Re: Digital camera blues

Just to say I don't see these problems using digital. There are some
issues with exposure, and also with dust. Both readily soluble. I'm
finding the advantages of digital far outweigh any problems.

I'm currently making good prints from digital in black and white and
colour at A3 and occasionally larger. Essentially they are noise-free,
though sometimes a little processing on the computer is needed when they
are shot at high sensitivity.

Most exposure problems can be solved by shooting raw files and keeping an
eye on the histogram. I took around 180 pictures today, perhaps half a
dozen I retook on the spot. No exposure or noise problems. I was working
in pretty poor light, so quite a few were using flash, and a few without
aren't sharp enough, but I expect far more problems with the films I also
took. Neither Canon nor Nikon (nor Fuji) seem to have realised how you
need to expose digital for best results, and the none of the auto exposure
systems in their DSLRs will give correct exposure, but are still using
film exposure methods. They all seem to be placing the midtone
appropriately, when what you need to do is to place non-specular
highlights as high as possible while avoiding any clipping and then use
software in post-processing to correct the midtones. For this to work well
you need to output more than 8 bits per channel - so using raw files (or
16bit tiff) is a must.

I'm using a Nikon D100, and it is fairly heavy, though not much different
to a comparable film camera. About half the weight of the F5 or Canon's
top film model, although to be fair it does lack some of the features and
weatherproofing of these. It is 6Mp, but more importantly has a larger
sensor than consumer cameras, so lower noise levels. Using good software
to process the raw files is important, one aspect where Nikon scores
better than Canon, who are currently making the running in hardware. I use
 Capture One DSLR LE software to produce 17Mb tiff files, though for some
purposes I extrapolate these to 50Mb. The 50Mb files I get this way are in
almost all respects better than those from scanning 400 ASA 35mm film,
though perhaps not always better than those from 50ASA film.

With higher sensitivities, there is just no contest. I've taken stuff at
1600 which is just so much better than film can do (and the Canon cameras
are even better at this) that I now often shoot without flash where I
would have used flash before. Of course using flash is also much easier,
so I'm also using more flash, but usually for the effect it gives rather
than because I need the extra light. Again part of the reason why the
results are so much better is the software which can reduce noise, but
there is simply more shadow detail, while with pushed film you are largely
finding a way of getting round the lack of shadow detail by increasing
contrast.

There are new things to learn when using digital (why I've written half a
dozen or more articles on it on line), and some problems when working with
cameras that only output 24bit files - you can't really cope with high
range subjects. I also have a very pocketable digital, and although the
results are surprisingly good, they are not quite up to the standard of
the larger camera and I have far more pictures that don't quite come out
right.

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......

> Quoting Charlotte 1 <cgabrie1@optonline.net>:
>
> > Judy - I don't know much about digital cameras because after months of
> > looking into buying one I concluded that scanning a photo would be
> > better
> > for me.
> Just to add my two cents' worth - everything charlotte says is valid,
> particularly what she says about noise. I made a complete ass of myself
> this year working with a digital (Fuji Finepix) and my night class.
> Evrything you do with digital has to be MUCH better exposed than film -
> there is not much room for error. The finepix is now a dinosaur after 8
> months - we bought it because it could use the Nikon lenses we already
> had.It also weighs so much that when i pick up my canon after it it
> feels as if something terrible has happened to it -
> like its insides have all fallen out or something. I MUCH prefer to
> use analog and scan...and i've been making digital negs for at least 3
> years and feel no need for a digicam at all.
>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 8 16:39:15 2003