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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PTRAVEL, Oct 15, 2003.


    PTRAVEL Guest

    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.

    PTRAVEL, Oct 15, 2003
    1. Advertisements


    Todd Walker Guest

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

    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D:
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    Todd Walker, Oct 15, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Very nice photos, but I don't see anything that could not or has not
    been done with traditional film.
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 15, 2003

    PTRAVEL Guest

    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.
    PTRAVEL, Oct 15, 2003
  5. 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

    Juan R. Pollo, Oct 15, 2003

    PTRAVEL Guest

    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.
    PTRAVEL, Oct 15, 2003
  7. 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.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 15, 2003

    Bill Hilton Guest

    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
    Bill Hilton, Oct 15, 2003

    Ed Ruf Guest

    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 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    Ed Ruf, Oct 15, 2003

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Alas, getting the film INTO the computer is a time consuming part of the
    Ron Hunter, Oct 16, 2003

    PTRAVEL Guest

    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

    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
    PTRAVEL, Oct 16, 2003

    MikeWhy Guest

    From scans? That is surprising. Do you use a service? or do it yourself?
    Better in what way? Detail? noise/grain? tonal range?
    MikeWhy, Oct 16, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.