Posted by Larry Fischer on September 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I'm not an expert but I am trying to improve.
This photo is not presented because it is a good photo--it isn't that great. But I'm constantly amazed of what digital will do.
This deer was in Colorado along a road at O'dark-thirty, about 300 yards distant. It was difficult to see the animal without binoculars to magnify the existing twilight.
I attached an old Nikor-Reflex 500 mm, f/8 to my D700, cranked up the ISO to 3200, put the stuff on a tripod, and snapped away with a cable release. At 1/8-sec the shots were bluish due to the lack of ambient daylight.
I was able to "pull" this from the shot.
I thought it would be intersting to hear of photos that were "rescued". Perhaps even some good ones...!!!!
the fisch
Posted by Bill Dark on September 21, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Interesting topic, Larry. Most everything I've shot digitally has needed some color correction. The iso capabilities of the d700 are truly amazing. However, I'm not so sure that overexposure with Nikon bodies are a good idea. When one channel is blown out, it's been difficult to recover on my D2x. If I'm not mistaken, you can overexpose a bit with Canon gear and still be OK. Maybe Nikon's Expeed processing has improved this capability on newer bodies.
Of course, you can color-correct scanned film just like a digital camera file, so that's really not a quality unique to digital camera bodies.
I might add that one of the prints I ran yesterday was a drum-scanned 4x5 transparency from Richland Creek a few years ago, on which I cropped the original vertical frame to a horizontal composition, and was amazed at the detail and sharpness at 24"x36" - still kicked my D2x's butt. I've been wondering lately about how much sharpness to expect from a D3x...probably still nowhere close to a 4x5 original.
Nice mule deer buck you found too!
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Bill's obervation about scanned film fits my limited knowledge base.
Film has wider latitude than digital and when a large nagative or transparency is scanned above 300 dpi (?) the results are better han RAW.
I would have to check the histogram on this photo's RAW but I don't think it was close to having any channel blown out.
I sum, what took me only 5 minutes to accomplish through digital processing would have taken untold hours of work with film.
Canon does have some cameras preferred for astronomy with no antialiasing. I'm not sure about RAW in all their models.
Nikon is catching up. I'm happy with the low noise in dark environments with the D700. I understand the increased density of the RGB's in the D3x FX sensor has slightly more noise than the D3. But the end result is apparently better for larger presentations. A 4x5 negative would be even better. So, do we shoot film, then convert (grins)? Maybe carry a film camera just in case of that lifetime shot, eh?
Yup, nice buck.
the fisch
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on September 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM
This "pulled" low light processed digital shot rivals a fine art painting in my opinion. The quality of light that you have salvaged is excellent and the comp ain't bad either (I know the magnificent buck shouldn't have been centered but let's cut some slack here).
I'll let you guys weigh the advantages/disadvantages of digital but let me just say that with film you wouldn't have gotten this shot ... no way.
I'm with Wayne, impossible shot on film. Some Velvia 50 would have required a shutter speed of at least 10 seconds.
I am terrified of over exposure with any digital camera I have used. I have used Sony, Nikon and Pentax and with all of them if you blow out any highlights they are gone. There is no getting them back in RAW. Film (Velvia) seems to hold onto highlights better, but digital seems to have more shadow detail. In my short experience anyway.
Posted by Bill Dark on September 21, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Yep, no way to ever get that shot with film. About the only situation where film would have an advantage would be if you're using 4x5 transparency film (or B&W) for a landscape scene where there was no more than 3-4 stops difference from brightest to darkest. Digital cameras have much more exposure latitude, with the latest Nikon having about 8.5 stops. But I still love the detail in a transparency...
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM
The composition of this photo was "as is"--it has not been cropped for composition. It was so dark I had difficulty in finding the animal. When I did locate it I wanted the deer centered to make sure nothing was cropped.
No one has commented on the job the old 500mm, f/8, Nikor Reflex (mirror) lens did. The main complaint against these lenses, as I understand them, is lack of contrast and "doughnut" background for out of focus stuff. It is light and compact....
This shot did not have any out of focus issue because of the distance. In the future, I'm going to try this lens in better light for distant shots.
