Looking the gift horse in the mouth.

Bill Martino

Bill Martino

Joined
Mar 5, 1999
Messages
34,096
For four months I've been delighted with the 4mp Kodak provided me by some generous, kind and thoughtful forumites but now I'm ready to take the hammer to it. Why?

Because it quit working. While I was away I was trying to get some pix of places where Dad lived when he was growing up because he doesn't feel like or is really not able to make the journey to see them for himself so at least he could see visually what they looked like today via pix. I was doing well until the batteries ran down. I loaded two newly recharged batteries, flipped the on switch and nothing happened.

When I went back to see Dad with no pix and no camera I buzzed over to Circuit City to see if they could help. Showed them my 4900 and they told me the batteries were dead. So, I asked them to see if my batteries would power up a display model. Of course, they did -- two of them. So then I asked them why the batteries were dead in my camera and not the display models. Redfaced, they said they didn't know. Today I tried 4 batteries which had been recharging for two weeks while I was gone and still nothing.

Since it was a gift I don't have a sales receipt or proof of purchase so guess I'll have to send it back to Dan.

My old camera was a top of the line Kodak when I bought it for $550 and I watched that thing disintegrate before me eyes in 3 years or so. But I figured that was only about 15 bucks a month to own a failing-by-the day camera. But I figure this one is a hundred a month and that rent is too high.

Never buy Kodak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I had a $700 Kodak digital (it was 1.5mp! whoa!) that lasted 4 years before it was stolen; I bought a 3.2mp one to replace it and the quality is WAY down. photo quality and manufacturing quality. Next time I'm buying Canon.
Friend of mine bought a Canon ELPH digital and it not only takes great photos but feels very solid, until my plastic junky Kodak.
 
I have an old Canon A20 that's held up very well.

Lately I bought that $2500 digital SLR (EOS 10D) body that I joked about before. I am very impressed with it and would recommend Canon gear over any other stuff. Nikon doesn't measure up.

And I am never going back to film. :) I did 12x18 enlargements from my 10D digital and my film EOS 3 Pro SLR body. The 10D won hands down for better sharpness, colour and clarity over direct from print film.

Perhaps the Kodak could be fixed under warranty even without a reciept?

Phil
 
I swear by my Cannon PowerShot S50. Of course, some of my friends swear when I get it out, but that's beside the point. :)

Mmmm. 5 Megapixels.

It's just that I don't know what to do with it all. :)
 
I have two friends that do semiprofessional/professional photography, several accopmlished amateurs, and one who's wife is an accomplished amateur.

They all swear by their canons.

And that's why i borrow canon from one who's wife is mentioned when I need pics(I'm too cheap/poor to buy my own ;) )

Or maybe I just spend too much money on knives. :D
 
You can never spend too much money on knives.

I'll have to check on that with my wife tho'.;)
 
Jeeze, it seems that somebody should be able to do a few simple tests, like see if the battery contacts have become disconnected or something.

Is this what they mean by "enhanced productivity"?:rolleyes:

Of course, you could own a perfectly serviceable, totally manual camera like my old Olympus--except you can't buy the old type batteries that power the light meter (the only electric part--I could pay somebody to recalibrate it for the new batteries instead of bracketing exposures a little wider) or find any decent lenses anymore--what's worse?

"I did 12x18 enlargements from my 10D digital and my film EOS 3 Pro SLR body. The 10D won hands down for better sharpness, colour and clarity over direct from print film."

??How fast was the film?? Who developed/printed it?? Digital postprocessing?

I don't it would be fair to compare "drugstore" automated processing/printing with individually photoshop-tweaked digital images. I don't think CCD's are anywhere near achieving the resolution that fine grain film has when carefully used.

Can you get comparable or even better results from digital for minimal or "average" effort and expense in many cases--No doubt. Especially if you don't/can't find somebody who really knows processing and printing--But they do cost more...Heck it's hard to find somebody to develop color slides now!

Even though film can be a pain in the ass, it's nice to know that I have a camera that isn't a doorstop sans batteries.
 
Originally posted by firkin

"I did 12x18 enlargements from my 10D digital and my film EOS 3 Pro SLR body. The 10D won hands down for better sharpness, colour and clarity over direct from print film."

??How fast was the film?? Who developed/printed it?? Digital postprocessing?

I don't it would be fair to compare "drugstore" automated processing/printing with individually photoshop-tweaked digital images. I don't think CCD's are anywhere near achieving the resolution that fine grain film has when carefully used.

Can you get comparable or even better results from digital for minimal or "average" effort and expense in many cases--No doubt. Especially if you don't/can't find somebody who really knows processing and printing--But they do cost more...Heck it's hard to find somebody to develop color slides now!

