Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
digital vs film photography
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Aug 3, 2021 15:08:44   #
Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA
 
I also find it's easier to correct overexposed (too light) in raw than underexposed (too dark). So did Ansel Adams. Pic shows SOOC on left and Post processed in the darkroom with dodging and burning the print on right.


(Download)

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 15:25:47   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
burkphoto wrote:


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.
img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)


I always attempted to do my own lab work and maintain an in-house darkroom and colour lab. There were, however, many occasions where the workload and schedules require outsourcing someof the work. It was always important to communicate with the lab manager so he or she could understand your tastes and requirements and build a good relationship.

One of the labs I dealt with was on Long Island. There were, at the time, pretty high tech for the day in that had one of the first video analyzers made by Hazeltine- the system took up half of the floor space in the lab. They instituted a policy where they had the right to refuse work from photographers and/or return negatives unprinted that constantly submitted erratically exposed and problematic negatives. I jokingly remarked to the manager "do you not invite the occasional challenge" He said that he doesn't mind making a silk purse out of a sow's ear but raising the dead is not in his preview"! I was flattered, however, when they manage to me that his crew that operate the automatic printers and make my progs fight over the negatives from my studio because they are easy to produce with few remakes.

My first boss and mentor insisted that all new employees that eventually were going to be trained to photograph
weddigs and portraits, had to do time in the darkroom before they would even be allowed to pick up a
camera! We weld joke that we were cast into the dungeon! Well- it was a clean and functional darkroom but not exactly like the one at Life Magazine- that we all read about in the photography magazines. The studio had full-time staff shooters but on busy weekends, the freelances were called in and sometimes their negative were erratically exposed. The boss wanted us to experience the consequences of having to doctor every shot of a 6o or 80-page wedding album- NOT FUN! It was pure HELL-we had a sink with a tray of 3 different print developers- hard, soft, and very soft working because fine quality chloro-bromide portrait papers only came in one grade-NORMAL! Don't' ask!!! And...also the boss wants us to experience the joy of printing good negatives. So...when the other rookies and I were out on the job, the horror of the lousy negatives was etched in our minds! Well- it was really the horror of the boss getting perturbed over a sloppy job!

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 16:37:38   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
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


Ask little girls if they can find the unicorn in the clouds of the second photo. My daughter would have made me buy a print back in the day! (She's 30.)

Reply
 
 
Aug 3, 2021 17:35:45   #
levinton
 
Makes sense but anticipatory adjustments help as well, is all I’m saying.

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 18:33:27   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
[quote=burkphoto]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!

The foregoing left me a little confused. IN the "old" days I was taught to slightly underexpose Kodachrome and Ektachrome, but slightly over expose color print film. So now, with digital, do I target slight over or under exposure?

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 18:54:42   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Davey, digital is more related to color slide film. To achieve the "proper exposure" for my photographs, I tested each of my cameras, along with the lenses I'd be using with them, to determine the amount of additional exposure I'd need to place the highlight values in the Zone I choose for highlights. The unfortunate aspect is that it is not a one-stop/one Zone relationship, as with film.

So, controlled testing is required to achieve the ability to precisely place the highlight values in the appropriate Zone. It's also better to think in terms of additional exposure as opposed to overexposure. Once overexposure happens details are lost, never to be seen again.

Additionally, I rarely look at the in-camera histogram. It's usually crammed to close the to the high end of the scale.
--Bob

[quote=DaveyDitzer]
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!

The foregoing left me a little confused. IN the "old" days I was taught to slightly underexpose Kodachrome and Ektachrome, but slightly over expose color print film. So now, with digital, do I target slight over or under exposure?

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 18:55:31   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
[quote=DaveyDitzer]
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!

The foregoing left me a little confused. IN the "old" days I was taught to slightly underexpose Kodachrome and Ektachrome, but slightly over expose color print film. So now, with digital, do I target slight over or under exposure?


If you want JPEGs processed in the camera, treat them like slides. If you absolutely will post-process raw files into finished TIFF or JPEG images, then you can push the exposure farther to the right, anywhere from 2/3 stop to almost two stops, depending on the camera. You must run tests under different conditions to know what your camera can do.

Reply
 
 
Aug 3, 2021 20:22:12   #
mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area
 
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


Very nice results.
Mundy

Reply
Aug 3, 2021 20:25:46   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Thank you very much, Mandy.
—Bob

mundy-F2 wrote:
Very nice results.
Mundy

Reply
Aug 4, 2021 06:31:52   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
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! ....

The camera's histogram as a whole is very different from the raw histogram. However, the right end of both histograms are pretty much in agreement.

Take a look at Nikon's Active D-Lighting and Matrix vs. Spot Metering.

Here is a plot of JPEG results compared to raw values without using Active D-Lighting. It shows the green raw channel (the most important luminance channel) reaching its maximum (blowing out) at EC+3, the same time as the JPEG blows out in all three channels. I have found this to be the same for all three Nikons as well as Sony and Fuji. If any one wants to test a Canon I will be happy to describe how I arrived at these plots.



So even if you are spot metering, you cannot "place" the highlight reading more than 3 stop brighter than middle gray without simultaneously blowing the raw and JPEG values.

Reply
Aug 4, 2021 08:28:35   #
Wallen Loc: Middle East
 
selmslie wrote:
The camera's histogram as a whole is very different from the raw histogram. However, the right end of both histograms are pretty much in agreement.

Take a look at Nikon's Active D-Lighting and Matrix vs. Spot Metering.

Here is a plot of JPEG results compared to raw values without using Active D-Lighting. It shows the green raw channel (the most important luminance channel) reaching its maximum (blowing out) at EC+3, the same time as the JPEG blows out in all three channels. I have found this to be the same for all three Nikons as well as Sony and Fuji. If any one wants to test a Canon I will be happy to describe how I arrived at these plots.



So even if you are spot metering, you cannot "place" the highlight reading more than 3 stop brighter than middle gray without simultaneously blowing the raw and JPEG values.
The camera's histogram as a whole is very differen... (show quote)


Good info. I'm using a D610, chose it over the D750 to have some extra for glass

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2021 08:54:25   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
I really appreciate you all. Now I have another homework assignment.

Reply
Aug 4, 2021 09:11:15   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
selmslie wrote:
The camera's histogram as a whole is very different from the raw histogram. However, the right end of both histograms are pretty much in agreement. ...

Here is another explanation of the same graph https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704155-9.html#12401963

Reply
Aug 4, 2021 09:16:35   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
Wallen wrote:
Good info. I'm using a D610, chose it over the D750 to have some extra for glass

Great camera. It was almost the last camera I felt I needed for color digital since I don't make prints larger than 13x19.

Eventually I caved and got a Z7 whose results are bigger but only better if I pixel peep. If I want larger prints I'll have to have someone else print them or buy a bigger printer.

Reply
Aug 7, 2021 19:42:46   #
julian.gang
 
billnikon wrote:
I can do much more with photoshop than I could ever do in the darkroom. Plus, it is much safer, I have lost my early shooting buddies to cancer contributed to the chemicals we breathed in.
I now shoot RAW, used to be just a Jpeg shooter, but you can teach an old dog new tricks. And now it's RAW and photoshop. I can do a 100 times more now in Photoshop than I could even hope for in the darkroom.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.


Sorry about loosing 1 of your buddies, I use a Sony DSC-HX400v, my film camera was a Yashica, I love Zeiss lenses, both of these cameras use Zeiss for their lens. Good talking to you!...Julian

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
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 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.