The BS of Digital Photography

Ken Waller kwaller at peoplepc.com
Tue Oct 6 16:35:07 EDT 2009


My bottom line with digital is I seem to be getting more 'keepers' than I 
got with film.
Pretty much the most consistent variable for me is composition, which 
digital takes out of the equation, sine I can get instant gratification.

BTW I'm under the impression that with raw there is no in camera processing.

Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom C" <cakaltm at gmail.com>
Subject: The BS of Digital Photography


>I just ordered a K-7 against what may may be my better judgement...
> I'm optimistic that it will meet my present needs, though I'm pretty
> sure it's far too noisy for any astrophotography.
>
> It has started me thinking though about the tradeoffs between film and 
> digital.
>
> WIth film (E6 or positives specifically):
>
> One had to wait for the results.
> What you saw is what you got.
> Notwithstanding the development process, the largest variables in the
> result was the metering accuracy of the camera body (MX or Pz-1P, both
> overall excellent), the attributes of the film that was selected, and
> the judgement of the photographer.
> When I scanned a transparency, I pretty much considered that it was,
> as recorded, based upon my decisions at exposure time. It was a 1st
> generation image.
>
> With digital (shooting RAW):
>
> I see the 'results' (almost immediately).
> I'm unsure what processing has occurred in camera.
> I'm unsure how the sensor has responded to the scene and how the
> software in the camera has adjusted the image. I can guess, but I'm
> not sure.
> I'm unsure if the image shown on the playback screen is an accurate
> representation of the scene or if it will match what I see on the
> computer screen.
> I'm unsure if Photoshop or ACR, or whatever software used, is
> displaying an accurate representation of the recorded image.
> Screen calibration is an issue unto itself.
>
> Maybe there was just as many variables with E6 and they were taken for
> granted at the time, because we didn't (or I didn't) have the
> knowledge 6 - 10 years ago to know the difference. Certainly all the
> post-capture and transposition to digital issues existed.
>
> Nevertheless, with the advent of digital capture, it seems or feels as
> if the process is far more complicated.  Maybe my RAW image is the
> equivalent of my transparency, but it just does not feel the same. It
> seemed that I could look at a transparency and say "Wow, that looks
> exactly like what I saw" or "Wow, I messed that one up".  With digital
> I feel much more insecure.  Was it me, the camera, the software, the
> hardware?
>
> It seems the almost instant gratification of digital capture and the
> speediness of results has been eclipsed by the, OMG factor, and 'what
> do I have to do to adjust this image?'.  Time saved by instant results
> is erased by time spent post-capture processing.
>
> Does it seem that way to others as well?
>
> Tom C.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions. 





More information about the PDML mailing list