Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
digital vs film photography
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
Aug 3, 2021 08:48:48   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
rmalarz wrote:
First off, it not a vs, nor will it ever be. The problem is that the tools used look similar. They can be compared but not competitively.

They are two distinctly different methods for accomplishing the same thing. That thing being capturing an image using a light sensitive material. The first part is capturing the ideal exposure. The second, processing that exposure to obtain the image which visualized at the time of making the original exposure.

Having almost all my experience in processing film laying in processing black and white. I've learned that the method applied to making the original exposure differs between film and digital in that exposure is determined in exactly the opposite manner. With film I expose for the shadows and process for the highlights. Using digital, I exposure for the highlights and process for the shadows. Both methods require controlled testing to determine how each will react to light and processing.
--Bob
First off, it not a vs, nor will it ever be. The p... (show quote)



Reply
Aug 3, 2021 10:15:54   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Lucian wrote:
Well if you were taught correctly back in college, about photography, you would have learned that there is only one way to make a correct photo and that is always... in the camera. Post processing is to help finish off what you might not have been able to do in camera, or alter what was available to you when you took the photo. Post processing is never to help correct what you should have done in camera, in the first place.

Please remember that contrary to popular belief, Dodging and Burning in post, are NOT steps to take care of mistakes God made, in establishing good tonal relationships.
Well if you were taught correctly back in college,... (show quote)


While I would agree that it is a great *goal* to achieve photographic nirvana in/at the camera, I am adamantly opposed to the idea that there is only one way to make a great image. Here's why those professors are moronic, absolutist robots wise men being a bit less than honest with you with a mis-guided well-meaning purpose.

As a corporate AV producer, I made tens of thousands of slides in the 1970s and 1980s. YES, I did my level best to control lighting (ratios, color temperature, dynamic range, etc.) at the point of exposure. I metered with an incident meter, spot meter, color temperature meter, and still bracketed. I paid attention to moment, composition, scene contents, and countless other editorial issues related to our corporate image and our message to customers and employees.

With slide film, that is what we did, and what some (few) still do. The actual film was projected in our multi-image shows, and that had to look correct when it came out of the processing tanks, even when — especially when — we were running 960 slides through 12 projectors onto three wide screens in ten minutes. E6 is a rigidly controlled process. I could push a stop in an emergency, but otherwise, it was time, temp, dilution, and pH, with statistical process control and careful replenishment to keep it honest. So yes, slide photography probably is where what you were taught has the most merit.

Still, we had a slide duplication setup where we could alter color, add titles, make composites of several images, create special effects, and accent the message or story within the image by cropping and enlarging. Then we added music, story, narration, careful editing, and animation programming to shape the character of the show's message for maximum emotive and substantive impact.

When I used transparency film in the studio for product illustrations and such, I did my part to get as much of my art director's vision on film as possible. But the fact remained, he would always work with the color separations team to retouch the image from there. The printed product often looked very different from the transparency.

In all my experience with black-and-white work as a yearbook candid photographer (as a high school student and as part of my job in AV, working for a yearbook company), I considered the goal to be storytelling. Photojournalism is the art of communicating via words and pictures. Whatever promotes understanding — communication — (a common thought held in union) between journalist and reader/viewer — is valid. You're telling a story that has a purpose or goal. That purpose or goal may be historical, informational, influential, whatever. Achieving that requires work at the camera, and in post-processing.

I consider the most important part of that to be ensuring that the reader/viewer "gets it." If that means cropping, dodging, burning, correcting unavoidable exposure or color errors, fixing horizon lines, or anything else that is not editorially falsifying the story (such as removing parts of a scene or retouching people to significantly alter identity or appearance), so be it.

If there is one thing I've learned in college and in life since, it is that whatever someone presents as an absolute will ultimately be proven inaccurate, incorrect, inappropriate, or irrelevant.

