BebuLamar

Don't the cell phones have all the stuff Burk talked about?

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I use YouTube a lot. Much of what you ask can be answered by watching videos. For instance I was watching a video on how a digital camera sees color. I would suggest just typing in "how does a digital camera see color" and you will likely get several videos on the topic. Another example is how does photo paper affect the final product quality.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I use YouTube a lot. Much of what you ask can be answered by watching videos. For instance I was watching a video on how a digital camera sees color. I would suggest just typing in "how does a digital camera see color" and you will likely get several videos on the topic. Another example is how does photo paper affect the final product quality.

anotherview Loc: California

One consideration to simplify your quest: Like film photography, digital photography uses the exposure triangle to gain a good exposure of the subject.

You use the expression "digital image quality" and want a useful defintion of it as a guide. Offhand, I venture that image quality, whether in the digital format or the film format, involves capturing highlights and blacks in the image.

This approach differs depending on the medium. In film, the rule is to expose for the blacks or shadows. In digital, the rule is to expose for the highlights or the whites. Image quality rests on these exposures.

Although technically inclined, you appear apprehensive about taking up digital photography. Please know that your knowledge and understanding of film photography will function as a grounding for your learning to do digital photography.

Some here will recommend books to help you with the transition. I suggest that you attend one or more workshops in doing digital photography. Join a camera club for personal support from experienced photographers. Look up photography tutorials on the Internet to address specific issues. Start with a simpler photography software, such as Adobe Elements. You can jump to the full Photoshop CC later when comfortable.

Buy or rent a a beginner digital camera. I can recommend the Canon T7i, being that I'm a Canon shooter. This camera may come with a kit lens; if not, consider buying the Canon EF-S 17-85mm zoom lens.

Note that you can buy used or refurbished camera gear to conserve your dollars. Buy a more sophisticated camera when you sense you have outgrown the beginner camera.

Good luck.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Nice one Bill!!

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

The Manual of Photography, Elizabeth Allen and Sophie Triantaphillidou. It is a very large technical manual that covers all aspects of photography from a scientific perspective. A very good book to have on hand if you like to go directly to a trusted source of information.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

This is why I just love this forum! Thanks for that great explanation, Bill.

BebuLamar

To the OP! You have studied a lot about photography and was in the best place to learn. Do you know about the exposure triangle?

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Wow!! I am really surprised at your off-the-cuff answer to a very important question! You really know the foundations of photography which was asked. It is complicated but quite simple to grasp once you start thinking about the transition from analog to digital photography. At first I didn't think there would be any satisfactory answers but I am now proud of the members of this forum! I often wondered about the answer to the operator's question.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

A key factor that you didn’t mention is the software that each maker puts into their cameras, and that’s highly variable. The most important hardware is quality glass, then the camera's computer takes over. Software in a smartphone can produce images comparable to a DSLR's even though they have small sensors. Software in a mirrorless camera can provide features that a DSLR owner can only dream or add with other accessories or digital interfaces. All digital cameras can be made in such a way to take excellent photos.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

With all respect, I’m going to have to disagree. SW can certainly allow dramatic changes/improvements in an image, but all the SW in the world can’t compensate for the limited DR and poor low light/low noise capability of that tiny sensor. When it comes to sensor performance, size is king. And from a SW perspective, you just cannot do the precise editing on a smartphone that you can on a decent computer running LR/PS (or your PP SW of choice) with plenty of RAM and a big monitor. There are a number of things in the world (including cameras and loudspeakers for example), where all other things being equal, bigger is better in terms of absolute performance.

Dug E Pi

Digital is overall getting so sharp that editing programs are adding a texture feature so that you can make it look more film like.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

UHH members have reported quality prints up to 16x24. I think that speaks well to smartphone camera quality. My iPhone has 12mp and I frequently copy it’s photos to my PC and edit them with PSE. Or I can use Snapseed on my phone to edit. Check out Emil Pakarklis on YouTube to see what the better smartphones can do. He features iPhones but the techniques apply to all brands.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I too was fortunate enough to have an academic/technical education in the SCIENCE of analog/silver/chemical photography- it's in my background but not in my DNA, so to speak. At a crucial juncture in my educational life, I continued on in applied photography. It's important to understand how all things photographic work- it helps in problems solving in applied photography but engineering was not in my plan. So...for the last 50+ years, I have earned my living in commercial photography, fine portraiture, and event photography.

Of course, the greater percentage of that time was in the film era. I operated a studio with an in-house lab for the production of black and white and color imagery. We used a wide variety of films and chemistry, most of which came from Kodak.

