Create The Old Masters Look With Modern Gear

Using the latest in software, techniques and hardware can provide you with imagery that will rival the masterpieces of nature photography

By Dave Willis, Photography By David Muench

Noise, Grain And The Battle For Big Prints
Advanced noise processing is resulting in the greatest images ever, even at high light sensitivity (ISO). The Old Masters of nature photography shot primarily with large-format cameras. These cameras exposed a scene to a 4x5-inch or larger negative, and because the negative was so big, it didn’t have to be enlarged very much to make a large print. There would be grain in the negative, but it hardly would be noticeable because, for example, making a 16x20-inch print from a 4x5-inch negative is only a 16x enlargement. Compare that to a 35mm film camera; 35mm film never caught on with the Old Masters in large part because of the much smaller negative. Certainly, these cameras were capable of capturing highly detailed images, but once the photo was blown up to be printed, the grain of the film—the size of the light-sensitive, silver-halide crystals that composed the emulsion—noticeably affected the image. The crystals were the same actual size in the film as they were with a sheet of 4x5, but the 35mm frame is enlarged some 230x to make the same 16x20-inch print as the example above. This is where newer D-SLRs have a key advantage to 35mm film and why large-format’s biggest advantage—its beautiful detail in large prints—is eroding. Although even a full-frame D-SLR image (like those from the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, EOS-1Ds Mark III, the Nikon D700, D3, D3X or the Sony A900) is still being enlarged some 230x to make a 16x20-inch print, the grain (or noise as its called in digital images) is so low that the enlargements look much more like a print from a 4x5 negative instead of a 35mm negative.
D-SLRs have a considerable advantage over film in that the smaller sensors of D-SLRs are capable of producing high-quality images in highly portable cameras, and they do so with minimal noise. In a D-SLR, an ISO rating is given as an equivalent to film speed to denote how sensitive the sensor is to light. With digital, simply changing a dial or pressing a button amplifies your sensor’s sensitivity and thus the ISO rating. There’s still a sacrifice, however, as amplified signals result in higher noise—the signal-to-noise ratio drops. As the signal-to-noise ratio drops, you see luminance noise, which looks a lot like film grain, and chrominance noise, which looks like pixel-level color distortion. Nikon D700 In the beginning, noise was readily apparent in ISO ratings of more than 100 or 200, but now D-SLRs are capable of producing practically noise-free images at much higher ISO ratings. Many photographers shooting with current high-end D-SLRs have no problem with images shot well in excess of ISO 800, and cameras are currently providing ISOs all the way up to 25,600! Toyo Field Camera This number could go even higher because the science of noise reduction is constantly being improved. While high-ISO images look good, photographs shot at low ISO (100 and 200) are practically noise-free, and when combined with highly sophisticated noise-reduction programs like Nik Sharpener Pro 3.0 (www.niksoftware.com), Noise Ninja (www.picturecode.com) and Photoshop (www.adobe.com), the results are even more stunning.	Nikon D700 Toyo Field Camera

Page 6 of 7

« Start Prev1234567Next End »

18 Comments

Feed

Jay makes this comment

Tuesday, 09 June 2009

I wonder, is the writer not versed in photography, or is it in many parts, intentionally misleading? I currently use mostly digital, but have used view camera (4x5 & 8x10) various medium formats, etc. The vast majority of my images are now done with DSLR's. A couple examples: DSLR's cannot rival the IQ of large format. A landscape print from a 120 format can be seen to have higher IQ in a print even of 8x10ish size.The histogram is not analogous in use to "the zone system". The histogram is normally used to avoid blow-outs. The zone system is used to place the values where you want them, creatively. I have never posted a comment re a consumer photo mag article before. I understand that your advertising base is now digital. But does all attempt at accuracy have to be abandoned? I have been a reader since the 1980's. No more.
MC makes this comment

Friday, 29 May 2009

There are also tilt shift lenses available for the Sony Alpha mount from Schnieder Optics and I think also at least another Zeiss approved company but forgot the name. ARCA Swiss has the M Line (makes your DSLR into a view camera). Another option, for any camera, is software that does the same thing.
patricia clapp makes this comment

