Blow Dog

Josh,

Received your stuff this morning, many thanks.

I have to comment, though, on the fantastic quality of not only the prints, but also the pictures on the CD. I have recently bought an SLR camera because I didn't believe that I could get the same level of quality from a digital camera. It seems I made a horrible mistake.

Are you able to disclose what camera you use and also which printer? If your camera is high-end/professional use intended, is there a sub £800 camera that you would recommend where I would get similar results?

Thanks,

Cem

p.s. Moderators, if you believe this topic is out of its place, please re-locate. Also know that if you do move this topic, I will hunt you down like a dog and feed you with Muppet Forum threads until you turn into a dribbling wreck.

I know where you live.

Adam M

and I know where you live Cem!

and it smells there!

Adam M

sorry, forgot the

mutant_matt

Cem,

I bet Josh is going to say that he uses a fairly expensive SLR and then has a negative scanner to scan the negs into his PC which he can then make a CD from....that's the best of both worlds - high quality piccs (old fashioned 35mm SLR) scanned properly....

Most decent photo shops these days can do this for you either when you get the film developed or by just giving them a set of negatives...

Ta,

Matt

Ian Cook

Hehehehe, its a very very expensive Nikon Digital SLR or was last time i saw him !

Main thing is the lenses you use, standard SLR lenses are OK, but thats all ! A professional lens can cost over 1000 quid !! but the difference in pictures taken with it is stunning ! You also have to take into account sheer talent (sorry Josh ) taking good photos isnt always about the cost of the equipment !

Have you scanned any pics in Cem ? can we see em ? see what you are worried about ?

Heres some of mine

Dave T-S

Yep, it was a Nikon digital when he took a piccy of my wheels at Scoobysport last week.....for a secret project

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Josh is now entirely digital - hopefully, we can reformat him

However, he has several, several grands worth of camera & lens to match It produces absolutely stunning clarity of shot & depth of field - lovely

I've got a "low-end" professional lens (still ££££ ) & you may have seen some of the pics I've taken. However, the quality is nothing compared to Josh's - the composition is often better tho' My lens goes onto traditional film, which Josh is not using for our pics anymore, & I scan the negs.

I'm looking forward to an affordable digital camera back that will accept my lens

dba

reckon reversal film and a scanner is the way to go.After all, a slide is 15 million pixels!!

still prefer XP2 and my old manual Olympus,digital just doesnt quite fell the same to me.

Hoppy

Cem, I don't think you've made a horrible mistake, but the tide is really on the turn now in the digital vs film battle.

Digital image quality is now about equal - Kodak reckon a 35mm film image contains something like the equivalent of 6-10m pixels. Minolta have just announced two stunning new fixed lens digital SLRs, the Dimage 5 and Dimage 7, available late July (see current edition of Practical Photography). The Dimage 7 has an amazing 5.24m pixel CCD, a 7.2-50.8mm zoom lens (equal to 28-200mm on 35mm film format), a 2x digital zoom and flash sync all the way up to 1/2,000 sec. £1,000.

Technology is moving so fast there's never a 'right' time to buy. When I last saw Josh he had just heard about two new Nikon digital bodies that were both better and cheaper than the one he's spent thousands on!

But digital still has many drawbacks. Still expensive, they eat batteries, when used in high-quality mode they can't store many images and you have to constantly download to a PC (Josh has a lap-top plugged into his car boot). Printing high quality digital images is also slow and good photo paper is expensive and soaks up plenty of costly ink, too. And most digi pics are prone to fade.

Also, the 'amateur' cameras like the Minolta Dimage 7 have very short focal length lenses, which means everything is sharp almost from the end of your nose to the moon. This might sound like a good thing, but it is the shallow depth of field that lenses such as Josh's 300mm f/2.8 can give at full aperture (I think this is what Puff is refering to) which is such a fundamental and creative photographic technique. This, more than anything, marks out the pro's action shots from the amateur's.

Richard

Josh L

My turn.

Cem,
Many thanks, I'm glad you're pleased with the results.
In answer to your questions, I currently use a Nikon D1 for digital work (circa £3,500 body only), the printer is an Epson.
Sub £800 cameras, without a fixed lens, are few and far between I'm afraid. If it's just for ordinary home use (hols/parties/happy snaps), in which case take a look at the Nikon 990.

Matt,
Good try but, in this case, wrong. Although I do have a Nikon LS1000 35mm film scanner, together with an Epson GT-9600 flatbed with tranny adapter, if I say digital I mean digital. When I used neg and dig' at the same time I always made it clear which was which. However, with the advent of high-res digital gear and photo quality printers, I find little reason to use neg, unless specifically requested.

