Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - For Sale

Buy and Sell Used Climbing Gear Please do not post retail SPAM.

Author

Camera Film - Bulk Buy and Information


shaggy

29-Apr-2004
12:47:11 PM

in regards to the comparison between provia 100 and 400, the diff in grain structure is huge, the colour sat. is also diff, but at the end of the day, if your not reproducing your images over 8x12 (A4) grainier films aren't such an issue.


nmonteith

29-Apr-2004
12:49:36 PM

Thanks for the tip Shaggy - my big problem was free hanging and blowing around in he wind trying to shoot someone doing a dynamic move. 1/30th woudln't cut the musturd i am afraid!

Heres the pic i am talking about!
http://neilmonteith.smugmug.com/gallery/91060/5/3769187


shmalec

29-Apr-2004
1:13:09 PM

guess it all depends on your eye and what you think is sharp or grainy.

I don't usually shoot a whole role under the same conditions so versatility counts. If I can't take the shots I want, then the sharpness of the film is irrelevant. It doesn't take much camera shake to whipe out the benefits of using a slow finer film.

I'd suggest most people on this forum couldn't tell from the grain if any one shot was 100asa or 400asa even if it was blown up. Colour is a different matter however.


mousey

29-Apr-2004
4:51:20 PM

thats why (other than cost) ive been shooting 100 and 200 films, because they offer colour sharpness and saturation to rival that of the 50's (though certainly not equal) but mean that i've never had to shoot slower than 1/60th while climbing - usually no slower than 1/125th
does anyone have experience with the velvia 100f? does it have anything other than a name over the provia 100?


nmonteith

29-Apr-2004
5:17:36 PM

I like how this topic has suddenly turned into a my velvia is better than your provia... i thought you didn't want to know anything about velvia?? ;-)


shaggy

29-Apr-2004
5:27:30 PM

Neil, link to image doesn't seem to work. With regards to swinging around etc, I usually use a second rope, which I triangulate (in any direction) so as to be able to stabalise myself. This method I always use whenever my feet aren't able to touch something stable, be it rock, snow, or a chopper rail.

MM. Velvia 100 is a different emulsion than Provia (which is basically just sensia), instead it is basically the same as Velvia 50, just has undergone a treatment to make it a little more sensative. Kinda like decaf coffee, started of the same, smells the same but after the treatment, just usn't the same.


nmonteith

29-Apr-2004
5:38:11 PM

link fixed (hopefully)


mousey

30-Apr-2004
11:02:57 AM

thanks shaggy- are there any significant differences in colour sharpness/saturation? (not neccesarily better or worse, just different?)

neil- thats not i meant :) but i'll take this opportunity to change to topic anyway....canon vs nikon (bodies) and a free for all (lenses)?
to start it off, my vote goes to nikon f80 & f100 body's
i use sigma, tamron and canon lenses (with an old ae-1...i dont have enough cash for an f80 yet) but my vote goes to nikkor and sigma

also just curious does anyopne out there shoot medium/large format?


shaggy

30-Apr-2004
11:11:18 AM

Hey you guys are really getting my 2c, maybe it's upto about 50c by now. he he.

As a 'general' rule, and dont quote me on this.... The faster the film, the lower the color saturation, and therefore slight flattening of the image. But there are some exceprions.... so many films so much data.

As for Medium format, I used to shoot on a Pentax 67, they're great cameras, just like a big 35mm camera. I used to shoot a lot of skiing and alpine stuff on it, but trust me.... They do not like sudden decceleration. Scince that little episode, I sold off all my remaining lens' and other equipment for the pentax, and bought into the digital world, much more practical.


mousey

30-Apr-2004
1:28:49 PM

im not too up to date on the digital side of things...do they have a 35mm equiv and larger format equiv.s?
also, other than the obvious digital storage stuff, what changed between film & digital? (eg. changes in image quality, image control etc.)


nmonteith

30-Apr-2004
3:39:10 PM

That sort of info is best left to extensive web research. I don't quite think there this site is the best place to learn the pros and cons of digital!

I shoot most of my stuff digital these days - Canon EOS300D. It fits all the standard Canon EF lenses so it is backwards compatible with my 35mm film SLR. The image quality is great for A4 - resonable for A3 but not that great above that. Film is still much better quality if you are repro images at a large size - or making glossy coffee table books.

Advantages - infinate and super cheap 'film'. You can change ISO of film mid "roll" so if you suddenly find its too dark you just crank it up to 200 or 400 ect. Easy to 'process' and get online quickly!

Disadvanatges - Saturation and 'look' is still not as good as film. If you under/overexpose shots you don't have much room to move. Shooting RAW format you get about 1 stop leaniancy. Most magaziens are still reluctant (Rock especially!) to accept digital photos. Several have been published in Rock over the the last few years.


mousey

30-Apr-2004
6:30:21 PM

so it would seem that the main two advantageds of digi are cheaper upkeep and easier to get on the web....the fact that a decent digi slr set up would set you back a good 5 or 6G (or as much as 25g if you want a pro outfit) i think that negates the cost advantage (it is still possible to that much on a film camera but you can certainly get by with a lot less) ....
with the web bit- my scanner accepts both negs and transparencies and it cost about $200 (doesnt need to be super good quality since you cant put hige picture files on the web anyway..)
i just can't see hpow i would justify the changeover...


nmonteith

30-Apr-2004
7:10:03 PM

My digi-SLR is worth $2000 with the basic lens - of course i have a stack of expensive lenses on top of that. I think it is a vastly cheaper way - and definatly the future of photography. If you had told me 5 years ago that digi-cams would be 90% of the new cameras bought in 2004 i would have laughed. It is now fact.


mousey

1-May-2004
10:17:00 AM

fair enough- i would probably look into it more deeply except that my part time wage can't support any single big buys like that, whereas the smaller ongoing costs of film & processing are easier to manage. maybe one day...


adski

2-May-2004
12:35:01 AM

Does anyone know if Rock is publishing digi-photos these days? A friend had some 5mp photos rejected some time back...


shmalec

2-May-2004
9:15:07 PM

main down side I think is that digi body will increase the focal length of all your slr lenses by a factor of 1.6. kiss your wide angle shots goodbye.

just got my first colour photo printer going this weekend....a4 enlargements for 3 bucks....very cool! :)


mousey

2-May-2004
10:18:08 PM

On 2/05/2004 adski wrote:
>Does anyone know if Rock is publishing digi-photos these days? A friend
>had some 5mp photos rejected some time back...

they make rare exceptions but glassless original slides are how they say to send em...its a shame they dont accept digital since their photo-market would probbly open up a lot. on the other hand, that would suck for the struggling photogs like myself who would have even more competition...


nmonteith

3-May-2004
9:13:38 AM

They have published about 5 digi pics of mine over the last few years - most of them were not more than A5 size in the mag. Some known digi examples recently (not my pics)

Issue #58 (latest issue) - page 27 - Canon consumer 5megapix

Issue #57 - page 20 & 21 - all four photos are Nikon consumer 5megapix


adski

3-May-2004
5:03:09 PM

Cheers, thanks for the info


shaggy

3-May-2004
11:22:39 PM

>Disadvanatges - Saturation and 'look' is still not as good as film. If
>you under/overexpose shots you don't have much room to move.

Neil, I actually usually find the opposite, I find that the images from my digis are usually too saturated and in fact too perfect, and therefore end up 'roughing them up' in photoshop later.
I also play with the white balance a tad which also manages to detune the colors.
The main disadvantage with digi is the large depth of field. Even when I shoot on a f1.2 lens wide open, the DOF is still often not fine enough. This is especially apparent when shooting climbing, I will usually shoot either on a 17-35 f2.8 or a 70-200 f2.8, however even when shooting wide open it is often next to impossible to keep the background out of focus. This really sux. But there are a few tricks to make it happen...

>main down side I think is that digi body will increase the focal length of all your slr >lenses by a factor of 1.6. kiss your wide angle shots goodbye.

One of cameras does this the other doesn't, unfortunately, only the more 'expensive' cameras don't. Shit happens, small disadvantage, but now there are radicaly wide angle lens' available for quite cheap, none of which were available 5 years ago.

There are 41 messages in this topic.