 |
|
|
|
photohifx |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Misinterpretation pg[2]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pg 71 – Pic. At bottom left: (so far it was only with the technical aspect, I had the courage to dispute affirmatively,
but when it comes to aesthetics I can only suggest) take a look at the picture of flower I wish it had been more impressive
if it was composed vertically cropping off the left side of the picture. **************************************************************************************** The picture top of 70. It should have been zoomed in a bit, If I were you **************************************************************************************** Pic at the bottom pg 70. Folding of the petal could have been rectified during the shoot, **************************************************************************************** Pic at pg 69: The defocused stem running vertically diagonally) in the background, the impact of or age background,
the damaged portion of the lead due fungal, insect or sclerosis complete for attention to the subject in the background. The vertical running stem at the background could have been letter if it runs in a
different on direction. Does it ends up there again adding few bigger drops on
calyx can make the picture more interesting. Coming back to main picture of attraction. Pic at top page 71:
The outer circle of petals are little destructed owing to specular high light, as the sheen of petals
behaves live a piece of glass, metal, plastic etc. A polarising filter on the
on will avoid this; The area of interest would have been letter if it is position little toward. Bottom left, so there breathing space on the top and right hand side.
Rather the androecium and the insects are at the center of the picture. it is
supposed to be the problem understanding comparable theory of digital and film medium.
It appears to be the fault of school of taught of Mr. Ronnie Uncle. **************************************************************************************** Experiment setup and pictured by D2x and F5 Nikon
camera. Effective self-explanatory test pictures. By the way who is that enthusiastic person? No credit line. Perhaps too much an alert for Criticism, I admire your
systematic approach. To be Clarified:
Samples selected Test condition (Colors)/ results amply satisfactory. I
believe we should restrict our liberty of coming to a conclusion/verdict so out-rightly.
Lets recheck for any element of satanic force has crept in your test condition, hope you’re taken extra care
to work on the Friday the 13th. . Since: (a) you have used
same brand of Camera for both the medium , hence you have used same lens that might have been interchanged between those prestigious
bodies of Nikon Camera, so lens factor is eliminated. Yes you Did it .? 1.
You mentioned you have used micro
Nikkor 60mm (earlier I remember of 55mm f3.5 was one of my favorite lens). 2.
A
heavy tripod was used, because tripod could hold the camera for any length of time, so you can plan, compass better, perhaps
have a chat before the flowers could wilt. I would rely that both the shots must have been done from same distance
and objects viewed head- on. Firstly how to shoot from same distance? Using a same lens because the image
captures are of two different format (size). You are already connected so that you have chosen a best lens which is known
to be capturing much finer detail. But you think of these problems. The shot by a Nikon D2x must have done from 1.5 to 2 times more than the
distance of F5 hence D2x will have 3 to 4 times more depth of field than F5 for a given aperture. Did you compensate for the
difference in `DOF' by opening the aperture? I said shooting at head, but the pictures show shooting from above and the
camera titled down words. Thus will only aggravate by lessening. "DOF", that it should be intended
also your set up is opportunity 2-21/2 feet in width.
So extra care has to be taken as if you shooting `macro photography' with your micro Nikkor, to aim for high `DOF', because
you should eliminate factor of `DOF' like you did choosing a best lens. You afraid because somebody advised you of `Diffraction'
at very small aperture. But you unreasonably ended up in misjudgment. The picture by the Nikon F5 was shot from a closer proximity more downward
tile of camera than D2x. Therefore the exact plane of Focus (within the region of DOF) of F5, gets
more propped up (Stand up to be more vertical) for the picture of D2X which favor more for Digital camera. The difference
of light reflection on Sri-Lankan air of 2 rupee denomination between the two comparative picture has ample evidence to that
(I happen to be doing photography on ancient coin for some time). Please refer to `Schemflug' principle. There is one way of a fair logical argument by which you could put an end to my jabbering, will you be
able to do that? (b)Please trust your own Editor work in the welcome page of Dec 2005 “ I personally would like see, an increase of Dynamic range in digital imaging, its, still limited compared
to film” (c)By the word of uncle ‘Ronnie”: purely on a resolution level,
the TP will win hands. Dow when compared to Digital SLR.
Now compare these along with your inference (a) On Color reproduction & saturation – velvia (TP film) is good. (b) On ‘Sharpness,.’ Highlights burnouts’ and ‘noice’ (grain)
D2x wins.’ 1.You would know / visual appearance of sharpness resolution x contrast.
** As per mr.Ronnie when resolution is high with film Plus as-well test
report of yours shows contrast is little higher with velvia, Therefore a picture from film should possess higher visual sharpness. But could we little more effort to investigate what might have gone wrong
so it contradicts our earlier inference. Lets check out for preliminary root factors Could it be those ‘engines’ which is usually associated with
a digital capture that serves as firmware, which might have synthetically enhanced the visual appearance of the test picture? If that is the case we should have to apply the same image enhancement to
film also. Is there is any way that we could buy that software from camera manufacturer
or crack it through net. 1.
As
per your editor’s statement, film captures have more dynamic range of an Image. 2.
What does it mean, where does your complain about high light burnout would fit in,
for logical argument. A TP is media balanced for both projection and for reproduction, so the gamma is set to a compromising
to meet both ends. In a digital capture we see
the end result corrected for a display or a print and software interpretation is unnoticed.
The scientists who are striving for Image perfection / visual appeasement, have more liberty to ‘twist and turn’
the ‘characteristic-curve’ of the image captured. We could do all these because it is a digital file, but it cannot be applied to the process of dye formation
through chemical reaction. You observed lower saturation because the contrast of the digital file is
pulled down. By default to accommodate those details in the shadow and the Highlights But I Could see the picture-inserts
of digital file of colour-charts seems to be more saturated. Give another
look magbeth-chart . The less grainy nature in a digital picture because the ‘capture engines
is capable to fill up the space between the grains by interpolation. If you could satisfy me all these, I would silently has creep into the first
row to give an applause for Digital. **************************************************************************************** March
2006 ..by Ronnie Regarding test
condition and DOF (Depth of Field) You have mentioned that both film a Digital would have to be mounted on a tripod, using same ISO value, Aperture with
regard to achieving similar DOF. Thanks to information on various chip sizes of CCD I learned they are usually from 4/3” types to 1/1.8” types
or still smaller in size. In practice a reduction in a chosen film format would,
drastically / dramatically increases a Depth of filed following inverse square law. i.e., If you double up a given factor,
the resultant increase would four-fold. That is reduction of format to 35 mm
from 6 x 7 cm increases depth by four fold i.e., to achieve same kind of depth of 35mm @ aperture of f:5.6 , of the 6 x 7
cm format should be shot of f:11.or f22 (Some-one could please clarify). So, to shoot with
Digital the aperture should open according by calibrating the ratio between the size of a film and Digital in consideration
. How to find it? The normal lens
for a 35mm is 50mm; find what focal length of the lens is the equalizes to give
same angle of view for a Digital Camera, that would have physically a different chip size . I infact would love
digital, because I can shoot with less amount of lighting in the order of 1/4th
or 1/8th that would be required for a comparable shoot in film. Further,
the Art Directors in future would be demand less for a large format shoot with prestigious Brands of camera, that a photographer
like me may not able to afford. More of refreshing or a mind could be stuffing with
technical information, on intelligent selection tool, developed by me, Please ref: at
my web site (under construction I would let you know later) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Enter supporting content here |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