PTMW,




dba,

I would beg to differ, to a certain extent. Whilst I readily admit that when after the ultimate quality tranny is the only choice, when shooting stock for libraries I always use Fuji transparency film. However, most of the time it's not necessary. Anyone who has doubts about the quality can look at most of the 22 pix I had in the previous edition of 'True Grip' or the pic of David Yu's car in this month's Evo. Having said all that, 2 years ago I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly, never dreaming that I would 'go digital'.

Hoppy,

Right and wrong.

The two new D1's are both better than mine (one in frame cache, one in resolution), but are also both dearer. However, Nikon did bring out an amateur digital camera after the D1, which was supposed to have higher res than it's Pro cousin.
One reason I always have the laptop with me is because I'm still a little nervous about having all my work on a flash card for too long. The other reason is that I'm too cheap to buy a bigger flash card.
In that regard, having just aquired the sole UK distribution rights for a range of emergency mobile phone chargers, and portable computer backup power supplies, I have been notified of the iminent release of a portable image downloader, which sounds interesting.
As far as the prints are concerned, the paper is heavier in weight than photo paper and, in the case of Lyson inks and paper, can have an archival life of up to 100 years. In addition, the costs are actually lower, hence I charge £22 for an 18" x 12" print off neg, and only £15 off digital. Frighteningly reasonable I think

Thank you all for your continued custom and support. (OK, that sounds corny, but is meant very sincerely)

Josh

dba

Josh,

thanks for the reply mate,but I ws referring to happy amateurs like me,not pros like you!!!!

Its taken me 5 years to master an OM1,I really can't be arsed with another kit!!
But a decent scanner and printer offers a relatively cheap way for amateurs to get into digital and at the same time shoot slide,which are of course a total pain in the **** unless you painted you lounge white!!.

Josh L

dba,

Couldn't agree more regarding tranny. It's a pain in the bum. Has very little exposure latitude, and is difficult to display. On the other hand, you can't beat it.

Josh

DIGGY

Josh,
Glad you recomended the 90

Found the 300 f4 by the way,

let us know when you are doing bill gwynne and i will try to catch you in action.......

i need a bit of target practice slower the better


M

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 23 June 2001).]

Ian Cook

Josh

Nikon 990 has now been superseded by the 995, friend of mine has a 990 and i am very impressed with the pics, obviously not as flexible as a pro body lens wise, but takes amazing pictures !

Blow Dog

Hey All,

Thanks Josh and the rest for the replies. I never realised that you had equipment worth that much. I have a Nikon F65 SLR which I thought was a very good amateur SLR camera. I am seriously thinking about selling this and going digital, I use 90% of my photos for the web, so taking pics, developing them, scanning them in and optimising them is becoming a right pain in the ar$e. not only that, I am just not getting the clarity and sharpness I was hoping for when I bought this camera. I appreciate that talent comes into play quite a lot (Josh's pictures are testament to that) but surely equipment makes a big difference.

It has also been suggested that good lenses make a huge difference, my standard ones are perhaps not up to the job?

Check out

DIGGY

Cem,

The pix i took of you at donno were with a ten year old body, cost me £150 (eos10) lens was a Sigma 70-210mm F2.8 cost me £250, again second hand

Before you jack it all in and spend ALOT of money on a complete digital set up, try a better quality lens of the brand (Fitting) you think you will be staying with for a while eg Nikon as you have the body,

THE LENS IS EVERYTHING!!!!!

Other than the person hanging of the end of it that is!!!

Fit a monopod to the body so the camera is free from as much shake as possible (shake will lose you the crispness and makes the images look soft as it is magnified the longer the lens)

And use a shutter speed of at least 1/500, should freeze the action, give a bit of movment from the wheels etc.....with an aperture of F4 to F5.6 ish. makes the car stand out more from the background

If you use a better quality lens (More than a 28 - 300 F5.6 for about £300 ) you will get more light reaching the film so you can use a slower film, smaller grain = Sharper picture

All of this is just stuff i have found to work from me (And some advice from Josh)

I get my images copied onto CD from a developing lab in Gersey. look in Practical Photogragher near the back......18Meg file size which is more than enough for A4 prints

or try Klick, they will scan negs for 99p onto cd images are better from neg scans than from photo's

A good printer is the Epsom 1290..does up to A3 with a bit of help

sorry if i am telling you how to suck eggs just sayin what works (sometimes!!!) for me

Hope this of use, and no i am not trying to compare myself with the pro's
although if i had a shirt like josh....well hey it would be a different matter

Mark

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 23 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 23 June 2001).]

DIGGY

Hey this one don't look too bad mate



I'll get my coat.........

, couldn't help me self, it's what comes off doing a twelve hour shift with only 3 hrs gone

M

Hoppy

Cem, are you using a film scanner or scanning 6x4in prints on a flat-bed? If the latter, that's where all your quality is going.

