I'm not so sure about that, although I tend to agree that film can, when scanned and the image manipulated in Photoshop, give similar results. I don't know enough about working with RAW files yet to speak with any intelligence on the subject, but it seems that you may have a point. Still, even if you are 100% correct, I think the workflow is easier and much simplified when shooting RAW, and for someone like Paul, that's as much a part of the equation as anything, I'd suppose.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/4/2004 6:53:05 PM > Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests > > If you shoot and then scan film, you can do anything > you could have with a DSLR image in terms of color balance. > There are also many different films to choose from to > adjust the color palette. If anything a DSLR is more > limiting than shooting film because the sensor only > gives you one characteric while using filmS give you a choice > of many different characteristics. RAW helps digital but film > doesn't need it.... > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests > > > Hi Paul, > > I can't help but wonder how photographers made photos under similar > circumstances before the advent of digital. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > [...] > > about color accuracy, control and consistency of digital. I had to > > shoot a car a week or two ago under muddy skies. it would have been > > impossible with film. But shooting RAW digital, I was able to generate > > > acceptable images. >