Even though film can be a pain in the ass, it's nice to know that I have a camera that isn't a doorstop sans batteries.
Click to expand...

The Details:
Both tripod mounted, 100mm macro set at two distances to provide same frame size with both bodies. 100ISO on 10D, Fuji Superia 400 speed print film(I know, but it is the one I use most for budget stuff and wanted a comparison of everyday quality). Same shutter speed set for both.

I was most interested in grain size (100 and 400 ISO fujifilm have the same grain size) and visible detail. Colour correction was a secondary consideration. I have a 2400 dpi HP Photosmart photo scanner running a freeware interface to avoid moire, so I was familiar with the results I got from scanning.

Digital image was run through Photoshop with auto-levels, resized to 12x18 at 240 ppi and USMed at 300 and 3.0. Then image was saved to a 14mb '10-quality' JPEG and sent to the lab. The JPG format should count as a strike against the digital 12x18.

Film image was entrusted to the lab at London Drugs for a better print than my HP scanner could have provided, though it was digitally post-processed in Photoshop. The London Drugs I frequented was recommended by quite a few pros that I have met and talked to, and uses the latest in imaging equipment with several full-time professionals sitting in the lab overseeing the developing. The same person made both prints on the same day. They don't do CMYK stuff, but I shot/processed it in RGB so who cares?

The end result:
Upsized digital image had more detail, no visible 'grain', and appeared 'sharper'. Colour was same as on-screen. Film print showed visible grain which obscured sharpness and detail. Colour was muddied and showed a distinct yellow cast which was not visible at time of shooting. When asked which was the film print, staff invariably picked the digital image and were surprised when I told them it was the reverse.

This test convinced me not to buy a 4000 dpi Canoscan 4000 negative scanner, as I was getting better quality than the lab could provide at reasonable processing cost.

Also, I believe that the obvious clarity of the digital image over the ones that I have scanned with my PhotoSmart reflects the fact that a digital image is a native scan and not a scan of a scan(PhotoSmart). Both digital products are roughly 3000x2000 pixels, but the scanned version simply cannot compete.

That said, I have a K1000 and three lenses that will work just about anywhere. The problem is that I don't take them anywhere anymore. :)

You should see the pics I take at ISO 1600! The 1600 ISO stuff simply kills 1600 ISO print film stone stock dead. Also no scanning time! :cool:

Shot at ISO 3200:
CRW_0473_RJsm.jpg
 
Uncle,

Hopefully we can get this sorted out. I'm doing a little looking into possibilities, and I imagine Pen may have some thoughts (when he is free from his job-related pursuits)...

--B.
 
It may be worth the trouble to send it to Kodak for repair. They might do it for a reasonable fee. Canon was fairly reasonable about fixing a digicam that I had dropped and royally screwed up, Kodak might come through as well. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
 
P.G.

Thanks for the details.:) Unless I misread your description, the final comparison is between an image from a digital camera and and a digital scan of 400 ISA color film. To me these still are apples and oranges. Maybe apples turned into oranges.:)

Convenience-wise, no doubt the digital wins nowadays. Could very well win on picture quality for snapshots even judging digital vs unscanned photo enlargement from "snapshot" (or other) camera with nowadays generic processing. Common processing ain't what it used to be.

If it's the most cost-effective, method that provides an acceptable image, then go for it.:)

All I can say is that many years ago, a few months of "pushing" ISA 32 or 64 black and white film to ridiculous speeds (800-1000) and developing them properly to compensate, then making enormous enlargements from portions of the negatives convinced me that with proper care, the camera lens was the limiting factor in ultimate photo quality--not the film. As was claimed at the time. And I wasn't using crap cheapo zoom lenses. These were Zuiko (Olympus) fixed focus macros, and a serious enlarger and lenses at a university darkroom.

I remain totally unconvinced that CCD arrays are capable of capturing higher resolution than that provided by quality lenses and "slow film".

Is it easier and cheaper to use a digital camera than to "push" color film and find proper processing? No doubt. Way cheaper too.

But it would be damn hard to build a CCD that competes with near colloidal silver for resolution. Or quality optics. I'm quite sure that it has not been done yet, and that it will be many years, if ever before it is done.

I think that most people don't know how to get what is on the film anymore. It's tough enough to try with B&W, I never tried color.

Seriously, I think that photography is approaching lowest common denominator--the computer screen or the latest fancy Linontype (or whatever's new) digital printer.

Fine to advertise khuks (or whatever), just like halftones on newsprint. Or take snaps of the the relatives or a concert.

But the true limits of photography are still set by silver deposition on film, and the interaction of lightwaves with glass optics, like they were 30 years ago. That's physics.

