Waterfall Photography - slide film vs. digital

Anybody have any information or an opinion on digital photography vs. slide film in relation to waterfall photography? By digital photorphy I mean digital SLRs (and not medium or large format)

Specifically, I'd like to compare using Fuji Velvia slide film vs. the new 12.2MP Canon Digital Rebel XSi, which I'm considering to purchase for just this purpose.

(1) Various sources state that the effective digital equivalent for Velvia is between 10-16MB which is within grasp of the Rebel. Do you agree with these sources?
(2) I typically use F/16-F/22 with my slide flim. This may seem like a stupid question, but can digital cameras reach this kind of wide detail in landscape shots? The aperture on cameras never seems to extend this far (see question 3!)
(3) Is there a good website that compares aperture per regular film to aperture per digital? Can they even be compared?
(4) I LOVE the tendency of Velvia film to really accentuate blues & greens. I have solid Photoshop skills, but I doubt I can make changes as impressive using digital images. Is this possible with Photoshop or with the camera?

Thanks!

1) This is moot unless you plan on blowing the image up to poster size. There's plenty of pixels to make 8x10 or 12x17 that are impossible to distinguish from a print made from a negative.

2) Sure, you can use the same lenses on your dSLR. The focal length will change (if you don't buy a full frame camera) but not the aperture.

3) Not sure I understand the question

4) If you shoot in RAW you can do a huge amount with the image. This won't be a serious problem, IMO.

1) What are you trying to do with the pictures? If you want to make prints, which is hard / expensive to do from slide film, then my 8MP DSLR beats Velvia (yes, I shot Velvia for many years).

Edit: agree with Dave. I make 24"x36" prints from my 8MP DSLR. I challenge anyone to make a print from a slide for less than $75 that is as sharp as my digital prints. Does the Velvia slide have more resolution? yes, but the challenge is in doing something with that resolution. Without expensive drum scans it goes wasted (unless you just want to look at your photos with a loupe.)

2) Yes, depending on the lens, you can shoot DSLR's at f16 - f22.

3) f16 on a film body may not equal f16 on a DSLR crop body, but hyperfocal settings are hyperfocal settings and when everything is in focus then everything is in focus - film or digital.

4) You can mimic Velvia with digital fairly easy. You can do it in camera (most new cameras have a "saturated" mode which is based on Velvia), but preferrably you would shoot RAW and then do the tweaks on the computer.

The real question is what do you want to do with the images? If you want to make prints or display photos online then jump into digital feet first right now. Even if you want to get published in magazine then you can still jump into digital and not worry. The days of mags only accepting slides are over.

- darren

More info.

Check this out:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

I played with the depth of field (DOF) calculator and got the following results.

Days of Film
-----------

35mm camera with my favorite fixed 24mm lens
focused on subject at 1 meter away
f16
resultant DOF: 0.5 - 9.5m ; 9m total in focus


DSLR
-----

1.6x crop factor dslr
15mm lens (my wiz bang 10-22mm zoom)
focused on a subject at 1m away
f16
resultant DOF: 0.4m - infinity


For landscapes, generally more DOF is preferred. Certainly not always true, but since you said that you generally shoot at f16 - f22 then I assume that is what you are looking for.

- darren

You should check out the pictures this guy does of Kaaterskill Falls. He's always at the parking area on 23a (the one in Haines Falls on the left going west after you pass the falls trail). He's a Vietnam vet who does falls photography with a Canon 5D. He does multi-image panorama and blows them up pretty big. They looked awesome to me.

Digital really doesn't match film for grain resolution, but you couldn't tell from his stuff without a Loupe or some other high magnification.

The biggest thing is shooting on a tripod, use the lowest ISO you have, use a shutter release (cable or remote) and make use of the mirror lock up mode.

Kevin

Wow those were some quick & helpful replies, thanks!

I'm shooting for excellent quality for purposes of publishing in guidebooks & magazines. I also want to create outstanding prints in the size range of around 16X24, 20X30 or even 24X36.

