Are DSLR's inherently poor?

R

Rodintee

Messages
164
Name
Russ
Edit My Images
Yes
Since acquiring a 30D recently to replace my aging 10D I have started shooting entirely in RAW. Now I understand fully that the resulting files are not tweaked by the camera in any way so can appear less sharp, contrasty etc and almost always need post processing to achieve acceptable images (or at least bring the best out of them).

I have no real problem as such with this but why is this required. If you step back a decade and use the same quality of glass with film (I used an EOS300, hardly a top end film camera) the results more often than not were fantastically sharp and well exposed.

It appears much more difficult to achieve the same results without significant post processing with digital.

Is this inherent in the design of the sensors?

Will this get better as the technology develops?

Just my thought for the day :shrug:

Russ
 
No, film was developed to produce a certain look and different films had different contrast, grain, etc.

Film was never that sharp but we've got used to sharper images. I have a book of pictures taken by a top wildlife photographer of the 1970s (Mitsuaki Iwago) and all the pics look soft. But it doesn't mean they don't make that emotional connection.

The equivalent of film is the "presets" in JPEG mode.

Slide was also a lot more demanding on exposure etc. than reversal film.
 
Did you ever enlarge your film pictures to the 100% on screen size that you can with digital when thinking things look soft?
 
Rodintee said:
If you step back a decade and use the same quality of glass with film (I used an EOS300, hardly a top end film camera) the results more often than not were fantastically sharp and well exposed.
Click to expand...

Which is why some of us still use film!

The difference is that film cameras are just lightproof boxes with a shutter. All the technology is in the lenses and the film so with the same film and lens, you should be able to get identical pictures with the cheapest and most expensive compatible bodies.

With digital, all of the technology is in the body - hence the need/desire/marketing persuasion to upgrade all the time.



Steve.
 
RobertP said:
Did you ever enlarge your film pictures to the 100% on screen size that you can with digital when thinking things look soft?
Click to expand...

Thats a good point, I try very hard to limit how much I analyse the images at 100% but it's very hard to simply accept the image "as is" when you are convinced that it can be improved by a significant margin.

As an experiment I may have some raws of a recent family christening printed and compare with the final jpeg's I arrived at.

Russ
 
grumpybadger said:
Slide was also a lot more demanding on exposure etc. than reversal film.
Click to expand...

Think you mean slide was more demanding than negative - as the term reversal is used for Slide film :thinking:
 
Steve Smith said:
With digital, all of the technology is in the body - hence the need/desire/marketing persuasion to upgrade all the time.

Steve.
Click to expand...

This in a way is how my train of thought has come about. A big reason for my change to the 30D from the 10D was the much faster data speeds which has enabled me to use RAW all the time rather than just occasionally.

Also, don't get me wrong, the flexibility of digital is fantastic and post processing offers the ability to rescue images that would be lost on film. Its just that it seems less able to capture the image right in camera as often.... maybe I got out of bed the wrong side.....

Russ
 
i dont think there inherently poor its just competition. all manufactuers are racing to get better technology so the features will improve in the forseeable future. look at film, everyone was using it and had no problem but then came the advent of digital and we snuffed it at first until it was securely in the market so film was still used till then and still is by some of us. but the fact is look how far film came and how it advanced through the years, i hear fujifilm has released a 3D camera, will it catch on? no, for the simple reason is its new and in a few years maybe a decade or two we will use it but i think most of us are still going to use digital because 3D looks horrible especially when you have to wear those glasses.
 
Rodintee said:
Also, don't get me wrong, the flexibility of digital is fantastic and post processing offers the ability to rescue images that would be lost on film. Its just that it seems less able to capture the image right in camera as often.... maybe I got out of bed the wrong side.....
Click to expand...

It really depends on how you used to use your film cameras. If you were primarily a negative film user then the extra latitude introduced by the develop and print process would even out a certain amount of exposure error and give good results.

If you were used to dealing with slides/transparency film then this would be an advantage to deal with the reduced dynamic range of digital.

With slides, the exposure has to be right as the slide is the final product. If you over expose, it goes white the same way as an over exposed digital image goes white and no amount of post processing can get highlight detail back.



Steve.
 