Professors who teach that photography must be done correctly at the camera are just trying to be helpful. They are practicing a friendly sort of deceit that helps shape students' behavior. When you're learning, it helps to have boundaries and requirements that guide you to apply "proper form" to your actions. Once you have those basics, though, the rules may be broken freely because you know which ones can be relaxed, and how, and why, and whether you can compensate effectively later in the process.

The goal is to do as much as possible early in the process, so you have less to do at the end, and so you can maximize your chances for quality image making.

An example is careful film handling. If you're careless about processing, then poor agitation, slack temperature control, not using fresh chemicals, not using Photo-Flo, drying in a dusty area, fingerprinting your negatives, or scratching the film will surely ruin the end result. Darkroom workers who learn to clean negatives before putting them in an enlarger or printer will not have to reach for the spotting fluids and brushes later.

Photography is a process that begins with mental visualization and ends with physical or virtual realization of an image (print or digital). Each operation along the way affects every other step in the process. It's like working in a company where 17 people perform different actions on something when making it into a finished product. Foul it up at the start, and the end product may be unacceptable (or expensive to correct). So whatever can be done to ensure adherence to standard at every stage of the process will improve the outcome (a faster, better, less costly, more satisfying result).

There comes a point in the working world of photography, though, when you learn to make split decisions about what can, should, can't, and shouldn't be done at the camera. Whether working with film or digital, the goal is the same: to connect with the viewer of your work. In my experience, discipline up front makes it easy all the way through.

But often, when an image didn't look quite right "out of the camera," it can be corrected sufficiently to achieve its purpose. Just look at Robert Capa's photos of D-Day in World War II and you'll see what I mean. They're technically lousy, but editorially powerful, and an important part of history. Gritty, blurry, reticulated emulsion can sometimes add to the mood of a scene. (Read the story of how he made the few photos he could manage that day, and you'll understand.)

I recently went through a shelf of 40 photography books I've collected over the years. One thing stood out: the technical imperfection of pre-automation film photography and offset or photogravure reproduction. Yet somehow, that did not affect the impact of most of the images in those books! The stories came through, despite their humble beginnings.

The medium is important. But the MESSAGE and its IMPACT are far more important.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 10:32:26   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
[quote=burkphoto]Julian, ... You get the idea. It is a "non-destructive" editor that leaves your originals alone.

Raw files from your camera are like latent images on undeveloped film.

I don't use Lightroom, just Photo Editor. However, when I open a RAW file I immediately save the image under a different file name so I am assuming that my original RAW file contains all its information. Correct?

Reply
 
 
Aug 3, 2021 11:01:11   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
[quote=DaveyDitzer]
burkphoto wrote:
Julian, ... You get the idea. It is a "non-destructive" editor that leaves your originals alone.

Raw files from your camera are like latent images on undeveloped film.

I don't use Lightroom, just Photo Editor. However, when I open a RAW file I immediately save the image under a different file name so I am assuming that my original RAW file contains all its information. Correct?


Saving a raw file isn't necessary, except for backup. Raw data remains raw data. Any changes you make are stored in a COPY.

Raw files contain at least three things:

> A table (array) of the raw, digitized sensor data that must be demosaiced to become a bitmap image of some sort

> An EXIF table of camera specific metadata (exposure, lens, serial numbers, geolocation data (optional), and all the camera menu settings.)

> At least one small, JPEG preview image processed by the engine in the camera, using whatever menu settings you've chosen or ignored.

The raw data table cannot be altered. It is what makes a raw file "raw". It is always raw. It is analogous to an undeveloped, latent image on un-processed color negative film.

The EXIF might be duplicated and stored with changes by post-processing software provided by the camera manufacturer. The EXIF data can be removed from or edited in *subsequently processed* bitmap type files, too.

The JPEG preview image may be altered in the camera manufacturer's provided post processing software. But the original raw data and original EXIF remain. You can always go backwards!