In the past, Velvia has performed extremely well for me. I use an expensive scanning service in town ($5/image) that scanns the image into 30-40MB files. These files created some killer prints (one even 24*36) using prodigitalphotos.com (based in utah).

This chart explains why I'm concerned. It appears that the Velvia slide film may be able to create better and larger enlargements than a 12.2MP digital:

I do use a quality tripod and always use shutter release.

I am also considering the Canon 5D as about seventeen people have highly recommended to me already (including Darren and now KMorgan). Price ($1800) is the issue, but it may be worth it if I can be convinced the quality dominates Velvia.

roadtripper said:

(1) Various sources state that the effective digital equivalent for Velvia is between 10-16MB which is within grasp of the Rebel. Do you agree with these sources?

Click to expand...

I've seen estimates up to 25MB for equivalence. However, these numbers are just smoke. The resolution of different films and film speeds vary. And the signal-to-noise ratio (film grain is a form of noise) of digital is much greater with digital for proper exposures at the lower ISOs. (And how many films give fine grain at ISO 400-800?)

As Dave and Darren noted, what counts is the final image in the form in which it will be viewed, not the film/sensor. In some cases the film/sensor limits will be visible (eg very high magnifications), in others it will not.

(2) I typically use F/16-F/22 with my slide flim. This may seem like a stupid question, but can digital cameras reach this kind of wide detail in landscape shots? The aperture on cameras never seems to extend this far (see question 3!)

Click to expand...

The diffraction limit of a perfect lens is solely a factor of the F-stop (and the wavelength of the light, which I will assume is constant for this discussion)--the smaller the aperture, the larger the diffraction blur. Point-and-shoots typically have such small pixels on their sensors (eg. 1.9 microns* on the Canon SD-800) that the diffraction blur becomes unacceptable with lenses smaller than ~F/8. The larger pixels on DSLR sensors (5.4 microns on the Canon XSi) allow the use of much smaller apertures before diffraction blurring becomes an issue. For the best performance at small apertures, get a body with a full frame sensor eg the Canon 5D (8.2 micron pixels). Or, better yet, use a larger than 35mm film/sensor format.

All of my Canon EF and EF-S lenses stop down to at least F/22, one goes down to F/29, and one down to F32.

* Pixel size is proportional to (1/crop_factor)*(1/sqrt(number_of_pixels))

(3) Is there a good website that compares aperture per regular film to aperture per digital? Can they even be compared?

Click to expand...

Not really an issue of film vs digital unless the image is blown up so large that the sensor/film resolution becomes visible. And since digital sensors are faster than most film, a digital sensor may allow more reasonable exposure times. (With DSLRs, ISO can be set on a per-image basis giving the photographer more options.)

(4) I LOVE the tendency of Velvia film to really accentuate blues & greens. I have solid Photoshop skills, but I doubt I can make changes as impressive using digital images. Is this possible with Photoshop or with the camera?

Click to expand...

As Darren noted, you can set most digital cameras to increase the color saturation. See, for instance, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/camera-adjustments.htm. Or, you can do it in post-processing, particularly if you shoot RAW. (RAW is the raw sensor data directly from the A/D converter. As you use your computer to replicate the processing that the camera would do to produce a JPEG, you have the option of modifying it to suit your taste.)

Doug

DougPaul said:

The diffraction limit of a perfect lens is solely a factor of the F-stop (and the wavelength of the light, which I will assume is constant for this discussion)--the smaller the aperture, the larger the diffraction blur. Point-and-shoots typically have such small pixels on their sensors (eg. 1.9 microns* on the Canon SD-800) that the diffraction blur becomes unacceptable with lenses smaller than ~F/8. The larger pixels on DSLR sensors (5.4 microns on the Canon XSi) allow the use of much smaller apertures before diffraction blurring becomes an issue. For the best performance at small apertures, get a body with a full frame sensor eg the Canon 5D (8.2 micron pixels). Or, better yet, use a larger than 35mm film/sensor format.

Click to expand...

This is an area of digital photography that I did not fully grasp. I have only used point-and-shoot digitals to date and have delt with the fact that usually only to go like F/5.6 or F/8. This is why I thought that F/16 or F/22 might not be possible with digital - but I can see now it totally depends on the digital's sensor + the lens being used.

