Well, I can't shoot underexposed to get darker images and darker shadows as I've done in the past without incurring gobs of noise that ruin the image. I don't find that at all convenient, and it has changed to one degree or another how I shoot and what I shoot. There's a feeling that I'd like to capture in some of my pics that, for whatever reason, I can't. Maybe I have to learn more processing techniques, or better hone the skills I have, but for the moment a lot of my pics are unacceptable wrt noise in the shadows. Exposing "to the right" makes some areas to light, fries others, and so forth. There's a whole aspect to digital, as I've experienced it, that is unsatisfactory and which doesn't allow me to fully express myself.
What does convenient have to do with how well or poorly current DSLRs capture and interpret the scene? A DSLR is neither more nor less convenient than a 35mm film camera when taking the pic. Cameras are of similar size and configuration, and are used in a similar fashion. Even post processing is similar once a negative has been scanned. Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Francis > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Frankly, I believe digital does change > > the way some people shoot wrt > > subjects and the interpretation of those > > subjects. Bruce Dayton and I had > > a brief discussion about that a few weeks > > ago. One of the things mentioned > > was how exposure choices to avoid noise > > in shadows and dark areas effect > > the look of photos. There seems to be > > more brighter pics floating around. > I'm sure the digital era has changed the overall look of > photography, just as the Kodak Brownie and the 35mm > film cameras introduced changes. But I'd attribute most > of this to the effect of making photography more > convenient, rather than changes to an individual photographer's > style. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