If not, your problem is camera-shake, caused by using too slow a shutter speed. Long lenses multiply the effects of camera-shake (look through some binoculars and just try to hold them perfectly still - you can't!).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with your kit, I promise you. As a rough rule of thumb, your shutter speed should be as fast, or preferably faster, than the reciprocal of the focal length you're using (this only applies to 35mm film cameras). ie, 250mm set on the zoom, 1/250 sec or faster shutter speed. For action pics, you'll need 400 ISO film, minimum. Using a mono-pod, or even better a heavy tripod, will transform your images.

Just to prove what your camera is capable of, load with 100 ISO neg film. When shooting negs the brand really doesn't make much difference - just to prove that, why not try a roll of TescoColor or something? I'm serious!

Park the Evo with the sun glinting off its fine flanks. Mount the camera firmly on a good tripod, wind the centre column down, make sure the legs are tight and that it's not blowing a gale. Set the lens to around 50mm, focus carefully. If you've got a lens hood, use it, or make sure the sun is behind you. On an average day, you'll be looking at 1/125 sec at f/5.6, but 1/250 sec at f/8 would be even better. Trip the shutter using the self-timer, run round to the car and give it your best pose. Stand still!!!

After processing, order a 10 inch glossy print off this neg. You'll be stunned at the image quality.

Richard.

Blow Dog

Superb advice guys, thanks a lot. I shall be practicing some of those shots tommorow, after I buy a stand.

You are right also, I am scanning the photo's onto a flatbed scanner.

Cem

Josh L

Cem,
Didn't have much time to look around the site (I've rarely seen so many of my pix in one place), but I presume the wedding shots are from the F65.

There do appear to be a few which are soft, some from camera shake, and some just out of focus. However, most of the images look to be suffering from a poor scan.
A small, but obvious, point with scanning is that you must try to adjust the image as much as possible BEFORE scanning it. There are limits to what you can do after the scan, even with something like photoshop. So it's far better to get the scanning software to share some of the burden. I have regularly used the flatbed to scan prints for reprinting, and there's no that much difference. That said, most of it is probably down to the quality of the scanner I use.

If I'm wrong, and the original prints looked similarly soft, you've either got to change labs, or get a better lens. As Diggy correctly pointed out, the lens is everything. All the body does is open and close the shutter so, to certain extent, the body is unimportant. It's a common mistake though. People often spend £500-1000 on a body, and then spend £100 on a cheap lens, use crap film and take it to a ****e minilab. The manufacturers own lenses (particularly Nikon/Canon etc) will usually be best.

With regard to the camera shake, I would always recommend people use a shutter speed of 1/400th or 1/500th, as this tends to make life a little easier when covering action of any kind. This will require the use of 400ASA film as a minimum, but the quality of film has improved so dramatically over the last few years, that there is hardly any noticeable increase in grain.

For those who haven't lost the will to live while reading this, could I just reiterate my request for a credit, or ideally a linked by-line, when people use shed loads of my pix on their site. To be honest, I'm trying to expand me track coverage, and there's nothing like spreading the word.

Josh

[This message has been edited by Josh L (edited 24 June 2001).]

dba

Blow dog

you got the EOS right? if you did dont be to hasty to scrap the lenses yet mate!! At our level it will take a long time before we need a Hasselblad.
If you are unhappy with the pics its far more likely processing at fault,the quality in the UK is notoriously bad.Try Colab,Lab35 or Club35 and stick with the one you prefer.

I use a 20 yr old lense (35-105 Olympus,a beaut imo) and I can't fault the pics or indeed the Reala 400 Fuji film I use as standard now (shake,what shake!!-F8 and 125 with some clouds,lovely-jubbly!!).For ace family pics the quality will shine out of an album.

Just dont compare them to the stock library shots,they are all either slide,medium format or high end 35/digital.Scanning using standard film through a flatbed will not even get close,so like I said,don't blame the lense.

Yes the lense is very important,but you have to be pretty bloody good to outlive an EOS lense.I am aware that yet again I am assuming you are at a similar standard to me,and if Ive insulted your experience or confused you for someone else who bought the EOS, then I apologise!!

You may well be Bressons long lost son for all I know!!

But I repeat,a £400 camera should produce fine results and could I be so bold as to suggest humbly,it may be experience that is causing your displeasure,he says with gritted teeth!!

DIGGY

so how ya get on cem ,

what do ya mean you ain't got em back yet.............

tut tut i dunno thought you may have had em up by now!!!

dba

er,i feel like a *** challenging a preshkneeul........but,and its only a small point Josh,can you get bad lenses now?
By that I mean those that come supplied with a £400 EOS kit for eg?
And wouldn't that lense satisfy a happy snapper for a long time?
And isn't it unlikely that a novice would be able to tell the diff between a £100 and £400 lense? A beginner is far more likely to suffer shake and bad processing probs?

