DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

D2H Released

> multi-chrome. Films handle better latitude than any digital, therefore > I could shoot with ISO 400 and obtain decent results better than you > can imagine with any digital currently on offer shooting at similar > sensitivity . Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Negatives tend to accommodate a longer dynamic range than either chromes or digital cameras. However, chromes and digital are much more closely related as photo materials than either is to negatives. Anyone who has shot a lot of slides will be right at home with a digital - exactly the same problems are shared. The prime difference is that digital allows one some flexibility after the exposure if the contrast range falls below the sensitivity curve of the material.

With slides, one needs to rephotograph on internegative material to do adjustments. Chromes that are reproduced through photomechanical means - printing presses that is - are adjusted in the colour separation phase. With the low contrast of negatives, corrections are much easier, and are well within the scope of every one-hour lab or enthusiast with their own fume-room.

In reference to earlier discussions, there is no such thing as an unmanipulated print off a negative. Every snapshot that goes through the big machine at the one-hour lab is analyzed and the colour is adjusted to the current batch of printing paper.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504
 
> Posted by Tom Rains (Tom_rains) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:54 > am: > blown out highlights. We ain't kiddin' folks when we say go learn to > shoot manually---there is no better way to get the proper exposure > than by reading your light. You cannot depend upon the camera's > built-in light meter to read every situation. If I had not known what > I was doing, I would have wasted my time trying to capture the > performers under the changing lighting conditions.

Perhaps better advice is to get to understand how the systems work. I shoot with both manual and the most sophisticated of digital systems and get consistent results from both.

In fact, automation puts a significantly greater burden on the shooter to really see what is in the image frame, in order to compensate for the bias of the systems. Automatic cameras have no intelligence, so do as they are designed to do. It is the responsibility of the photographer to supply the intelligence. If neither the camera nor the photographer have any intelligence, no timeless masterpieces are likely to be created.

One bright light will depress the overall exposure as the camera seeks an average, and the opposite is also true. Photograph a performer against a black backdrop, and the camera will try to boost the backdrop to a middle grey. Most automatic exposure systems have at least a +/-2.0EV exposure compensation control and it is much needed. One must constantly shoot test shots and check the histogram before trying to get a keeper.

Auto colour balance is another system that must be understood and treated with care. There are many complaints about how the Nikon system does very poorly in incandescent light. That is a feature - not a bug. I have also read messages from owners of point-and-shoots whose auto white balance is so good that a spectacular sunset is impossible to shoot. The camera neutralizes it to daylight colours!!!

Owners of the CP5700 were cursing their investments because the near 300mm lens would not focus instantly. One s&le posted was shot indoors in low light of a grey teddy-bear against a grey background with the zoom at the max. The system works by finding straight contrasty lines. All the camera saw when it was in focus was what it saw when it was out of focus - soft tones of grey. No automatic camera - without built-in radar - would be able to focus in such conditions. The dolt did not have the sense to switch to manual.

Know how the system works, and the problems go away as long as there is a photographer using the camera. The essence of the art of photography is seeing - that is why the human is needed. Humans who abdicate seeing to the camera deserve the dismal failures they get.

> For those of you that get digital cameras for Christmas, enjoy them, > read the instruction manual, and go shoot manual.

The manual is the best friend you have. Go through it with the camera in hand and work through every page - try every menu item, every control and every feature as described. Keep it close by during the first few months of shooting as a reference and once you have a couple of thousand exposures, go through it from cover to cover again - with camera in hand.

It cost nothing in film and processing with a digital, and feedback is immediate. When you read a section - DO IT. It only becomes real when you actually try it and see the results. First time through, expect to be confused by some of what you read, so blow past it. Second time through, it will be clear and understandable with the advantage of a couple thousand shots of experience.

These are extremely complex image acquisition devices. They require the same understanding of the basic principles of photography that a manual film camera demands, and far, far more. They are not capable of instant gratification. Opening the box and hanging the camera around the neck does not transform one into a photographer. Only with a full understanding and the intelligence to make use of it, will these devices pay you back bountifully on your investment in them.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504
 
Back
Top