When a camera or format makes you disregard composition you would otherwise like to employ, then there is something still very wrong with the format. Digital has made most of us avoid the sun or employ other tactics like placing an image component directly in front of it because it simply doesn't handle high-contrast areas very well at all (which you refer to). Let's face it, no sunball or sunburst looks right. They all look like s&*t. This kind of color fringing is probably the worst of it's deficiencies. Digital ain't the end all, but it is the future as yet unrealized.The last 'quality' area where I still think film behaves better is the area of gradation intense and specular highlights. Underwater of course this is with sunballs, and topside in contrasty light, particularly with figure work.
Given the way digital capture applies half of all available pixels to the highest captured level, then half of the rest to the next highest level and half of the remaining to the next highest level, and so on and so on until the lowest level is composed of the least data, shadows are always thin on info. Subsequently as you try to stretch the low levels to bring the exposure back up (because you have intentionally underexposed) you are using "dirty" information. It just doesn't work well to stretch light data and compress heavy data. The upper levels will be fine, but the lower levels will essentially destroy the quality of image. What I am saying is that there remains no way to circumvent this particular property of digital to which you refer.I think film still provides a nicer more even gradation in Zones 9-12 than digital. This can be overcome to some extent by underexposing, and then bringing out the shadows in post-processing.
I enjoy shooting digital and am committed to digital capture, but I know that film in some ways offers a better final product. It simply cannot be argued away, nor can a condescending attitude towards those who continue to believe film is a better product change that.
My hope is that digital capture becomes so good, that reliance upon gross post processing is not only rendered moot (for a good photographer) but also considered highly improper as a means for rendering a significant image. A digital photographer will always claim that the same photographic skill sets are required of both formats, but I think we all, on both sides of the fence, know that isn't true. Changing the hue of background water in post isn't a photographic skill, hence it is very hard to argue that Microsoft Blue ocean water was a uw photographic capture. It isn't wrong, nor is it dishonest, but it isn't necessarily photography. And therein lies the true separator between film and digital aficionados....no matter how much either side wants to argue about capture quality.
Just let's get real......
.jpg.857dbbfbdc4d79d9c6ebf7b4ba96ed1b.jpg)
