Re: image quality - film vs. digital

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I made the switch to digital from film over 2 years ago and haven't
regretted it for a second but I would make a suggestion or two.

One is that you anticipate a learning curve when making the
switch...don't expect to shoot a digital wedding a week after buying
your  new camera without doing some serious testing first.

I also shoot with Canon equipment (a couple of 10Ds with the 420 and 540
EX flashes) and have found it something of a challenge at times to get
my flash lighting as it needs to be. For my wedding work this is most
obvious in my candid work because my groups are shot on manual with
metered lighting.

One thing to know when working with Canon digitals and flash is that the
flash output is linked (and so far as I can discover unlinkable) to the
focus spot you've chosen and the flash will output enough light to make
that focus spot record as 18% gray. Sounds like no big deal until you
shoot a white wedding dress (way underexposed) or a black tux (way
overexposed). I've gotten around this by always trying to focus on skin
or some other neutralish tone.

Digital, like slide film, blows out quite easily so you must be aware of
what your whites are doing. You can easily check this by looking at the
camera's histogram...a very valuable tool, indeed.

I certainly don't feel there is a shorter tonal range with digital nor
do I feel there is poorer gradation. And agreed, there is much more
flexibilty when shooting under various light sources using digital as
you can make adjustments on-board the camera without the use of filters.
Very  nice...just be sure to make the switch back when you change
lighting. Or shoot RAW and adjust on the computer.

If you aren't a Photoshop user now, you most certainly will need to be
if you  make the jump to digital. I recommend Photoshop CS and any books
by Scott Kelby to get you going.

You don't say if you plan to print images yourself or have them done by
a lab but either way monitor calibration will become an issue for you
sooner rather than later, most likely. Your lab may have profiles you
can download which will make color correction much easier for you.

Good luck with the switch...it may be a bit frustrating at first but it
will be worth it in short order for sure.
Lea

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students"
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: image quality - film vs. digital


> 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/>
>
>
>


[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux