If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#561
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:54:16 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in : Film is *not* the same as digital. Film is analog. Really? Then what is grain? Really! What is your point? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#562
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Scott W" wrote in message ... On Nov 30, 12:51 pm, "William Graham" wrote: "Scott W" wrote in message ... On Nov 30, 11:58 am, "William Graham" wrote: "Scott W" wrote in message . .. William Graham wrote: With me, I'd be wasting film, but I seldom shoot any slides that are so far out of spec that Photoshop's tools can't make them good..... I found slide to be just about the least forgiving for not getting the exposure right, a little too much and you loss the highlights completely a bit too little and the shadow detail disappears. If the slide did not look good projected there was little I could do in photoshop to fix it. Negative film on the other hand I could over expose by a huge amount and still get a fairly good image. Scott Well, I never project my slides.....I view them against a very bright light box (which I made myself, and has 8, 2200K fluorescents in it) and then scan the ones I like into my computer, where I can view them on my monitor and/or send them to friends and relatives. I tend to overexpose them slightly, but Photoshop CS2 seems to have the ability to make them just right for my taste. How do you know they are overexposed? Scott I keep the EV setting on my camera at +.3 or +.7 in order to get them to look the way I like them when I view them with my light box......Once I digitize them, then getting the detail in the shadows is fairly easy for me.....The program has the wonderful ability to bring out that detail without blowing the highlights.....I still can't figure out how it does it.....One would think that would be impossible and still keep good contrast, but apparently it is possible, because those Photoshop programmers have done it......It is truly a wonderful program I would suggest that perhaps your EV setting needs to be set at +0.3 to 0.7 to get a good exposure. Some people set the ISO a bit lower to get the same adjustment. Scott Yes.....I thought that's what I said that I do.....Of course, I will change it for special circumstances, such as a bright backlit subject, but in general, all else being equal, I keep it set at +.7 or so....I leave the ISO on automatic, because I shoot both ISO 100 and ISO 400 slide films, and if I take it off of the automatic sensing, I will be sure to forget and shoot a roll at the wrong ISO..........As I get older, I have to compensate for the deterioration of my own brains....... |
#563
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Annika1980" wrote in message ... On Nov 30, 5:15 pm, "William Graham" wrote: If one of you digital photographers, like Bret (for example) posts an image that I like on the internet, I will frequently download it and play with it with my Photoshop CS2 program IMAGE THIEF !!! My people will be in touch with your people soon. Look for the local Sheriff as well. Like others who steal your images, I have been unable to improve on them....... |
#564
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: "Mr. Strat" wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: "Decades of experience" in film is one thing. Digital is quite different in many respects, and none of us have "decades of experience" in it. It's just a different kind of film with specific properties and limitations. Actually, in this one part, neither of you got it quite right: digital actually has been around for at least 4 decades that I can vouch for with hands on experience. And it has existed in theory since 1949. Interesting. Change my "none of us" to "vanishingly small numbers of us," then. :-) That would probably be accurate! It wasn't usually "photography" in the sense of taking snapshots of grandma. In my case it was reproducing images at multiple locations usually (weather maps being one very common example). I was really thinking of the digital photography period beginning when reasonably useful digital cameras first appeared in the general marketplace, which I'd put in the mid-'90s. But I shouldn't have said "none of us." Absolutes are almost always dangerous. That is when the general public began to make use of the technology, true. I think it really went big time when Sony introduced the Mavica series and became mainline in 1999 when Nikon came out with a professional quality DSLR, the D1. One of the problems with understanding it today is just that! It is *all* crammed into a very attractive and easy to use *small* toy intended to for even children to use. That is just *one* thingie! In the "good ol' days" each individual part was of significant size (with its own manual too) and might not only be in a different room from the next part, but might even be in a different state or country. That had one advantage (and countless disadvantages), which was that people who dealt with it got to know all of the parts, and exactly how they inter-related. Today if I refer to the "communications channel" between the ADC input and the processor, many folks think that is conceptually insane! But it isn't significantly different, from an engineering point of view, than transmitting live digital images from a rocket launch pad in Alaska to NASA on the East Coast... (Or, come to think of it, transmission of seismic data that eventually ended up on 35mm film for analysis... used by the US Department of Defense to monitor nuclear testing. That began in the mid-1960's in Alaska.) Digital imaging has a much longer history than just consumer snapshot cameras. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#565
