Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Wilba wrote:
> Mr. Strat wrote:
>>
>> There's no substitute for time and experience.
>
> So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a
> viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on
> the image or live). That's very valuable information, available
> "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy.
>
> I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
> least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
> more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back
> from the lab.
Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for everyone.
You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
don't help you, right? :-)
Wilba wrote:
> Mr. Strat wrote:
>>
>> There's no substitute for time and experience.
>
> So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a
> viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on
> the image or live). That's very valuable information, available
> "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy.
>
> I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
> least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
> more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back
> from the lab.
Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for everyone.
You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
don't help you, right? :-)
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Wilba" <wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote in message
news:fit1j0$oit$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au...
> Wilba wrote:
>> Mr. Strat wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no substitute for time and experience.
>>
>> So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a
>> viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on
>> the image or live). That's very valuable information, available
>> "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy.
>>
>> I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
>> least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
>> more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back
>> from the lab.
>
> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for
> everyone. You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge
> that they don't help you, right? :-)
Yeah, right. ;-)
Neil
"Wilba" <wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote in message
news:fit1j0$oit$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au...
> Wilba wrote:
>> Mr. Strat wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no substitute for time and experience.
>>
>> So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a
>> viable substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on
>> the image or live). That's very valuable information, available
>> "instantly", to help you determine camera settings with accuracy.
>>
>> I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
>> least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
>> more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back
>> from the lab.
>
> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for
> everyone. You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge
> that they don't help you, right? :-)
Yeah, right. ;-)
Neil
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article <fit1j0$oit$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
<wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for everyone.
> You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
> don't help you, right? :-)
I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful. We
didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom prints
made. As I said before, digital is just another kind of film with its
own quirks, requirements, etc.
In article <fit1j0$oit$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
<wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for everyone.
> You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
> don't help you, right? :-)
I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful. We
didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom prints
made. As I said before, digital is just another kind of film with its
own quirks, requirements, etc.
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Mr. Strat wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>>
>> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are
>> talking about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than
>> making any global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or
>> superfluous for everyone. You have tried them as intended for
>> sufficiently long to judge that they don't help you, right? :-)
>
> I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful.
OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
can do for you.
> We didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom
> prints made. As I said before, digital is just another kind of film
> with its own quirks, requirements, etc.
The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
Mr. Strat wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>>
>> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are
>> talking about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than
>> making any global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or
>> superfluous for everyone. You have tried them as intended for
>> sufficiently long to judge that they don't help you, right? :-)
>
> I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful.
OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
can do for you.
> We didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom
> prints made. As I said before, digital is just another kind of film
> with its own quirks, requirements, etc.
The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article <fitl83$dqb$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
<wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
> OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
> with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
> can do for you.
Let's nitpick words now.
> The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
> can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
> slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
understanding that professionals do.
In article <fitl83$dqb$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
<wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
> OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
> with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
> can do for you.
Let's nitpick words now.
> The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
> can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
> slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
understanding that professionals do.
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Dec 2, 12:38 pm, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline . com > wrote:
> In article <fitl83$dq...@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
>
> <wi...@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
> > OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
> > with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
> > can do for you.
>
> Let's nitpick words now.
>
> > The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
> > can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
> > slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
>
> It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
> understanding that professionals do.
Well, there are some really bad professionals, I need not name names.
There is nothing about being a pro that keep one from being totally
clueless.
Scott
On Dec 2, 12:38 pm, "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline . com > wrote:
> In article <fitl83$dq...@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
>
> <wi...@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
> > OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
> > with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
> > can do for you.
>
> Let's nitpick words now.
>
> > The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
> > can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
> > slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
>
> It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
> understanding that professionals do.
Well, there are some really bad professionals, I need not name names.
There is nothing about being a pro that keep one from being totally
clueless.
Scott
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Mr. Strat <rag@nospam.techline . com > wrote:
> In article <fitl83$dqb$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
> <wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
>> OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
>> with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
>> can do for you.
> Let's nitpick words now.
>> The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
>> can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
>> slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
> It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
> understanding that professionals do.
Anyone who has studied the work of the best professionals, read their
writings, and listened to their interviews on radio and TV, knows that
all they need to know is how to do it, not necessarily why what they
do works. Some of them do indeed have a deep understanding, but most
of them don't, simply because they don't need it. That's why there's a
choice in the various professional qualifications a photographer can
acquire between those that give you the skills and those that give you
a depth of understanding.
