Ken, being new to digital my "keeper" rate dropped some - looks on the
rise now, maybe almost the same as with film. I'm ruling out the moments
where looking at the results allowed me to re-shoot and correct some
problem, something I can't do with film.
Before buying the Ds, I had often worked with a borrowed XTi in event
mode, and sometimes in the studio. Now I'm using the Ds heavily, and can
make some comparison with my performance with film. This also means the
Ds is being compared to Mx and Lx... and some years with those cameras
and 35mm good films.
lf
Ken Waller escreveu:
My bottom line with digital is I seem to be getting more 'keepers' than
I got with film.
Pretty much the most consistent variable for me is composition, which
digital takes out of the equation, sine I can get instant gratification.
BTW I'm under the impression that with raw there is no in camera
processing.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <[email protected]>
Subject: The BS of Digital Photography
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.
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
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.
