Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

Started Sep 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 13,615
Re: Film Vs Digital (not the usual question)

jrtrent wrote:

What makes a posted picture more interesting for me is some discussion of how it was made; for example, camera and lens settings, camera supports used, metering technique, bracketing, any post-processing that was used,

I agree in principle but it's rarely easy in practice. EXIF is easy, as long as the system you use doesn't wipe it, but processing is very tricky. For example , a post I made a couple of days ago to show edits I'd made to someone's shot.

Some extracts: "reduced saturation and luminosity of the sky" but didn't say how much; "applied a tone curve" but didn't show its shape; "ran Topaz Detail to bring out the textures" but didn't show the settings I used.

other angles or focal lengths that didn't work as well, or anything else pertinent or unique to getting the results you were after.

I think the only time I mention alternative FL or POV is to explain why I had to use what I did if the output is suboptimal.

I do tend to mention lighting, although rarely more than something like "multi-source flash". I sometimes link these shots, but more often as tips for general use rather than to describe my own settings

-- hide signature --

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

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