From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 07/04/03-11:35:53 PM Z
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Peter Marshall wrote:
> .... The advantage of using raw format is that
> you can post-process the raw data, and adjust the characteristic curve,
> the exposure, the colour temperature, the sharpness, digital noise etc
> using the full data set rather than the pre-digested version you get in a
> tiff.
That's awesome.. Imagine if we could use raw format for our lives...
readjust & reinterpret (including our tiffs) as desired...
But I gather not every digital camera will do this ???
> A 6Mp camera will usually give a 9Mp raw file, which converts to 36Mb
> 16bit and then 18Mb 8bit file. I archive the raw files from most exposures
> and those 18Mb output files from the selected images.
Aren't those huge files ?.. What do you archive them on/in?
> Professional digital cameras have largish sensors with larger cells than
> consumer ones. They also need to have a reasonable number of pixels, and
> do something when you turn on and press the shutter, not 5 seconds later.
> I think all those that qualify are interchangeable lens SLRs. I'd include
> cameras such as the Nikon D100 which Nikon doesn't regard as a
> professional model because you can't bang in nails with it, or at least
> not when its raining.
I'm not sure whether the digital camera is overall so much lighter than
the analog that the difference in weight (if any) for the interchangeable
lenses is immaterial.
For me, "medium format" is overkill, but I would like regular 35 mm if
possible..
This discussion is very helpful, even if my questions don't show it.
Thank you...
Judy
> Both Canon and Nikon make some good zoom lenses (as do Sigma, Tamron,
> Tokina, Minolta etc) but there is a little problem with many digitals,
> because most have sensors smaller than film. Put that Canon 35-135 on the
> cheaper Canon DSLR and it works like a 50-200 because of the smaller than
> film sensor. I have a 24-85 Nikon that works as a 36-130mm or so. For a
> real wide-angle I'd need to buy the 12-24mm. But the 24-85 covers most
> things at a pinch. The real answer long-term will be to design cameras and
> lenses specifically for digital - like the Nikon 12-24mm and the
> forthcoming Olympus E system.
>
> > 6Mp may not seem much, but I'm putting work from the D100 in an online
> > agency as 50Mb 24bit tiffs, alongside work from film at the same size.
> I meant at 50Mb, but yes, scanned from 35mm film.
>
> I've said on too many occasions that you can take great photographs with a
> Diana, and there are plenty of good pictures taken with cheap digital
> cameras. If like me, you want quality similar to 35mm film (and I think
> some gum prints need this, though others don't), then the route I've
> suggested will give it. If you want something to replace medium format,
> then you need to get into a different league of expense.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Marshall
> Photography Guide at About http://photography.about.com/
> email: photography.guide@about.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 08/07/03-03:34:49 PM Z CST