Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yeah, I find myself only being able to say what's good about digital these days. Such as the shadow detail you're talking about. Never mind being able to control contrast like nobody's business. But I do have my tribulations about the longevity of it all, from storage media to the end image. Slobodan Dimitrov Studio G-8, Angels Gate Cultural Center http://sdimitrovphoto.com On Jan 16, 2006, at 5:24 PM, B. D. Colen wrote: > But it's not just adjustment with PS or development time, David, > there's > simply more 'there there' in the shadows of the digital image. > > > On 1/16/06 7:41 PM, "David Rodgers" <drodgers@casefarms.com> wrote: > >> I think I know what you mean. When I shoot digital I'm more worried >> about losing highlight detail, so I underexpose. The shadows look >> dark, >> but can be pulled out in PS. It's almost magical how they can just >> appear. >> >> I take the opposite approach when shooting bw film. I expose for the >> shadows. But I can't just tweak the highlights by adjusting a >> slider. I >> have to adjust development. >> >> DaveR >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: B. D. Colen [mailto:bdcolen@comcast.net] >> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:57 PM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: Noisy digital shadows - was: Re: [Leica] re: digital >> treadmill >> >> I'm sure I can't explain it correctly, David, all I can tell you >> is that >> my >> standard iso with film and digital is 800 - I do a tremendous >> amount of >> shooting in crappy light. And I am getting more shadow details with >> digital >> than I got with film. And every photographer I've spoken to off this >> list >> who shoots in similar circumstances has noted the same thing. I >> believe >> we've had this discussion here before, and one of our technostars >> explained >> this. >> >> >> On 1/16/06 4:03 PM, "David Rodgers" <drodgers@casefarms.com> wrote: >> >>> B.D. >>> >>>>> ....one of the reasons that I've gone with digital, is that >>> digital tends to capture more information in low light than does >> film.<< >>> >>> You're going to have to explain that one to me. I always though that >> the >>> amount of information in low light -- or "shadow detail" for >>> those of >> us >>> in the Pleistocene Era -- depended on exposure? As far as I know >>> negative film still beats a DSLR in dynamic range. >>> >>> DaveR >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information