Brian Swale wrote:
> Chuck wrote
>
>> Yes, I've been noticing that digital is so compositionally restrictive. :-)
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>
> I agree, I much prefer the 36 mm × 24 mm / 9 × 6 / 6 × 4 / 3 × 2
> format
> of 35mm film over 4 × 3 digital or 6 × 7 and 6 × 8 medium format.
>
Missing a couple of points here, Brian. Chuck's DSLR has a 36 mm × 24 mm
sensor, just the same as 35 mm full frame film. All C sensors, whether
FF or APS-C size, are
3 × 2 format. I believe you will find that the 4/3 format standard DSLRs
are the only ones with such a square format.
Second, Chuck was replying with tongue at least partly in cheek, but
also with some serious intent, to a comment by one of our own who
suggested* that one of a pair of photographs of a similar subject by
different photographers was better than another because it was done on
film. Chuck's comment was his way of pointing out that differences in
composition were much greater than any differences that could be
attributed to film vs. digital. I would go further and suggest that
differences in weather and light were also significantly at play.
> I think this is because I like doing landscapes, so I need that horizontal
> extension.
>
> Compared with film, the restrictive aspects of digital are not confined to
> composition. The latitude compared with film, especially with print film,
> and
> that highlights are blown out so badly, are quite restrictive to subject. I
> just
> means that, as for Kodachrome, subjects with much light and dark must be
> avoided.
>
Here, I simply disagree. I have shot color neg almost exclusively for
many years and my experience with DSLRs, shooting RAW, is that they can
capture about the same brightness range as color neg film. I know there
are folks out there who have done tests that 'prove' that the better
DSLRs have more latitude than film. I don't know. Certainly my
experience and what I have seen from others show that DLSRs have a great
deal more latitude than slide film.
I will say that proper exposure technique is almost the opposite with
film and digi. Color neg has a great deal of overexposure latitude, 3+
stops, where digi has very little, about 1 or a bit more, and getting
that requires shooting RAW. How you place the highlight tonal values is
very important with digi. If you are shooting high brightness range
subjects in JPEG and making these complaints, you are using the wrong
tool, then complaining that it can't do the job; learn to use RAW. What
would you think of a fireman trying to put out a blaze with a garden
hose? RAW is like a fire hose, more capacity.
> When I have been using the E-1
The E-1 isn't the greatest camera around for easy latitude. In fact, by
making generalizations from the E-1 about all DSLRs, you make more than
one mistake, as in your assumption about sensor shape above. The E-1 is
in some ways a wonderful body. But even when new, it was not
representative of the highest level of performance in some areas and
technology has improved considerably since in both later Oly bodies and
bodies from others.
Because the E-1 is rather noisy, you can't just set it for -2/3 or -1 EV
and shoot away, avoiding most blown highlights without effort, as one
may with some competitors' bodies. There are two problems there. The
darker parts of the resultant E-1 image will show undesirable noise,
more or less, depending on iso setting, when brought up to their proper
midtone positions on the curve. A second problem arises if you stick to
the Oly software. As has been pointed out before and again in the last
few days by CH, the Oly RAW conversion software does not have the
highlight recovery capabilities of most (all?) others. RSE, for one I
know about, has that capability and is free.
The evidence is clear; there are many, many E-1 shots of high brightness
range subjects, posted both by members of the list and others, that
retain both highlight and shadow detail. The technique to do this is
different than that for film, but not rocket science.
> and manual Zuiko 50/3.5
One of the reasons I assume Oly at first refused to provide an adapter
for OM lenses on the E-1 is that the exposure system does not work
properly with the MF lenses. This is not unique to the E-1 or to Oly.
The use of MF lenses with adapters on C EOS bodies also has exposure
problems. In all cases, you must simply make test exposures and adjust
the EV compensation accordingly. Some people on this list have even made
little charts to carry around for their favorite MF lenses showing the
compensation needed for each f-stop. The E-1 was not designed to use OM
lenses. If you wish to do so successfully, you must do a little extra
work compared to their native DZ lenses.
> to copy B&W prints, the first thing I check after goodness of focus is the
> degree to which the highlights are blown out.
>
Blown highlights are a simple indication of incorrect exposure. Again -
if you rely on the E-1 exposure without finding the correct exposure
compensation for the particular lens and f-stop of the MF lens you are
using, you will likely get an incorrect exposure. Blaming that on
digital in general or the E-1 in particular is not sensible.
Sorry for the rant. Your post doesn't seem to reflect your usual
thoughtful and incisive approach.
Moose
* also with tongue at least partially in cheek.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|