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In rec.photo.digital.zlr George Kerby wrote:
On 11/30/07 5:44 PM, in article , "Mr. Strat" wrote: In article , John Navas wrote: Many working pros and commercial users think slides are nicer than negatives despite the more limited exposure range. It depends on what the final product will be. If the client wants prints, shooting transparencies would be a poor choice. No ****, Sherlock! The ONLY reason to shoot chromes in the commercial world is for separations for offset printing. Or a 1980's type slide presentation. Or for preservation of exact unambiguous colour in photographs of works of art. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#566
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... "Neil Harrington" wrote: "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote: "Mr. Strat" wrote: Neil Harrington wrote: "Decades of experience" in film is one thing. Digital is quite different in many respects, and none of us have "decades of experience" in it. It's just a different kind of film with specific properties and limitations. Actually, in this one part, neither of you got it quite right: digital actually has been around for at least 4 decades that I can vouch for with hands on experience. And it has existed in theory since 1949. Interesting. Change my "none of us" to "vanishingly small numbers of us," then. :-) That would probably be accurate! It wasn't usually "photography" in the sense of taking snapshots of grandma. In my case it was reproducing images at multiple locations usually (weather maps being one very common example). I was really thinking of the digital photography period beginning when reasonably useful digital cameras first appeared in the general marketplace, which I'd put in the mid-'90s. But I shouldn't have said "none of us." Absolutes are almost always dangerous. That is when the general public began to make use of the technology, true. I think it really went big time when Sony introduced the Mavica series and became mainline in 1999 when Nikon came out with a professional quality DSLR, the D1. One of the problems with understanding it today is just that! It is *all* crammed into a very attractive and easy to use *small* toy intended to for even children to use. That is just *one* thingie! Ain't that the truth. A couple of Christmases ago at the family get-together, the kiddies had a little Coolpix that they were passing back and forth, shooting videos of each other and laughing. It struck me at the time how much more advanced their "toy" was than my first digital camera, an Agfa CL-30 in 1999. Now that Agfa wouldn't even be a satisfactory toy. In the "good ol' days" each individual part was of significant size (with its own manual too) and might not only be in a different room from the next part, but might even be in a different state or country. That had one advantage (and countless disadvantages), which was that people who dealt with it got to know all of the parts, and exactly how they inter-related. Today if I refer to the "communications channel" between the ADC input and the processor, many folks think that is conceptually insane! But it isn't significantly different, from an engineering point of view, than transmitting live digital images from a rocket launch pad in Alaska to NASA on the East Coast... (Or, come to think of it, transmission of seismic data that eventually ended up on 35mm film for analysis... used by the US Department of Defense to monitor nuclear testing. That began in the mid-1960's in Alaska.) Digital imaging has a much longer history than just consumer snapshot cameras. Very interesting. Neil |
#567
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , George Kerby
wrote: It depends on what the final product will be. If the client wants prints, shooting transparencies would be a poor choice. No ****, Sherlock! The ONLY reason to shoot chromes in the commercial world is for separations for offset printing. Or a 1980's type slide presentation. Well, I can't count the number of amateurs I've seen through the years bitch about crappy looking prints from slides. |
#568
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , Wilba
wrote: Let me see if I've understood you correctly. In most cases, you set the shutter speed, then determine camera settings based on your experience. What does "determine camera settings" mean? Are you setting an exposure compensation to deviate from the aperture indicated by the camera's or some other meter, or are you deciding on an aperture without any input from any meter? IOW, who or what does the metering? I generally set the shutter speed first, then determine if I agree with the meter for the f/stop. I film days, I used a Gossen Luna Pro (which I still have). These days, I use the camera's meter. That sounds like a claim of supernatural ability. To be credible you have to be much more specific about what you're doing. There's no substitute for time and experience. |
#569
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , John
McWilliams wrote: Not really irritated, and sorry I hadn't noticed your posting with respect to that particular man: I do believe you've become the group's most prolific poster (r.p.d., which has the most traffic of this set) by a long shot. Intentional? Navas just torques me off. He ****ed me off (and everyone else) with his bi-weekly posting in the cell phone groups about how bad Motorola cell phone chargers are. Then he shows up here with a mediocre digital camera and equally mediocre photographic skills...telling everyone else how to do it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |