> This evening the Sun set as a deep red orb into a bluish landscape. It would > have looked > pretty on film, but on the digital camera the results were dire. Through the > viewfinder > the Sun was deep red, sharp and not very much brighter than the surrounding > landscape. It > would have been well within the latitude of even Kodachrome to record both the > colour of > the Sun and the landscape. But on the digital images when the Sun is correctly > exposed (ie > not saturated), the landscape is virtually invisible. Furthermore, instead of > being an > attractive red it appears a most unnatural pink, and surrounded by a paler > pink halo.
I've had a similar sounding problem with my 1Ds's, but in a different situation. I shoot a lot of heavily saturated contrasty lighting situations for lighting and production companies. I did a direct comparison between film and digital last week on a job, and the digital images were way inferior to good old film. I find that wherever there's a lot of colour, the dig image loses any definition of the way the light actually appears, and takes on the appearance of a hefty unnatural 'splurge' of colour which is usually much pinker than in reality (blue becomes pink/purple, as do most other colours). I tried cutting the exposures right back to the point where I couldn't see any of the surroundings, and the more heavily coloured area became slightly more realistic, but still nowhere near as good as the film results. I don't know the technical reasons behind this but obviously the sensor reacts in a totally different way when bombarded with hefty amounts of colour/contrast. Jo =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
