Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital SLR - advantages?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
July 27, 2005 9:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from Digital
to Digital SLR please/
Blair

More about : digital slr advantages

July 27, 2005 9:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:42:01 -0500, Blair <darrach@coille.com> wrote:

> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
> Digital
> to Digital SLR please/
> Blair
>
>


Assuming you aren't just trolling...

1. Interchangable lenses...i.e. better quality optics, image
stabilization/vibration reduction, faster lenses, ability to switch from
ultra-wide to super-telephoto, specialized lenses (macro, tilt-shift,
etc.) -- granted this is all provided you can afford it!

2. More ISO levels available and generally less noise at higher ISOs.

3. Potentially more control (does your P&S allow control over shutter
speed, apeture, ability to add external flash...) These allow control of
point of focus, depth of field, blurring effects.

4. Potentially greater size files -- depends on what you are changing from
and too but generally a DSLR has more megapixels than the P&S cameras do,
and better noise reduction too.

5. Generally improved hardware/software -- how many focus points does your
P&S have? How quick does it focus? How good is it's light metering system?
Can you select from several systems (matrix, spot, evaluative)? Does it
allow manual focusing? Multiple focus systems (predictive, single shot,
servo)? Ability to generate RAW files? Do you do action photos? How many
frames per second can your P&S take?


Drawbacks:

1. Size and weight - a P&S is much smaller and lighter.

2. Cost - all that flexibility comes at a price.

3. Simplicity - to get your moneys worth from a DSLR you have to
understand all the above features and what they can do for you (and what
you can do with them!) With a P&S camera you just have to Point & Shoot.
Of course with a P&S if the picture disappoints you may not have many
options to try to better it, with a DSLR you have MANY options.


Please note that all the above may apply, some non-DSLR digitals are
quite robust in regards to features, and cost almost as much as a DSLR (or
more!).

Kelly
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> writes:

> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from Digital
> to Digital SLR please/

In a nutshell:
The flexibility of interchangeable lenses
Vastly improved flash photography with use of external flash
units.
Drastically reduced shutterlag.
Faster, more predictable, WYSIWYG focusing

Downsides:
Cost. Sometimes signficiant. An f/2.8 usable zoom lens on a
digital P/S can be had for under $300. Try that on a dSLR!
No video movie modes on dSLRs typically
Size/bulk.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Related resources
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
> Digital
> to Digital SLR please/
> Blair

I just made the switch (Canon 300D), but I keep my point and shoot
around also.

Some points of note:

- You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, etc.
The advantage is that once you know about it, you can take better pictures.
If you don't care to learn, it's your loss.

- They are heavier, and easily dirtied by dust. P&S cameras are basically
sealed and can handle dirty/rough environments. I still use my P&S in the
garage and for work when I'm working in powerhouses.

- dSLRs have much better lenses, flashes, and sensors. Taking 8MP pics with
a P&S vs. the dSLR you'll see a difference. When you crop a pic down to web
size, you'll still see a big difference.

- Budget for lenses and memory cards. A kit dSLR runs from $700 to $1800,
and none of them are 'complete'. Expect a couple hundred for CF cards, and
a thousand for basic lenses, filters, and carry bag. Also external flash
and tripod/monopod. Budget 2/3 for lenses and 1/3 for the basic camera body
or kit. Of course, you don't need to spend all this on day one, but IMO
within 6 months to a year you'll be ready/waiting for this balanced range of
equipment.

- dSLRs are fast. Instant - the new models turn on almost instantly and can
rattle off several shots in a second or two. For shooting a moving subject,
you can hold the shutter down and rattle off several shots and delete the
least impressive ones.

- dSLRs must be pressed to your face to aim them. So you can't turn on the
screen and hold the camera above a crowd for an easy pic, for example. (You
can do it, but you'll be aiming blind).

- dSLR batteries last a relatively long time. My P&S (4 NiMH AA batteries)
seems to need constant recharging, while the dSLR is almost always ready to
go, and the spare doesn't lose it's juice by sitting for a month.

- dSLR cannot take video. (However, for some things it can take a burst of
10shots in 2 seconds.) A few hundred bucks (not big $$ in the dSLR world)
will get a digital video camera that works much better for this.

- dSLRs take big pictures (a few megabytes or more per picture) that can
fill hard drives. While P&S cameras can take similar pictures, they are
often more compressed and lower resolution. If you're buying a current dSLR
to replace a previous generation P&S, you'll see a huge difference. (My 2MP
P&S created 650kB pics, my dSLR creates 4000kB .jpgs and 6000kB RAW files).
Since it's important to save the unedited orginals, plan to use a DVD-R
drive or a large hard drive to store them.

Dave
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 9:58:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 27 Jul 2005 12:56:18 -0500, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:

>"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> writes:
>
>> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from Digital
>> to Digital SLR please/
>
>In a nutshell:
> The flexibility of interchangeable lenses
> Vastly improved flash photography with use of external flash
> units.
> Drastically reduced shutterlag.
> Faster, more predictable, WYSIWYG focusing
>
>Downsides:
> Cost. Sometimes signficiant. An f/2.8 usable zoom lens on a
> digital P/S can be had for under $300. Try that on a dSLR!
> No video movie modes on dSLRs typically

No video is a plus.


