Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Didier Ludwig wrote: > Daniel > > Also typical for film is the shorter DOF - which, finally, has slightly > to do with it because size of the medium influences the DOF - the smaller > the sensor the deeper the DOF when enlarged on the same size as the film > shot. And if you don't have a M8, R-D1 or a hi-end DSLR with fast primes, > digital also means slower lens - even more DOF. I just checked, Didier. This was taken at 1/80 @ 4.5. BUT ... since I had digital, I jacked the ISO up to 1600 rather than remain at films 400. If I had left it at 400 and ended up with 1/40 @ 2.8 (yes, I was using a IIIf for film and I shot it at 1/40), then the depth of field might have been more similar. Or if I had shot the digital shot wide-open (f2.0) instead of stopped down, which the higher ISO allowed me to do. The digital shot is with a Nikon and a fixed focal length 35/2.0 lens. Daniel >> Frank and Didier, >> >> I usually don't get too involved in these discussions. I guess when it >> comes right down to it, I really don't care. I use digital and I use >> film, for different reasons. I like them both. >> >> But playing around with Lightzone as I have been doing recently, I have a >> shot last week with film: >> http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/Shoebox/2007v12/07v12-0002.jpg.html >> >> And from the same sitting, one with digital: >> http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/Shoebox/2007v13/DSC_8674.jpg.html >> >> I see now that the digital is too "low key". I need to brighten it up a >> bit and do the color conversion intelligently rather than lazily. >> >> Daniel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information