--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[ * w w w .dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
In rec.photo.digital.zlr Mr. Strat <rag@nospam.techline . com > wrote:
> In article <fitl83$dqb$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
> <wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
>> OK. You said "looked at" rather than something like used, studied, worked
>> with, or employed, which suggest to me that you haven't understood what they
>> can do for you.
> Let's nitpick words now.
>> The main one being that a sensor responds very differently to highlights. I
>> can't trust my judgement to get that right like I could with reversal or
>> slide film. Goodonya if you can, but I remain sceptical. :-)
> It's been my experience that amateurs can rarely grasp the depth of
> understanding that professionals do.
Anyone who has studied the work of the best professionals, read their
writings, and listened to their interviews on radio and TV, knows that
all they need to know is how to do it, not necessarily why what they
do works. Some of them do indeed have a deep understanding, but most
of them don't, simply because they don't need it. That's why there's a
choice in the various professional qualifications a photographer can
acquire between those that give you the skills and those that give you
a depth of understanding.
--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[ * w w w .dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline . com > wrote in message
news:011220072050354493%rag@nospam.techline . com ...
> In article <fit1j0$oit$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
> <wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
>
>> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
>> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
>> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for
>> everyone.
>> You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
>> don't help you, right? :-)
>
> I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful. We
> didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom prints
> made.
So you didn't do your own printing?
Photo labs make the necessary corrections when they make the prints. They
always did. I never "had to have custom prints made" when I was a teen-ager
with a Baby Brownie, either. That camera cost about a dollar, and had one
aperture and one shutter speed so I'm inclined to doubt its exposure was
always perfect.
Neil
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline . com > wrote in message
news:011220072050354493%rag@nospam.techline . com ...
> In article <fit1j0$oit$1@news-01.bur.connect . com .au>, Wilba
> <wilba@CUTTHISimago . com .au> wrote:
>
>> Now I understand better from another of your posts that you are talking
>> about your own ability, style, and requirements, rather than making any
>> global claims that histograms, etc. are useless or superfluous for
>> everyone.
>> You have tried them as intended for sufficiently long to judge that they
>> don't help you, right? :-)
>
> I've looked at them and not found them to be particularly useful. We
> didn't have them in film days and I rarely had to have custom prints
> made.
So you didn't do your own printing?
Photo labs make the necessary corrections when they make the prints. They
always did. I never "had to have custom prints made" when I was a teen-ager
with a Baby Brownie, either. That camera cost about a dollar, and had one
aperture and one shutter speed so I'm inclined to doubt its exposure was
always perfect.
Neil
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article <rNOdnSrJkq gsM7anZ2dnUVZ oSnnZ2d@comcast . com >, Neil
Harrington <neil@private.address> wrote:
> So you didn't do your own printing?
Actually, I did. I still have the equipment to do up to 16x20 in either
B&W or color. Wanna buy some of that old stuff?
In article <rNOdnSrJkq gsM7anZ2dnUVZ oSnnZ2d@comcast . com >, Neil
Harrington <neil@private.address> wrote:
> So you didn't do your own printing?
Actually, I did. I still have the equipment to do up to 16x20 in either
B&W or color. Wanna buy some of that old stuff?
Re: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline . com > wrote in message
news:021220071439246095%rag@nospam.techline . com ...
> In article <rNOdnSrJkq_gsM7anZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast . com >, Neil
> Harrington <neil@private.address> wrote:
>
>> So you didn't do your own printing?
>
> Actually, I did. I still have the equipment to do up to 16x20 in either
> B&W or color. Wanna buy some of that old stuff?
Not me, thanks! I'd like to sell my old equipment is what I'd like to do.
Neil
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline . com > wrote in message
news:021220071439246095%rag@nospam.techline . com ...
> In article <rNOdnSrJkq_gsM7anZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast . com >, Neil
> Harrington <neil@private.address> wrote:
>
>> So you didn't do your own printing?
>
> Actually, I did. I still have the equipment to do up to 16x20 in either
> B&W or color. Wanna buy some of that old stuff?
Not me, thanks! I'd like to sell my old equipment is what I'd like to do.
Neil
Next: Canon digital cameras with internal rechargable battery and high shutter sp...
Previous: photo club online