********************************************************

"A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

_Introductions to History of the Reformation_
Jonathan Swift
1667-1745
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:00:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote:

>Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from Digital
>to Digital SLR please/


Your friends will be extremely impressed by your DSLR, especially if
it is a Canon with the 18-55mm kit lens.

;-)
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 10:00:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Interchangeable high quality lenses and speed of operation. When you press
the shutter on a Canon 350D, the picture is taken immediately. On my Sony
Cybershot, you wait and wait and wait and THEN it takes the picture (when
the moment is long gone).

-- Martin

PS AND what Tony said [grin]

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fbffe1li3t9as6q8pkt4mu55bfqg22fdao@4ax.com...
> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote:
>
>>Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
>>Digital
>>to Digital SLR please/
>
>
> Your friends will be extremely impressed by your DSLR, especially if
> it is a Canon with the 18-55mm kit lens.
>
> ;-)
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:01:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Martin Schiff" <martin@stevegoldman.comDA-DE-DANospam> wrote in message
news:b5idnaY4HP_TXHrfRVn-tA@fdn.com...
> Interchangeable high quality lenses and speed of operation. When you press
> the shutter on a Canon 350D, the picture is taken immediately. On my Sony
> Cybershot, you wait and wait and wait and THEN it takes the picture (when
> the moment is long gone).

Bad luck, my Sony V1 is "mostly" very fast.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:06:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.


"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D c8k0b0vgs@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
> news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
>> Digital
>> to Digital SLR please/
>> Blair
>
> I just made the switch (Canon 300D), but I keep my point and shoot
> around also.
>
> Some points of note:
>
> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance,
> etc. The advantage is that once you know about it, you can take better
> pictures. If you don't care to learn, it's your loss.
>
> - They are heavier, and easily dirtied by dust. P&S cameras are basically
> sealed and can handle dirty/rough environments. I still use my P&S in the
> garage and for work when I'm working in powerhouses.
>
> - dSLRs have much better lenses, flashes, and sensors. Taking 8MP pics
> with a P&S vs. the dSLR you'll see a difference. When you crop a pic down
> to web size, you'll still see a big difference.
>
> - Budget for lenses and memory cards. A kit dSLR runs from $700 to $1800,
> and none of them are 'complete'. Expect a couple hundred for CF cards,
> and a thousand for basic lenses, filters, and carry bag. Also external
> flash and tripod/monopod. Budget 2/3 for lenses and 1/3 for the basic
> camera body or kit. Of course, you don't need to spend all this on day
> one, but IMO within 6 months to a year you'll be ready/waiting for this
> balanced range of equipment.
>
> - dSLRs are fast. Instant - the new models turn on almost instantly and
> can rattle off several shots in a second or two. For shooting a moving
> subject, you can hold the shutter down and rattle off several shots and
> delete the least impressive ones.
>
> - dSLRs must be pressed to your face to aim them. So you can't turn on
> the screen and hold the camera above a crowd for an easy pic, for example.
> (You can do it, but you'll be aiming blind).
>
> - dSLR batteries last a relatively long time. My P&S (4 NiMH AA
> batteries) seems to need constant recharging, while the dSLR is almost
> always ready to go, and the spare doesn't lose it's juice by sitting for a
> month.
>
> - dSLR cannot take video. (However, for some things it can take a burst
> of 10shots in 2 seconds.) A few hundred bucks (not big $$ in the dSLR
> world) will get a digital video camera that works much better for this.
>
> - dSLRs take big pictures (a few megabytes or more per picture) that can
> fill hard drives. While P&S cameras can take similar pictures, they are
> often more compressed and lower resolution. If you're buying a current
> dSLR to replace a previous generation P&S, you'll see a huge difference.
> (My 2MP P&S created 650kB pics, my dSLR creates 4000kB .jpgs and 6000kB
> RAW files). Since it's important to save the unedited orginals, plan to
> use a DVD-R drive or a large hard drive to store them.
>
> Dave
>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "Martin Schiff" <martin@stevegoldman.comDA-DE-DANospam> wrote in message
> news:b5idnaY4HP_TXHrfRVn-tA@fdn.com...
>
>>Interchangeable high quality lenses and speed of operation. When you press
>>the shutter on a Canon 350D, the picture is taken immediately. On my Sony
>>Cybershot, you wait and wait and wait and THEN it takes the picture (when
>>the moment is long gone).
>
>
> Bad luck, my Sony V1 is "mostly" very fast.


I have V1 too. It's SLOW.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:55:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:42:01 +0100, "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote:

>Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from Digital
>to Digital SLR please/
>Blair
>

OK, I'll tell you why I changed from a $1500 Minolta Dimage to a $1500 Nikon
DSLR.


Better pictures, more range, less problems with 'blown out highlights'..

Can focus through the lens in sunlight where you can't even see the LCD.

Better pictures, more accurate color.

Battery charge lasts 3 weeks, not 3 hours.

Better pictures, minimal noise at ISO 1600 compared to terrible noise at ISO
400.

No boot time - turn on and snap the shutter.

Fast and accurate time tested Nikon auto-focus.

Smart lenses, telephoto actually tells camera to increase shutter speed when
zoomed out.

Neat flash features like rear curtain flash sync, sync to 1/500sec. etc.

Shutter speeds from 30sec to 1/8000 sec.

Built in infrared remote.

