mooredg <mooredg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I am a commercial wedding, artwork, portrait photographer who has used film > for my entire career. I use Portra 160NC for any work whjich involves people > as subjects. I am seriously considering switching over to a digital SLR > system. My present camera is a Canon Elan7. The digital camera I have my > eyes on is the Canon 20D, an 8.3 Mpx camera which is quite new on the > market. > 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. No, certainly not. A digital file can drive the printer (often using conventional photo paper) to the full paper white or maximum black of the materials. > 2. is there poorer tonal gradation with digital than w/ film? again this is > something I've heard but haven't yet experienced I have't felt that way, but I haven't performed any sort of careful test. > 3. is there less exposure lattitude? Doesn't seem so to me; but it takes my work rather than the lab's work to dig out underexposed shots, which is a consideration. > 4. is there less flexibility in recording light sources of varying color > temperature (e.g., flash and tungsten) No. There is vastly *more* flexibility in recording a range of light sources. This is one area where digital is clearly and unambiguously ahead. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