Any idea why the size of the sensor isn't mentioned in the "specifications" section of Canon's website for any camera? Seems like quite an important quality they are leaving out: canon website

roadtripper said:

This chart explains why I'm concerned. It appears that the Velvia slide film may be able to create better and larger enlargements than a 12.2MP digital:

Click to expand...

Tables like this one have a bunch of hidden assumptions behind them. They are good general guidelines, but should not be treated as gospel. For instance, an 8x10 inch print or smaller is often viewed at reading distance, an 8x10 foot print might look terrible at a reading distance but might look very nice up on a wall at a more typical 10 foot viewing distance.

I am also considering the Canon 5D as about seventeen people have highly recommended to me already (including Darren and now KMorgan). Price ($1800) is the issue, but it may be worth it if I can be convinced the quality dominates Velvia.

Click to expand...

If you want the best performance at small apertures, IMO, you are likely to be happier with a full-frame body such as the 5D. Color issues are the same at all reasonable sensor sizes, resolution at small apertures is much better with the larger sensors. See, for instance, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm (crummy lenses on a full-frame body often outperform premium lenses on a crop body). The larger sensor also has the advantage of lower noise at high ISOs.

Doug

roadtripper said:

This is an area of digital photography that I did not fully grasp. I have only used point-and-shoot digitals to date and have delt with the fact that usually only to go like F/5.6 or F/8. This is why I thought that F/16 or F/22 might not be possible with digital - but I can see now it totally depends on the digital's sensor + the lens being used.

Click to expand...

I have both digital P&Ses and DSLRs. While one can get nice images from either under some conditions, the overall capability of the DSLR is far greater than that of the P&S. (To use aircraft performance terminology, the DSLR has a much larger envelope (range of conditions) over which it will perform well.)

Any idea why the size of the sensor isn't mentioned in the "specifications" section of Canon's website for any camera? Seems like quite an important quality they are leaving out: canon website

Click to expand...

Except for full-frame sensor bodies, I suspect that it is something that the manufacturers prefer not to emphasize. Number of pixels is simple and sells, sensor size issues are too complicated and subtle for many (most?) customers to appreciate.

Imaging Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/) has nice nuts-and-bolts reviews of digital cameras and often gives more info than the manufacturer's websites. A 35mm DSLR frame is nominally 36mm wide x 24mm high. (3:2 size ratio, many P&Ses are a 4:3 size ratio.) You can use the crop factor for DSLRs to get a ratio of sensor sizes. (Or you can use the ratio of the real FL and 35mm equivalent FL to estimate the crop factor of a P&S.) Once you have estimated the sensor size in mm, you can use the listed number of pixels (eg 4272x2848) to compute the pixel size in microns. Pixel sizes range from ~2 microns to ~8 microns. The larger the pixel, the lower the noise (and thus better high ISO performance) and the less "stress" placed on lens resolution. There is lots more (rather technical) info on the topic at http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html and other pages at the same site.

BTW, the reason that P&Ses rarely have more than ~8MP is that the pixels become too small. The performance of the camera can actually be decreased if the number of pixels is increased much more.

Doug

Thanks for the free lessons, Doug Paul

DougPaul said:

There is lots more (rather technical) info on the topic at http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html and other pages at the same site.

Click to expand...

That website is full of tons of great info. Is it one of the best technical digital camera sites around? Any others you use regularly or recommend?

For an example of digital waterfall shots, I took this shot a couple of weeks ago. Full shade, wide open, kit lens on an EOS Rebel XT, ISO 100, 1/15 sec, HAND HELD.




Kevin

roadtripper said:

Thanks for the free lessons, Doug Paul

Click to expand...

Sure, happy to help.

roadtripper said:

That website is full of tons of great info. Is it one of the best technical digital camera sites around? Any others you use regularly or recommend?

Click to expand...

Since the author is interested in astronomical photography, the site focuses on issues relating to low-light photography.

It is easy to focus on the technical side (particularly at websites) and neglect the artistic side.

