DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

There are situations where blown highlights or lost shadow detail are
going to happen due to the limited dynamic range of digital.

Digital has moe dynamic range than film.

No it doesn't.

Why do you make blatantly false statements of fact?

there are a lot of people who for whatever reason, believe film has
more dynamic range than digital. convincing them that it doesn't is
futile.

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

And "it does work" likely just means it's close enough, i.e. correct within
a stop or two so it can always be adjusted in the final image. He "knows"
he's "properly captured a scene . . . before [he] pressed the button"
because the latitude is there to cover a considerable amount of error.

There remains quite a bit of slop in the system even with digital.

Translation:

If I under expose by 1 fstop on a regular basis, with
digital I can make a 1 fstop error and still say it's
perfect.

All I can say is, I still don't pay for custom prints.

Walmart's automatic system can handle your 2 stop slop?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
Digital has moe dynamic range than film.

No it doesn't.

Why do you make blatantly false statements of fact?

there are a lot of people who for whatever reason, believe film has
more dynamic range than digital. convincing them that it doesn't is
futile.


I don't know, but negative films generally seem able to tolerate
a ridiculous amount of overexposure. Some people find this hard
to believe.

Peter.
--

Peter Irwin wrote:
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:
"Mr. Strat" wrote:
Digital has moe dynamic range than film.

No it doesn't.

Why do you make blatantly false statements of fact?

there are a lot of people who for whatever reason, believe film has
more dynamic range than digital. convincing them that it doesn't is
futile.

I don't know, but negative films generally seem able to tolerate
a ridiculous amount of overexposure. Some people find this hard
to believe.

That toleration is not on the linear portion of the curve though.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

There are situations where blown highlights or lost shadow detail are
going to happen due to the limited dynamic range of digital.

Digital has moe dynamic range than film.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. I used to think as you think, that digital has less dynamic
range. I got straightened out on this by people who knew a lot more about it
than I did, and am grateful.

Neil

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"William Graham" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Wilba" wrote:
Translation:

It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it
does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand
an histogram, so why would he think it important?

Harsh, but plausible. :-)

It's dead on.

(Did you notice that it was like pulling teeth to get
him to admit that he uses the fancy light meter built
into the camera, and doesn't just judge what is needed.
The only thing he actually judges is how fast his
shutter speed needs to be...)

I guess it's a bit like this ... I can look out the window and guess which
coat I should wear when I go out, but I can also look at my digital
indoor/outdoor thermometer, and know within a degee or two what
temperature
I will encounter.

Exactly. Now, consider this scenario... If you came to
visit me for a week, and brought small children with
you, would you trust your ability to judge the weather
by just looking out the window? Or would you want both
a thermometer and an anemometers to let you know how to
dress a 5 or 6 year old that wants to go outside to play
with the neighbor kids?

I'd go for checking the weather with some fancy high
tech digital instruments, even though I have 40 years of
experience in judging how to dress children for weather
here. ;-)

I've also got 40 years experience judging light meters,
and I just *love* using the histogram and a blink on
over exposure display! (I cheat though, as histograms
are something I was dealing with decades ago.)

To dress for my local conditions it don't NEED to know the temperature in
degrees, but if I was in charge of a process in which temperature was
critical (as blown highlights are in digital photography), I'd much rather
have that information.

What an excellent analogy, given the circumstances!

What with global warming research becoming very
important, so is the fractional accuracy of a digital
thermometer, and there are people here that absolutely
do need the added facilities that modern high tech
provides. (E.g., the Barrow Arctic Research Consortium.)

The comparison to photographic exposure is valid. Some
people only need a latitude of perhaps 1 or even 2
fstops. For them, using just a light meter and
experienced judgment, they *nail* it every time.

Years ago I marveled at people whose workflow
consistently produced exposures within 1/2 an fstop. I
was usually happy within 1 fstop, and simply corrected
in the darkroom.

Today, in most circumstances I'm annoyed at anything
more than about 1/3rd of an fstop off.

