I couldn't easily have done this with film . . .

We had an air show here in San Francisco this weekend. I pulled out my
Canon 10D and a Canon 75-300mm lens and shot some pictures of the action.
These aren't fabulous pictures, but they were taken hand-held at more than a
mile distant of subjects that were moving several hundred miles an hour.
They're slightly retouched in Photoshop to adjust gamma levels and, in a
couple of cases, cropped. These are highly compressed JPEGs -- the TIFFs
look better.

www.ruyitang.com/airshow.htm

 

And why couldn't you have done that with film exactly?

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon 10D:
http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________

 

Very nice photos, but I don't see anything that could not or has not
been done with traditional film.

 

Sorry, I should have explained in my original post.

Because of the distances involved, as well as the San Francisco weather, all
shots had a blue haze and were very thin and flat. It was a simple matter
to adjust levels in Photoshop to restore an appropriate contrast range and,
by adjusting gamma, cause the primary subjects, i.e. the jets, to "pop" out
in front of the background. To do this in my darkroom would have been very,
very difficult, required very contrasty paper, some rather precise burning
and dodging, as well as filtration to remove the light blue cast. Given how
flat the original shot was, I doubt whether I could even have found an
appropriately highcontrast paper. In any event, my control over the image
would have been considerably less than afforded me by digital tools.

 

Maybe he meant *he* couldn't do this with film. The combination of instant
feedback and software has enabled many of us to much more than we could in a
darkroom.

Juan

 

I said, "_easily_ have done with film." Adjusting levels and gamma in a
darkroom, particularly over the range required because of the haze resulting
from shooting at a great distance, would have been very difficult -- it
would have required very high-contrast papers and quite a bit of burning and
dodging. On my computer, it was simply a question of dragging a couple of
sliders around, and took no more than a few seconds to adjust.

 

Also, the 1.6x multiplier (I think I have that right for the 10D; I'm
a Fuji S2 guy myself) works to your advantage in telephoto
environments. If you don't have a 480mm lens, you couldn't have
gotten those pictures on film.

 

And why couldn't you have done that with film exactly?

But many people who shoot film now scan it and once scanned it's as easy to
make these Photoshop edits as it is for a digital file

We also have a 10D, plus several EOS-3's and two medium format systems.
Digital has a ton of advantages, but every time we've shot digital and film at
the same time (often with the same "L" zoom lens zoomed to get the same
cropping) film (Velvia and Astia 100F) has given us the better print ... every
time.

 

If I may paraphrase for the others, as you still do not seem to get the
point. The use of film does in no way rule out digital post processing.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
http://members.cox.net/egruf
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam

 

Alas, getting the film INTO the computer is a time consuming part of the
operation.

 

Of course not, but you don't seem to get my point. Before I went digital, I
worked with chemical film and did prints with my enlarger in my chemical
darkroom. Now I've sold off my darkroom, bought a digital camera and I only
do digital. I find all digital much easier and more flexible. Yes, I could
still shoot film, scan it (I have a film scanner) manipulate it digitally
and, I suppose, have an internegative made and print it in a darkroom. Why
in the world would I want to do that? If you're suggesting that I shoot
film and digitally print it, again, why in the world would I want to do
that?

It seems that you (and the others, if you're paraphrasing for them) don't
quibble with my conclusion, but with my choice of phrase for the subject
line. Okay, if you prefer:

"I couldn't easily have done this if I used chemical film and printed it in
my darkroom, because otherwise I would have had to have it developed, then
scan it, then find someone to make an internegative, and then print it . .
.."

I thought the major concern in this ng was digital photography and not
semantics.

 

From scans? That is surprising. Do you use a service? or do it yourself?
Better in what way? Detail? noise/grain? tonal range?