Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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