Raw data is converted to a bitmap in image editors. For instance, in Lightroom, the image is de-mosaiced and converted from 12- or 14-bits per pixel to 16-bits per pixel, and from the camera's color space to a wide gamut working color space similar to ProPhoto RGB. This allows a very wide range of parametric adjustment of the data, and creation of a bitmap type file that retains maximum information if you save as a 16-bit PSD or TIFF in ProPhoto RGB.

What you see on screen in Lightroom is a PROXY of the 16-bit bitmap. It is updated with every change you make. Only when you EXPORT, UPLOAD, PRINT, or create a BOOK from your file(s) do you get a usable image. Before that point, you're viewing an on-the-fly simulation limited by your monitor.

If you "view" a raw file in an application that cannot convert and edit it, you are viewing the small JPEG preview created in the camera. It is almost always low resolution, heavily compressed. It exists so that it may be displayed at the operating system level or displayed initially, upon opening the file, while an application is still processing the raw data.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 11:04:38   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
To Bill Burke,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the lessons you are providing to me and other hoggers.
Dave

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 11:11:41   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't use Lightroom, just Photo Editor. However, when I open a RAW file I immediately save the image under a different file name so I am assuming that my original RAW file contains all its information. Correct?


Bill gave a lengthy answer. I'll give a concise summary: Saving a copy of a RAW file as some form of 'overwrite protection' is a waste of space and time for that purpose.

RAW image data is read-only. No one 'saves' changes to RAW, even when using the manufacturer's editing software. At best, say with Canon DPP, the edit instructions are saved as addition text to the header of the RAW file, the read-only data cannot be changed. Also, those edit instructions are proprietary to the software that wrote them. Other RAW editors opening the same file do not 'see' these instructions.

The only way you can corrupt a RAW file is to accidently delete the file. You need back-up copies in case you lose the original. You don't need back-ups due to an inadvertent corruption.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 11:13:40   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Bill gave a lengthy answer. I'll give a concise summary: Saving a copy of a RAW file as some form of 'overwrite protection' is a waste of space and time for that purpose.

RAW image data is read-only. No one 'saves' changes to RAW, even when using the manufacturer's editing software. At best, say with Canon DPP, the edit instructions are saved as addition text to the header of the RAW file, the read-only data cannot be changed. Also, those edit instructions are proprietary to the software that wrote them. Other RAW editors opening the same file do not 'see' these instructions.

The only way you can corrupt a RAW file is to accidently delete the file. You need back-up copies in case you lose the original. You don't need back-ups due to an inadvertent corruption.
Bill gave a lengthy answer. I'll give a concise su... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Aug 3, 2021 11:16:52   #
Orphoto Loc: Oregon
 
To the usual helpful encyclopedic posters. Before investing huge quantities of time on this, take a minute to go back and peruse this OP's prior posts.

Forewarned.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 11:36:28   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
I'll offer a simple PROFESSIONAL tip that also applies to amateur photographers plus a little background.

In the olden days of film photography, many professional studios that handled a volume of photography in the fields of portraiture, wedding photography and commercial work stressed the production of GOOD NEGATIVES that were relatively easy to print. This enables fast and efficient production of high-quality prints without excessive correction in the darkroom. To produce good negatives photograher had to consistently apply accurate exposure and careful film processing. Sloppy camera technique was no tolerated so the rule was 'WE DON'T WANT TO RE-SHOOT EVERY IMAGE IN THE DARKROOM". The goal was "PUT IT ON THE NEGATIVE" whICH meant to come as close as possible to the final composition, pay careful attention to exposure, lighting contrast and focus, and process the film precisely and cleanly.

