I'm not sure Shel. But my distinct impression, after 30 years of
shooting film and ten months of shooting digital, is that I have more
control of range with digital. I'm certain that film would not have
prevented in blown highlights in those back lit wakeboarding shots, nor
would I have wanted it too. I had a range of 12 or 13 stops and wanted
blown out highlights for effect. (The only way to avoid blown out
highlights would have been to shoot the wakeboarder as a total
silhouette, which was not what I was looking for.) On the backlit shot
of the weather vane I purposely chose an angle that included some
severe background highlights, again to demonstrate the efficacy of the
RAW converter. I think it would have been extremely difficult to handle
either shot on film, but I can't be certain. However, my past
experience suggests that it would have been, and I probably would have
stuck to front lit on the wakeboarding series had I been shooting film.
I wouldn't mind trying a test, but there are so many variables that
control would be diffficult.
On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:50 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
But does RAW allow enuf correction to compensate. So many of the
digital
pics I've seen, including some of yours, have pure white highlights.
Noticed some of that in a couple of the RAW files you sent me as well,
although I'm not sure if film would have been better in all those
situations. Might have to run a test or two.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11/22/2004 8:12:13 PM
Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie"
I can address a couple of these points. First, while some color neg
films may have greater latitude than digital, shooting RAW allows you
some correction over both ends of the exposure in the conversion
process. i find it very forgiving. I know I can control high contrast
situations better with my *istD and RAW than I could with film.
