Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Exposure latitude of digital SLR

  1. #1

    Thumbs up Exposure latitude of digital SLR

    Continue from the previous thread (DOF - DSLR vs SLR).

    We all know exposure latitude of Black and White film > Print Film > Slide Film.
    So is exposure latitude of digital SLR better than any film? Any comment?

  2. #2
    Phildate
    Guests

    Default

    Exposure latitude of digital is comparable to that of slide i.e. not as wide as film. Guess that is why Nikons tend to underexpose to ensure highlights aren't blown out. Have to be careful with metering with digital.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jitkiat
    Continue from the previous thread (DOF - DSLR vs SLR).

    We all know exposure latitude of Black and White film > Print Film > Slide Film.
    So is exposure latitude of digital SLR better than any film? Any comment?

    Try the following links...

    http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Ponti...vs_digital.html

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/r.../shootout.shtml

  4. #4
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    your links are truncated :P


  5. #5

    Default Sites unreachable

    Unable to reach those sites leh .. can you just include a brief summary

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phildate
    Exposure latitude of digital is comparable to that of slide i.e. not as wide as film. Guess that is why Nikons tend to underexpose to ensure highlights aren't blown out. Have to be careful with metering with digital.
    Are u referring to JPEG or RAW format in your comparison?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jitkiat
    Unable to reach those sites leh .. can you just include a brief summary
    Ooops! Paiseh....please try these below

    Much better you read for yourself, very good essays....

    http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/P...s_digital.html

    http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/P...de_better.html

  8. #8

    Default

    So far, I have read countless articles on comparisons between film (negs or slide) v. digital. Most of these comparison are done digitally ie. high res scans of slides and negs.

    Are there any comparisons done using actual prints? I prefer to look at prints as its cumbersome to turn on a computer just to view photos.

    Thanks

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shutterspeed
    So far, I have read countless articles on comparisons between film (negs or slide) v. digital. Most of these comparison are done digitally ie. high res scans of slides and negs.

    Are there any comparisons done using actual prints? I prefer to look at prints as its cumbersome to turn on a computer just to view photos.

    Thanks
    I hope comparison are not just digital v. Kodax Max 400, but against Portras and the Fuji NPHs.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    i find that digital exposure latitude is similar to that of slide film... not as good as negative film...

  11. #11

    Default

    The questions I posted are not meant to start another "film vs digital" debate.

    In fact, there is no need to debate about digital or film. The reality is both can produce publishable photos. When full-frame-sensor digital SLRs become more affordable, I will definitely buy one. However, I will still keep my film SLR for shooting slides as nothing comes close to relive your memory by going through your slide collection in your bedroom through a slide projector.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shutterspeed
    So far, I have read countless articles on comparisons between film (negs or slide) v. digital. Most of these comparison are done digitally ie. high res scans of slides and negs.

    Are there any comparisons done using actual prints? I prefer to look at prints as its cumbersome to turn on a computer just to view photos.

    Thanks

    I believe the comparison has to be made on a medium with higher latitude than the 2 mediums you are comparing.

    Print has the lowest dynamic range so to make a print from either film, slide or digital camera the outcome is a compression of the dynamic ranges of all the original medias into the limited range of the print, thus making a comparison meaningless.
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •