RE: Thanks, I think --Re: "Raw" for dummies ?
Indeed, shooting digital is close to shooting transparencies -> my short 8 months experience showed me that DSLR's demand absolutely perfect exposure to get the best from them. If you expose too much, you loose highlights (forever), if you don't expose enough, you hit the noise barrier (albeit you can save image data, you have to bear quality loss). I'm not sure if that's an illusion but I think modern DSLRs are easier than using transparency because dynamic range is much better (see: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page21.asp for DR tests of my camera - yes, purchased a Sony because I have Minolta lenses...) and there are many good programs/utilities to improve quality (such as NeatImage and the new Adobe Camera Raw utility coming with Lightroom and/or PS CS3). Anyway, according to my limited knowledge, for transparencies, one still doesn't have much room for play in the development phase. Regards, Loris. -----Original Message----- From: Argon3@aol.com [mailto:Argon3@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:30 PM To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Subject: Re: Thanks, I think --Re: "Raw" for dummies ? Sort of a misstatement on my part...most of my time was spent shooting color transparency film for print reproduction and the highlights were always considered the part of the image that had to be preserved for good reproduction...that was a while back and the technology has changed SOOOOO much that I'm not sure that it's as true now as it was then. Still, shooting digital seems to have more in common with shooting transparency film than it does with shooting negative stock thus I'd worry more about the highlights than the shadow detail. I'm still trying to find my place in the analog/digital age of photography...shooting color negative or chromgenic negative and then scanning from the neg seems to be something of a happy compromise in many situations. Sorry if my middle-aged mind fobbled the maxim but perhaps the fobbled version applies to digital shooting better than the original. Best argon
|