Any lens you can dream up to use, or afford, even telescopes, even anti-shake.

Better re-sale value - my 4yo Minolta is now worth $300...

Lots of other reasons as well, but most important, I LOVE my Nikon, I love
taking pictures again, it's fun! The Minolta was ho-hum... I took more pics
with the Nikon in 1 month then I took in 2 years with the other.


Get the DSLR!
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:31:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

well, they may be with the camera, but not with that lens. ;) 

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fbffe1li3t9as6q8pkt4mu55bfqg22fdao@4ax.com...
> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote:
>
>>Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
>>Digital
>>to Digital SLR please/
>
>
> Your friends will be extremely impressed by your DSLR, especially if
> it is a Canon with the 18-55mm kit lens.
>
> ;-)
July 28, 2005 1:32:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D c8k0b0vgs@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
> news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
> > Digital
> > to Digital SLR please/
> > Blair
>
> I just made the switch (Canon 300D), but I keep my point and shoot
> around also.
>
> Some points of note:
>
> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance,
etc.
> The advantage is that once you know about it, you can take better
pictures.
> If you don't care to learn, it's your loss.
>
I was overwhelmed by all your replies. Thanks to Tony, Martin, Robert, John,
Kelly, Todd and David, I have learned a lot which leads me to say that
I will stick to my Fujifilm 4900Z and try and master the settings after
mainly using it in auto mode. I still have to have a greater understanding
of photography
which I suspect will take some time. DSLR is away in the future
Thanks to all again
Blair
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:32:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The Fuji 4900 is a great camera that takes very nice images. We've got a
couple of them here at work. I just got too frustrated with being unable to
catch "the moment".

-- Martin

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
news:D c8r0d$tcu$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:D c8k0b0vgs@news4.newsguy.com...
>> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
>> news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> > Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
>> > Digital
>> > to Digital SLR please/
>> > Blair
>>
>> I just made the switch (Canon 300D), but I keep my point and shoot
>> around also.
>>
>> Some points of note:
>>
>> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
>> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance,
> etc.
>> The advantage is that once you know about it, you can take better
> pictures.
>> If you don't care to learn, it's your loss.
>>
> I was overwhelmed by all your replies. Thanks to Tony, Martin, Robert,
> John,
> Kelly, Todd and David, I have learned a lot which leads me to say that
> I will stick to my Fujifilm 4900Z and try and master the settings after
> mainly using it in auto mode. I still have to have a greater understanding
> of photography
> which I suspect will take some time. DSLR is away in the future
> Thanks to all again
> Blair
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:33:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
> Digital
> to Digital SLR please/
> Blair


One of the key benefits for me is the potential to utilise shallow
depth-of-field (due to much larger sensors). The success of many strong
images rely upon this
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:33:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Simon,

And you put it to great use. You have a really great gallery.

-- Martin
http://www.pbase.com/mschiff

"Simon Stanmore" <no@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1122496327.83273.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
> news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
>> Digital
>> to Digital SLR please/
>> Blair
>
>
> One of the key benefits for me is the potential to utilise shallow
> depth-of-field (due to much larger sensors). The success of many strong
> images rely upon this
> --
> Simon
> http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
>
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:32:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <cuydnYDAupDooHXfRVn-sQ@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>Of course no one will admit to ever chimping, once they become
>acclimated to this modern miracle. So, they have to make it a term of
>derision, distancing themselves from the pure early joy of
>appreciation, to their loss.

Wouldn't "chimping" also include a lot of naivety about LCD contrast
masking exposure problems, and small images making a lack of
sharpness/detail?

But then again, even a lot of seasoned photographers have been known to
say things like "wow, that's a sharp lens; I have to get one of those",
when they are looking at an 800*533 downsample, the sharpness of which
is mostly dependent on post-processing, unless the shot was completely
botched up, with almost any lens.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 12:37:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
>
>> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
>> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance,

I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography - but it
certainly is something new if you are coming from point and shoot.
Since we're being anal-retentive, when are you going to learn to snip
and bottom post?

Dave
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:20:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I was overwhelmed by all your replies. Thanks to Tony, Martin, Robert,
> John,
> Kelly, Todd and David, I have learned a lot which leads me to say that
> I will stick to my Fujifilm 4900Z and try and master the settings after
> mainly using it in auto mode. I still have to have a greater understanding
> of photography
> Blair

Good camera. I have a S602Z and got good results with it (by my standards).
My biggest beef with the Fuji (or any other P&S digital I've tried) is
shutter lag. I like to take photos of people and the shutter lag
(admittedly only fractions of a second) has meant that I have lost lots of
photos because people's expressions change between the time I click the
button and the time the mechanism does all it's supposed to. The more
modern P&S cams have addressed this somewhat but I went DSLR mainly to
address the lag issue and also get more flexability in controls.

If shutter lag isn't a big issue for you then I suspect you'll get a lot of
good use out of the 4900Z

Toa
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 1:21:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:
[]
> Good camera. I have a S602Z and got good results with it (by my
> standards). My biggest beef with the Fuji (or any other P&S digital
> I've tried) is shutter lag. I like to take photos of people and the
> shutter lag (admittedly only fractions of a second) has meant that I
> have lost lots of photos because people's expressions change between
> the time I click the button and the time the mechanism does all it's
> supposed to. The more modern P&S cams have addressed this somewhat
> but I went DSLR mainly to address the lag issue and also get more
> flexability in controls.
> If shutter lag isn't a big issue for you then I suspect you'll get a
> lot of good use out of the 4900Z

You are right that more modern cameras are better - both my Panasonic FZ5
and particularly my Nikon 8400 are a lot faster than my previous cameras,
and there are other models which claim to be even faster.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 2:18:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It's interesting that people don't talk much about ergonomics. For
me, that is one of the most important advantages of a DSLR: everything
is there, right underneath my fingers.

