Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
First pics with my EOS 5000
- Thread starter Fraaaa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice beginning. The shot of the angel on the pole was my favorite, but I found my eye going to the guy in the orange shirt in the background. Maybe move a little next time and place the pole in the left hand third of the picture which is naturally where the eye wants to go. Nothing wrong with where it is located; it makes for a more "uneasy/edgy" feel-which may be what you were intending. I like the background a little out of focus (the so called bokeh effect). Well done. Enjoy many more hours with your EOS 5000.
Does the 500D use film?
Last time I tried developing and scanning the shots from my 500D I ruined 3 perfectly good CF Cards. D'OH!
Full of Win indeed...
On the other hand, the OP has done well. It's interesting seeing the tonal response here, it's very different from digital.
Yep, film tends to be very easy to spot, there's something about it (or maybe it's just the impact the workflow has on the photographer).
Yep, film tends to be very easy to spot, there's something about it (or maybe it's just the impact the workflow has on the photographer).
Generally, high levels of noise, inaccurate colour and no shadow detail are what I see. I should say, I still love the look of film, but it's not 'accurate'.
We call it "grain" but otherwise that's spot-on. Of course some of what you're seeing is the look of the scanner, which does introduce noise and further decreases shadow detail.
Yes, of course. I also call it 'grain' but once scanned it's the same idea (i.e. if you don't know what you're looking at).
Right now I'm shooting every film snob's least favorites: velvia 50 for overcast days and velvia 100 for sunsets. I like the high contrast and each has a color cast and speed appropriate for the subject matter. I don't have access to a darkroom yet so I hate shooting c41...I want to see the exposure I intended, not a print of what the lab tech thinks I want. The new ektar looks cool, though, so I may try that some day.
I'm just getting into black and white, trying out some ilford and kodak tmax at the moment...I need to try a lot more emulsions before I have an informed opinion. Advice would be appreciated, though, if you have any you recommend. I hear the ilford delta recommended a lot. I'm honestly still a beginner, I just feel the need to stick my nose out for film when I get the chance.
I'm just getting into black and white, trying out some ilford and kodak tmax at the moment...I need to try a lot more emulsions before I have an informed opinion. Advice would be appreciated, though, if you have any you recommend. I hear the ilford delta recommended a lot. I'm honestly still a beginner, I just feel the need to stick my nose out for film when I get the chance.
I'm not one to give advice on film - the only film I've shot these last couple of years has been cheapo print, just for the 'retro-novelty'. The results look absolutely awful, greens virtually blue, dire skin tone and so much grain!
Before I got a DSLR I didn't shoot so much, but I used Kodachrome 64, inheriting my father's habit. Not a good choice these days though... for obvious reasons.
Before I got a DSLR I didn't shoot so much, but I used Kodachrome 64, inheriting my father's habit. Not a good choice these days though... for obvious reasons.
If you liked Kodachrome (which I've never used but I've seen lots of it), you might love Velvia...or possibly hate it for being the first big nail in Kodachrome's coffin. It requires a good meter (or an external spot meter) because it has about four stops of dr (just over one above 18% gray, two or three below), but it has a unique look. Great for overcast days and low contrast sunsets, it also has the "ultimate" film look: gum drop colors, poor shadow detail, and lots of grain (but at least it's fine grain).
A couple of my better shots with it (since starting with 6x7 a month ago, click for 300dpi @ 11X17):
The second one has a three-stop grad filter and I painted out a lens ghost and building in photoshop. Don't tell anyone I cheated. Hopefully I can scan a few more soon.
A couple of my better shots with it (since starting with 6x7 a month ago, click for 300dpi @ 11X17):
The second one has a three-stop grad filter and I painted out a lens ghost and building in photoshop. Don't tell anyone I cheated. Hopefully I can scan a few more soon.
Last edited:
Those are both very lovely. You must get up early. I really do like the depth and colour of the misty grasses. Were you on a boat for the other one?
What are you shooting the 6x7 on? One of the Pentax cameras? Not that it matters particularly, of course.
If you do scan more, be sure to post them in one of the various threads.
What are you shooting the 6x7 on? One of the Pentax cameras? Not that it matters particularly, of course.
If you do scan more, be sure to post them in one of the various threads.
Thanks! And good guess, the Pentax 67 seems to be the standard landscape camera, but I went with the Mamiya rz67 because it's versatile and has good lenses (relatively) cheap. I wasn't in a boat for the river shot; I just walked a few feet into the water with a tripod. And yes, both sunrises.
I agree digital is usually much better for smaller sensors, particularly since most mini-labs scan negatives and print digitally, anyway, but big slow film is fun. I'm starting to get into LF, which I figured was perfect for me (a huge tech geek and DIYer), but it's much harder than I'd expected it would be...