I was forced into the digital era, virtually overnight, however not unwillingly. A lot of our materials began to rapidly disappear from the marketplace and our customers began to demand digital media, especially in the commercial area. Over a period of about 3 months, we phased out most of our analog production and plunge into the world of digital.

Of course, there were some major technological changes in the equipment but artistically and aesthetically, and how the aesthetics relate to basic camera operation did not change at all. F/stops, shutter speeds and ISO setting remain the same, focus and optics did not change except for improvements and convenience and the elements of composition, lighting, and subject rendition are all still there and have little to do with the technology, the equipment or the materials- that is all up to the photographer's savvy, talent, skill sets, technique, and artistry.

All of the basic technique and experience you have had with analog methodologies can be directly applied to digital photography. If you have darkroom experience in custom printing, you can carry out all of the same controls on one of the popular editing platforms such as PhotoShop or Lightroom. Your computer is now your darkroom without all the muss and fuss.

As a former Kodak man, you will remember all of the film choices and how we had to select films based on speed, grain structure, dynamic range, color palette, and many other characteristics. We selected various films for the work at hand, decided on their attributes and limitations and made the necessary compromises. Nowadays we can simply dial much of this in, at the camera and then make infinite adjustment in editing.

These days, there seems to be a preoccupation, among many photographers, pertaining to sharpness and acutance. Believe me, we are producing images on a full-frame DSLR that rival the image quality if medium and large format film product.

There is a lot of what I call "false nostalgia" about the "look" of film as opposed to that of digital imagery, I have been able to replicate or surpass the "look" and quality of my analog work simply by paying attention to technique. Back in the film days, we paid careful attention to exposure, lighting, and composition so we did not have to "re-shoot" all of our work in the darkroom. So many photographers, tend to shoot kind of sloppily and depend on time-consuming and tedious post-processing actions to "resurrect" poorly crafted digital files. If you shoot cleanly and carefully, your post-processing can be minimal- just like routing darkroom procedures- dodging, burning, cropping, tweaking, contrast control and more. Special effects are readily available in many plugin programs.

Yes. some of the terminology and buzz-words are different but much is the same. We have "noise" rather than grain. Yes, again, I know pixels are not silver halide grain embedded in gelatin but their effect is similar and it does increase with the increase in ISO settings. It is, however, less problematic and is less significant even at extremely high ISO settings- and it's improving all the time in many of the latest camera bodies.

As I alluded to before, science and electronics are wonderful and you can delve into all of it very intensively if you wish to. There is a plethora of information online and all kinds of research and reading material to stusdy. If you want to TAKE PICTURES and exploit the artistic potential of digital photography, GET A CAMERA! Put it in your hands, raise to your eye, peer through the viewfinder. You will feel at home! Except for the fact that the abundance of the data in the viewfinder and on the LCD screen at the back of the camera may seem like the instrumentation on the flight deck of a jet aircraft, the aperture, shutter speeds, and ISO are still there. Many of the lenses are much improved as to performance but optical theory regarding focal length, depth of field, acutance, aberrations, distortions, and all the other goodies are still valid. You won't need all those great little Kodak Data Books regarding film as to dynamic range etc. The histogram, available on the rear screen will give you all the indications and you will see each image almost instantaneously!

Convenience- you can switch gears without changing the film- camera controls enable resetting speed, color/monochrome, automatic or manual exposure exposure metering, auto/manual focus, and there are almost endless features that you can "buy" if you need them- Some of the latest and greatest camera bodies have GPS, features to help avoid blur due to camera movement, sophisticated flash synchronization modes, and will just about brew your coffee in the morning. Some of this is handy and some are, in my opinion, overengineering but it's there for the money.

WOW! and no more caustic and toxic chemicals, the potential for stains and reticulation, water filtration issues, replenishment rates, silver recovery, rooms full of big, expensive and bulky processing gear, printers, enlargers, washers, dryers, tanks full of chemical storage and an electric bill that seem like that of an entire neighborhood! I don't really miss any of that but I do miss the visit from our great Kodak TRs. They were always great troubleshooters- I have lots of stories lie wh the CP2 chemicals ate our processing machine rollers. RT Chemistry to the rescue, except you, needed a doctorate in chemistry to figure out the replenishment rates. Nostalgia!

I don't think you mentioned, in your original post, as to what you would like to shoot. If you specify, there are many helpful members and good resources on this site- they will pitch in and help you make the transition!