this is off topic and I'm not too sure how I ended up here I still feel the need to comment.

The shot that rich posted is great, one which has inspired me- perhaps it does look oversharpened to some but to me I like the fact that there is alot of detail in the face... it may not be 'classical' but in my eyes I like it and i'm sure that if you refer to the thread in which rich originally posted that photo, many others did too. Sticking to the norm / classical look just gets plain boring and I for one would rather see new/different/creative photos.

[DocFrankenstein]

Disregarding ad hominem...

You're taking my little post as if I stated that "my karate is better than your kung fu", when it isn't.

Let me rephrase, and please be assured it's not an attack on your atristic abilities:
The bayer sensor doesn't provide enough information to sharpen as if canon's megapixel specifications are "true"

It's math and physics

PS: Thanks for summing up my work. I tend to agree.

[elTwitcho]

The bayer sensor doesn't provide enough information to sharpen as if canon's megapixel specifications are "true"

Well, it's right there so I'm not sure I understand the argument. You can argue that "according to such and such laws of physics, the wrinkles can not possibly show up in a photo" but if I'm looking at them, and there they are... :confused:

But then, I'm the kind of person that can't see any airy discs in his photos at F22 printed on A4 sized paper despite equations telling him they must be there. Must just be me.

[foldingorbits]

try shooting with the p25 or h25 by PhaseOne.. you will love digital..

[Bu Yao]

And as an aside, National Geographic ran a portrait of a young geisha in training in which every pore on her face was quite visible under her foundation of white makeup. Very sharp indeed, one could get lost in the detail brought out by the "oversharpening" and contrast. I'm quite sure they, much as myself would be quite interested to know of your narrowly dogmatic approach to photography, give them a call sometimes. I can find the relevant contact information if you would be so interested.

el Twitto,

I think you find that picture used for Canon printer advert too! :lol:

Also, have you hear of Zhu Xianmin biggest name in Chinese informal photography and photojournal? He took many people photo that show every pour and imperfecation in face.

[elTwitcho]

el Twitto,

I think you find that picture used for Canon printer advert too! :lol:

Also, have you hear of Zhu Xianmin biggest name in Chinese informal photography and photojournal? He took many people photo that show every pour and imperfecation in face.

Sorry Bu Yao, I haven't. I'm not very familiar with most American photographers, let alone Chinese ones ;)

Do you have a website of his work? I checked on google but couldn't find anything. His work sounds interesting and I'd love to see some of it

[tim]

elTwito, go print those two photos and ask a few people which they like. The whole idea of a forum is to get advice from a range of people, and when I see people giving bad advice I point it out. I agree sharpening that photo helps, but in my opinion and Doc's too you went way too far. If you don't want to be critiqued you don't have to post.

[elTwitcho]

elTwito, go print those two photos and ask a few people which they like. The whole idea of a forum is to get advice from a range of people, and when I see people giving bad advice I point it out. I agree sharpening that photo helps, but in my opinion and Doc's too you went way too far. If you don't want to be critiqued you don't have to post.

No Tim, if I want to be critiqued I will post it in a thread specifically for the purpose of critiquing those photos. Which I did, and as *adam mentioned the photos were quite well received there, where the photos were in fact open to critique. People have seen both versions, you're the first to prefer the soft version, and quite honestly I'm only taking photos according to my aesthetic and certainly not to please the likes of you.

Avoiding the underlying argument that you don't know what oversharpening is (because that's besides the point) the photo was posted to give an example of the difference unsharp mask can make. The idiotic and rude decision to critique my photo is not the purpose of this thread nor does it relate to the original poster's question, and is quite frankly unwelcome. That you didn't comment on my advice (to use the unsharp mask) and only mentioned my photo and now try and say "I was just commenting on bad advice dude, don't look at me" is a pretty lame excuse after the fact because you made no comment that was directed at any form of advice at all.

For future refference, oversharpening is the appearance of halos and sharpening artifacts, of which I see neither in my photo. Anything else is personal opinion, and honestly yours isn't welcome if it is just to impose your own personal opinions on the merits of different styles of presentation. Get a clue, buzz off, and think harder about not being a dick in the future. Thanks Tim

[tim]

If you can't stand critique... resort to name calling.

[adam*]

Tim, I think the point is that this forum is not intended for critique- the critique section is, or the relevant sharing photos section if the original poster asked for it. Rich was showing the effects of USM- not asking for a critique of the photos he posted.

[tim]

I understand what he was doing, myself and others pointed out that while USM is a good idea he might've gone a bit too far. That is something that the original poster needs to know. The best way to evaluate these things is to do a mild, medium, and high strength version, print it, and see what you like the look of.

[elTwitcho]

If you can't stand critique... resort to name calling.

Tim, if you can't grasp a simple point, explicitly stated in my post and have to resort to pedantics and stubborness, don't post. I dealt with the issue of critique and what this was or was not about, grow up.

Besides Tim, I think your time could be better served elsewhere, because (to reiterate), nobody is interested in your opinion of who went too far on their photos. The original poster can discover the unsharp mask themselves, and they can determine what they do or do not like the look of. If they thought my photo was sharpened just right, then that would make the two of us, and your "critique" would still be meaningless. If the original poster did not like the photo, no doubt they would sharpen it to their own personal prefferences, and your "critique", would still be meaningless.

I've seen your work Tim, and the last thing I want is to emulate you of all people. Quite frankly your opinion means very little to me in comparison to my own opinion because I find my own work interesting to myself, and enjoy the direction I've taken with it. You take photos of dice in the air and call it art. Thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

[CyberDyneSystems]

When one offers advice on an open forum,. that advice. like anything else, is likely to draw it;s own debate and or critique.

How that debate/critique is offered is important, in this case,. no insult was made, a simple point of opinion on sharpening was offered.

The response to this noted difference of opinion was way over the top, and in violation of forum rules section 4: specifically 4-6 "personal attacks"
It's simple rule, Ideas can be disputed or challenged, but attacks on a personal level are unacceptable and when they are discovered or brought to the attention of the staff, will be dealt with accordingly. Ideas can be attacked, but individuals cannot.


Thread remains open. Please keep it on topic.