I have decided to sale 35mm film camera I have and perhaps 645 too. I would like to know few things before the move.
1. I plan to purchase XT/350D as I used it yesterday for about half an hour. It is small and light. Sure not meant for pro use but image quality is outstanding from the samples I saw and images that Juza sent. The question is what does 20D offer me compared to XT. Faster operation is not critical to me, and I was happy with the controls of Rebel. I may buy another better body than XT in a year or so. XT will be mostly travel-backpack camera.
2. I have decided to go with 17-40L as it seems the best option, price/performance wise. I don't need anything wider than 28mm. Any other option here?
3. I have PS7. What software (raw converted etc) do I need. Is it a better idea to upgrade to PSCS or PSCSii?
4. What about CF cards, backup on the road etc?
5. is this of any use?
6. Finally how does 645 output compare to digital. This is very subjective, I know. I have compared 35mm film and XT/20D output and digital wins imho. Now 645 scanned with a desktop scanner at 3000+ DPI might print larger but what about details? This is not going to affect my decision at all. Scanning and removing artifacts is quite hard, plus the cost of film, flexibility and other factors are important as well. And am not in printing HUGE images anyways. If I want that then LF is always there. But I just want your opinion.
7. Any other thing I missed? Am new to digital.
1. The 20D has basically a more professional-feeling body and faster FPS, the image quality is identical to the 350D. I choose the 350D because with the difference of price you can get a nice lens as the 17-40, and I can live with the small body (that actually is quite robust - I have used it under rain, and even at -20 celsius degrees without problems). Last but not least, I didn't want to invest more with a 20D because I needed it a "temporary" body, until the New 1 is announced (sept 06) and until I can afford it ;-)
2. I think that it is one of the best "landscape" lens that you can get :-)
3.To open the RAW files of the 350D, you need PS CS 2 with Camera RAW 3.x (or another RAW converter)
4. It depends by how many photos you take...I'd suggest to begin with a Sandisk 1GB or 2GB CF. (if you don't need speed, you can save a bit buying the Sandisk "classic" instead of the faster and more expensive Ultra2 or Extreme3)
5. I don't know.
6. I don't have any direct experience, but I have heard many times that the output of a 12mp camera as the 5D and the D2X is comparable to MF.
7. It is much more funny that film ;-) You can experiment as you want, without worry about film costs.
1. Yes, am almost set on 350D and will use for a year or two until funds allow me to get a 5D like body.
2. 17-40 /4L is indeed a great choice for APSC camera, it seems.
3.How about something like C1ProLE (only 99$) and PS7! than buying PSCS2!
4. Yes, I will be buying 2 1GB cards and some small cards. What I meant was the portable drive. I may noe buy it now but would be interesting to know which are better.
5. Dumped!
6. ok.
7. Thank you
3. Personally, I'm a big fan of CS2, it has some tools that are much better than PS7 : shadow/highlight, the Smart Shapen (better than USM), a quite good noise filter, and many other enhancements. You won't use much the NF for landscapes, but S/H is great to extract shadow detail, and the SS improves the sharpness with much less haloes than the USM.
4. I had a portable drive, but I sold it because I had always the fear to lose all the photos if I dropped the thing (the CF instead are almost indestructible). Of course, if you need a solution to store a lot of photos in the field there are not many alternatives :-/
Just a thought - you won`t get that much money for a M645 now anyway so why not keep it for things that digital just doesn`t cut it yet: (don`t flame me guys but I mean looooong exposures - star trails anyone? Also the effect of some B&W emusions is hard to duplicate as I hear. Occasional fun with Delta 3200? IR?). I am probably an exception but my ongoing experience with a DSLR convinced me to stay with film for my personal stuff. The 350D is a great tool, though, and you probably can`t go wrong with it.
Obviously it`s your decision and if you need the $$$ - get rid of stuff you don`t use and have fun with the rest. If you decide to part with the 645 kit, shoot me an email: ottluuk"at"starline"dot"ee
Ott,
I still have my 1000s and 80mm which is in what can be called as MINT condition. Although it is old. I have recently serviced it in Munich and there are no MARKS on the body at all.
