The comeback?

[RPC]

My experience is that hard sunlight is above and beyond both film and digital in terms of dynamic range.
With black and white film, I need to expose for the shadows and then develop to keep the highlights under control, even more trickery needs to be done when printing this onto paper, this is basically just manual HDR processing, because you compress the range to fit the medium and has nothing to do with skill or lack thereof.

Slide-film, as far as I know, has about 5 useful stops latitude.....that's not much to go on and anyone shooting slide is familiar with that.

C-41 has more latitude, mostly for overexposure, It still needs to be exposed for the shadows and it is not easy to save the highlights without filters in full daylight.
I've shoot enough film to realize that it has it's limitations and how to work with the medium to achieve what I want.

Raw-data is just information, not a photo, what you see on the screen is a representation of that data, exposure-issues as sensor-technology continue to improve, has been less and less of a problem.
Sure, it does save clueless butts out there, as well as the odd foul up from even experienced photographers, but that is no argument for or against digital or film, it is what it is.

A scene shot in the bright sunshine will not exceed the limits of negative film if exposed properly except what you refer to as "hard" (specular?) highlights. Negative film, recording at least 12 stops can easily record the entire scene. You would not benefit from shooting digital. Agreed, slide film is more limited.

 

[blockend]

With all due respect to a fellow photographer I suggest that you may not appreciate the fundamentals of digital capture: sensors, amplification, proper exposure/capture, file development.

I hope you're not inferring that appreciation means knowledge of the science? Because the software (plural) I uses has help bubbles that tells you what each slider does, and its effects are. A day playing around with the sliders offers anyone with photographic experience a good idea of what works and what doesn't. There are plenty of articles, YouTube tutorials and what have you if people are still not sure. Here's one on sharpening for example:https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm
It's basic stuff, and there are a bunch of filters to use straight out the can or to tweak the curves afterwards.

The sooner a photographer adopt a standard working method of exposure and editing (film or digital), the quicker he can concentrate on developing a personal vision. The biggest danger of digital editing is the almost limitless combination of "looks" to get lost in.

 

[faberryman]

That was a generic comment and not meant to be directed at any individual. It was simply to demonstrate that a dynamic range larger than film has, has little importance.

Little importance to whom?

 

[RPC]

Little importance to whom?

To the majority of photographers it would not matter. But under some conditions to some, for whatever reason it might matter. But overall, its importance is small, don't you think?

 

[faberryman]

To the majority of photographers it would not matter. But under some conditions to some, for whatever reason it might matter. But overall, its importance is small, don't you think?

No. Dynamic range is frequently an issue in both film and digital photography. When I shoot film, I am usually concerned with how I am going to fit the dynamic range of the scene into the 7-8 stops of the paper. There are several ways to go about it, but ignoring it is not one of them. When I shoot digital, I am usually concerned with whether shadows and highlights can be recovered and pay attention to exposure (and the histogram) to give me the most flexibility. Again, it is about fitting the scene's dynamic range to the print. One is fixed; the other is variable.

 

[blockend]

To the majority of photographers it would not matter. But under some conditions to some, for whatever reason it might matter. But overall, its importance is small, don't you think?

Film and digital has more than enough latitude for most photography. I read your claim as intimating digital had insufficient latitude for your needs, so you'd switched to film. The only time I rely on dynamic range is when shooting simple fixed lens point and shoot cameras with an aperture of f11 and a 1/100 shutter speed, or a box camera. With experience these can be deliver solid negatives with appropriate speed film, fill in flash and a suitable time of day. Automatic exposure meant even complete beginners got an adequate hit rate.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No. Dynamic range is frequently an issue in both film and digital photography. When I shoot film, I am usually concerned with how I am going to fit the dynamic range of the scene into the 7-8 stops of the paper. There are several ways to go about it, but ignoring it is not one of them. When I shoot digital, I am usually concerned with whether shadows and highlights can be recovered and pay attention to exposure to give me the most flexibility. Again, it is about fitting the scene's dynamic range to the print.

Print film generally does not have a dynamic range problem. Getting it on paper is another problem.

 

[RPC]

Dynamic range is important. With normal exposure exposure techniques negative film is much more than adequate. You can analyze what I say any way you want but I stand behind it.

