I'm a print shooter too. I just shoot it like with print film, but instead of worrying about underexposure, I worry about overexposure. It's the same exact thought process.
tv > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I hate to say this, but this doesn't necessarily invalidate > the original > point. Some folks have a hard time changing. I suspect I > will have to > adjust to the narrower latitude, since I'm now a print > shooter. OTOH, > I'll get instant feedback, so I hope I'll learn quickly, or > at least get > the shot on the second try > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/28/03 11:55PM >>> > The latitude is plenty if you know what you're doing. > > tv > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Funny thing is I know at least a couple of wedding > photographers who > > have gone back to shooting film. This is because they say > > digital just > > couldn't cope with the lattitude required for their job. > > Bride & Groom > > shots either lose detail from the (brides) dress or the > > often dark suit > > of the groom. They have gone back to negative film for > > this reason. I > > wonder if more will follow in time... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 28 September 2003 03:40 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: istD test > > > > > > The pro boys that I know here have done exactly that, though > > > not with formal tests, just by shooting pictures and > > > comparing, and have dumped their medium format cameras in > > > favour of the 6mp digitals. These are wedding shooters > > > though, which is not a high resolution game, by any means. > > > > > > > > > >
