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

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Why do you make blatantly false statements of fact?

No consumer-grade digital camera can capture as wide a range of tonal
values as film.

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
"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.

Strikes me that if I had a digital camera, I would be able to learn how to
get the correct exposures with it in less than an hour.....I would take it
outside and take a picture without touching any controls at all. Then, I
would look at the picture in the chimping screen, and if it was too dark, I
would increase either the aperture or the time, and take it again.....How
long would it take me to get it right? - About a minute? After all, with my
slide camera, I would have to wait a week or more until I got the slides
back from the processor before I had a clue whether they were exposed
properly or not.....So, balance one week against one minute and you have a
ratio of 7 times 24 times 60 to one, or over 10,000 to one advantage in
learning time. With this kind of advantage who needs a meter, much less a
histogram?

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

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.

Don't put words in my mouth. Remember, I can do something you
can't...produce quality images consistently.

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

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

I use a professional lab.

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

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?

I don't believe I used the word "incredible." But you amateurs never
seem to grasp the degree of competency required to produce quality
images consistently.

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

What the **** is your problem?

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

Why do you make blatantly false statements of fact?

No consumer-grade digital camera can capture as wide a range of tonal
values as film.

Nice try at weaseling, but that won't get it either.

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

In rec.photo.digital.zlr Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

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?

I don't believe I used the word "incredible." But you amateurs never
seem to grasp the degree of competency required to produce quality
images consistently.

One of the reasons for that is that so many experts like yourself
spend so much time boasting about your skills and experience and
telling us what amateurs we are, and so little time telling us
anything useful which might help us improve.

Then there are all those people here who do exactly the same without
actually having the skills, just pretending, because if you never
communicate any of your skill it's so easy to pretend.

I sometimes wonder why a real professional would want to post anything
here, if all they ever wanted to post was sneers at the incompetence
of amateurs.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In rec.photo.digital.zlr nospam wrote:
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.

You can't can't convince anyone with evidence who didn't use evidence
to make up their minds in the first place.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In rec.photo.digital.zlr William Graham wrote:
"TerrenceHamm" wrote in message
...

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.

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?

It doesn't necessarily provide the machine with more sophisticated
electronics, but having a mirror in front of the sensor prevents you
from using those extra sophistications, because they depend on having
the lens focussing the image on the sensor instead of through the
viewfinder. In other words, the mirror literally gets in the way.

The few very expensive DSLRs which do offer such facilities do so
either by offering a dual mode of operation, such as mirror up and
mirror down, with mirror up losing you the valued optical viewfinder,
or they compromise on optical efficiency by using a half silvered
mirror, etc.. In other words, if you want a mirror *and* those
facilities, getting round the mirror problem involves further costly
engineering and compromises.

The SLR mirror is a carry over from clockwork film camera technology
some of whose advantages haven't yet quite been duplicated by purely
digital technology. In fact digital technology can do it, just not yet
at an marketable price. We won't have to wait long. In other words
the SLR design concept is already obsolescent. There are huge
investments in the technology which will prevent it from becoming
obsolete for a long time yet, however.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

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.

You can't can't convince anyone with evidence who didn't use evidence
to make up their minds in the first place.

so very true.

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

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?

I don't believe I used the word "incredible." But you amateurs never
seem to grasp the degree of competency required to produce quality
images consistently.

One of the reasons for that is that so many experts like yourself
spend so much time boasting about your skills and experience and
telling us what amateurs we are, and so little time telling us
anything useful which might help us improve.

I doubt he has anything to say "which might help us improve." In all of his
posts I don't recall him mentioning a single technical detail -- only vague,
airy boasts about how good he is. Everything he's said so far could just as
well have been said by someone who's never owned a camera.

Sounds like a lot of phony baloney to me.

Neil