exposure latitude of digital "film"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PrincePete01, Aug 11, 2003.

  1. PrincePete01

    PrincePete01 Guest

    i took a photography course a while ago, that spent considerable time on
    exposure and the characteristics of various types of film. negative film has
    considerable exposure latitude and prefers to be overexposed by as much as a
    stop or two, while slide film exhibits less latitude and prefers to be under
    exposed by 1/2 or 1 stop. the result being that in order to get the broadest
    range of acceptable exposure (shadows to highlights) you are advised to expose
    for shadows when shooting negative film and expose for highlights when shooting
    slide film. what kind of latitude is there in digital "film". does it prefer to
    be under exposed or over exposed? does it vary form manufacturer to
    manufacturer? i understand that a digital image can easily be manipulated in
    the computer, but is it easier to get an acceptable image from an over or under
    exposed image? thanks for any insights.

    peter
     
    PrincePete01, Aug 11, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "PrincePete01" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > i took a photography course a while ago, that spent considerable time on
    > exposure and the characteristics of various types of film. negative film

    has
    > considerable exposure latitude and prefers to be overexposed by as much as

    a
    > stop or two, while slide film exhibits less latitude and prefers to be

    under
    > exposed by 1/2 or 1 stop. the result being that in order to get the

    broadest
    > range of acceptable exposure (shadows to highlights) you are advised to

    expose
    > for shadows when shooting negative film and expose for highlights when

    shooting
    > slide film. what kind of latitude is there in digital "film". does it

    prefer to
    > be under exposed or over exposed? does it vary form manufacturer to
    > manufacturer? i understand that a digital image can easily be manipulated

    in
    > the computer, but is it easier to get an acceptable image from an over or

    under
    > exposed image? thanks for any insights.
    >
    > peter


    If the image is properly exposed, the dynamic range is 8 bits (256:1) for
    each color. In my experience, it is equally difficult to get good colors
    from either a badly over- or a badly underexposed photo, but in different
    ways. My underexposed shots (with an Oly 3200) have an orange/brown cast.
    Overexposed shots are washed out.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PrincePete01

    Guest

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03021903finepixf700.asp
    Fuji is trying to increase digital latitude with their F700 camera.
    Here's some sample images demonstrating their success:
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1060489099.html
    Gene http://www.photoprojects.net/fujif700.html

    PrincePete01 wrote:

    > i took a photography course a while ago, that spent considerable time on
    > exposure and the characteristics of various types of film. negative film has
    > considerable exposure latitude and prefers to be overexposed by as much as a
    > stop or two, while slide film exhibits less latitude and prefers to be under
    > exposed by 1/2 or 1 stop. the result being that in order to get the broadest
    > range of acceptable exposure (shadows to highlights) you are advised to expose
    > for shadows when shooting negative film and expose for highlights when shooting
    > slide film. what kind of latitude is there in digital "film". does it prefer to
    > be under exposed or over exposed? does it vary form manufacturer to
    > manufacturer? i understand that a digital image can easily be manipulated in
    > the computer, but is it easier to get an acceptable image from an over or under
    > exposed image? thanks for any insights.
    >
    > peter
     
    , Aug 11, 2003
    #3
  4. PrincePete01

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 11 Aug 2003 00:54:24 GMT, ospam (PrincePete01)
    wrote:

    >i took a photography course a while ago, that spent considerable time on
    >exposure and the characteristics of various types of film. negative film has
    >considerable exposure latitude and prefers to be overexposed by as much as a
    >stop or two, while slide film exhibits less latitude and prefers to be under
    >exposed by 1/2 or 1 stop. the result being that in order to get the broadest
    >range of acceptable exposure (shadows to highlights) you are advised to expose
    >for shadows when shooting negative film and expose for highlights when shooting
    >slide film. what kind of latitude is there in digital "film". does it prefer to
    >be under exposed or over exposed? does it vary form manufacturer to
    >manufacturer? i understand that a digital image can easily be manipulated in
    >the computer, but is it easier to get an acceptable image from an over or under
    >exposed image? thanks for any insights.
    >
    >peter



    It's more like slide film.

    But if you shoot in RAW mode you can generally recover
    extra detail in an over- or under-exposed shot.

    I've only owned my 10D for a couple of weeks now but
    so far my practice has been to underexpose -- ie., to
    expose for the brightest significant element in the frame.

    With RAW capture, you can then generate two
    intermediate images, one for the shadow detail,
    and one for the highlights, and combine them in
    Photoshop using a layer mask.

    It's a technique that I've used many times for film
    scans (particularly for scanning slides,) and is equally
    valid and effective here.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 11, 2003
    #4
  5. PrincePete01

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 11 Aug 2003 11:21:20 GMT, Tony Whitaker
    <newsgroups@t_o_n_y_whitaker.com> wrote:

    >Rafe B. <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> With RAW capture, you can then generate two
    >> intermediate images, one for the shadow detail,
    >> and one for the highlights, and combine them in
    >> Photoshop using a layer mask.

    >
    >How do you do that? Do you have to tediously select a boundary around the
    >areas you want to mask?
    >
    >Or are you talking about that method we discussed a few weeks ago which
    >involves making a Gaussian blurred layer as a mask?



    Make it as simple or as complicated as you like.

    There are numerous Photoshop books and web
    sites that describle the process. In general, the
    mask I use is quite blurred.

    To simulate the effect of a graduated ND filter,
    making the mask involves nothing more than
    applying a linear gradient.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 11, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. cwvalle

    Digital Exposure Latitude

    cwvalle, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    500
  2. Matthew

    Exposure Latitude

    Matthew, Jan 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,039
  3. Gary Fritz

    Re: A70 exposure latitude

    Gary Fritz, Apr 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    319
    Henry McEwin
    Apr 9, 2004
  4. Except for one thing ...
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    466
    Bob Larter
    Aug 11, 2009
  5. Dale

    dynamic range and exposure latitude?

    Dale, Feb 27, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    104
Loading...

Share This Page