But some folks are stuck with technology they learned 40
years ago, and still have it "nailed" if it's within 2
fstops...

Apparently these histograms are something that is built into digital
cameras.....do they make light meters with histograms built into them? Would
such a device be useful with a film camera?

Just wondering.

All of this goes along with my inclination to think that a digital camera
must be much more flexible than a film camera, because you can dial in film
speeds of 800 or more with impunity, and take pictures in virtual darkness
conditions that are way beyond my ability with my F5......I guess I should
really consider selling the F5 and buying one of these wonderful DSLR
machines.........

There was, some time back, one of those knock 'em down
drag 'em out and kick in the teeth threads here on the
very idea of using a digital camera as a really fancy
light meter, just because it does indeed provide a
histogram.

Given the capability of the Nikon D1, introduced in
1999, I can't see much point in shooting 35mm film.
Given the capability of the Nikon D3, on the market
since last Friday, keeping an F5 is suitable as a fun
thing, for nostogia, etc etc, but not for work.

If I had access to a darkroom, I'd be very tempted to
buy Tri-X in 100' rolls again. Because that was *fun*.
But frankly there is no way I'd shoot color film again,
ever.

Color film? Managing three chemical baths that need to be kept
within a half a degree of 100F while in complete darkness?

"No way" indeed.

--
Ray Fischer

Mr. Strat wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson
It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it
does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand
an histogram, so why would he think it important?

I understand histograms, I just have no need for them. I've understood
photography for many years.

And how many times will you inform us of your incredible expertise and
your ability to judge light levels just by looking at a scene?

Do you even need to use a camera? Does the finished print just
extrude out of your butt?

--
Ray Fischer

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Mr. Strat" wrote:
Wilba

You can say for sure that none of you highlights are blown, or you have
detail in the shadows, or the compromise between the two is optimal?

There are situations where blown highlights or lost shadow detail are
going to happen due to the limited dynamic range of digital.

Digital has moe dynamic range than film.

Irrelevant. Both have more dynamic range than can be displayed,
printed, or scanned.

--
Ray Fischer

"TerrenceHamm" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:26:20 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Wilba" wrote:
Translation:

It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it
does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand
an histogram, so why would he think it important?

Harsh, but plausible. :-)

It's dead on.

(Did you notice that it was like pulling teeth to get
him to admit that he uses the fancy light meter built
into the camera, and doesn't just judge what is needed.
The only thing he actually judges is how fast his
shutter speed needs to be...)

I guess it's a bit like this ... I can look out the window and guess
which
coat I should wear when I go out, but I can also look at my digital
indoor/outdoor thermometer, and know within a degee or two what
temperature
I will encounter.

Exactly. Now, consider this scenario... If you came to
visit me for a week, and brought small children with
you, would you trust your ability to judge the weather
by just looking out the window? Or would you want both
a thermometer and an anemometers to let you know how to
dress a 5 or 6 year old that wants to go outside to play
with the neighbor kids?

I'd go for checking the weather with some fancy high
tech digital instruments, even though I have 40 years of
experience in judging how to dress children for weather
here. ;-)

I've also got 40 years experience judging light meters,
and I just *love* using the histogram and a blink on
over exposure display! (I cheat though, as histograms
are something I was dealing with decades ago.)

To dress for my local conditions it don't NEED to know the temperature
in
degrees, but if I was in charge of a process in which temperature was
critical (as blown highlights are in digital photography), I'd much
rather
have that information.

What an excellent analogy, given the circumstances!

What with global warming research becoming very
important, so is the fractional accuracy of a digital
thermometer, and there are people here that absolutely
do need the added facilities that modern high tech
provides. (E.g., the Barrow Arctic Research Consortium.)

The comparison to photographic exposure is valid. Some
people only need a latitude of perhaps 1 or even 2
fstops. For them, using just a light meter and
experienced judgment, they *nail* it every time.