My P645 is Nii machine. May be two years old but is also in great condition. I own 75, 45 and 120 macro, all AF and new lenses with no marks. Shoot me an email if interested.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 5, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Prashant,
I think you'll really like the 17-40L. I really like mine on the XT. The pictures produced are so crisp with very nice color. Here is an example (though not great of the 17-40 on the XT) resized to 3MP. sample
I'd say the other thing the 20D has over the XT (other than the feel) is a better autofocus system. I couldn't really justify the cost of the 20D myself when the camera bodies are still advancing so quickly. Like you, I plan to upgrade from the XT to something in the next generation or two.
You can upgrade from PS7 to CS2 for $149US. I'd probably take that road if you are familiar with working with PS already. In addition to the features Juza mentioned, it adds 16bit support. When you convert your XT images (12bit RAW) you might occasionally want the 16 bit flexibility when making adjustments like saturation and contrast.
On the CF side of things, I'd just go for 2GB cards. The cost difference between 1GB and 2 GB has dropped pretty low ($20). Here is a estimate of the nunmber of pics each card will hold from the XT. I usually use Raw+JPG because it is easier to deal with JPG, but when you've got something real nice, you can convert the RAW to get the very best from it. I have cards in all three of the sizes below. From the best of my memory, these are the numbers of remaining shots shown in each mode on an empty card.
Posted by Scott Bacon on April 5, 2006 at 12:20 PM
I'll throw in my 2 cents...
1. I guess this means you won't be buying my 300D? Good choice.
2. Depending on your needs, you might consider the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS. It is not the quality of the 17-40 L, but it does have more focal length range and IS. I've been quite happy with mine.
3. I'm in the same boat. I have CS, but Adobe Camera Raw doesn't look like it will support the new 30D in version 2.x, which means I may need to upgrade to CS2 to use ACR 3.x. I may just use Pixmantec's RSE. I've used it before and like the interface - and its FREE.
5. Another option is to by cheap plastic film protectors for PDA screens and cut them to fit. I got a pack of 10-15 protectors on eBay for under $10. You can do the same to the small LCD on top of the camera.
7. Develop a solid back-up plan. You'll be generating LOTS of files. Make sure you have a system to keep them safe from hard disk failure - external hard drive, CDs, DVDs, or a combination of all 3. There's lots of info on the web regarding digital back-up.
I faced a quite similar choice myself this spring when I was forced to buy new gear. Last year I used a Mamiya RB67, which I enjoyed very much. The depth of field issues were the biggest drawback IMO...more than the weight honestly. In November, I had a theft and the system was stolen. I contemplated digital seriously...as you say, 35mm digital is an effective replacement for 35mm film. I decided against it for a couple of reasons. First, after comparing prints from a 8mp digital against the same shot with my 6x7, I felt that the digital prints looked significantly worse to my eye. I could tell at 8x10 even. The rendering of the fine detail was the biggest issue. Tonally, the digital prints were beautiful, but film won pretty easily in the end. I'm not sure how 6x4.5 would fare against digital...I would guess, that properly scanned, the fine detail would be better in print. I wouldn't sell the system until I tested it against the digital you choose and see the results in print.
Another factor for me, is that I want a sense of continuity in my portfolio...in other words, I don't really want the frame ratio to change. 35mm digital would be a lot more attractive to me if it was 4x5 ratio instead of 2x3. I would hate to crop digital to 4x5 since I find the resolution to be limited already. Ultimately I decided to go with 4x5 film as a primary system. Film costs are high, but the prints are breathtaking...and the print is what I'm really after here.
As you say, if you are printing smaller sizes, I'm sure you'll be quite happy. Any system is a selection of compromises and it seems that you are well informed as to what you are getting into. Best of luck!
