11–20 of 92 posts
A nit: "The larger the sensor the blurrier the background can be, and this also changes the distance at what you can make a picture of something and still have a blurry background." Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area.
A nit: "The larger the sensor the blurrier the background can be, and this also changes the distance at what you can make a picture of something and still have a blurry background." Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area.
The size of the circle-of-confusion depends also on the degree of enlargement and viewing distance in the final product - i.e. what looks sharp when viewed at arm's length on a phone with a Retina display can look not-sharp when cropped and enlarged to 20x30 and seen up close.
A nit: "The larger the sensor the blurrier the background can be, and this also changes the distance at what you can make a picture of something and still have a blurry background." Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area.
So yes, practically speaking, a camera with a much larger sensor / film area does allow you to take pictures with a much more narrow depth-of-field.
As I've been learning to shoot on a dslr I've been very impressed with how much modern smart phones are doing for you. Focus, sharpness, and exposure are usually very good with little to no effort.
Funny to read someone discover analog film for the first time, when you grew up with it yourself. While I am happy I learned and practiced manual film development in the lab (bw only), I would not move back from my full frame DSLR anytime soon.
During the pandemic, I went down the rabbit hole or learning all about film (history, chemistry, etc..), experimenting with the different stocks, developing it myself at home - both color C-14 and BW (moving onto E-6 & caffenol next!). Messing with creative effects (redscale, souping, deliberate ligh-leaks, double exposure, etc...)
What a wondrous, fun, and endless hobby to get into! I'm still just on 35mm, but hope to grow into 120 soon. That said, I also would not give up my modern ILCE mirrorless.
Welcome to the wonderful world of film. I’ve shot almost entirely analog after a short foray trying digital in the late 2000s. With my life so digitally connected I found having the analog process kept the joy in photography for me and I simply love the slow process from making images down to the final print in the darkroom. At the end of the day I don’t want to dodge and burn in Lightroom, spending even more time in…
I completely agree. Some of my best parts of film photography was in the darkroom. It was one of the most calming and relaxing environments for me. It's magical to see an image slowly appear in a developer tray on the exposed paper.
Still, it was fun, all in all. I've never found digital at all satisfying.
One thing that always jumps out to me with photos from "real" cameras is the colors and dynamic range. The film examples (particularly the chickens) have great color and range compared to what I'd expect from a cell phone. Even the Pixel 2 versus dslr. As I've been learning to shoot on a dslr I've been very impressed with how much modern smart phones are doing for you. Focus, sharpness, and exposure are usually very…
This is one reason why fancy digital cameras prefer to shoot in raw and log color spaces to help preserve the color data to grade that transition
One thing that always jumps out to me with photos from "real" cameras is the colors and dynamic range. The film examples (particularly the chickens) have great color and range compared to what I'd expect from a cell phone. Even the Pixel 2 versus dslr. As I've been learning to shoot on a dslr I've been very impressed with how much modern smart phones are doing for you. Focus, sharpness, and exposure are usually very…
I looked at those pictures and had the opposite feeling.
I was surprised how bad they are from a pure quality aspect.
I assume the jpeg and scanning is a very hard limiting factor.
I can get a lot of range when shooting raw with my canon 80d.
A nit: "The larger the sensor the blurrier the background can be, and this also changes the distance at what you can make a picture of something and still have a blurry background." Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area.
A nit: "The larger the sensor the blurrier the background can be, and this also changes the distance at what you can make a picture of something and still have a blurry background." Blur is totally determined by optics and has no direct relationship to sensor / film area.
That seems an odd nit to pick - the choice of optics is intimately connected to the size of the sensor; plus it's not even right. The size of the circle-of-confusion depends also on the degree of enlargement and viewing distance in the final product - i.e. what looks sharp when viewed at arm's length on a phone with a Retina display can look not-sharp when cropped and enlarged to 20x30 and seen up close.