|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is
today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago. John Savard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Friday, 9 October 2015 15:07:56 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago. John Savard 4x5 film = high quality, arguably still somewhat better than medium format digitals. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago. John Savard I know professional photographers that still use 8x10 view cameras because they can control perspective, distortion, and other effects better. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
Uncarollo2:
I know professional photographers that still use 8x10 view cameras because they can control perspective, distortion, and other effects better. Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the 8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in convenience, it's good enough. https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778 -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:20:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote: On Friday, 9 October 2015 15:07:56 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago. John Savard 4x5 film = high quality, arguably still somewhat better than medium format digitals. You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range, lower sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide range of surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior to good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the same spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor. The main reason people might still choose to use medium or large format film is because of the features provided by the cameras, not the film. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:41:11 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Uncarollo2: I know professional photographers that still use 8x10 view cameras because they can control perspective, distortion, and other effects better. Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the 8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in convenience, it's good enough. https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778 I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers any significant advantage over making these corrections during processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that matter. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range, lower sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide range of surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior to good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the same spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor. Since the image in question was a long time exposure, I would think that it is at least possible that film does better than CCDs in retaining exposure for hours. I don't think the image involved use of the Scheimpflug rule or any other view camera goodness. John Savard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:28:38 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 22:41:11 -0400, Davoud wrote: Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the 8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in convenience, it's good enough. https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778 I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers any significant advantage over making these corrections during processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that matter. Deconvolution has its limitations. Since lens tilt changes the object distance at which the image is in focus, post-processing would not be able to match it. As for lens shift - yes, post-processing should be able to distort the image so as to get rid of converging verticals. Here, though, doing it with the lens still does have one slight advantage: since one's final image will be rectangular, one can use the full sensor area, instead of stretching fewer pixels. And being able to check _when in the presence of the subject_ that one is getting the desired image by looking in the viewfinder can be useful as well. For most people, in the case of lens shift, those slight advantages would not justify the expense of such a lens. But for rotate, there seems to be no substitute. John Savard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
In article ,
wrote: On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:28:38 AM UTC-6, wrote: Davoud: Funny you should mention that. I just bought a Canon 17mm tilt-shift lens for my full-frame DSLRs. Perhaps not quite the versatility of the 8x10 bellows cameras, but considering the vast difference in convenience, it's good enough. https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21852587778 Chris L Peterson: I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers any significant advantage over making these corrections during processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that matter. Quadibloc: Deconvolution has its limitations. Since lens tilt changes the object distance at which the image is in focus, post-processing would not be able to match it. As for lens shift - yes, post-processing should be able to distort the image so as to get rid of converging verticals. Here, though, doing it with the lens still does have one slight advantage: since one's final image will be rectangular, one can use the full sensor area, instead of stretching fewer pixels. And being able to check _when in the presence of the subject_ that one is getting the desired image by looking in the viewfinder can be useful as well. For most people, in the case of lens shift, those slight advantages would not justify the expense of such a lens. But for rotate, there seems to be no substitute. My thoughts--and remember I've had the lens only a few days and have not experienced or learned all of its nuances--are that for most people this lens is a nifty toy. It cost a bit over $2k and I am unlikely to get any of that back from sales. But I can already see this being my go-to lens for almost all interior photography, maybe almost all wide-angle photography. I have a Canon 16-35 Ÿ2.8, but I nearly always use it at 16mm. If you look at the bottom picture, the "correct" one, you will see that the edges of the barn actually diverge slightly: overcorrection. Put it down to inexperience; I hadn't installed my grid focusing screen and I didn't use Live View. But correcting that in Photoshop is quicker and easier than correcting the top photo, and causes less distortion and cropping of the photo than correcting the top image. Recommendation: neutral. How much are you willing to spend on a lens that is not suitable for general photography? -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speed Graphic used for today's APOD
On Saturday, 10 October 2015 10:25:32 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:20:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: On Friday, 9 October 2015 15:07:56 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote: A time exposure, showing the Moon shrinking as a lunar eclipse proceeds, is today's APOD. I was suprised to read that a Speed Graphic was used to take the picture; that was the classic press photography camera long ago. John Savard 4x5 film = high quality, arguably still somewhat better than medium format digitals. You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range, lower sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide range of surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior to good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the same spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor. The main reason people might still choose to use medium or large format film is because of the features provided by the cameras, not the film. https://luminous-landscape.com/4x5-film-vs-digital/ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Today's APOD | _ | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 12th 07 01:19 PM |
Stunning APOD today | No Name | Misc | 2 | April 16th 07 12:58 AM |
APOD today | Jim | UK Astronomy | 9 | December 7th 04 08:46 PM |
Today's APOD | Rick | Misc | 2 | July 23rd 03 01:30 PM |
Today's APOD | Rick | Misc | 2 | June 30th 03 09:08 PM |