Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Perhaps I didn't work at it long enough, or I just need some more post-processing practice
Chaseme wrote:Nikon Coolpix 5000. The one of the beach bugs me cause the tress left of the wave look so cloudy. Any ideas on how to avoid this? Maybe it's just mist from the wave? Doubt that though...
Here's a night image (true night image...note that there is no sun)...it is a very long exposure and is in fact a quad (4) exposure image which I produced for a commercial Real Estate company:
How exactly do multiple exposures work? Why the need for four exposures? Generally I've seen situations where two exposures have been used-- one to show a properly exposed background and one to show a properly exposed subject. Were the extra exposures for color?
Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value.
LJ wrote:Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value.
Do you know how this compares with CCD or CMOS sensors?
Film has a rather limited range of exposure...in most negative films, that range is somewhere in the 9 f-stop value.
Do you know how this compares with CCD or CMOS sensors?
That's the first time I've seen anyone claim 9-stop exposure latitude for color negative film, most I've typically read is 7. Digital sensors are commonly quoted to have about the same range as what is usually stated for slide, i.e. about 5 stops.
Snapper wrote:LJ, I don't think I have ever taken an exposure longer than 5 seconds on my D100, so I can't comment on how my CCD compares to your CMOS sensor. I did read in a forum about a guy with all Nikon equipment buying a 10D for really low light work. I also think it is commonly said that Canon CMOS sensors typically have less noise than CCDs for long exposures, and that Nikon CCDs typically have less noise with higher ISOs.
all the people talking about film vs ccd/cmos wrote:lots of good stuff...
LJ wrote:Well, the CMOS that Canon makes is capable of shooting at a lower ISO than the CCD that comes with the D70 (made by Sony I think). Other than that, however, they're very close as far as I can tell. I have limited experience with the D70, but I would consider their sensors pretty close to equivalent although I'd consider the D70 a nicer camera if only for a better body, larger buffer and much nicer kit lens. dpreview does a D70 vs 300D comparison in its D70 review.
Snapper wrote:Here are some examples where the noise is very low, and I think anyone would be hard pressed to determine if this was 100 or 200 ISO.
digital is just so damn convenient =)
there isnt that much uses for that ultra resolution a finely grained medium format film
lgeis wrote:Actually, I'd love to see Snapper's lilly at 34"!
Snapper wrote:lgeis wrote:I haven't even considered printing as large as 34". I believe that would be less than 100 pixels per inch unless an interpolation program was used. Because of that, I just assumed that 6mp would already be pushing the 13x19 size of my 2200.Actually, I'd love to see Snapper's lilly at 34"!
Could it be Luminous Landscape you're thinking of?dpreview.com has a review where they conclude that an 11MPixel 1DS produces a sharper image than a medium format (645, in this case)
Could it be Luminous Landscape you're thinking of?