At 09:41 AM 4/26/2002 -0300, you wrote: >I've become a fan of photocritique.net. One thing that amazes me is how >easy is to know which pictures were taken with digital cameras. They have a >very distinctive look (that sucks, imho). >What do you think about this look? (or lack of?)
Well... Most digitals are shooting onto a very small format sensor, so you see some perspective / depth of filed changes that are analogous to those that you see when comparing 35mm to medium format. But as with MF to 35mm, I don't think the differences are always apparent. A couple images from my website - this one clearly shows the digital "look" - http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i61.htm but this one, while digital, does not share that look (at least to my eye): http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/botanical/0205p01.htm So here's a test - two of these images were shot with a Nikon CP990 fitted with a wide angle adapter, two were shot with an Mz-S and FA 20 - 35. I use the digital sorta like a Polaroid back - test proof shots and angles etc, then switch to the film camera for the final shot. these are out takes from the session that ultimately produced this shot - http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/landscapes/0204land01.htm When shooting with the digital I take into account the 4 stop difference in DOF - so if I shoot at f4 on the digital, I know it produces a shot that will look like f 16 on the SLR. That adjustment goes into the mix and allows for a pretty accurate estimate of what the final film image will look like (it only falls down when you need shallow DOF or need to see what the shot will look like at a certain shutter speed/aperture combination.) Here are the four shots: http://www.markcassino.com/digital/1.jpg http://www.markcassino.com/digital/2.jpg http://www.markcassino.com/digital/3.jpg http://www.markcassino.com/digital/4.jpg The digital shots were cropped to approximate the aspect ratio of 35mm, the raw scan files and the raw digital files were resampled to the same size, the same sharpening filter was then applied, and then JPG compression. So - which are digital and which are film? For a more complex challenge - here are some images from my website. All I'll say is that one or more is a scan of a film image, one or more is a digital image taken with a CP990, and one - just one - is a digital composite of two film scans, one image of the composite scanned from print film, one from slide, and the two taken over a week apart. Here's the list: http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i01.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i02.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i03.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i19.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i21.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i60.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/insects/0204i78.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/botanical/0204p08.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/botanical/0204p09.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/botanical/0204p10.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/botanical/0204p27.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/misc/0204misc25.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/misc/0204misc26.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/misc/0204misc27.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/misc/0204misc08.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/misc/0204misc09.htm http://www.markcassino.com/galleries/misc/0204misc30.htm To be above board, this file contains a list of what's what: http://www.markcassino.com/digital/digital.exe It's encrypted but I'll publish the password in the next few days. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
