The digital photographers that I correspond with, on the PHOTODIGITAL mailing list aren't having these problems. Most were pro film shooters for many years but either have converted to digital completely or are in the process of doing so.
Len --- -----Original Message----- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? The digital photographers I've talked to in Columbus (two) have both indicated to me this problem with digital imaging and which I observed in the prints -- not enough latitude. Perhaps it's the equipment they're using ... ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Paris, Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:36:20 -0500 >Of course operator error couldn't have been the cause, it had to be the >camera, right? Just like those killer SUVs that do mean things to people on >the road. It's never the fault of the driver. > >Len >--- > >-----Original Message----- >From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:53 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Digital vs.FILM: will digital cameras lose the war? > > >The other day I took a good look at some 8x10 prints made from digital. >They were bright-day >outdoor shots. Here is where digital truely failed. >Worse than chromes, not only were the bright areas >washed out, but the color degradation showed up >as color bands with sever pixelation. The sensors >seem to not be able to handle bright areas at all. >The other parts of the print from the normal, dimmer >areas, showed good color and detail. >The darkest areas showed almost no detail. Digital >failed there as well, but it wasn't as apparent or >offensive. >Digital succeeds well in very controlled lighting. >Get outside of that arena and film still rules. > >My 2c, > >Collin > >
