ronghualu says:
Contax G2. Zeiss 90mm lens. f2.8 Fuji Provia 100. On-camera bounce flash with daylight through window. Imacon scan, which is a step down from drum scan. The lens is not a macro lens, and camera is an RF not a macro! Image degraded by png file (to meet Flickr file size). No post processing, exactly as scanned. Each flower is about 10 inches wide. To my eyes: 1/ the petals have subtle yet sharp details in the white areas, and the dark areas also have details; 2/ there is depth even in a flat screen view, as the anther for left flower is sharp and clearly stands in front of the petal; 3/ texture with accuracy; 4/ excellent dynamic range and no ghosting or fringing. (nb: The Ilfochrome print from the film directly is substantially better than the on-screen image.) The clipping you see on the background petals is produced by the scanner: no clipping appears on the original slide.
ronghualu says:
Fuji X-Pro, Fuji 35 lens. After a very long search, I found another lily shot! Now we can see apples to apples. The XPro impresses me, as an evolutionary step in the right direction. The white-on-white details are some of the best of all digital cameras. Some texture too. Depth is ok, but overall flatness remains. The background petals suffer from ghosting and colour fringing, and are completely lacking in definition. This shot could be overexposed, which seems to be an inherent weakness for the XPro. Overall, IMHO the quality of this photo is not up to the level of the film shot, as this lacks many subtle qualities and accuracy.
ronghualu says:
Nikon D800. cc from Nikon website. The resolution of the Sony 36MP imager used in the D800 is clearly a new standard setter. Though this file is a highly compressed jpg, the res is still outstanding. Though the focus was on the bee, a great amount of detail in the white petals was captured. To my eyes, this is the first imager to capture some texture in the flower and bee, the image is not as flat as those from other imagers, and there is some depth. Overall, an outstanding result by Sony and Nikon, under the right lighting conditions.
ronghualu says:
A top photographer, using what I believe to be a Contax G2. IMHO this is an outstanding photo from film and shows subtle qualities only film can produce. This has great accuracy, yet softness and depth, and the foreground flower has a glow to it. To my eyes, subjectively, this shows what digital lacks.
ronghualu says:
ronghualu says: Fuji X-Pro with Zeiss 135 lens. This is an excellent image; sharp, detailed, subtle, even has some texture. Still somewhat flat, but such are the limitations of digital. Technically, this is equal to or better than the Leica M9. The use of an older slr lens (that was never designed for digital) poses many challenges, and a successful image requires skill. In this image, the contrast and exposure of the white flower against a background with strong whites is excellent. This photo caught my eye for its Zeiss qualities: contrast, accuracy, detail, and highly artistic bokeh.
I can't help thinking of the future day when the XPro is made with a 36mp FF imager, instead of it's half-FF imager, and how stunning those future images could be.
ronghualu says:
Leica M9. Could not locate a white flower, so chose this one. An excellent image, with sharpness, colour, accuracy, but still digitally flat. To my eyes, the M9 has a magenta bias. I know this flower, and the real stamen is not so magenta-toned as in this photo. This magenta bias shows up in people portraits, too. Compared to the XPro/Zeiss image above, is the full-frame M9 superior to a half-fame camera?
ronghualu says:
Sigma. Everybody I know wrinkles their noses when hearing the word Sigma. Yet, this photo shows Sigma is as good as or better than some other digital cameras in similar category. This photo is very good in all respects, showing texture and depth better than many cameras. I think the Foveon tech is intriguing.
ronghualu says:
Canon PowerShot S100. Considering this image is produced by a pocket-sized point'n'shoot priced at a fraction of others in this gallery, the overall quality is remarkable indeed. As with all digital, the image is flat, but the accuracy, details, tones are very good. This is on par with many more expensive cameras. Goes to show what a good photographer can do with modest gear. I am very impressed by this little camera. See also the image in the other gallery.
ronghualu says:
Hasselblad/Zeiss. To my eyes, this shows what digital cannot do. Each petal has fringing and ghosting on the edges, demonstrating the inaccuracy of digital tech to record high contrast. The film image would be sharply defined. The film has recorded the full subtle details of each petal, even the ones that are out of focus due to depth of field. The texture and depth are significantly better than digital. An excellent image.
ronghualu says:
Fujifilm X-Pro with Fujinon XF 35mm F1.4 R. The Xpro is proving to be a very impressive camera. The softer contrast has recorded subtle shadings in the whiter petals. The bokeh is very good. no ghosting! the focus for this image is a tad soft, though. again, the digital flatness is apparent, but overall an excellent result for digital.
Nothing here yet.
You can save a photo or video to a gallery from its detail page, or choose from your faves here.
Comments