Thursday, 28 May 2009

I think that everyone who made a comment is right in his own way whatever makes us feel fulfilled is the one we use. I am using a digital have used film in the past but prefer digital.
Wayne Edwards makes this comment

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

If I travel from my home town, 500 miles to St. Louis, Mo. I can walk, ride a train drive a car or fly a plane. Either way I get there. If my friends are happy to see me what does it matter how I get there? Same with a piece of art, what does it matter how you get there as long and the viewer is pleased with the result?
Haroon Rashid makes this comment

Monday, 18 May 2009

Hi, Look at the latest issue of SilverShotz fine art photography magazine, it give a good technical explanation of how digital capture and printer prints have a long way to go when it comes to resolution befoe they can begin to compare with film and that includes H3D-50 size sensors
Jack makes this comment

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Why can not a group of photographers adult or otherwise express thier opinions without attacking each other?
S Hurwitz makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what instrument [of photography] you use. It's the eye behind it and the brain, I hope. Eve Arnold
s Hurwitz makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what instrument [of photography] you use. It's the eye behind it and the brain, I hope. Eve Arnold
S Hurwitz makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what instrument [of photography] you use. It's the eye behind it and the brain, I hope. Eve Arnold
Bill makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

To Roy You don't know me nor how old I am. It is true that the use of a digital camera is much easier than a film camera! If they didn't have digital cameras. A lot of you wouldn't call yourself a Pro. Photographer! Film will always be around and many True pros. are reusing film. You sound threaten Dawg! Live with it!
Roger makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

If I hear someone state that shooting at F/16 or smaller aperture is bad, I'll puke. I've seen "plenty" of great, sharp photographs taken with these small aperture settings. I think we read what "experts" say then we take it as the truth without trying it ourselves. Although diffraction and lower contrast does occur it's not to the degree most people bemoan it to be. I challenge anyone to actual go and photograph at various apertures. You'll find the hype is not commensurate with the actual results. Bottom Line: Take what you read as a guide but not as the gospel! Lastly, the guy ridiculing digital because it's not film should realize. They're two different mechanisms used to achieve a result. All that matters is the result. People decrying digital need to get over it. I'm sure he's not using a wood-burning stove to heat his home. Advancements in technology are inevitable. If you don't like them, don't use them but don't "hate" on others who do!
Roy makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

"Bill" sounds like a sour faced old fool who rants on about how his opinion's concerning film vs digital is pure fact and everyone else is wrong. Isn't photography supposed to be fun? Regardless of what type of camera you chose to shoot with? I may not have "formal training" but I do know why i take pictures, because its fun. Roy-
Roy makes this comment

Thursday, 14 May 2009

"Bill" sounds like a sour faced old fool who rants on about how his opinion's concerning film vs digital is pure fact and everyone else is wrong. Isn't photography supposed to be fun? Regardless of what type of camera you chose to shoot with? I may not have "formal training" but I do know why i take pictures, because its fun. Roy-
Bill makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

I am going to puke when another Digital Whore (who is pushing digital for some company) put down Film. I still use film and will continue to do so. I have several digital cameras and only use them when someone needs a photo in a hurry. I have a D3 and D700 Nikon and there is no comparsion to my Nikon F4. With film cameras you have to use your brain (I have formal training) with digital you point and shoot.
Jeff makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

Suggesting that digital users shoot at apertures in the f/16-f/32 range is generally bad advice (for landscapes, anyway). Not only do you typically not need such a small aperture, but diffraction will rob the image of sharpness and resolution. Large-format shooters needed those tiny apertures because of the much longer focal lengths needed for a given field of view.
cuibel makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

"ultimate in sharpness" uh-oh, heave
cuibel makes this comment

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

If i hear someone use the phrase "ultimate control" once more i'm gonna puke.
ofer makes this comment

Friday, 08 May 2009

Classic photograph in the modern resources

How-To

Create The Old Masters Look With Modern Gear

Using the latest in software, techniques and hardware can provide you with imagery that will rival the masterpieces of nature photography

18 Comments

Add Comment

Recent OP Articles

Popular OP Articles

OP Most Popular Tags