Why not crop all to 5x7" if you want continuity. Personally, I prefer the 5x7 format over 4x5 or 35mm. Also, you cannot compare 8 mp images to 6x7 or 4x5 and it's somewhat silly to try. Now, one can compare 12+ mp images to MF without much of a problem. I find that some images will look better in digital and some will look better in film, just depends on the subject and the light with tradeoffs from both captures. Oh, and one other thing, it takes time to learn digital image processing. The real difference could be in your digital workflow and not just the file itself. It's kind of funny, when a photographer jumps to digital he/she thinks that things will be perfect even from the start of the transition, I'm speaking from personal experience. We quickly find out that we have to learn to walk again! Just because we know how to process film normally doesn’t translate into a good digital workflow system and to create a good digital reproducion REQUIRES a good digital workflow.
Jerry,
that thing with 5x7 crop is great. I find that attractive too. And it works well with the standard papers, is good on eyes. I have already given up on 67 as weight, DOF and backache(after long hikes, bike trips) made it difficult for me. 645 is still attractive but 8-10mp should be close, I guess. Digital will also allows me to be more productive/creative, I think.
Of course, digital has a great learning curve for sure.
Posted by Tim Stenning on April 5, 2006 at 6:22 PM
Everything "all depends". Film, so far as I can see, is the best for Time Exposures. I love'em. All night star shots. I've been travelling with a Sony DSC V3 and a CANON 350XT and an Ibook and PS 8. So far, I cannot use my RAW files with my PS. I need to upgrade fast. I imagine the sw that CANON provided with my camera can work well, but so far I have had no luck with it. I find it too slow and awkward. But I'm dim with programs. PS is fast and easy for me. I think the shade for the back of the XT might be very useful. Without shade, it is virtually impossible to see images in the small LCD screen.
Tim Stenning
"Why not crop all to 5x7" if you want continuity. Personally, I prefer the 5x7 format over 4x5 or 35mm. Also, you cannot compare 8 mp images to 6x7 or 4x5 and it's somewhat silly to try."
Jerry,
Everyone has their preferences in regards to the frame that they prefer to work in and I agree that 5x7 would be a better compromise if one did in fact feel alright about cropping. I personally like working full frame with whatever camera I have...so I guess its just not my thing. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong to any of it, its just a choice of many choices.
I brought up my personal comparison between 8mp and 6x7 just because I think its worth investigating what the difference really is between formats of all sorts. I agree that it is a bit silly in hindsite, especially when one knows the reality of the difference in print. But, in all honesty, how does a person know for themselves short of looking? Everyone ultimately decides what is "good enough" for them. For example, if a person only prints up to 11x14, I would say its a valid comparison. Real world investigation isn't a bad thing. You know this though.
Posted by Scott Elliot on April 5, 2006 at 11:27 PM
I have a 17-40, but find that it is a little short for a general purpose lens. If I was buying again I would wait and have a look at the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens that has been announced and should be available in the next month or two. This is an EF-S mount lens so it cannot be used on full frame cameras, if that is a consideration.
Canon supplies a RAW converter with the camera, so you don't have to rush out and upgrade your Photoshop. Also, RawShooter Elements is a RAW converter that is available free, although I preferred to pay the upgrade to RawShooter Premium and the Colour Engine that provides profiles specific to different camera models.
Again, my real position is when someone tries to compare a scan from MF or LF film to even a high-rez digital file that has not been properly processed due to the photographer not knowing the proper digital workflow. It most always happens this way, the photographer making the accusation that digital doesn’t look as good as film all the time knowing that he/she has no idea what the correct digital workflow is for creating as great digital image. I’ve kind of been there, so I’m speaking from experience not from just trying to stir the pot. The great thing is that I had a group of great digital photographers to help me see the light as I made the switch from 5+ years of shooting large-format film to high-end digital. Thanks Andy B. and Darwin W.!