Just now, fewer seem to care. :( Call me a curmudgeon or purist. I think that something is gone because nobody tries anymore.

**Geriatric (Luddite?) rant over. Back to Bill's prob.

It sure seems that a little inspection and use of a multimeter could find out if the battery holder or contacts were at fault. No matter how small they make stuff, connections are still the first place to look. Sometimes, they are the only part big enough for mere mortals to fix.
 
Firkin?

Long ago and far away (Chicago), I taught photojournalism in the Adult Ed program. Had the class shoot a roll of tri-x and get proof sheets for the next week's class. I loved it, they loved it.

er...fast forward.

Nobody develops b&w quickly anymore. I am obsolete.

Question: Can the digitals be used to create a selective focus, depth-of-field selection image? The few I've seen capture everything more or less equally.
 
UB: Best to find out if they will honour warranty before trying to fix it.

Firkin: Thanks for good discussion. I haven't had any experience with B/W film, but I hear it is finer-grained. I was comparing apples with apples in that I wanted to find out which would yield me better results in everyday, cut-above-run-run-of-the-mill processing. I was scanning Velvia for a few months prior to testing the 10D, and found that I could get better quality than my scans of Velvia without all the headaches of time-consuming scanning and retouching. Better yet I didn't have to monkey around with colour adjustment that was all over the map. Workflow is very smooth now, and if the pic is no good I simply delete it on location and take the pic again. There is simply no better way to make sure I get the image I wanted.

There is no doubt that there are films out there that show finer resolution than my 10D. But I have to spend fairly large coin on developing and fancy printing every time I want to access that resolution. With my digital I get quality on par with 50 ISO slide film up to ISO 400!

As to lens quality: I have never noticed the difference in sharpness between my lenses the way I do now. My EF 28-135IS doesn't hold a candle to my 50mm f/1.4 or my 100mm macro. My current favourite is my EF135mm f/2L because it's fast and sharp as hell. :)

Take one for a test drive. You'll be surprised. I sure was.

A couple of links to the site that compelled me to try digital:

Luminous-Landscape
10D review
Digital Camera Image Quality
The camera I really want.
 
Ok, as a former camera store employee for a semi professional independent shop let me set a few things straight.

1) The canon EOS 10D is a Professional digital camera that uses the same SLR lenses as the Canon 35mm Professional cameras. It has the same depth of field feature and mounts some of the finest lenses currently made.

2) It's digital chip IS sharper than most 35 mm film available, especially ISO 50 and above (FYI color print film, when processed correctly, is actually finer grain than B&W nowadays, no one is working hard on B&W anymore).

The point and shoot type digital cameras are much like the point and shoot film cameras, with about the same results.

Uncle Bill, if you do replace your current camera look at Canon, Nikon and Olympus. I'd skip most of the Sonys (bad control layouts), but Minolta and Fuji might be worth looking at. An independent camera store will most likely have a more knowledgeable staff than Circuit City.

Firkin, there are replacement batteries for the OM-1 series (that sounds like your camera) that would run the meter properly. They are Zinc Air batteries so their usage time is about 6 months, they'll only make sense for a lot of use or a big trip. BTW, your avatar is Ninkasi isn't it, now that's a goddess. Have you tried the recipe from her poem? For those who don't know, Ninkasi is the Sumerian Goddess of Beer and Brewing (among other things).
 
If you really want pics that can be blown up shoot medium format. Or such has been my experience. For a few years my dad had a Mamiya 53(35?) something like that. Anyways, was amazing how big you could blow those up and still ahve them look great.
 
EPT, medium format's great. I've had several cameras and my old job let me handle and shoot a bunch more. The film is more expensive, you get fewer shots on a roll, processing is more expensive and harder to find. The processing is generaly professional grade so it can be MUCH better than drug store processing. The cameras are less likely to be automated and are much more expensive for a quality camera.
I did shoot a Kiev 88 a couple of times, no automation and clunky when handheld but the pictures were great. Very sharp and wonderful color if you use the lens hood and keep the sun out of the picture. The cameras are running $499.00 at http://www.kievusa.com/.
 
Thanks Red!

You guessed it OM-1. Good to know about the batteries, but yeah, pretty short life. I think there are still some folks who will rework the electronics or replace the photo-cell or something too. But since lenses are getting hard to find, I don't know what I'd do if I decided to shoot a lot again. They had some really sweet macro-stuff too. One tip--store fine lenses in a tupperware or similar with dessicant!! NOT in the case. I have an 80 mm macro lens with mated telescoping extension tube that has some 'bugs" living on the multicoating inside. It is a sad day when you find things that look like tiny white rootlets in an expensive piece of glass. Parts no longer available so no possibility of cleaning/repair. Shouldn't happen to anyone.

Well, after briefly perusing P.G.'s interesting links I'll have to admit that for many applications, particularly low light, that the newest digital cameras seem capable of producing final images comparble to general-purpose color film. The low light bit isn't that much of a surprise, since that's what CCD's were invented for--early ones were used for astronomy. Working that well at ambient temperature is pretty impressive. If one were thinking of spending several K on a high quality negative scanner, I can see the attraction. But at 2-3 K for a body and sundries, like card reader etc., still kinda pricey. For well under 1K, one get get a pretty darn nice new professional film body if one doesn't want all the latest gizmos. For a couple hundred bucks a very servicable used body, maybe even with a standard lens. Even so, were I buying a new film camera, I'd likely make sure that the lens group could be used with a state-of-art digital camera. Lenses add up.

There's some places I'd be a little scared to take such a spendy digital camera though. And I like the fact that I could even dunk the OM-1 in the ocean, and quickly dump it into a bucket of fresh water, take it to somebody who knew what they were doing, and they'd likely be able to fix it. Though I 'spose he might want more than replacing the body in the used market.

Though I understand the desire to compare by digitizing the negative and printing digitally for control purposes, I have to wonder if something isn't different than using an enlarger for the negative.

I looked back at some of the sources for what I used to do, and I was using high contrast B&W copy film and special developers (I think I had to buy phenidone and follow a recipe) that knocked back the contrast. I was mainly interested in macro stuff, and for that I didn't try to push the film (which increases grain unless it lets you use a slower speed that is considerably finer to start with)-- I used a cheap flash and a calculated distance table. Panatomic-X was quite noticeably grainier even when used with special developers that promote fine grain.

Don't know how to compare to digital--here's what one reference says
(Alfred A. Baker, Field Photography)

"...photographed with a 105 mm telephoto lens from the mainland several hundred feet away.The film used was 35 mm H&W Control VTE Pan, a moderately high resolution emulsion, exposed at E.I. 50, and developed in the original H&W Control developer...With this film, emulsion grain begins to cut into lens resolution at about 30-40 times enlargement. Finer-grained films, such as Kodak High-Contrast Copy or H&W Control VTE Ultra Pan, exposed at E.I. 8-10, and processed in H&W Control 4.5 developer would give distinctly improved enlargability, if atmospherics did not limit basic image resolution."

If I figure right, 40X is about an 8"x6", and at this enlargement the grain is small enough that the enlarger lens is unable to resolve it. 8"x6" may not sound that big--but consider that any smaller than this, the optics of the enlarger lens is the limitng factor not the grain. That seems pretty fine.

Can a comparable image be made by scanning this negative and digitally printing? Will a state-of the-art digital camera provide similar resolution?

It's clear I need to think more about what image quality really means in the two cases.

Anyway, wondered if anybody would notice the avatar. It's an image found on a 6000 yr old Sumerian clay tablet depicting two people drinking beer from an earthenware jug through long straws. I've never heard of any images of Ninkasi, but I'm not the one to ask. Anchor made a batch once trying to follow the hymn to Ninkasi, but I've never tried to. When I brewed, I never even got to full-mash, let alone trying something like that--If I remember, the principle carbohydrate source was bread!

The second person on the left is a bit hard to make out--but if you look closely, you'll see that they might be an ancient ancestor of Bruise!!

Oh yeah, Mister Geezer what the heck kinda instrument in the photo????
 
Sorry to hear that, Uncle Bill. Kodaks are okay for entry-level playing around, but they don't tend to hold up too well to regular use. If you or anyone else has any questions about digital cameras or photography, feel free to email me privately and ask. I know one or two things, and am always happy to share opinions and thoughts.

chris
 
Firkin's comments about b/w high contrast copy brought me back nearly 40 years. I was working as a lab/studio assistant at World Book Encyclopedia in Chicago, and we did a bunch of investigation into copying transparencies and also using hi-contrast b/w for original photography.

I will always remember one studio shot we took of one of our secretaries. Camera was a Nikon F, high-contrast copy, lens was a Zeiss sonnar 180mm. Shot with studio flash. We ended up exposing the film at something ridiculous, like ASA 0.1. Yeah, I had to mix up some really dilute brew of a developer, and the results looked like no negative I'd ever seen before.

But what sticks in my mind is printing that negative. I blew that thing up as far as we could with our equipment -- to at least the equivalent of a 24 x 36 inch print. No visible grain whatsoever -- none -- at that point, and you could count the tiny little bubbles around the edge of her contact lenses, bubbles no one knew were there before taking the picture. Hair was so sharp and well defined as to be unreal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top