I agree digital is usually much better for smaller sensors, particularly since most mini-labs scan negatives and print digitally, anyway, but big slow film is fun. I'm starting to get into LF, which I figured was perfect for me (a huge tech geek and DIYer), but it's much harder than I'd expected it would be...
Well I don't have much experience with film, and I agree you can usually tell what was shot on film vs digital. But... isn't the benefit of film its high colour accuracy cause its got 3 layers (blah blah blah) and it has a better dynamic range than digital (or rather it hits a point and doesn't get exceedingly over exposed) or does it just depend on the quality of film as to whether its better than digital. Cause (lets face it) even digital has its disadvantage, and digital cameras vary in colour accuracy and noise level etc.
Pretty much all film has colour accuracy problems, when compared to modern DSLRs used properly. Perhaps some film can render that difficult purple-blue better (I'm open to suggestions for a 'more accurate than digital' film...).
Slide film has a very narrow dynamic range, print film somewhat more, but I believe that a good DSLR can do more stops. But you're right about it [film] clipping more gracefully.
Modern DSLRS have markedly less noise/grain than film ever did. Back in the day ISO 1600 film was pretty crazy-grainy. These days you can shoot almost noise-free at that ISO with some digital cameras, and well beyond
As for whether film is 'better', the question is absurd if we are talking broadly about artistic expression. I use digital as for me the low cost per shot and immediacy are big advantages, moreover a large part of my process is digital photomontage and scanning takes ages. Other people might prefer the particular process of working with film, or the look of the resultant shots.
On a technical level, examining noise, colour accuracy and resolution, generally speaking, for small sensor/film sizes, digital is 'better'.
Cool, one question though. I take it 35mm film used for movies is the same?? or is it different. If there are obviously more advantages for digital, why do people still shoot movies using film?
I am not qualified to answer this question. I believe 35mm was the industry standard, hence the still format. I would say a few things: 1. that still digital cameras are 'technically better' than film ones of the same frame size does not mean that the situation is the same in video cameras. 2. video equipment is much more expensive and niche, things take longer to change. 3. digital is making big inroads. 4. Some films have big budgets, and may choose to use film for aesthetic reasons.
Everything posted above is basically 100% correct, but since my background is in cinematography I can field this one.
Certain films can do great purples, yes. And color accuracy generally moves less product than vivid colors move, so color accuracy is not as great a metric as one would think and not all films are made with accuracy in mind. Black and white isn't very color accurate, after all. But it's all weirdly complicated and boils down to aesthetic preference (unless you're an engineer and can understand this stuff):
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4046/e4046.pdf
http://fujifilm.co.uk/professional/films/pdfs/fujichrome_velvia50.pdf
Anyhow, motion picture film and still image film are different emulsions, though they are very similar and some films have been available as both.
Generally, slide film was considered "professional" for still images, and it has much less dynamic range than digital SLRs do and similar resolution. Most cheap point and shoot film cameras (and the films available at most pharmacies) are terrible by any standards. So the transition was quick for amateurs and professionals shooting 35mm film to go to digital.
Motion picture film is actually quite a bit smaller per frame than 35mm still image film, much closer to a 1.6X crop sensor that's then cropped to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. (For super 35mm; anamorphic is a bit more complicated.) But it looks much sharper because it's in motion. Motion picture film is generally negative film, not slide film, which has very good dynamic range and still much better than even digital SLRs have. 5219, Kodak's latest, has 15 stops or more of dynamic range, though much less ends up on the final print. Some of Kodak's new C41 still image film (new Ektar) has inherited similar attributes, even if it's a different emulsion. For cinema, dynamic range matters a lot more because sets move so fast and struggle to contend with changing light...and if you miss the exposure, it's a lot harder to reshoot or bracket. Resolution is surprisingly bad. Movie film probably resolves around 8-10 megapixels at most, usually way less, and is usually scanned and edited at just over 2 megapixels (2048X1152) and printed at that resolution, too, so most movies you watch are just over 2 megapixels per frame.
Video is pretty close. 1080p video is almost 2 megapixels and most "pro" digital cinema cameras (even costing in excess of $200,000) shoot 1080p. But most cinematographers are used to working with film, and the pipeline in Hollywood is designed for it. Film post houses do incredible work with film and are less comfortable with digital. There's a built-in "good enough" you get by using film and for movies, dynamic range is still much more important than resolution, and motion picture film is designed with this in mind.
As things move to 3D, though, you can expect a lot more material originating on video for a number of reasons. Also, movies are still projected on film. Once that changes, expect more people to shoot digitally.
Also, fwiw, high-end cinema lenses are ridiculously good. Like absolutely ridiculous.
An interesting reply to a question I couldn't begin to answer! We're wavering off topic, but the OP may be interested: what exactly is your background?