Brief response. In the case of film, I think the delay between making the shot and seeing the image tends to allow one to more readily accept the results. This anticipation period lends itself to a broad range of reactions from stinging disappointed to the satisfaction of pleasing surprise enhanced by the delay.
Jack --- On Tue, 10/6/09, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Tom C <[email protected]> > Subject: The BS of Digital Photography > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 12:07 AM > I just ordered a K-7 against what may > may be my better judgement... > I'm optimistic that it will meet my present needs, though > I'm pretty > sure it's far too noisy for any astrophotography. > > It has started me thinking though about the tradeoffs > between film and digital. > > WIth film (E6 or positives specifically): > > One had to wait for the results. > What you saw is what you got. > Notwithstanding the development process, the largest > variables in the > result was the metering accuracy of the camera body (MX or > Pz-1P, both > overall excellent), the attributes of the film that was > selected, and > the judgement of the photographer. > When I scanned a transparency, I pretty much considered > that it was, > as recorded, based upon my decisions at exposure time. It > was a 1st > generation image. > > With digital (shooting RAW): > > I see the 'results' (almost immediately). > I'm unsure what processing has occurred in camera. > I'm unsure how the sensor has responded to the scene and > how the > software in the camera has adjusted the image. I can guess, > but I'm > not sure. > I'm unsure if the image shown on the playback screen is an > accurate > representation of the scene or if it will match what I see > on the > computer screen. > I'm unsure if Photoshop or ACR, or whatever software used, > is > displaying an accurate representation of the recorded > image. > Screen calibration is an issue unto itself. > > Maybe there was just as many variables with E6 and they > were taken for > granted at the time, because we didn't (or I didn't) have > the > knowledge 6 - 10 years ago to know the difference. > Certainly all the > post-capture and transposition to digital issues existed. > > Nevertheless, with the advent of digital capture, it seems > or feels as > if the process is far more complicated. Maybe my RAW > image is the > equivalent of my transparency, but it just does not feel > the same. It > seemed that I could look at a transparency and say "Wow, > that looks > exactly like what I saw" or "Wow, I messed that one > up". With digital > I feel much more insecure. Was it me, the camera, the > software, the > hardware? > > It seems the almost instant gratification of digital > capture and the > speediness of results has been eclipsed by the, OMG factor, > and 'what > do I have to do to adjust this image?'. Time saved by > instant results > is erased by time spent post-capture processing. > > Does it seem that way to others as well? > > Tom C. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
