I think that what you say might be true in theory. But I know that in
the real worldI can't squeeze as much out of a negative shot on a gray
day as I can with a RAW image shot on a gray day. I think it's due to
limitations in scanning software and perhaps in the whole process of
changing film to digital. Remember, you have two levels of loss here.
You lose something when you go from the real world to film. Then you
lose something when you go from film to digital. If you go right from
film to digital, and you start working with the raw data, you're
probably getting as close as possible to a fix. I know I can do better
under those conditions. I don't understand the science of it all. I
just know what I can do.
On Nov 4, 2004, at 9:48 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If you shoot and then scan film, you can do anything
you could have with a DSLR image in terms of color balance.
There are also many different films to choose from to
adjust the color palette. If anything a DSLR is more
limiting than shooting film because the sensor only
gives you one characteric while using filmS give you a choice
of many different characteristics. RAW helps digital but film
doesn't need it....
JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests
Hi Paul,
I can't help but wonder how photographers made photos under similar
circumstances before the advent of digital.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
about color accuracy, control and consistency of digital. I had to
shoot a car a week or two ago under muddy skies. it would have been
impossible with film. But shooting RAW digital, I was able to generate
acceptable images.
