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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

(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...)

What I said (for the umpteenth time) is that I can look at a scene and
determine where exposure problems may exist. I don't need to take
picture, press a button, and look at a graph to tell me that.

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.)

And it hasn't helped your images. They still suck.

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.)

Oh Jesus...now we get Algore on the soapbox.

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

Proper exposure is not the major fault in your images.

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

It is certainly possible that if someone's experience consisted of shooting
similar subjects in similar circumstances and similar lighting, experience
might be all that was required. A good friend of mine was manager and chief
(and only) photographer for many years in a small local studio. He basically
shot all his subjects in the same settings and under the same lighting. He
never changed anything in the camera but the film, except for using a
slightly larger aperture for dark-skinned customers.

If the lights are properly set up, skin color is inconsequential.

In article , Wilba
wrote:

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.

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , Wilba
wrote:

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.

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

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.

"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.........

"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.

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

"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?

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

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.

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , Wilba
wrote:

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.

I can look at any scene and tell you where there is potential for blown
highlights. I don't need a meter or a graph to tell me that.

I can teach a bright 12 year old to do that, in probably
less than an hour.

Jeeze, all you gotta do is look for the bright spots!

Of course, without a digital camera that has a
histogram, it might take a week to teach that, using
film, to an average 12 year old.

Your 40 years of experience is really useful.

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