That said, here is a list of photography websites that I tend to frequent. Each has its own focus and viewpoint and sometimes they even disagree...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/
http://www.dpreview.com
http://www.dcresource.com
http://www.luminous-landscape.com
http://bobatkins.com/
http://ronbigelow.com/
http://www.kenrockwell.com
http://www.fredmiranda.com
http://www.joeharrigan.com/tutorial.htm
http://www.clarkvision.com
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/index.htm
http://www.canon.com

That should be enough to keep you busy for a few months...

Doug

XSi is a fine choice

I think you will be more than happy with the XSi, even shooting at small apertures. (The 5D body is a bit long in the tooth at this point, definitely due for a face lift - I would wait until Canon comes out with a new model if you wanted to go full frame.)

Here is a sample from an XSi, 6" at f14 with the 10-22mm @ 11mm, ISO 100:


Middle Prong

..and a section from the middle of the pic at 100%



I would only shoot at the smaller apertures when you really NEED to, as most 35mm-ish lenses are sharpest in the f5.6 to f11 range - very usable apertures for waterfall and river photography when you have the kind of overcast skies that can be desirable for that type of photography. Having a few ND filters of different strengths can help you use those apertures when possible and still use the slower shutter speeds if so desired.

Tim Seaver said:

I think you will be more than happy with the XSi, even shooting at small apertures. (The 5D body is a bit long in the tooth at this point, definitely due for a face lift - I would wait until Canon comes out with a new model if you wanted to go full frame.)

Click to expand...

Tim brings up some good points. My opinion favoring the 5D was based upon the optical qualities of the full-frame sensor in small aperture photography, not the other features and prices. Obviously, anyone choosing between the 5D and the XSi should consider the other aspects as well.

Hopefully, whatever you choose, the preceding discussion will help you to better understand the trade-offs involved in each body.

FWIW, I have and am happy with an XTi. Not quite as good as a 5D in certain situations (such as small aperture photography), but better in others.

Doug

Wow, $5 for high quality scans? I used to pay $50 per scan (drum scans) and was often still disappointed. I tried several $5 scan places and was never happy. I finally bought my own slide scanner and got better scans than the $5 places. Of course dust removal was a nightmare no matter who did the scans.

For landscape photography a full frame sensor is the way to go. I kept waiting for the price of full frames to go down and it didn't so I ended up going with the 20D about 3.5 years ago. I'm glad I did because I got a ton of use out of it and the price of full frames are just coming down now. A full frame DSLR is certainly in my future.

If I were you I would wait for the 5D replacement to come out (any day now....or so they have been saying for a year). At that point either get the replacment or get a 5D for a lot less than they are now.

You will be happy. If not I will buy your used full frame DSLR from you.

- darren

I just found a ton of rumors all over the web of a "Canon EOS 5D Mark II" model due out later this year. Supposedly amazon.com leaked some information about a guidebook on the camera, but then removed the info a few days ago.

Also, per amazon the original release date of the Canon EOS 5D was 10/19/2005. So, like a few of you said, it does indeed appear like it's time for their new model.

I guess this is what I'll be saving for

Here is a pic of mine of Doane's Falls in MA. Basically, I'm hoping to get this quality or better out of my digital camera purchase. (this pic was taken with Velvia 50 and scanned professionally).

roadtripper said:

I just found a ton of rumors all over the web of a "Canon EOS 5D Mark II" model due out later this year. Supposedly amazon.com leaked some information about a guidebook on the camera, but then removed the info a few days ago.

Also, per amazon the original release date of the Canon EOS 5D was 10/19/2005. So, like a few of you said, it does indeed appear like it's time for their new model.

Click to expand...

According to one of the websites in my list of links, rumors that a 5D MK II will be out soon have been floating around for 2 years or so... (Don't remember which one, but I read it yesterday.)

Don't forget that a full-frame system, while generally of higher optical quality, will generally be bigger and heavier.

Think of your lenses as long-lifetime purchases and bodies as shorter-lifetime purchases. (Both Canon and Nikon have done a good job of making newer bodies compatible with older lenses.)

Doug