Andrew.
July 28, 2005 4:01:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <%%RFe.5143$0C.5065@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, someone@somewhere.net says...
> Pete D wrote:
> > "Martin Schiff" <martin@stevegoldman.comDA-DE-DANospam> wrote in message
> > news:b5idnaY4HP_TXHrfRVn-tA@fdn.com...
> >
> >>Interchangeable high quality lenses and speed of operation. When you press
> >>the shutter on a Canon 350D, the picture is taken immediately. On my Sony
> >>Cybershot, you wait and wait and wait and THEN it takes the picture (when
> >>the moment is long gone).
> >
> >
> > Bad luck, my Sony V1 is "mostly" very fast.
>
>
> I have V1 too. It's SLOW.
>
My V1 is fairly fast most of the time - but (in auto mode) when light conditions are relatively poor or it needs a
flash you could fry an egg in the time it takes to decide what to do. Just got a 350D an I am still in awe at its
speed. Faster than my old film SLR.

Mike
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 4:01:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mike" <m.fee@iirrll..ccrrii..nnzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d52e783f8e10bd98968e@news.fx.net.nz...
> In article <%%RFe.5143$0C.5065@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> someone@somewhere.net says...
>> Pete D wrote:
>> > "Martin Schiff" <martin@stevegoldman.comDA-DE-DANospam> wrote in
>> > message
>> > news:b5idnaY4HP_TXHrfRVn-tA@fdn.com...
>> >
>> >>Interchangeable high quality lenses and speed of operation. When you
>> >>press
>> >>the shutter on a Canon 350D, the picture is taken immediately. On my
>> >>Sony
>> >>Cybershot, you wait and wait and wait and THEN it takes the picture
>> >>(when
>> >>the moment is long gone).
>> >
>> >
>> > Bad luck, my Sony V1 is "mostly" very fast.
>>
>>
>> I have V1 too. It's SLOW.
>>
> My V1 is fairly fast most of the time - but (in auto mode) when light
> conditions are relatively poor or it needs a
> flash you could fry an egg in the time it takes to decide what to do. Just
> got a 350D an I am still in awe at its
> speed. Faster than my old film SLR.
>
> Mike

My D-SLR is of course faster but once you have focused there is not much
difference and the V1 is much better in zero light conditions.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:18:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1122496327.83273.0@iris.uk.clara.net>,
"Simon Stanmore" <no@mail.com> wrote:

> "Blair" <darrach@coille.com> wrote in message
> news:D c8dgr$kfn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Can someone simply tell me what are the advantages of changing from
> > Digital
> > to Digital SLR please/
> > Blair
>
>
> One of the key benefits for me is the potential to utilise shallow
> depth-of-field (due to much larger sensors). The success of many strong
> images rely upon this

I guess I would ask where you determine success. In art or commercially.
You work is technically good, but subjects like this:

http://www.pbase.com/stanmore/image/23178623

have been done for over 20 years. But your commercial work is great.

Strong images in art, I feel, comes from freeing your self from
statements like: the success of many strong images rely upon (shallow
DOF).

I took pictures with a disposable camera and the couple wanted 8x10's of
some of them.

I mean no ill feelings toward you. I am just talking.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
> >
> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance,
>
> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography

BZZZT! Wrong.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 6:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-E93012.10250428072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
>> >
>> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
>> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white
>> >> balance,
>>
>> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography
>
> BZZZT! Wrong.
>
Well then by including it in my original list I was not mistaken. (and
frankly, I don't care since I don't own a film SLR). This could be the most
anal and argumentative group I've yet perused - rather than getting
practical comments on what I posted, it's this. Low on intelligence, high
on noise.

Dave
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 8:00:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography


100% wrong. White balance is much more of an issue with film
photography than it ever will be with digital.
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <dcb96501olr@news2.newsguy.com>,
"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Low on intelligence, high
>on noise.

Not bad for the price!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:49:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <bmshe1l3o7lgfev61qds2bupj566gkear9@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography

>100% wrong. White balance is much more of an issue with film
>photography than it ever will be with digital.

Yes and no. Film is not as easily corrected as digital, but at least
with film, if you are shooting in daylight or with flash, or with
tungsten lights, you have films that are already balanced for something
very close. With digital, even daylight and flash are way off, and need
tremendous scaling of the RAW data to achieve white balance. In effect,
the shadows are compromised from being underexposed in the red and blue
channels, especially the red in sunlight and moreso in deep shade, and
the blue, in incandescent light.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 28, 2005 11:49:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Yes and no. Film is not as easily corrected as digital, but at least
> with film, if you are shooting in daylight or with flash, or with
> tungsten lights, you have films that are already balanced for something
> very close.

If you choose the proper film beforehand and load it when the time comes,
sure. But shooting under tungsten light using daylight film - or the
reverse - is pretty much just as bad as doing the equivalent in digital.