I like the control a Raw file gives me. As far as I understand it, and I may be wrong, the following is true:

* You select a film suited to the grain / contrast / style you want for the said shoot. (I think of this as the equivelent of an In Camera processed Jpeg)

* In Cam processed Jpegs, the Camera decides on the best settings, based on some input on the *some* image changing controls.

* Raw, manually processed images. This gives the ultimate in control, in terms of, tweaking, enhancing, choosing a style. Whatever you want to call it.

I may be off, I am talking from what I perceive to be the case.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
* You select a film suited to the grain / contrast / style you want for the said shoot.
Click to expand...

And suited to available light conditions with regard to acceptable (to you) shutter speed and aperture choice.

i.e. you wouldn't want to use Ilford PAN F (ISO 50) hand held on a dull day at f16 (for large depth of field) as your shutter speed would be about 1/8.

Conversly you wouldn't want to (or be able to) use Ilford HP5+ (ISO 400) on a very bright day at f2 (for limited depth of field) as the required shutter speed would be 1/6400. Not available on many cameras that I know of.


Steve.
 
Rodintee said:
I have no real problem as such with this but why is this required.
Click to expand...

As far as my understanding goes, RAW is the camera's most thorough format to gather all the information it can, it produces the largest file size that the camera is capable of.

When reviewing this RAW on your LCD, your seeing a JPEG interpretation and this interpretation will most likely include picture control adjustments or a camera profile such as sharpening, contrast, saturation etc.

Upon uploading the RAW to your computer and opening the file in an image editor, it's up to you to determine the final presentation, exposure, contrast, sharpness, saturation etc.

Also, should you require any recovery such as white balance, highlights or detail in the shadows, there is enough data in that RAW file to recover a few stops of over exposure or under exposure, a capability that is not possible with JPEG format.

The file being poor quality to begin with is an incorrect definition IMO.
RAW is raw, it's up to you to prepare and present it.
 
Yes, I'm with all of this, the benefits of RAW are clear in terms of being able to recover highlight/lowlight detail that would be lost in jpeg format.

But, sharpening of images is in fact actually degrades the core image by highlighting contrasting edges (or something along those lines). It does not actually sharpen merely fools the eye into believing its sharper.

Maybe I paid less attention to the absolute detail in years gone by. The ability to view at 100% (a viewing size of approx 40" wide x 28" high) is a tiny bit bigger than I ever had prints from film.

Anyway time for a bit of lunch methinks....
 
Rodintee said:
But, sharpening of images is in fact actually degrades the core image by highlighting contrasting edges (or something along those lines). It does not actually sharpen merely fools the eye into believing its sharper.

Anyway time for a bit of lunch methinks....
Click to expand...

Gotcha, I guess I'd never thought of it in that way :shrug: Still, I have results that I'm more than happy with and the only element I have under constant review is my glass and getting more of it! :lol:
 
You can't really compare a raw file with a print from film. Raw is effectively the "negative", so if you want to make a direct comparison then compare them at that stage ;)
 
Steve Smith said:
Which is why some of us still use film!

The difference is that film cameras are just lightproof boxes with a shutter. All the technology is in the lenses and the film so with the same film and lens, you should be able to get identical pictures with the cheapest and most expensive compatible bodies.

With digital, all of the technology is in the body - hence the need/desire/marketing persuasion to upgrade all the time.



Steve.
Click to expand...

I still use film occasionally myself, but to be honest, i'm using digital more and more. Of course there's a bit of upgrade pressure on the digital side, things are moving pretty quickly still - when we use film, we're using stuff that's had the thick end of 100 years of development behind it, so it's not going to be quite as fast an evolving thing.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You can't really compare a raw file with a print from film. Raw is effectively the "negative", so if you want to make a direct comparison then compare them at that stage ;)
Click to expand...

To me, the only comparison worth making is print to print. A computer monitor is a seriously inferior method for viewing an image.


Steve.
 
did you ever develop your own negatives and then make your own prints in a darkroom Rodintee?

I used to all the time for my 'tog A-Level and still do quite often, and I find that with the use of a dark room and all that comes with it, I too get the idea that I can change and improve the image. (not edit things in/out but contrast, sepia etc). I ended up doing such things to pretty much every image that I printed!