I went through this same issue with an acquaintance from Colorado. He noticed, through my website, that I had made the move to digital and wanted to make known what his findings were. He is a MF photographer that made accusations that he could make better prints from a drum scanned 35mm over the 5D or 1Ds MKII. He stated that the native resolution at 300dpi is only large enough to make 13x19’s and he didn’t want to interpolate the image from native due to degradation. I proceeded to explain to him that he could interpolate the image up to 250% in the RAW conversion without degradation and a touch more in Photoshop. He then proceeded to say that I didn’t know what I was talking about and that I was wrong. Hummm, I didn’t know what I was talking about? Well, that means that me along with thousands of other informed digital photographers are wrong. The deal was that he was trying to use his film scanning workflow to process his RAW files and it just will not work! It’s a different animal!
I completely agree with Jerry. Especially worth stressing is the workflow differences. I originally tried to process digital captures the same way I did film scans and the results were relatively poor. After some experimentation and research I have learned how to get what I want from RAW capture.
Guy
Posted by Neil Langdon on April 6, 2006 at 11:00 AM
Okay can someone tell me what the correct digital capture workflow is and how it differs from that of scanned images once the images are in photoshop or are we talking about what takes place before loading the images into photoshop?
One of the biggest differences is the concept of raw conversion, which doesn't exist in film. There's some functional overlap between raw converters and imaging software (like Photoshop) but some things are best done in one vs. the other.
In film world, the film will already make some decisions on your behalf (contrast, color, detail, grain, color temperature etc.) where with a digital capture you can defer these decisions until you're sitting at your computer with a color-calibrated monitor.
Also - a raw capture has different characteristics from a film scan - it is deliberatly softer, cleaner, etc. which needs to be acocunted for in your workflow to get to a certain desired result.
I am looking at prints I made from both film and digital at various points and I can tell you my digital prints today are much better than they were when I first printed a digital image even though I was quite experienced with Photoshop at the time.
Guy
Posted by Neil Langdon on April 6, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Guy,
Thanks for the feedback and I'm happy to see that my current workflow takes all that you mentioned into consideration. At least now I know that I'm proceeding in the right direction and not missing anything.
Thanks again.
Neil
Guy & Jerry, Can you give some specifics on what kind of processing should be done in the RAW converter. And what should be left to be done in Photoshop? Or is it image dependent?
I've just been doing white balance, and exposure adjustments in the RAW converter and leaving everything else to do in Photoshop. What am I missing?
Posted by Martin Ziese on April 10, 2006 at 10:27 PM
Prashan,
Several things:
No matter which camera you decide to purchase I would strongly recommend that you shoot in RAW only. You have much better control of the post editing of a RAW file then you ever will from any other format.
No matter which RAW processing engine you go with, the one that comes with the camera (Canon RAW converter) or Photo Shop’s, make sure if you have the option, to uncheck all “AUTO” features in the RAW converter program and use Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro to make any adjustments to the converted TIFF file… Oh yeah, make sure that the RAW image is converted to 16-bit TIFF. I normally convert my RAW images to 16-bit TIFF / ProPhotoRGB.
I would highly recommend PhotoShop CS2, The “BRIDGE”, PS’s answer to Windows “explore” is a very dynamic search and file-handling program. It is packed full of very useful tools. It can display all of the Metadata that is embedding in your image file. You can use it to batch process (convert) RAW images, batch rename them, copy to specific folders and more…more…more. You can edit the IPTC data, add keywords to describe the image and help you to search later on for any image file by a specific keyword or set of keywords. There are too many features to really mention on this thread without writing a book. Suffice to say that the BRIDGE is the best place to start your image workflow.
I have saved tons of money on Compact Flash cards by purchasing an Epson P2000 Viewer. It is a great tool. It allows me to store files while in the field, the model I have stores up to 40 gigabytes of data, more then enough storage capacity for a weeks outing. They make a larger one too, but it will cost you more. Mine was a little under $500.00, but well worth the expense.
Good luck on your gear and software purchases, and happy shooting.
Discussion
21 replies1. I plan to purchase XT/350D as I used it yesterday for about half an hour. It is small and light. Sure not meant for pro use but image quality is outstanding from the samples I saw and images that Juza sent. The question is what does 20D offer me compared to XT. Faster operation is not critical to me, and I was happy with the controls of Rebel. I may buy another better body than XT in a year or so. XT will be mostly travel-backpack camera.
