Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Jul 30, 2011 16:33:01 GMT -5
Hi! I tried a red filter on the digital, set at ISO 100, B&W. Tried some shots with and without the filter, I also left it on auto to let the camera do the work. I didn't notice a lot of difference. Personally, I prefer B&W film. I also had trouble viewing the screen, so I switched to eye level viewfinder, but that didn't seem to help much. The first one is w/o filter, the second one is with. I took others as well, I just like these two best. I think that the photos I took came out OK, but I might have been better off just sticking to film. Doug
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2011 19:28:51 GMT -5
Film will just record anything that is sent to it, but digital constantly tries to reproduce what it thinks is right, unless specifically told not to. I shoot RAW and then do the filters later in photoshop. That said I do tend to find that I do minimal manipulation. When shooting in RAW, even if the camera is set to B&W the file is saved in full colour although it will appear on screen as B&W. This below is one of the few that I have had the camera set to B&W. It was accidental, the colour switch had, as it were, been knocked onto the wrong setting.
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Jul 30, 2011 20:15:26 GMT -5
Hi Dave! That's a very nice photo. I've yet to figure out the difference, and have till now shot and saved everything in jpeg format. I'm sure my camera can do better, so I'll do some homework and try again. I suppose I've got to stop thinking analog when it comes to digital photography. Some principles don't change, like lighting, and composition, but the digital medium is forcing me to think in totally different directions. It's a lot of fun, learning new things Doug
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jul 30, 2011 21:40:07 GMT -5
Doug, I wish I fully understood all the ins and outs of file types and their results.. As I understand it there are three basic file types: uncompressed, lossless compression and lossy compression. RAW files can be either of the first two, while JPG fit into the third. The big problem with uncompressed files is that they are just that, BIG. I think TIFF were the original uncompressed files. As the megapixels grew uncompressed files would have got out of hand. A JPG on my Canon might be 4-7 MB or so, while compressed RAW are 20-35 MB depending on subject. Uncompressed RAW would be twice as big again.
As the RAW file is bigger it also takes the camera a bit longer to write it to the memory card. The net result of this and the bigger files is that you need bigger cards with faster write speeds.
JPG is fairly standard and tends to be readable by all photo software: TIFF too I think. However for RAW files you often need a plug-in. Each manufacturer tends to have its own type (Pentax PEF, Canon CR2) of RAW file. However although the files that come from the 30D and the 7D are both designated CR2 the two are different. The latest type needs the latest Photoshop.
Once you get over all the problems, RAW offers much more than JPG. However, if it's just a case of taking a snap and viewing on the TV or printing postcard size then its hardly worth shooting RAW.
Dave.
|
|