> With digital, even daylight and flash are way off, and need
> tremendous scaling of the RAW data to achieve white balance.

Perhaps; I don't use flash enough to notice or care. Although I don't
understand why the temperature of the sun or the flash bulb would change
according to whether the cmaera back was digital or film. But in any case,
given that AWB takes care of any such difference pretty well, I'd say that
for anyone who was not aware of color balance issues in film, they can
remain equally or even more oblivious with digital.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 12:18:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-E93012.10250428072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
>> >
>> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
>> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white
>> >> balance,
>>
>> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography
>
> BZZZT! Wrong.

Of couse it is, but lets see you fix it in camera, you would need to fix in
the darkroom, very few would or you digitise and then fix it.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 1:59:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11eij9nfj2ojbe6@corp.supernews.com>,
"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote:

>Perhaps; I don't use flash enough to notice or care. Although I don't
>understand why the temperature of the sun or the flash bulb would change
>according to whether the cmaera back was digital or film. But in any case,
>given that AWB takes care of any such difference pretty well, I'd say that
>for anyone who was not aware of color balance issues in film, they can
>remain equally or even more oblivious with digital.

What I was trying to say was that digital exposures in "normal" or
"white" light are not the native color-balance of most digital cameras.

The red and blue color channels are compromised in daylight or flash.
In fact, none of the lighting scenarios that are generally found are
optimal. Most digital cameras are optimized for magenta light.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:32:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote:

>> Yes and no. Film is not as easily corrected as digital, but at least
>> with film, if you are shooting in daylight or with flash, or with
>> tungsten lights, you have films that are already balanced for something
>> very close.
>
>If you choose the proper film beforehand and load it when the time comes,
>sure. But shooting under tungsten light using daylight film - or the
>reverse - is pretty much just as bad as doing the equivalent in digital.


The worst case is in mixed lighting - for example a mixture of
tungsten, fluorescent, halogen and daylight as I found in a department
store shoot recently.

Having the choice of tungsten or daylight film is of little or no
help. You can choose a filter and hope for the best, or use digital
and bracket - not exposure, but white balance.

On this occasion I shot digital in the hope the client would accept
it, but I also shot with Provia 100F in 120 using an FL filter. The
client chose the medium format shots, drum scanned and colour
corrected in Photoshop.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 3:47:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Martin Schiff" <martin@stevegoldman.comDA-DE-DANospam> wrote in message
news:kZedndh9x9nUnHXfRVn-3w@fdn.com...
> Simon,
>
> And you put it to great use. You have a really great gallery.
>
> -- Martin
> http://www.pbase.com/mschiff


Cheers Martin
--
Simon
http://www.pbase.com/stanmore
July 29, 2005 2:45:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <11eij9nfj2ojbe6@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Perhaps; I don't use flash enough to notice or care. Although I don't
>>understand why the temperature of the sun or the flash bulb would change
>>according to whether the cmaera back was digital or film. But in any case,
>>given that AWB takes care of any such difference pretty well, I'd say that
>>for anyone who was not aware of color balance issues in film, they can
>>remain equally or even more oblivious with digital.
>
>
> What I was trying to say was that digital exposures in "normal" or
> "white" light are not the native color-balance of most digital cameras.
>
> The red and blue color channels are compromised in daylight or flash.
> In fact, none of the lighting scenarios that are generally found are
> optimal. Most digital cameras are optimized for magenta light.
>
>
To try and get some understanding of how this might work in practice, I
took some photos of a chart which included a full spectrum full
saturation gradient under various lights, adjusted the raw images using
a grey-scale gradient on the chart, and set the colour balance on a 15%
neutral grey.
The results are here:
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/colour.jpg
The only observations I make are that compared to the chart, the magenta
looks a little red shifted with halogen, and saturation of the green is
poor and a little blue. The others look pretty good - surprisingly to
me, "energy saver" wide spectrum 2700K fluoros look like they'll work
very well for studio lighting with digital. I don't know if anyone has
tried them - couldn't find anything on google, except conflicting
information.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:45:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1122590672.180727@ftpsrv1>,
frederick <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <11eij9nfj2ojbe6@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps; I don't use flash enough to notice or care. Although I don't
>>>understand why the temperature of the sun or the flash bulb would change
>>>according to whether the cmaera back was digital or film. But in any case,
>>>given that AWB takes care of any such difference pretty well, I'd say that
>>>for anyone who was not aware of color balance issues in film, they can
>>>remain equally or even more oblivious with digital.
>>
>>
>> What I was trying to say was that digital exposures in "normal" or
>> "white" light are not the native color-balance of most digital cameras.
>>
>> The red and blue color channels are compromised in daylight or flash.
>> In fact, none of the lighting scenarios that are generally found are
>> optimal. Most digital cameras are optimized for magenta light.
>>
>>
>To try and get some understanding of how this might work in practice, I
>took some photos of a chart which included a full spectrum full
>saturation gradient under various lights, adjusted the raw images using
>a grey-scale gradient on the chart, and set the colour balance on a 15%
>neutral grey.
>The results are here:
>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/colour.jpg
>The only observations I make are that compared to the chart, the magenta
>looks a little red shifted with halogen, and saturation of the green is
>poor and a little blue. The others look pretty good - surprisingly to
>me, "energy saver" wide spectrum 2700K fluoros look like they'll work
>very well for studio lighting with digital. I don't know if anyone has
>tried them - couldn't find anything on google, except conflicting
>information.