2. I have decided to go with 17-40L as it seems the best option, price/performance wise. I don't need anything wider than 28mm. Any other option here?
3. I have PS7. What software (raw converted etc) do I need. Is it a better idea to upgrade to PSCS or PSCSii?
4. What about CF cards, backup on the road etc?
5. is this of any use?
6. Finally how does 645 output compare to digital. This is very subjective, I know. I have compared 35mm film and XT/20D output and digital wins imho. Now 645 scanned with a desktop scanner at 3000+ DPI might print larger but what about details? This is not going to affect my decision at all. Scanning and removing artifacts is quite hard, plus the cost of film, flexibility and other factors are important as well. And am not in printing HUGE images anyways. If I want that then LF is always there. But I just want your opinion.
7. Any other thing I missed? Am new to digital.
1. The 20D has basically a more professional-feeling body and faster FPS, the image quality is identical to the 350D. I choose the 350D because with the difference of price you can get a nice lens as the 17-40, and I can live with the small body (that actually is quite robust - I have used it under rain, and even at -20 celsius degrees without problems). Last but not least, I didn't want to invest more with a 20D because I needed it a "temporary" body, until the New 1 is announced (sept 06) and until I can afford it ;-)
2. I think that it is one of the best "landscape" lens that you can get :-)
3.To open the RAW files of the 350D, you need PS CS 2 with Camera RAW 3.x (or another RAW converter)
4. It depends by how many photos you take...I'd suggest to begin with a Sandisk 1GB or 2GB CF. (if you don't need speed, you can save a bit buying the Sandisk "classic" instead of the faster and more expensive Ultra2 or Extreme3)
5. I don't know.
6. I don't have any direct experience, but I have heard many times that the output of a 12mp camera as the 5D and the D2X is comparable to MF.
7. It is much more funny that film ;-) You can experiment as you want, without worry about film costs.
2. 17-40 /4L is indeed a great choice for APSC camera, it seems.
3.How about something like C1ProLE (only 99$) and PS7! than buying PSCS2!
4. Yes, I will be buying 2 1GB cards and some small cards. What I meant was the portable drive. I may noe buy it now but would be interesting to know which are better.
5. Dumped!
6. ok.
7. Thank you
4. I had a portable drive, but I sold it because I had always the fear to lose all the photos if I dropped the thing (the CF instead are almost indestructible). Of course, if you need a solution to store a lot of photos in the field there are not many alternatives :-/
Obviously it`s your decision and if you need the $$$ - get rid of stuff you don`t use and have fun with the rest. If you decide to part with the 645 kit, shoot me an email: ottluuk"at"starline"dot"ee
Good luck!
I still have my 1000s and 80mm which is in what can be called as MINT condition. Although it is old. I have recently serviced it in Munich and there are no MARKS on the body at all.
My P645 is Nii machine. May be two years old but is also in great condition. I own 75, 45 and 120 macro, all AF and new lenses with no marks. Shoot me an email if interested.
I think you'll really like the 17-40L. I really like mine on the XT. The pictures produced are so crisp with very nice color. Here is an example (though not great of the 17-40 on the XT) resized to 3MP.
sample
I'd say the other thing the 20D has over the XT (other than the feel) is a better autofocus system. I couldn't really justify the cost of the 20D myself when the camera bodies are still advancing so quickly. Like you, I plan to upgrade from the XT to something in the next generation or two.
You can upgrade from PS7 to CS2 for $149US. I'd probably take that road if you are familiar with working with PS already. In addition to the features Juza mentioned, it adds 16bit support. When you convert your XT images (12bit RAW) you might occasionally want the 16 bit flexibility when making adjustments like saturation and contrast.
On the CF side of things, I'd just go for 2GB cards. The cost difference between 1GB and 2 GB has dropped pretty low ($20). Here is a estimate of the nunmber of pics each card will hold from the XT. I usually use Raw+JPG because it is easier to deal with JPG, but when you've got something real nice, you can convert the RAW to get the very best from it. I have cards in all three of the sizes below. From the best of my memory, these are the numbers of remaining shots shown in each mode on an empty card.
