One question about which there is no vagueness is 4 - digital is far better than film for working in different lighting conditions. You can tune to each specific lighting situation - even after the shot if you use RAW - even if you don't know what the lighting is in advance. And question 2 is very dependent on who is doing the digital work (or the printing). I've seen digital processing (of scans or digital originals) that mangled the tones and digital processing that gave excellent tonality.
At 01:29 PM 11/29/2004, mooredg wrote:
My questions are these: 1. is there a narrower tonal range possible with digital than with film, as I have heard from some other photographers; I have done a preliminary test which suggests that this is the case. 2. is there poorer tonal gradation with digital than w/ film? again this is something I've heard but haven't yet experienced 3. is there less exposure lattitude? 4. is there less flexibility in recording light sources of varying color temperature (e.g., flash and tungsten)
Any of you who have used digital SLR's fairly extensively, I would love to hear your opinions on these issues. Thanks. Dave Moore
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