This basic methodology would produce negatives that were relatively easy to print on a normal paper contrast, with a minimum of cropping and just a tweaking, employing burning and dodging to perfect the final print. Occasionally, there was a circumstance beyond the photographer's control, that required remedial methods in the darkroom- push-processing, negative reduction and intensification, a great deal of local dodging and burning, bleaching, heavy retouching and excessive spotting and worse. It was good to have these fixes in emergency situations but doing all this correction on every image was unimaginable. The onus was on the shooter and the many cameras had no build-in metering, TTL exposure control and all settings were manual. In the end, the quality of the final print was always better from a good negative rather than a difficult one that requires all kinds corrective of darkroom strategies. Those were the good/bad old days depending on how you want to remember them.

Well, folks, as far as I am concerned, very little has changed. I good digital file makes for good screen images and prints and can be produced with a minimum of post-processing correction. I am not anti-post processing. Post-process can be used to enhance a good file by giving the photograher many fine control over colour saturation, contrast, and many other aesthetic qualities that formally would require using different films for different colour palettes and colour qualities. A poorly crafted file, whether it is shot in Jpeg or RAW will require excessive, time-consuming and tedious post-processing correction and seldom results in a top-quality final image. In a professional studio, bad shooting delays production and is costly. For the amateur, it requires needless toil at the computer and may still not maximize the ultimate image quality.

As for the OP and many others who say they are a "Camera Klutz"- y'all have no excuses anymore. Most modern digital cameras are absolutely marvellous inventions. You no longer need to be a "rocket scientist" or a master photograher to calculate exposure. Although many advanced workers look down upon programmed and automatic exposure modes, they work surprisingly well at enabling decent exposures. If you can learn to use the aperture and shutter priority modes- you are a step closer to more finite image control.

My advice: Put it on the original file and don't reshoot every image on the computer. This does not mean that every shot has to be SOOTC, few great image actually are. Shoot nice and use post-processing creatively.




.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 11:45:44   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
I'll offer a simple PROFESSIONAL tip that also applies to amateur photographers plus a little background.

In the olden days of film photography, many professional studios that handled a volume of photography in the fields of portraiture, wedding photography and commercial work stressed the production of GOOD NEGATIVES that were relatively easy to print. This enables fast and efficient production of high-quality prints without excessive correction in the darkroom. To produce good negatives photograher had to consistently apply accurate exposure and careful film processing. Sloppy camera technique was no tolerated so the rule was 'WE DON'T WANT TO RE-SHOOT EVERY IMAGE IN THE DARKROOM". The goal was "PUT IT ON THE NEGATIVE" whICH meant to come as close as possible to the final composition, pay careful attention to exposure, lighting contrast and focus, and process the film precisely and cleanly.

This basic methodology would produce negatives that were relatively easy to print on a normal paper contrast, with a minimum of cropping and just a tweaking, employing burning and dodging to perfect the final print. Occasionally, there was a circumstance beyond the photographer's control, that required remedial methods in the darkroom- push-processing, negative reduction and intensification, a great deal of local dodging and burning, bleaching, heavy retouching and excessive spotting and worse. It was good to have these fixes in emergency situations but doing all this correction on every image was unimaginable. The onus was on the shooter and the many cameras had no build-in metering, TTL exposure control and all settings were manual. In the end, the quality of the final print was always better from a good negative rather than a difficult one that requires all kinds corrective of darkroom strategies. Those were the good/bad old days depending on how you want to remember them.

Well, folks, as far as I am concerned, very little has changed. I good digital file makes for good screen images and prints and can be produced with a minimum of post-processing correction. I am not anti-post processing. Post-process can be used to enhance a good file by giving the photograher many fine control over colour saturation, contrast, and many other aesthetic qualities that formally would require using different films for different colour palettes and colour qualities. A poorly crafted file, whether it is shot in Jpeg or RAW will require excessive, time-consuming and tedious post-processing correction and seldom results in a top-quality final image. In a professional studio, bad shooting delays production and is costly. For the amateur, it requires needless toil at the computer and may still not maximize the ultimate image quality.