I have a pair of prism glasses that I use to look at lights through a
pinhole in a sheet of black plastic, to get an idea of the spectrums.
The warm-color "incandescent replacement" flourescent bulbs (which, BTW,
paid for themselves in months) have a broad spectrum, but it is a little
punctuated. It goes something loosely like this:

_____ . __ . ____ ____ ___ . __ . _ .. ___


a mixture of very narrow bands and contiguous bands, with a bunch of
small gaps.

However, I wasn't talking about this, and I feared, after my post echoed
in my head after I sent it, that it seemed to be talking about light
quality in the way you are talking here. What I meant to say was that
in order for a RAW capture to have equal sensitivity in all three color
channels, the light has to be magenta colored, with many digital
cameras. For cameras where this is not true, the native balance is
probably not white, anyway. The only digital cameras I know of with
native white WB are the Sigmas, and that may be one reason why they have
so little noise (other than color discrimination noise).

To put it another way - If you shoot a white card under direct sunlight
with many digital cameras, the RAW image of the card, demosaiced or
interpolated with no white balance applied, will be somewhere in the
green-cyan range. In order for the RAW image of the white card to be
white, the light has to be a medium magenta (or something else,
depending on the sensitivity product of the sensor and filters in the
sandwich).

This may seem unimportant, since the typical digital workflow masks you
from details like this (it seems that daylight is the natural WB of the
camera), but if you don't want posterization of one or more channels
after white balancing, and you have full control of the lighting, you
might want to use magenta light, or a magenta filter.

All those stunning, noiseless ISO 1600 100% crops from my 20D I showed a
few weeks ago were shot with magenta-filtered flash.

In ACR 3.1, they needed a white balance of 2900K and -120 tint, which,
in reality, is virtually no white balance at all.

ACR 2.x only went down to -64 for the tint, and couldn't correct it
properly. Things are moving along slowly.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 2:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> What I was trying to say was that digital exposures in "normal" or
> "white" light are not the native color-balance of most digital cameras.
>
> The red and blue color channels are compromised in daylight or flash.
> In fact, none of the lighting scenarios that are generally found are
> optimal. Most digital cameras are optimized for magenta light.

It isn't clear to me what this means in practice, although the subsequent
discussion gives me at leats some idea of where this might be coming from.
I gather this is somehow connected to the ratio of R, G, and B sensors, and
to their sensitivities - you are saying magenta light requires the least
amount of signal amplification or post-processing to produce correct
results? But is the amount of post processing normally done in conversion
to JPG for normal light sources actually problematic - such as by
introducing noise?

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
July 29, 2005 5:36:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message <1122590672.180727@ftpsrv1>,
> frederick <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:

> I have a pair of prism glasses that I use to look at lights through a
> pinhole in a sheet of black plastic, to get an idea of the spectrums.
> The warm-color "incandescent replacement" flourescent bulbs (which, BTW,
> paid for themselves in months) have a broad spectrum, but it is a little
> punctuated. It goes something loosely like this:
>
> _____ . __ . ____ ____ ___ . __ . _ .. ___
>
>
> a mixture of very narrow bands and contiguous bands, with a bunch of
> small gaps.
>
Thanks - that is what I expected to see in a spectral analysis for them,
but I can't find any real data. I found two charts on the web, one
showing 5500K lights of this type compared to daylight, where for
marketing purposes I guess they had smoothed out the articial light
spectrum in the graph and it appeared quite close to daylight. The
other chart I found was peaky, but didn't state what the rated colour of
the light was, and for all I know could have been a regular fluoro.
If the test I did showed me anything (and I'm not really sure that it
did), it was that these lights might make more than half decent studio
lights for some of the close-up stuff I like to do, better (and not as
hot) as halogens. The other things in the test chart were a skin tone
image, and some desaturated gradients and chips. That confirmed to me
that within reason, adjusting w/b properly from raw is pretty damn
accurate. I always shoot raw, so just leave the camera on auto WB. I
know from looking at the unadjusted raw images using camera w/b data,
that you can get some pretty variable results, and that if shooting jpgs
the camera presets are probably generally a much better idea.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 5:36:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <1122600896.44736@ftpsrv1>,
frederick <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:


>If the test I did showed me anything (and I'm not really sure that it
>did), it was that these lights might make more than half decent studio
>lights for some of the close-up stuff I like to do, better (and not as
>hot) as halogens. The other things in the test chart were a skin tone
>image, and some desaturated gradients and chips. That confirmed to me
>that within reason, adjusting w/b properly from raw is pretty damn
>accurate.

Yes, but the jist of my post was not about final color, per se, but
about the relative digitization of the three channels. What you get
with a Canon 10D or 20D, with these warm incandescent-replacement lights
are a stop more reds than greens, and a stop-and a half less blues than
greens, in an absolute sense. Then, when you take the sensitivity of
the camera into account; with red a stop weaker than green, and blue a
half stop or so, the red and green balance out, but the blue falls 2
stops below the red and green, so the blue channel is actually doing
10-bit ISO 400 when the camera is set to ISO 100 (where the red and
green channels are doing 12-bit ISO 100).

