That's all in the tone curve.
No, that's why you apply a tone curve.
The difference is that I know how to post-process. You seem to
It's not underexposure by definition if it exposes to the right to the point
Negative exposure compensation.
'
Digital is linear, film is not. The tone curve wont make it respond in the same way
Its not the same, and you should know this. Try it.
I would refrain from comments like that. I do know how to post process, like it or not it is easier to get the look I want from film. That is my own view.
Erik, I thought we went through all this a while back. I compared the film and digital shots..The film just nailed it..ala it had the DR to capture the contrasty scene, the digital blocked up the shadows..as I had to expose for the highlights.
Erm...I think I know a fair bit about photography by now!
--I take the numbers with a pinch of salt!
Yes it looks decent, still clipped though in one place, and its still
not up to negative film..I know, I ask a lot ;-)
--
Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
What matters is the result you can get by applying a tone curve,
Yes, Barry, and you posted samples in a thread. Did you notice how many
People brightened your digital shot and made it similar to the film one and
That's very possible, but I've not seen it demonstrated yet.
If you are happy about the shadow pushing ability, as you said, you
' Makers apply a tonal curve to mimic that of film. However as I said, the two respond in different ways. And no degree of curve is going to change that. Fuji may have the right idea, I have no hands on with that one.
As said, much more in the shadow end, but its no free ride as that brings noise with it with severe shadow pulliing. Nothing misleading about the highlight range, its not much on digital, its lots on negative film. On the reverse..its better shadow on digital than film.
I dont think it was flawed, it showed it how it was. The only ones who disputed it were 100% digital shooters, because they cannot accept their beloved format is less than ideal in some situations. I on the other hand, are more than happy to point out the cons of film. Anyone who ever touched a roll of film, agreed with what I said.
As I said, yes you can shadow pull..but had I not adjusted my exposure for digital, I would have blown all my skies, gone forever. Sure you can on film too, but its much less a problem, and happens less often. Also, again..its easier and faster to just scan the film, as it gets it how I want it..the digital needs a lot of work to get there. Thats even before the other obvious resolution advantage of film comes into play too.
When I finish off the roll of FP4 plus, I shall let you see the results.
Up to a point I can..but out and about its not so much fun, when I want to concentrate on the shots, not the metering.
Only had a hands on with the D3 for a very short while, enough to appreciate the panzer tank build..but not enough to reach any IQ conclusions. I have seen printed D3 shots, and they are excellent, even high ISO ones at large sizes.
Thats a lot of really nice film cameras, and lots of film! lol
Point is, if the D3 is good for digital, but not up to film HL wise, that means the APS ones are not as good as the D3, and the small sensor jobs are just hard work and well short of it.
I agree. But the premise was that Barry was happy with the shadows
I think they try to mimic how our eyes and brain remember the scene.
I think most people, except for the youngest, have used film. And
Personally, I find it much quicker to apply a curve on digital
Right, so we are back where we started, a foolproof metering.
Ehrik, you are ignoring a few simple things! I have to correct the digital ones, I can just get my film shots printed..as is, no messing about.
Ok so point them out!
Well leaving aside 6mp aint touching ISO 200 negative film for details (yes I know it flies in the face of what the luminous landscape says..but its just there to see), like I said, digital blows on highlights..simple as that..major downer IMO.
Go buy some film, see for yourself, talk is cheap..least I put something up to support my view.
Resolution advantage? What kind of film are you talking about? Maybe the 50 ISO Velvia still slightly outresolves the K20D, but not by a large margin.
) b&w film has the highest res, the techinical pan low ISO stuff, no photographic lens can out resolve it. Negative colour is next best..then slide, which of course has the advantage colour wise.
Sure slide demands more exposure accuracy, but you have the choice of negative film also. With digital, you are just stuck with it. Dont get me wrong, digital whips film to bits at high ISO..by some margin, but the old stuff still has some pull in other areas.My old Kodachrome 25 shots have marvelous detail. But if anything
ever was unforgiving to wrong exposure, it must have been that
film... (not to mention that I only was really happy with a film that
slow when I went trekking in harsh sun at 4000 meters altitude in
Himalaya
Recovering blown highlights after one colour channel has blown has to do
Yep, has made my lie a lot easier in that respect.
Fuji still is the king of highlight recovery, but they are comming close.
True, but I dare say that when you combine the recovering possible in both highlights and shadows for working with hihg contrast scenes then we have come a long way.
aint that the truth
True, not in terms of DR, but they are getting better and overall have gotten quite good.
Fuji has one idea at least and it is going to be interesting to see what they come up with next.
You may be right, but then again I have been working with the D3 for more than 3 months now and I have seen pretty consistant results... i cannot shed any light on the technical side, but I have spend 3 month putting it through its phases, that gives me a pretty fair idea of what it does in terms of real world usage.
ah, ok. I used the really low iso b+w stuff only once, for reproduction work.
Sure. But for overall use, when you need at least ISO 200, one is far better off with digital. I'm just scanning some slides this evening, and even though I'm using a far too simple slide scanner, the grains of my old Fujichrome 200 shots can be really annoying. Or charming
' 