Not arguing,cus i cant,you are the pro!!,its just that most mags make you think that you have to spend a fortune on a lense when the standard one is probbly perfectly ok.

DIGGY

hmmmmmmmm where is this going.

horses for courses i guess.........
You get what you pay for.........


i sure cem will tell us / show us when he gets em back following todays foto shoot if any of the advice has been a success or an upgrade is required.......

I am sure if you put a 300mm F 2.8 nikkor on cems camera there would be an amazing difference,

I have just carried out a back to back to test of three lenses, a 300mm F2.8 nikkor a 300mm F4 nikkor and a zoom thing which ended up as a 300mm F5.6 cost in descending price order, all shot using my body (In both cases )same roll of film same subject one after the other, the difference was truly amazing, no point in posting them as it will not be visable..........but really there is difference. And a big one at that!!! i went for the F4 as a compromise by the way (as if anyone gives a sh*te )

remember you cannot see the full picture (grooannn !!! )when viewed on a monitor as the resolution is not good enough.

M

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 24 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 24 June 2001).]

dba

big difference but really visible!!

Are they subliminal photos!! send them to Judas priest for evaluation

such a subjective field,you pays ya money an all that........

me? Ill stick with my 35-105 Zuiko,I can use it well and I doubt a camera worth under 1k will give me any benefit,even a Nikon!! (Nikon snobs pah!!).

Im just not good enough.Family album pretty good though,he says modestly.



[This message has been edited by dba (edited 24 June 2001).]

DIGGY

Dave

sorry I am clearly not as articulate as yourself,

i was just trying to convey my own personnal findings, as i was in a similar position to Cem,

I was also with him at castle combe recently so i know what kit he has and what he was trying to do with it.

I have wasted a considerable amount of money (to me!) by upgrading gradually and incorrectly due to bad advice, i feel this route may not be the best as i can see the bug also biteing Cem, he is always pointing the bloody thing at anything that moves,

I remember when it was new at a freezing donnington circuit and having to smile at 7 in the morning at a service station before having a coffee

I am not trying to be snoby or show off what equipment i have or indeed preach to all from my Nikon ivory tower (which i got cheap as they have just discountinued the body i brought). i apologies if this how i have come across..........

I was in no way trying to pass judgement on you or your comments just that there is a difference in quality if a better lens is used.....simple

oohhh and i tend to waffle alot too!!!

i have commented far to much on this thread than i intended too already, i am sure Cem will find the answer he is looking for (From the person he asked ) and so will grab my coat on the way out



Mark

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 24 June 2001).]

Blow Dog

YO!

Right, thanks again a MASSIVE bunch for your help. Diggy is right, the bug is really starting to bite and I have seriously been considering taking up a part time photography course to hone my skills.

My camera is a Nikon F65 with a 28-60 zoom lens, which my local developer thinks is the root of my problem. He gave me his 60mm Macro lens to test out some shots with today, initial impressions seem good, but I won't see anything until pics are developed. It seems that things like zoom and autofocus only serves to complicate things.

Lets see early this week how my pics turn out.

Cem

Blow Dog

Josh,

Roger that, will put a link to your site up tonight, whats your url?

Cem

DIGGY

Ahhhh when compared to BMW's i get it, small brain very slow to work at that time of the morning!!!


shhhhhhhhhhh, i may be popping out from the bushes from time to time on the 6th

see ya there

[This message has been edited by DIGGY (edited 25 June 2001).]

Josh L

What's this Diggy? You and dba, handbags, sorry camera bags at dawn ?!?


dba,

Yes there are still poor lenses out there, and yes the difference is visible. I thinks Cem's last reply confirms that. It's got nothing to do with Nikon. I mention Nikon, because that's what I know. I did, however, include Cannon in my remarks. You can list loads of camera ans lens manufacturers who make good lenses. How big the manufacturer is, seem to determin how good the lens and how expensive. Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya choice.

Amateur photographer used to do an easy to understand review of lenses, where each lens took the same pic, and the results compared. They would blow up sections from the edges, centre and corners, and compare them. the differnces in sharpness, contrast, distortion and even colour rendition can be astonishing. But, without want to bore too many people, what can you expect from lenses which have ludicrous zoom ranges (28-300+) yet cost £150.

Diggy seem to have the right idea, in hunting around, and if you find a decent lens just outside your budget hunt round the second-hand dealers in the mags.

Josh

PS

Ian,

Sorry, yes I know the 990's been replaced, but I haven't seen one. A friend's got the 990, and I've been mightily impressed.

J