Another bad case is deep shade on a deep-blue-sky day, or under a canopy
of green foliage; in these cases the red channel becomes very weak.

Even at low ISOs, you can get quite a bit of chromatic noise from the
posterization of the weak channels, especially in the shadows.

I meantion these things because the WB process of RAW conversion hides
these facts, and doesn't give the information you need to maximize the
quality of digitization.

If those bulbs youa re talking about have a good spectrum, they don't
have a good *balance* of the gross primary color channels. A suitable
blue filter in front of the lights would reduce posterized color, and
noise.

It would be really nice if the RAW converters used an image of something
like the Gretagmacbeth color checker, to do the WB and RGB profiling.
Then, you could get maximal color rendering with any light source.

>I always shoot raw, so just leave the camera on auto WB. I
>know from looking at the unadjusted raw images using camera w/b data,
>that you can get some pretty variable results, and that if shooting jpgs
>the camera presets are probably generally a much better idea.

There should be a number of custom WB settings, if you use a variety of
lighting, especially useful for good JPEGs out of the camera. My Canons
only have one custom WB. Color temperature doesn't alway work fully, as
there is often a tint factor as well.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:39:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:41:34 -0000, "Simon Stanmore" <no@mail.com>
wrote:

>"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
>news:look-073923.10182328072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...

>> http://www.pbase.com/stanmore/image/23178623
>>
>> have been done for over 20 years.
>
>They've been done an awful lot longer than 20 yrs! That's sort of the point
>of the image. It's a modern digital capture thats been processed so that in
>print it looks very much like a hand printed silver halide jobbie.

Face and hand are great, and indeed very silver halide-looking. On the
other hand, the low-constrast areas, like the cap or the door, are
hideouly posterised, and most silver halide-unlooking, in the
version shown at the link.

Presumably the full size version looks more like it, though.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:40:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dcb96501olr@news2.newsguy.com>,
"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> news:look-E93012.10250428072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
> >> >
> >> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
> >> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white
> >> >> balance,
> >>
> >> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography
> >
> > BZZZT! Wrong.
> >
> Well then by including it in my original list I was not mistaken. (and
> frankly, I don't care since I don't own a film SLR). This could be the most
> anal and argumentative group I've yet perused - rather than getting
> practical comments on what I posted, it's this. Low on intelligence, high
> on noise.

I tell you something about film and you say is wrong and then go one to
say it does not matter because you don't shoot film?

It's not so bad to be wrong. Knowledge is not intelligence.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:40:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-A77532.11401329072005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> Well then by including it in my original list I was not mistaken.
>> (and
>> frankly, I don't care since I don't own a film SLR). This could be the
>> most
>> anal and argumentative group I've yet perused - rather than getting
>> practical comments on what I posted, it's this. Low on intelligence,
>> high
>> on noise.
>
> I tell you something about film and you say is wrong and then go one to
> say it does not matter because you don't shoot film?
>
> It's not so bad to be wrong. Knowledge is not intelligence.

I'm not questioning your knowledge, and that list I made was simply to
provide the OP (presumably coming from a point and shoot background) a few
things they should consider learning about if they move to dSLR. I mentiond
'traditional photography terms' simply to generalize my list of topics. If
in your opinion white balance is or is not a traditional photography topic,
I admit I don't know. I'm a new dSLR shooter who came up from P&S cameras,
and I related what I felt was the most valuable info I've culled so far.
That one brief section in my post is the one I am least experienced
with, so I'm sure you advanced guys will have no problem finding exceptions
to my generalizations. But I can't see how it matters to the OP is white
balance is more or less critical in film than digital. You commented on
that detail and nothing else relevant to the OP; this is disappointing to
me. Intelligent people don't BZZZT each other, and don't poke useful
generalizations with useless details.

BTW I love the pic of the horse (pony?) with the tilted head. It's a
subtly unique shot - horses are my subject of choice and too many horse
photographs are taken in an attempt to capture full page magazine glamour.
People who love horses (rather than buy them) I think share my sentiment and
appreciate when the character of the horse or the moment is held.

Dave
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 7:48:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <74bGe.65404$oJ.23582@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

> "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> news:look-E93012.10250428072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
> >> >
> >> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
> >> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white
> >> >> balance,
> >>
> >> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography
> >
> > BZZZT! Wrong.
>
> Of couse it is, but lets see you fix it in camera, you would need to fix in
> the darkroom, very few would or you digitise and then fix it.

BZZZZT! Wrong.

Buy a filter or use specific film for the temperature.
http://photoweb.net/pw_tech/floures1.html

Also, you can use a film scanner to balance.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 29, 2005 11:48:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Geesaman <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If in your opinion white balance is or is not a traditional photography
> topic, I admit I don't know.

"White balance" is a term from video that came to digital cameras; it was
never applied to film photography. However, what the term describes was
just as valid for film as for digital, we just didn't call it "white
balance". So can we stop nitpicking now?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 7:20:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <11eknmmkqdmv06a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Marc Sabatella" <marc@outsideshore.com> wrote:

>It isn't clear to me what this means in practice, although the subsequent
>discussion gives me at leats some idea of where this might be coming from.
>I gather this is somehow connected to the ratio of R, G, and B sensors, and
>to their sensitivities

Yes, to the sensitivities. The ratios have no bearing at all; the
green channel is not more sensitive because it has twice as many
sensels; that only affects green spatial resolution.