Sometimes old stuff isn't so bad when used with new, eh?
the fisch
Posted by Larry Fischer on September 22, 2009 at 9:55 AM
OVEREXPOSURE???
In re-reading some of the posts I saw again concern over "blowouts'.
It is true detail cannot be re-captured in overexposed area to any great degree, right?
I presume we all watch our histograms??? I thought we were to push to the "right" for best RAW rendition capabiliites??? This should tell if a blowout has occurred.
And Nikon, at least on the later models, has a screen which shows blowouts specifically. One can then reduce the exposure to not allow that. Especially useful in landscapes where time isn't a factor.
What about your cameras???
the fisch
Posted by Gale Rainwater on September 25, 2009 at 12:30 PM
What a beautiful rack on that buck and great detail in you shot.
Time is factor even in landscape just not much.
Discussion
8 repliesThis photo is not presented because it is a good photo--it isn't that great. But I'm constantly amazed of what digital will do.
This deer was in Colorado along a road at O'dark-thirty, about 300 yards distant. It was difficult to see the animal without binoculars to magnify the existing twilight.
I attached an old Nikor-Reflex 500 mm, f/8 to my D700, cranked up the ISO to 3200, put the stuff on a tripod, and snapped away with a cable release. At 1/8-sec the shots were bluish due to the lack of ambient daylight.
I was able to "pull" this from the shot.
I thought it would be intersting to hear of photos that were "rescued". Perhaps even some good ones...!!!!
the fisch
Of course, you can color-correct scanned film just like a digital camera file, so that's really not a quality unique to digital camera bodies.
I might add that one of the prints I ran yesterday was a drum-scanned 4x5 transparency from Richland Creek a few years ago, on which I cropped the original vertical frame to a horizontal composition, and was amazed at the detail and sharpness at 24"x36" - still kicked my D2x's butt. I've been wondering lately about how much sharpness to expect from a D3x...probably still nowhere close to a 4x5 original.
Nice mule deer buck you found too!
Film has wider latitude than digital and when a large nagative or transparency is scanned above 300 dpi (?) the results are better han RAW.
I would have to check the histogram on this photo's RAW but I don't think it was close to having any channel blown out.
I sum, what took me only 5 minutes to accomplish through digital processing would have taken untold hours of work with film.
Canon does have some cameras preferred for astronomy with no antialiasing. I'm not sure about RAW in all their models.
Nikon is catching up. I'm happy with the low noise in dark environments with the D700. I understand the increased density of the RGB's in the D3x FX sensor has slightly more noise than the D3. But the end result is apparently better for larger presentations. A 4x5 negative would be even better. So, do we shoot film, then convert (grins)? Maybe carry a film camera just in case of that lifetime shot, eh?
Yup, nice buck.
the fisch
I'll let you guys weigh the advantages/disadvantages of digital but let me just say that with film you wouldn't have gotten this shot ... no way.
Great work Larry!
I am terrified of over exposure with any digital camera I have used. I have used Sony, Nikon and Pentax and with all of them if you blow out any highlights they are gone. There is no getting them back in RAW. Film (Velvia) seems to hold onto highlights better, but digital seems to have more shadow detail. In my short experience anyway.
No one has commented on the job the old 500mm, f/8, Nikor Reflex (mirror) lens did. The main complaint against these lenses, as I understand them, is lack of contrast and "doughnut" background for out of focus stuff. It is light and compact....
This shot did not have any out of focus issue because of the distance. In the future, I'm going to try this lens in better light for distant shots.
Sometimes old stuff isn't so bad when used with new, eh?
the fisch
In re-reading some of the posts I saw again concern over "blowouts'.
It is true detail cannot be re-captured in overexposed area to any great degree, right?
I presume we all watch our histograms??? I thought we were to push to the "right" for best RAW rendition capabiliites??? This should tell if a blowout has occurred.
And Nikon, at least on the later models, has a screen which shows blowouts specifically. One can then reduce the exposure to not allow that. Especially useful in landscapes where time isn't a factor.
What about your cameras???
the fisch
Time is factor even in landscape just not much.