When I print, I manipulate the print, not the negative.

 

[faberryman]

When I print, I manipulate the print, not the negative.

Yeah, that's usually the way to do it, but not always, e.g. masking. Nothing new there.

 

[removed account4]

personally i don't care about, and never have cared about dynamic range when i have made exposures
no mater what kind of camera i use. im always amazed when people talk about this sort of thing
as being the most important sort of thing. id rather have made a photograph via whatever means necessary
that was interesting for other reasons other than it being full scale on a 12x22 negative developed in pyrocat
and printed using azo/lodima+amidol. my lack of education in these matters has had me photograph things in jpg
and enjoy the results as much as using a box camera from the 1800s and a paper negative.
for me at least there are more interesting things to worry about than if the print has 23+steps of tonality..
to each their own.
and if i could i'd ditch my 2000s era car with a computerized engine system that is uber efficient for an early 1970s
vw bug with points and a rotor i would any day of the week. unfortunately where i live there are too many yahoos with cellphones
and SUVs that would squash me like a bug when THEY aren't paying attention ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

personally i don't care about, and never have cared about dynamic range when i have made exposures
no mater what kind of camera i use. im always amazed when people talk about this sort of thing
as being the most important sort of thing. id rather have made a photograph via whatever means necessary
that was interesting for other reasons other than it being full scale on a 12x22 negative developed in pyrocat
and printed using azo/lodima+amidol. my lack of education in these matters has had me photograph things in jpg
and enjoy the results as much as using a box camera from the 1800s and a paper negative.
for me at least there are more interesting things to worry about than if the print has 23+steps of tonality..
to each their own.
and if i could i'd ditch my 2000s era car with a computerized engine system that is uber efficient for an early 1970s
vw bug with points and a rotor any day of the week. unfortunately where i live there are too many yahoos with cellphones
and SUVs that would squash me like a bug when THEY aren't paying attention ...

The reason that you do not need to be concerned about film's exposure latitude is that it is so wide for print film it never is a problem photographing, only a problem at times for printing.

 

[removed account4]

The reason that you do not need to be concerned about film's exposure latitude is that it is so wide for print film it never is a problem photographing, only a problem at times for printing.

and i still don't worry about it, no matter how i am printing.
and no matter the machine i use to make the exposure.
as i have been using a digital camera of one sort or another since the 1990s
and i just accept what it can get as what it can get, just like a box camera
and developing the film in print and coffee developers.
i have too many other things better things to worrying about ... LOL
but to each their own ..

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you need a dynamic range more than film gives, then you must not be much of a photographer. The advantage of high dynamic range is mostly latitude to compensate for exposure errors or intended changes. No scene is going to require such a huge dynamic range. If your exposures are so far off that they require such a huge latitude provided by a huge dynamic range, you should learn to expose better.

The so-called larger-than-film dynamic range often touted for digital (before any compression, and you can bet those figures are inflated) is just more pro-digital hype to make digital appear preferable to film.

And the use of RAW required, along with lightroom, PS, etc., to fix exposure errors before conversion to a compressed file (which reduces your precious dynamic range) is just another manipulation required of digital not required with film. Digital more convenient than film? I wonder...

Good argument for shooting in jpeg.

 

[blockend]

personally i don't care about, and never have cared about dynamic range

It's never been my priority. Don't understand the obsession with shadow detail, either. In the UK the main issue is the flat grey skies that predominate for much of the year, nice for colour (like a huge soft box) but more difficult for B&W. You can burn those skies indefinitely to no avail. I learnt to enclose them in a black frame (file the negative carrier), and flash puts contrast into the subject.

Good argument for shooting in jpeg.

Yes. I shoot jpeg and Raw and aim to nail the jpeg straight out the camera. Tweaking mediocre shots in Raw won't make them any better.

 

[removed account4]

It's never been my priority. Don't understand the obsession with shadow detail, either. In the UK the main issue is the flat grey skies that predominate for much of the year, nice for colour (like a huge soft box) but more difficult for B&W. You can burn those skies indefinitely to no avail. I learnt to enclose them in a black frame (file the negative carrier), and flash puts contrast into the subject.

