KD Stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

Dear Hogs:
I'm a amateur photographer loves this hobby but who also has the photos to prove that statement. I own and continue to use my 1st & the only DSLR -- Canon 5DMkii which I purchased in 2010 -- prior to that date I used a Canon EOS 3 shooting for the most part Provia 100 slide film --- I'm happy to admit that my chances of now getting better looking photos greatly increased since the purchase of 5D --- My question is:
I'd like to blame this improvement on me becoming a better photographer however I'm not about to start kidding my self at this late age --- So are my improved DSLR generated photos a direct result of any improvement in Dynamic Range over the film camera??

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Both, even if you use JPG....

BebuLamar

But perhaps your improvement comes from the fact that you now can chimp and do PP. With slides you can't do any PP unless you make prints. With color negative film I doubt that you did your processing so you have to rely on the lab.

KD Stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

For what it's worth have only shot in raw with the 5D

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Still both.

A camera is important by so is the guy behind it.

Better tools = better work.

Better tools given to a fool = formula for disaster.

You see improvement?

You are using your camera correctly, not like a fool expecting new technology to pick up the slack.

So my answer does not change: Both.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Could also be that Post Processing has a wider gamut that you worked in the darkroom OR how it was processed if sent out. My Fuji P and S alters my pictures for whichever in camera 'paper' I choose.Provia being one of them. Hopefully the longer you practice the better you get....I'm still practicing

Have fun

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

KD, if you're smart enough to get a Canon through all of the BS there is, especially here, your definitely smart enough to produce a stunning image with it!!
Seriously, I was taking award winning shots long before I even knew what DR even was!! It made no difference to me then, and it makes no difference to me now.
So to answer your question directly, NO, DR has nothing to do with you producing great shots, especially since by lab tests, your 5ll is actually one of the crappiest cameras, DR wise and everything else wise, ever produced, according to some lab test!
I too shoot with a 5ll and I guarantee you, the DR has never hindered my shots.
Maybe you just have the knowledge to properly expose your shots and DR never comes into play. DR is most noticeable when you do big under-exposures mistakes.
Anyway your 5ll is s great camera and capable of the most stunning shots on this planet!!
I feel that moving to a dslr, took my photography up another notch or two, just because the instant compositional preview allowed me to see when I didn't get exactly what thought I was trying to shoot. So yes, the camera probably did improve your photography.
By the way, I've shot with a both a T90 and an EOS 1.
Good luck with your 5ll.
BTW, when I started shooting portraits with a 7ll and 5lll, my portraits improved, especially the sharpness because if the deadly accuracy of those cameras focus systems, especially under low powered modeling lights and using the if center points.
So yes, a camera can indeed improve your photography!!!!! ;-)
SS

KD Stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

So what I'm picking up from of all these thoughtful responses is that as far as dynamic range parameters film & digital at least as far as my aging 5D MkII will get you --- are just about the same --- Must be all the modern post processing ---- Can't be me! As far as my thoughtful choice behind why I use Canon ---- Way back in 1969 a buddy of mine desperately short of cash sold me his Canon FT/QL with a FD50mm 1.4 -- As quick as I could I retired my Richoflex twin lens & have been using Canon products ever since ---- Now of course the same would have taken place if he had sold me a Nikon -- Actually wish he had sold me a leica / Contax ---- Just kidding
THANKS

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

My experience is that the Raw image has greater dynamic range than I was ever able to get with film. Definitely PP gives you ability to take advantage of it. Whether the PP adds dynamic range, I am not so sure. I think it just lets you take advantage of what is possible.

MontanaTrace

When you'd get your slides back, how were you looking at them, compared to how you look now? That may be part of the difference you are seeing today. How are you looking at them now? How much post production?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Modern digital cameras are unquestionably marvelous tools with incredible technologies. In spite of that they are only as good as the operator.
I have to admit that these cameras have features that can improve our photography and make our lives easier but still it is the responsibility of the operator to do his or her part to obtain optimal results.
Modern JPEG files are better than ever and require less work with the computer. They offer lots of manipulation if necessary but that requires a good understanding of the features in a good editing program.
Dynamic range has significantly contributed to improve our files and Nikon has a feature called D-lighting built in cameras and as an enhancer in Capture NX2 very capable of opening the shadows to improve dynamic range while controlling the brightness of highlights. I use Capture NX2 complimented by Photoshop and also Photoshop offers such feature as HDR toning and Shadows-Highlights in the Image>Adjustment control.
I am sure that your camera helps but I would say that your photographic technique has a lot to do with the improvements in your photography.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

:thumbup:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Equipment is over rated - grossly over rated. Sure, you need appropriate equipment but not the best, or newest. I own the best Nikon can make (big primes) and come to realize that it is not the equipment it is me. Taking landscape at mid day is never going to render the same results of early morning or late evening light. Taking images of a ocean is not the same that ocean with a breaching whale. An eagle sitting in a tree is not the same as eagle diving and clutching a salmon in its talons braced against the setting sun.

You improved because you were persistent, practiced, took notice of repeating patterns, diagonal lines, juxtaposition, corner exits, balance, colors, etc. You noticed, light, diffused and direct, its location and direction and you position yourself accordingly.

Real photographers know what I speak of. Beginners can not. There are some in here who will argue that a 42 mpx will clearly and unequivocally render a better image that a 36 mpx. That is just garbage. Just ask them to display their work and they suddenly disappear. Imagine that.

Dynamic range.... Important but not that important. If there is a great story element and wonderful light, technical imperfections are not that important and so says the Photographic Society of America. Technically perfect images never win contests on technical merit alone.

Keep shooting, in ever challenging situations, perspectives and light. You will learn and improve and become more than just a photographer but an artist.

studavis

If you shot slides you learned photography. A slide was good or no good. You had to frame it focus it and have the proper exposure or you had nothing. You learned it and now it automatic for you.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Reminds me of the guy that went out and bought the most expensive set of golf clubs he could. This was his first attempt at playing golf. Why? Because he could afford it. Usually there is a learning curb to everything and one learns things by using the rudimentary equipment that they will not by using the more expensive stuff. Sometimes it is overkill to buy the most expensive. The only advantage I can see is that he will not have to upgrade later but then again he may have ruined the expensive stuff getting there and will have wasted more money in the long run.