Years ago I marveled at people whose workflow
consistently produced exposures within 1/2 an fstop. I
was usually happy within 1 fstop, and simply corrected
in the darkroom.

Today, in most circumstances I'm annoyed at anything
more than about 1/3rd of an fstop off.

But some folks are stuck with technology they learned 40
years ago, and still have it "nailed" if it's within 2
fstops...

Apparently these histograms are something that is built into digital
cameras.....do they make light meters with histograms built into them?
Would
such a device be useful with a film camera?

Just wondering.

All of this goes along with my inclination to think that a digital camera
must be much more flexible than a film camera, because you can dial in
film
speeds of 800 or more with impunity, and take pictures in virtual darkness
conditions that are way beyond my ability with my F5......I guess I should
really consider selling the F5 and buying one of these wonderful DSLR
machines.........


The only problem with that is unless you buy a top-of-the-line D-SLR that
now
includes an LCD display that they try to pawn off as something special
called
"live preview", then you will only get any benefits from histograms,
under/over-exposure overlay displays, and other features, after-the-fact.
Meaning, you can't see those features applied to anything but a shot you
have
already taken. Whereas all P&S cameras that have those features display
them as
you are taking the photo, no time wasted taking "test shots" then seeing
how it
turned out. You know in advance it that setting is going to work or not
before
you even press the shutter. If you want the ultimate in flexibility for
those
features then you'll have to look into any of the excellent Canon
PowerShot P&S
cameras that also let you run CHDK. Then you can choose from 7 different
histogram types, select the display colors for them, including transparent
colors so faint that focusing and framing through them is easy. Position
them
anywhere on your display with 1-EVF pixel precision. As well as choosing
from 6
different "Zebra" mode setting. Those are your under/over exposure overlay
warnings with sensitivity anywhere from 0 to 32 values (out of 256) from
the
extremes. Determining just how close you want your under/over exposure
areas to
be near the limits of your sensor's dynamic range.

Don't bother asking any D-SLR owners about this, they don't have any
experience
with this much flexibility. Most of them even deny it exists. Blinders on
and
they are happy.

If you are curious however, you can read more about it here
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK and here
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage

Or instead of just reading about it pick up any of the supported cameras,
install it, and try it out yourself. It's free, not counting the purchase
of a
camera. You'll spend less doing that than you would for even one D-SLR
lens not
including the body.
What's hard for me to understand is the exact difference between Digital
Point & Shoots, and Digital Single Lens Reflexes. With film, the only real
difference is that the SLR's have a mirror that enables one to actually
look through the lens one is using to take the picture, plus the ability to
change lenses. This makes it a much more versatile camera, which had only
two disadvantages. It is more expensive, and heavier to carry around.
But the way you talk about digital Point & Shoots, one would think they
are more sophisticated electronically, and I can't understand why this would
be the case......Why couldn't you take a digital Point & Shoot, add a mirror
and a rangefinder to it, and give it the ability to interchange lenses and
have a better camera? Of course, it wouldn't be smaller or lighter or
cheaper, and therefore as capable of being smuggled into opera houses and
night clubs, but for general photography, why wouldn't it be a better (more
versatile) machine? IOW, why would leaving off a mirror provide the machine
with any better electronics than not leaving off a mirror?

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"Mr. Strat" wrote:
Wilba

You can say for sure that none of you highlights are blown, or you have
detail in the shadows, or the compromise between the two is optimal?

There are situations where blown highlights or lost shadow detail are
going to happen due to the limited dynamic range of digital.

Digital has moe dynamic range than film.

Irrelevant. Both have more dynamic range than can be displayed,
printed, or scanned.

Not irrelevant at all! We very commonly compress the
dynamic range, whatever part of it we are able to
capture either by film or electronic sensor, in order to
view it on a display that has a lower range.

There does not have to be a 1:1 match between the scene
and the display to make use of the ability to record the
range of the scene.

Thats why image editing software has tools to adjust
"curves", or "brightness and contrast".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)