Yes. I shoot jpeg and Raw and aim to nail the jpeg straight out the camera. Tweaking mediocre shots in Raw won't make them any better.

exactly !

 

[faberryman]

Yes. I shoot jpeg and Raw and aim to nail the jpeg straight out the camera. Tweaking mediocre shots in Raw won't make them any better.

Neither will nailing the jpg straight out of camera.

 

[blockend]

Neither will nailing the jpg straight out of camera.

Why? When people used to get their prints back from the lab you could tell the keepers from the dumpers in a 6 x 4. Only tweaking by the photographer was the exposure. Not everyone chooses to exhaust the information in their image. I can think of one photographer who shoots everything at 25000 ISO because it gives him the look he wants. Some like a cross processed style, others high contrast mono.

 

[faberryman]

Why? When people used to get their prints back from the lab you could tell the keepers from the dumpers in a 6 x 4. Only tweaking by the photographer was the exposure. Not everyone chooses to exhaust the information in their image. I can think of one photographer who shoots everything at 25000 ISO because it gives him the look he wants. Some like a cross processed style, others high contrast mono.

I was referring to mediocre images.

 

[blockend]

I was referring to mediocre images.

True, but sending them directly to the waste bin involves much less work.

I don't understand the snobbery associated with shooting Raw, no one ever said slide film was bad because it has 1/3 of a stop latitude. I find typical digital camera defaults too sharp, too saturated and with insufficient blacks. That may be from years looking at film images. Most of those can be fixed in camera.

 

[faberryman]

True, but sending them directly to the waste bin involves much less work.

I don't understand the snobbery associated with shooting Raw...

It's a lot like the snobbery associated with shooting jpg. I see it on both sides.

 

[removed account4]

It's a lot like the snobbery associated with shooting jpg.

but its a lot of snobbery no matter what isn't it ?
if i got a nickel for every time i was told i am taking pictures wrong i'd probably be rich...
hope im not being offensive but threads like this cracks me up a little bit ... its like people wandering the streets of a semi crowded city
with sandwich boards proclaiming how great whatever it is they do for fun is and how not-great
other peoples methods or beliefs are ... i haven't figured out what my sandwich board says yet maybe its just
directions to the local coffee shop ...

 

[faberryman]

if i got a nickel for every time i was told i am taking pictures wrong i'd probably be rich...

We all would. I don't understand the rancor on both sides of the film vs. digital debate. It shouldn't even be a debate. Pursue photography anyway you want, and let the results speak for themselves. Yet rarely do we see the results supporting their positions from the protagonists in this drama.

 

[eddie]

I don't understand the rancor on both sides of the film vs. digital debate. It shouldn't even be a debate. Pursue photography anyway you want, and let the results speak for themselves.

Exactly. The superior method is the one which excites the photographer. The one which makes you work late into the night, and makes you wake up early in the morning to continue. Regardless of all the arguing over measuring pixels and grains, the most important measurement is passion. With the right amount of dedication, both methods can be used to create great things.

 

[blockend]

It's a lot like the snobbery associated with shooting jpg.

Do jpegs attract snobs? I've yet to read anyone saying a jpeg is objectively better than a processed Raw file. Much quicker, sufficient for most purposes if exposed properly. Data rich, not so much.

Yet rarely do we see the results supporting their positions from the protagonists in this drama

Nor will you if my contribution represents drama. I never critique anyone's work and wouldn't appreciate them returning the favour. How does someone compare Edward Weston and Miroslav Tichy? Or Stephen Shore and Daido Moriyama? My distant memories of formal critiques are of people favouring work if they like the individual or the work resembles their own. What is there to say? I'd have printed it darker? Crop out the fence?

This is one of my favourite photographers. Can you imagine her work being critiqued on Photrio? I can, sadly.
https://photoqbookshop.nl/product/bertien-van-manen-beyond-maps-and-atlases/

 

[blockend]

I don't understand the rancor on both sides of the film vs. digital debate

Rancor is the result of hair-triggers and projection. We should be unfailingly supportive of newcomers and young people, technically at least. Creatively they may be light years ahead of us as soon as they begin, so I wouldn't burden them with my aesthetic prejudices.