Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

Started Sep 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
John1940 Senior Member • Posts: 2,727
Re: "straight out the camera, no PP"

cmc1 wrote:

Ron Poelman wrote:

cmc1 wrote:

It's great to see "straight out the camera, no PP" on posted images

Is really meaningless, every camera does this job differently.
All that means is the designers got their way (on that shot).
There is an ocean of alternatives for shots that don't look
over-processed, just as there is for those that do.

Not sure I agree with that? I know that digital cameras have different processor and jpeg engines but with a decent DLSR I could shoot a very over/under exposed image, not straight,nor in complete focus, get home and rectify the lot in PS within an hour.

Exposure bracketing often saves the image better than relying on RAW. Also, RAW cannot go far with over exposure. In my old Kodachrome slides, there was a tendency to underexpose far more often than overexpose. That's easy to correct decades later.

Not so sure you'd take that approach with a film camera. A decent photographer [film or digital] would make sure all the above was correct before taking the shot.

Cheap DSLRs such as my 600D only allow 3-shot exposure bracketing instead of 5. I'd prefer 5 that I'd use in half stop steps because it's more effective and costs almost nothing now.

to put it another way is digital making lazy photographers of us?

Lazy or smart like a fox? The current Dodge pickup has a 7-speed automatic transmission. (I wish I had one because plowing through gears requires an un-lazy driver.)


 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow