The BS of Digital Photography

Luiz Felipe luiz.felipe at
Wed Oct 7 17:37:15 EDT 2009

Ken, being new to digital my "keeper" rate dropped some - looks on the 
rise now, maybe almost the same as with film. I'm ruling out the moments 
where looking at the results allowed me to re-shoot and correct some 
problem, something I can't do with film.

Before buying the Ds, I had often worked with a borrowed XTi in event 
mode, and sometimes in the studio. Now I'm using the Ds heavily, and can 
make some comparison with my performance with film. This also means the 
Ds is being compared to Mx and Lx... and some years with those cameras 
and 35mm good films.


Ken Waller escreveu:
> 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
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" <cakaltm at>
> 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
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions. 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions.

Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at

More information about the PDML mailing list