Paul & Shel, following this thread, I'm caught up with the idea that slide shooters are more likely to feel at home with digital image exposures. IOW, they had to be more on the money exposure wise than a print shooter due to the reduced latitude of the overall process. It also seems like the RAW conversion is somewhat analogous to the developing/printing of print film.
Kenneth Waller (shooting 40% slide, 60% pixel) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 23, 2004 10:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie" I think that may be the case if you shoot jpegs or tiffs in a dslr. However, when shooting RAW you have more control over the shadows and highlights in conversion. Of course, highlights that are totally burned out can't be recovered, but those that are just within range can be pulled back and shadows can be pulled up a bit or intensified. I'm no techy, and I don't understand all of what's happening here, but I can tell that it works. To me, shooting RAW with a digital is comparable to doing your own BW processing and exposure. It gives you a lot of control options. And of course it's a lot of fun. > Hmmm ... seems that there are/were a lot of people claiming that a DSLR > generally falls into the range of slide film, which is a couple of stops or > so less than color negative film. Has that changed recently? > > Shel > > > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > > Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie" > > > > Was thinking about that while out walking this morning. Since > > > color neg has greater latitude than a digi, it would seem that > > > color film might be a better choice in contrasty situations. > > > Am I off base here? > > > [Original Message] > > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The jury is kind of out on that one. I don't think there is all that > > much difference in latitude between the two. > > ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