> - you are saying magenta light requires the least
>amount of signal amplification or post-processing to produce correct
>results?

Most digitals don't amplify the color channels differently, so it is
usually only a RAW conversion issue.

>But is the amount of post processing normally done in conversion
>to JPG for normal light sources actually problematic - such as by
>introducing noise?

Big time, in shadows, and in under-exposed images. Banding becomes more
likely, and chromatic noise becomes more prevalent.

The RAW data is linear, and therefore, it's shadows are very delicate
(the difference between RAW values 1 and 2 is a stop. Between 2 and 4
is a stop, and 4 and 8, etc). There is actually far less precision in
the dark shadows of a 12-bit linear image than there are in an 8-bit
gamma-adjusted image.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:17:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jan Böhme" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 23:41:34 -0000, "Simon Stanmore" <no@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> >news:look-073923.10182328072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>
> >> http://www.pbase.com/stanmore/image/23178623
> >>
> >> have been done for over 20 years.
> >
> >They've been done an awful lot longer than 20 yrs! That's sort of the point
> >of the image. It's a modern digital capture thats been processed so that in
> >print it looks very much like a hand printed silver halide jobbie.
>
> Face and hand are great, and indeed very silver halide-looking. On the
> other hand, the low-constrast areas, like the cap or the door, are
> hideouly posterised, and most silver halide-unlooking, in the
> version shown at the link.
>
> Presumably the full size version looks more like it, though.
>
> Jan Böhme
> Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
> Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

This posterizing is an interesting phenomenon. If one lifts the shadow
brightnesses in Photoshop or equiv., then yes, posterizing becomes
obvious. But in the image as presented, the cap and doorframe are very
dark, almost black, and the posterizing is much less noticeable, it's
just accepted as deep shadow in a high-contrast image. I suppose my
point is, lifting the shadows to see the posterizing is not valid, since
the image is not meant to be viewed with that tonality. As the image
stands, K=>93% in the tones in the door and the cap, which is pretty
black. If those parts of the image aren't almost black on your monitor,
perhaps your brightness is set too high.

Colin D.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:24:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
news:look-DB535B.11480629072005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> In article <74bGe.65404$oJ.23582@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
>> news:look-E93012.10250428072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
>> > In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
>> > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
>> >> >
>> >> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
>> >> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white
>> >> >> balance,
>> >>
>> >> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography
>> >
>> > BZZZT! Wrong.
>>
>> Of couse it is, but lets see you fix it in camera, you would need to fix
>> in
>> the darkroom, very few would or you digitise and then fix it.
>
> BZZZZT! Wrong.
>
> Buy a filter or use specific film for the temperature.
> http://photoweb.net/pw_tech/floures1.html
>
> Also, you can use a film scanner to balance.

Sorry but I rarely carry around a film scanner and I do not swap film as the
conditions may change, I do this for fun not for money, we are talking about
real people here not the exceptions.
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 4:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <hkKGe.66969$oJ.43695@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

> "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> news:look-DB535B.11480629072005@news3-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> > In article <74bGe.65404$oJ.23582@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "CFB" <look@u.com> wrote in message
> >> news:look-E93012.10250428072005@news2-ge0.southeast.rr.com...
> >> > In article <dcaji50l46@news2.newsguy.com>,
> >> > "David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:yPRFe.64528$oJ.19980@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> >> > Traditional photography - White balance, hmmmm, I guess so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> - You will need to learn about traditional photography to take full
> >> >> >> advantage of a dSLR. Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white
> >> >> >> balance,
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess white balance is not an issue with film photography
> >> >
> >> > BZZZT! Wrong.
> >>
> >> Of couse it is, but lets see you fix it in camera, you would need to fix
> >> in
> >> the darkroom, very few would or you digitise and then fix it.
> >
> > BZZZZT! Wrong.
> >
> > Buy a filter or use specific film for the temperature.
> > http://photoweb.net/pw_tech/floures1.html
> >
> > Also, you can use a film scanner to balance.
>
> Sorry but I rarely carry around a film scanner

Errr, I leave mine at home.

> and I do not swap film as the
> conditions may change,

What about filters?

> I do this for fun not for money, we are talking about
> real people here not the exceptions.

Then why do you keep responding to me? I do it for "fun" as well. You
claim to know a lot for being a "real" person.

Damn, I was just trying to reveal something to you.

Sorry about that.

Peace

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
Anonymous
July 30, 2005 5:23:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> But I can't see how it matters to the OP is white
> balance is more or less critical in film than digital.

It's relevant to anyone who has ever or will ever use both types of cameras.
Plenty of people reading this thread fall into that category. So I don't
see the point of criticizing eople for making valid points.

---------------
Marc Sabatella
marc@outsideshore.com

The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 2:12:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Then why do you keep responding to me? I do it for "fun" as well. You
> claim to know a lot for being a "real" person.
>
> Damn, I was just trying to reveal something to you.
>
> Sorry about that.
>
> Peace


I think the main thing here is that very few people have had anything to do
with white balance until they started with digital photography, I have been
using it in my video production for many years but never considered it
something I could control much in 30 years of film photograhy, if I was
inside I used flash, if I didn't use flash then there would be a colour cast
unless as you say I used an FLD or whatever filter.
!