| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/04/2005 06:48:03 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by joebok:
I've been a digital convert for a long time - but a little while ago I took a photography class at a local community college. We were required to use film.. |
I'm currently doing this myself, in fact, class #2 is tonight.
What I've found over the 2 or so years that I've been using a digital camera is that I am immensely better with film.
This is a phenomenon I don't understand. I've never had formal training for either style, but the product of film on average is extremely better than with my digital camera.
If I have such success there, why is my digital style lacking?
Shouldn't it cross-over?
Is it laziness with digital knowing all I have to do is erase an image I don't like and that's seeping into my serious attempts, whereas with film, each shot costs money?
I don't know. I like both styles in general equally, don't prefer one to another.. but I certainly prefer my results with film over the ones I get with digital.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:09:12 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Film definitely takes more skill. |
No...you have a LOT more latitude with exposing film than Digital, shooting digital is like shooting Slide, you have to be more careful with your exposures, that's where the histogram helps.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:14:45 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
...But put up a larger than posrter size print of a great landscape and you will be able to tell the difference.
IMHO of course. |
What Digital system were the prints made with? Don't forget you have Medium Format Digital backs (645) that will blow any of the MF 645 prints...The 1Ds II is already at the MF film (645) level, if not better.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:28:08 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Film definitely takes more skill. |
No...you have a LOT more latitude with exposing film than Digital, shooting digital is like shooting Slide, you have to be more careful with your exposures, that's where the histogram helps. |
Last time I checked, Chrome was film...and you don't get to see if you nailed the shot until AFTER the moment has passed.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:29:57 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
No...you have a LOT more latitude with exposing film than Digital, shooting digital is like shooting Slide, you have to be more careful with your exposures, that's where the histogram helps. |
I don't understand this - can you explain why?
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:41:58 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by doctornick:
No...you have a LOT more latitude with exposing film than Digital, shooting digital is like shooting Slide, you have to be more careful with your exposures, that's where the histogram helps. |
I don't understand this - can you explain why? |
With Film (not Slide Film) you can over or under expose by +/- 1 to 1.5 stops and manage to get a good print, with slide if you have a lot less play, you exposure has to be bang on or else that's it you won't get a good print. |
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:47:18 PM · #82 |
raw is very simliar to neg film.
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 07:52:49 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
raw is very simliar to neg film. |
Not quite. You got more latitude than shooting JPG's but it's still a tad less than Film (not Slide)
|
|
|
|
10/04/2005 09:31:33 PM · #84 |
| Hey, anyone here got a decent film camera and would kindly do a real-life test comparison? I'm just highly curious. Is the grain in film really that fine? would be interesting to know, dont you think? |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 09:30:29 AM · #85 |
Different films have different exposure latitudes, and different digital cameras have different exposure latitudes; and each type of film and each type of digital sensor has a given exposure latitude.
Some film is optimized for color vibrancy, some for optimum skin tones, and some is optimized to be forgiving. Digital sensors have a given "step" between shades of color, the wider the exposure latitude, the greater the step (assuming the same number of bits per pixel).
Films can be changed, the sensor in a digital camera cannot. It seems that a lot of people are asking the digital sensor to be better than all kinds of film, at once. Our technology is probably not there yet.
On the other hand, the human eye can only see so much. Digital and Film may be equaly good for many uses.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 09:31:25. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 11:34:58 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by doctornick:
No...you have a LOT more latitude with exposing film than Digital, shooting digital is like shooting Slide, you have to be more careful with your exposures, that's where the histogram helps. |
I don't understand this - can you explain why? |
With Film (not Slide Film) you can over or under expose by +/- 1 to 1.5 stops and manage to get a good print, with slide if you have a lot less play, you exposure has to be bang on or else that's it you won't get a good print. |
I used to push slide film all the time (underexposing and making up for it in developing). Still not sure about your statement with regard to digital. I find RAW captures much more forgiving than film captures. Course, I never scanned a negative so I don't know how that would change the outcome.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:39:19 PM · #87 |
Any time you under expose a neg film it makes the grain pop. You can overexpose the hell out of it though...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:37:50 PM EDT.