It did however really help make me become a lot more selective. Say you have 3 36exp films dev'd. Thats already over 100 images!

You can print them all if you like, but then adding the extra fiddling time and how many prints you have to do before you get a "perfect" one.... well that can take days!

So you really have to learn to only print a few from each roll properly.

Sadly I still haven't got the hand of it on digital though! Soooo many more images, soooo little time, and theres me thinking that I can save every one of 'em!
 
AleksanderLoesch said:
did you ever develop your own negatives and then make your own prints in a darkroom Rodintee?
Click to expand...

Never done any darkroom work. It's interesting to hear about the ways in which the final print can be varied / enhanced by the developing process.

TBH I think in some ways digital photography is a great cash cow for the manufacturers. I'd love to see sales figures for pro/semi pro bodies and lenses from maybe 20 years ago compared to today. The market must be huge by comparison. They're going to keep pushing upgrades forever.

Cheers

Russ
 
Part of the reason a RAW image is soft (JPG tend to be sharpened in camera) is due to the low pass filter in front of the sensor. This is the reason for sharpening - not to attempt to recover an out of focus picture (as some think). However some manufacturers seem to be worse and need more sharpening than other brands.
 
natjag said:
Part of the reason a RAW image is soft (JPG tend to be sharpened in camera) is due to the moire (?) filter that covers the film sensor. This is the reason for sharpening - not to attempt to recover an out of focus picture. However some manufacturers seem to be worse and need more than others
Click to expand...

Now thats interesting, we're all out there spending what can amount to £1000's on the best lenses we can stretch to and there's a filter between the end of the lens and the sensor...

:bonk:
 
Just cut off this filter and we all got top leica lenses :P
 
Its an Anti-alliasing filter. and I believe they are a lot thicker on Canons then found on Nikons, Kodaks and Fuji's.. which is why Canon images often appear softer
 
natjag said:
LOL. Wish I could remember the purpose of the filter I mention.
Click to expand...

It's to prevent Moiré patterns. Remember in the earlier days of TV when a newsreader wore a tie or a jacket with a fine pattern in it - and the TV would produce shimmering colours? Well, you can get something similar where the pattern of light detecting elements on your sensor and a fine pattern on your subject can produce interference patterns. The low-pass filter stops this from happening. The effects of the filter can be negated by some mild sharpening - much easier than trying to get rid of Moiré patterns in PP.
 
There was something on the Gadget show last year that compared film and digital.

Can't remember the specifics. But they had a new dslr and new film camera, the same camera's but in their respective formats.

Had a studio shot of the two presenters, using the same methods. They printed it out in a huge roll out. It covered the lengh of their studio wall outside.

So you could compare them side by side in massive detail. Digital won, they said had that been a few years go would have been film.
 
I'm sure I've read somewhere that another reason for needing to sharpen was because of the tiny gaps between the pixels where as film is one big pixel. Sounds like rubbish I know but there's probably some science behind it somewhere.
 
jigga1980 said:
There was something on the Gadget show last year that compared film and digital.

Can't remember the specifics. But they had a new dslr and new film camera, the same camera's but in their respective formats.

Had a studio shot of the two presenters, using the same methods. They printed it out in a huge roll out. It covered the lengh of their studio wall outside.

So you could compare them side by side in massive detail. Digital won, they said had that been a few years go would have been film.
Click to expand...

The Gadget show comparison thing was the best a low budget consumer show could do.
There were far too many variables not mentioned for it to be anything like mildly scientific, the film image was only as good as the scanner that made the digital file to print in the first place.
Its really difficult to make accurate comparisons without putting one or the other at a disadvantage.
There are still 35mm films that record more content than an equivalent sensor, how you recover that content and convert it to 21st century media big enough to print on the side of a building without converting it to digital I dunno, but if you do scan it, you put film at a disadvantage because it has to be copied by a digital sensor, its effectively a digital photograph of a film frame.
Equally, meter square enlarger prints from film disadvantage digital file enlargements because the file has to go through a printer, whereas the film version does not, printer technology does move on a pace though.
Digitals greatest advantage by far is.....convenience & practicality.

I don't think digital images are inherently poor, edit software is part of the package in the same way a decent enlarger lens is part of a film package, neither are present at actuation, but take them away and results can be disappointing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top