JPG RAW RAW+JPG
512 125 50 35
1GB 250 100 75
2GB 500 200 150
1. I guess this means you won't be buying my 300D?
2. Depending on your needs, you might consider the Canon EF-S 17-85 IS. It is not the quality of the 17-40 L, but it does have more focal length range and IS. I've been quite happy with mine.
3. I'm in the same boat. I have CS, but Adobe Camera Raw doesn't look like it will support the new 30D in version 2.x, which means I may need to upgrade to CS2 to use ACR 3.x. I may just use Pixmantec's RSE. I've used it before and like the interface - and its FREE.
5. Another option is to by cheap plastic film protectors for PDA screens and cut them to fit. I got a pack of 10-15 protectors on eBay for under $10. You can do the same to the small LCD on top of the camera.
7. Develop a solid back-up plan. You'll be generating LOTS of files. Make sure you have a system to keep them safe from hard disk failure - external hard drive, CDs, DVDs, or a combination of all 3. There's lots of info on the web regarding digital back-up.
Enjoy!
I faced a quite similar choice myself this spring when I was forced to buy new gear. Last year I used a Mamiya RB67, which I enjoyed very much. The depth of field issues were the biggest drawback IMO...more than the weight honestly. In November, I had a theft and the system was stolen. I contemplated digital seriously...as you say, 35mm digital is an effective replacement for 35mm film. I decided against it for a couple of reasons. First, after comparing prints from a 8mp digital against the same shot with my 6x7, I felt that the digital prints looked significantly worse to my eye. I could tell at 8x10 even. The rendering of the fine detail was the biggest issue. Tonally, the digital prints were beautiful, but film won pretty easily in the end. I'm not sure how 6x4.5 would fare against digital...I would guess, that properly scanned, the fine detail would be better in print. I wouldn't sell the system until I tested it against the digital you choose and see the results in print.
Another factor for me, is that I want a sense of continuity in my portfolio...in other words, I don't really want the frame ratio to change. 35mm digital would be a lot more attractive to me if it was 4x5 ratio instead of 2x3. I would hate to crop digital to 4x5 since I find the resolution to be limited already. Ultimately I decided to go with 4x5 film as a primary system. Film costs are high, but the prints are breathtaking...and the print is what I'm really after here.
As you say, if you are printing smaller sizes, I'm sure you'll be quite happy. Any system is a selection of compromises and it seems that you are well informed as to what you are getting into. Best of luck!
Why not crop all to 5x7" if you want continuity. Personally, I prefer the 5x7 format over 4x5 or 35mm. Also, you cannot compare 8 mp images to 6x7 or 4x5 and it's somewhat silly to try. Now, one can compare 12+ mp images to MF without much of a problem. I find that some images will look better in digital and some will look better in film, just depends on the subject and the light with tradeoffs from both captures. Oh, and one other thing, it takes time to learn digital image processing. The real difference could be in your digital workflow and not just the file itself. It's kind of funny, when a photographer jumps to digital he/she thinks that things will be perfect even from the start of the transition, I'm speaking from personal experience. We quickly find out that we have to learn to walk again! Just because we know how to process film normally doesn’t translate into a good digital workflow system and to create a good digital reproducion REQUIRES a good digital workflow.
that thing with 5x7 crop is great. I find that attractive too. And it works well with the standard papers, is good on eyes. I have already given up on 67 as weight, DOF and backache(after long hikes, bike trips) made it difficult for me. 645 is still attractive but 8-10mp should be close, I guess. Digital will also allows me to be more productive/creative, I think.
Of course, digital has a great learning curve for sure.
Tim Stenning
Jerry,
Everyone has their preferences in regards to the frame that they prefer to work in and I agree that 5x7 would be a better compromise if one did in fact feel alright about cropping. I personally like working full frame with whatever camera I have...so I guess its just not my thing. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong to any of it, its just a choice of many choices.
