Film vs Digital

http://scubadiving.com/photo/instruction/2...06filmvdigital/

Worth a read. Stephen Frink has been shooting a housed SLR as a pro for longer than most of us have had a point and shoot camera...;-)

Cheers

James

A good article. Fun to read.

He said he sets white balance for cloudy, and shoots raw mode.

Does white balance settings affect raw images?

Yes, if you just do a batch convert using the default settings recorded by the camera then it matters.

This isn't a bad idea actually. You cut your workflow down a LOT by being able to just fire off a batch conversioni. And if you get a shot you really like, then you can go back and do a custom white balance.

Sort of like 1/2 way between shooting RAW and JPEG. Good idea Stephen!

Cheers

James

I like my white balance at AUTO when I shoot RAW for no reason other than it gives an interesting data point that might be educational. I'm going to set white balance by hand anyway, so I might as well see what the camera would have selected on its own. Cloudy is something you can always look at afterward. I find thumbs sufficient to determine if I want an image so I see no benefit to batch conversion. Land shooting is another matter.

this is the second or third article I've read from accomplished professionals that suggest that digital images are an organization nightmare. Perhaps we can help these guys out. I have low rez (50k) versions of all my keepers in iphoto on my primary hd. All my dvds/cds are mirrored on that file, so I can search by subject matter or by date. I can also give a slide show instantly of every keeper I own. Pick your photo, and I can pull it out of a cd binder in 30 seconds. Thats gotta be easier than putting slides under the magnifier?

Can you search by Keyword? What about by location? :-)

That's something you can never do w/ film.

Besides, don't most of the pros have "assistants" to do this stuff? :-) I sure wish I had an assistant to enter all of that stuff into the DB when I get home. I just want to take a shower...

Cheers

James

I sure wish I had an assistant to enter all of that stuff into the DB when I get home.   I just want to take a shower...

Ya, especially when you smell like an 81lbs yellowfin (sorry just the jealousy coming out)

Its a very useful and honest article.

I am about to pull together a more light hearted digital versus film article for the next issue of UWP magazine - for which I have already had a lot of input from Wetpixel. I intend to use quotes from postings a the Discussion I started (a month or so ago) in the article.

The article is based on the premise that we do underwater photography for fun. Few UW snappers are full time pros like Stephen. So the most important aspect of an underwater camera system must be how fun it is to use. So I will argue that digital is better than film because it is more fun!

Anyway I am on the lookout for illustrations for the article. In particular pictures that capture the digital experience. I remember seeing one on wetpixel a while ago of a photographer reviewing images on his LCD as a pod of dolphins swam by. Alternatively a shot a digi-snapper stuck on his laptop while his dive buddies get suntans might be good.

I'm happy to share pay a fair percentage of the article fees. But since UWP does pay that much this is not a get rich quick scheme!

I guess so we don't gum up the wetpixel server please email low res versions to me directly.

Alex - atmu@soc.soton.ac.uk

Can you search by Keyword?  What about by location? :-)

 

That's something you can never do w/ film.

 

Besides, don't most of the pros have "assistants" to do this stuff? :-)  I sure wish I had an assistant to enter all of that stuff into the DB when I get home.   I just want to take a shower...

 

Cheers

James

Good article -

James - searching by keyword or location is the same whether you shoot digital or film - you still have to enter that data into a database unless digicams do that for you now?

James - searching by keyword or location is the same whether you shoot digital or film - you still have to enter that data into a database unless digicams do that for you now?  

Some cameras allow you to embed constant EXIF tags in a series of photos for this purpose. As long as your process doesn't strip them out it's not too hard to extract that data from the resulting images. I have not done this personally although I do automatically extract EXIF data in my photo gallery software and insert into a MySQL database.

Well, you're assuming that film shooters don't mind scanning slides. "I don't scan slides."

When I take a shot, my camera records the time the shot was taken, the Fstop, shutterspeed, lens focal length, white balance etc... so not only do I not have to write that down (for learning purposes) but I don't have to scan slides either.

Cheers

James

Well, you're assuming that film shooters don't mind scanning slides.

I was just referring to searching by keyword and location. Nothing to do with scanning slides - of course digital is awesome for that - I hate it too. Can't wait to join you guys in finally converting.

But you can still have a database that references slides without having them scanned and search by those two or other variables - other than camera technicals in the EXIF.

It won't be long before GPS is built into the cameras. Right now, you have to plug it in separately. And then all we need is an automated tool that grabs location keywords from the coordinates.

But of course, it won't work underwater, right?

But of course, it won't work underwater, right?

That's right!

TedJ