Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

 
 
Wilba
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007
Wilba wrote:
> Mr. Strat wrote:
>>
>> There's no substitute for time and experience.

>
> So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a
> viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on
> the image or live). That's very valuable information, available
> "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy.
>
> I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
> least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
> more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back
> from the lab.


Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for everyone.
You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
don't help you, right?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neil Harrington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007

"Wilba" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fit1j0$oit$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Wilba wrote:
>> Mr. Strat wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no substitute for time and experience.

>>
>> So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a
>> viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on
>> the image or live). That's very valuable information, available
>> "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy.
>>
>> I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
>> least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
>> more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back
>> from the lab.

>
> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for
> everyone. You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge
> that they don't help you, right?


Yeah, right.

Neil


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007
In article <fit1j0$oit$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wilba
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for everyone.
> You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
> don't help you, right?


I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful. We
didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom prints
made. As I said before, digital is just another kind of film with its
own quirks, requirements, etc.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wilba
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007
Mr. Strat wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>>
>> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are
>> talking about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than
>> making any global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or
>> superfluous for everyone. You have tried them as intended for
>> sufficiently long to judge that they don't help you, right?

>
> I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful.


OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
can do for you.

> We didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom
> prints made. As I said before, digital is just another kind of film
> with its own quirks, requirements, etc.


The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Harrington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007

"Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:011220072050354493%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <fit1j0$oit$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wilba
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
>> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
>> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for
>> everyone.
>> You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
>> don't help you, right?

>
> I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful. We
> didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom prints
> made.


So you didn't do your own printing?

Photo labs make the necessary corrections when they make the prints. They
always did. I never "had to have custom prints made" when I was a teen-ager
with a Baby Brownie, either. That camera cost about a dollar, and had one
aperture and one shutter speed so I'm inclined to doubt its exposure was
always perfect.

Neil


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007
In article <fitl83$dqb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wilba
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
> with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
> can do for you.


Let's nitpick words now.

> The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
> can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
> slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical.


It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
understanding that professionals do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil
Harrington <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> So you didn't do your own printing?


Actually, I did. I still have the equipment to do up to 16x20 in either
B&W or color. Wanna buy some of that old stuff?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2007
On Dec 2, 12:38 pm, "Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <fitl83$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wilba
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
> > with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
> > can do for you.

>
> Let's nitpick words now.
>
> > The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
> > can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
> > slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical.

>
> It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
> understanding that professionals do.


Well, there are some really bad professionals, I need not name names.
There is nothing about being a pro that keep one from being totally
clueless.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neil Harrington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2007

"Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:021220071439246095%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Neil
> Harrington <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> So you didn't do your own printing?

>
> Actually, I did. I still have the equipment to do up to 16x20 in either
> B&W or color. Wanna buy some of that old stuff?


Not me, thanks! I'd like to sell my old equipment is what I'd like to do.

Neil


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-03-2007
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Mr. Strat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <fitl83$dqb$(E-Mail Removed)>, Wilba
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
>> with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
>> can do for you.


> Let's nitpick words now.


>> The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
>> can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
>> slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical.


> It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
> understanding that professionals do.


Anyone who has studied the work of the best professionals, read their
writings, and listened to their interviews on radio and TV, knows that
all they need to know is how to do it, not necessarily why what they
do works. Some of them do indeed have a deep understanding, but most
of them don't, simply because they don't need it. That's why there's a
choice in the various professional qualifications a photographer can
acquire between those that give you the skills and those that give you
a depth of understanding.

--
Chris Malcolm http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? Bill Tuthill Digital Photography 1142 12-29-2007 06:57 AM
P&S v DSLR not a replay ... Charles Digital Photography 3 11-17-2007 08:57 PM
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR Jens Mander Digital Photography 0 08-13-2006 10:06 PM
debug frame replay switch dt1649651@yahoo.com Cisco 1 06-22-2005 06:53 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM



Advertisments