I brought up my personal comparison between 8mp and 6x7 just because I think its worth investigating what the difference really is between formats of all sorts. I agree that it is a bit silly in hindsite, especially when one knows the reality of the difference in print. But, in all honesty, how does a person know for themselves short of looking? Everyone ultimately decides what is "good enough" for them. For example, if a person only prints up to 11x14, I would say its a valid comparison. Real world investigation isn't a bad thing. You know this though.
Canon supplies a RAW converter with the camera, so you don't have to rush out and upgrade your Photoshop. Also, RawShooter Elements is a RAW converter that is available free, although I preferred to pay the upgrade to RawShooter Premium and the Colour Engine that provides profiles specific to different camera models.
I went through this same issue with an acquaintance from Colorado. He noticed, through my website, that I had made the move to digital and wanted to make known what his findings were. He is a MF photographer that made accusations that he could make better prints from a drum scanned 35mm over the 5D or 1Ds MKII. He stated that the native resolution at 300dpi is only large enough to make 13x19’s and he didn’t want to interpolate the image from native due to degradation. I proceeded to explain to him that he could interpolate the image up to 250% in the RAW conversion without degradation and a touch more in Photoshop. He then proceeded to say that I didn’t know what I was talking about and that I was wrong. Hummm, I didn’t know what I was talking about? Well, that means that me along with thousands of other informed digital photographers are wrong. The deal was that he was trying to use his film scanning workflow to process his RAW files and it just will not work! It’s a different animal!
Guy
One of the biggest differences is the concept of raw conversion, which doesn't exist in film. There's some functional overlap between raw converters and imaging software (like Photoshop) but some things are best done in one vs. the other.
In film world, the film will already make some decisions on your behalf (contrast, color, detail, grain, color temperature etc.) where with a digital capture you can defer these decisions until you're sitting at your computer with a color-calibrated monitor.
Also - a raw capture has different characteristics from a film scan - it is deliberatly softer, cleaner, etc. which needs to be acocunted for in your workflow to get to a certain desired result.
I am looking at prints I made from both film and digital at various points and I can tell you my digital prints today are much better than they were when I first printed a digital image even though I was quite experienced with Photoshop at the time.
Guy
Thanks for the feedback and I'm happy to see that my current workflow takes all that you mentioned into consideration. At least now I know that I'm proceeding in the right direction and not missing anything.
Thanks again.
Neil
I see exactly the same thing with my first digital images! Wow! I've been exclusively digital for just over a year now and I've have yet to miss film!
I've just been doing white balance, and exposure adjustments in the RAW converter and leaving everything else to do in Photoshop. What am I missing?
Several things:
No matter which camera you decide to purchase I would strongly recommend that you shoot in RAW only. You have much better control of the post editing of a RAW file then you ever will from any other format.
No matter which RAW processing engine you go with, the one that comes with the camera (Canon RAW converter) or Photo Shop’s, make sure if you have the option, to uncheck all “AUTO” features in the RAW converter program and use Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro to make any adjustments to the converted TIFF file… Oh yeah, make sure that the RAW image is converted to 16-bit TIFF. I normally convert my RAW images to 16-bit TIFF / ProPhotoRGB.
I would highly recommend PhotoShop CS2, The “BRIDGE”, PS’s answer to Windows “explore” is a very dynamic search and file-handling program. It is packed full of very useful tools. It can display all of the Metadata that is embedding in your image file. You can use it to batch process (convert) RAW images, batch rename them, copy to specific folders and more…more…more. You can edit the IPTC data, add keywords to describe the image and help you to search later on for any image file by a specific keyword or set of keywords. There are too many features to really mention on this thread without writing a book. Suffice to say that the BRIDGE is the best place to start your image workflow.
I have saved tons of money on Compact Flash cards by purchasing an Epson P2000 Viewer. It is a great tool. It allows me to store files while in the field, the model I have stores up to 40 gigabytes of data, more then enough storage capacity for a weeks outing. They make a larger one too, but it will cost you more. Mine was a little under $500.00, but well worth the expense.
Good luck on your gear and software purchases, and happy shooting.
Martin