> Not so long ago did a wedding on 120 and > digital. The film coped with a room with daylight, tungsten and > fluorescent lighting: The digital shot on an SI exhibits some strange > variations.
Without knowing exactly what you mean by "strange variations"..... Asssuming you were shooting color neg, some auto color balance (or even human intervention?) was applied when prints were made. Perhaps the ACB technology of the printer is just better than the camera's? Most camera's ACB seems marginal to me, with inconsistent results, so I use it only rarely to confirm that "Yep, didn't help this one either." Digital cameras do tend to pick up subtle variations in color that film "overlooks." (as noted here by others.) Are you viewing the digital images on a monitor and comparing with photo prints from the film? Certainly the higher gamut of the monitor will show variations that might be lost on lower gamut photo prints. Outputing those digital files to a medium with gamut similar to photo paper would make for a fairer comparison. > so I left the camera on auto balance - good job I had film. If I am guessing correctly, sounds like you were saving to jpegs. Saving to raw format would have saved your job, too. > Just as we now have area specific levels of compression will we in the > future have variable area colour balance? I was kind of hoping for variable area auto-focus, myself. --------------- Jay Busse Photo Illustrators =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