As for the OP and many others who say they are a "Camera Klutz"- y'all have no excuses anymore. Most modern digital cameras are absolutely marvellous inventions. You no longer need to be a "rocket scientist" or a master photograher to calculate exposure. Although many advanced workers look down upon programmed and automatic exposure modes, they work surprisingly well at enabling decent exposures. If you can learn to use the aperture and shutter priority modes- you are a step closer to more finite image control.

My advice: Put it on the original file and don't reshoot every image on the computer. This does not mean that every shot has to be SOOTC, few great image actually are. Shoot nice and use post-processing creatively.




.
I'll offer a simple PROFESSIONAL tip that also app... (show quote)




From a lab manager's perspective, this is gospel truth. Those who've never seen a commercial film darkroom or lab have no idea what sorts of miracles they are asked to perform by their customers.

During the transition from film to digital, many photographers learned how little they knew about light and exposure! I had fun teaching hundreds of them to think differently and quit leaning on the lab.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 13:23:06   #
levinton
 
There is so much good advice above, that I can only be impressed at the decades of experience that are expressed. I lean heavily to shooting RAW, but trying my best to learn about composing the picture with the cameras tools (love the Fujifilm, being lucky enough to click at the best moment, and making the best moment by coming back again and again to the same subject. I would recommend making sure to be slightly under-exposed than over-exposed. The dynamic range of a good electronic camera can deal well with underexposure, not so much with overexposure.

Reply
 
 
Aug 3, 2021 13:57:48   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
levinton wrote:
There is so much good advice above, that I can only be impressed at the decades of experience that are expressed. I lean heavily to shooting RAW, but trying my best to learn about composing the picture with the cameras tools (love the Fujifilm, being lucky enough to click at the best moment, and making the best moment by coming back again and again to the same subject. I would recommend making sure to be slightly under-exposed than over-exposed. The dynamic range of a good electronic camera can deal well with underexposure, not so much with overexposure.
There is so much good advice above, that I can onl... (show quote)


Note that the histogram on digital cameras is based on JPEG processor settings and dynamic range. It is not very representative of the raw file!

This is why ETTR and EBTR (expose to the right, and expose BEYOND the right side of the histogram) are strategies advanced photographers experiment with until they find the right settings for their cameras. These techniques work particularly well for landscape photography in full sun. They DO NOT yield JPEGs or JPEG previews in the raw files that are meaningfully useful. The final images must be processed from raw.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 14:22:26   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Bill, exactly!!! Here are some examples of photographs taken after testing to see how each reacts to ETTR/EBTR. Tonal placement was achieved by increasing exposure such as to place the brightest parts of the scene in the appropriate Zone.

The second set was done with Unitary White Balance set in the camera. Thus the green appearance.
--Bob
burkphoto wrote:
Note that the histogram on digital cameras is based on JPEG processor settings and dynamic range. It is not very representative of the raw file!

This is why ETTR and EBTR (expose to the right, and expose BEYOND the right side of the histogram) are strategies advanced photographers experiment with until they find the right settings for their cameras. These techniques work particularly well for landscape photography in full sun. They DO NOT yield JPEGs or JPEG previews in the raw files that are meaningfully useful. The final images must be processed from raw.
Note that the histogram on digital cameras is base... (show quote)

SOOC
SOOC...
(Download)

Processed
Processed...
(Download)

SOOC
SOOC...
(Download)

Processed
Processed...
(Download)

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 14:45:53   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
rmalarz wrote:
Bill, exactly!!! Here are some examples of photographs taken after testing to see how each reacts to ETTR/EBTR. Tonal placement was achieved by increasing exposure such as to place the brightest parts of the scene in the appropriate Zone.

The second set was done with Unitary White Balance set in the camera. Thus the green appearance.
--Bob


Gorgeous B&Was 🖤⭐🖤

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 14:48:30   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Thank you very much, Joe.
--Bob
joecichjr wrote:
Gorgeous B&Was 🖤⭐🖤

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.