Hi again Leonard,
Nice to hear your personal experiences. Let me share some of mine.
> a renowned photographer in singapore,
Fair play to him. What I am about to say just reflects my own opinions as a fellow professional, renown or not I don't know. In no way am I making any comment about his knowledge or opinions, just expressing mine in relation and with regard to his opinions. Neither am I casting doubt on his professional ability.
> and when he's shooting for clients in the studio, he uses a professional digital cam, the brand and make i think i wld rather not say.
If he's working in a commercial studio, I take it he's using at least a medium format digital rig. Personally, I think that the quality MF digital produces far outstrips 35mm. For me this is a no-brainer and there is no argument.
> but after using digital for bout a year, he too admit that he has the 'no good, trash it' mentality.
As above, I have come to this at times as well.
> he has also said that the clour produced by digital, if not gone through PS, will not match the richness as that of film. this is true, and i have personally seen it myself.
My own personal opinion is that this is wrong. I assume by "richness" you mean saturation. Leaving PS aside first, digital cameras at the low end are usually criticised for being too saturated, with good reason. At the high end (MF) digital cameras capture extremely accurate colours, in a colourspace that tends to understate colours so as to preserve the full range of the scene. This can then later be bumped up as you mention in PS. Furthermore, these MF cameras capture in CMYK because that is the output process. However, if you wish, you can also shoot in a more vivid colour space. In this Velvia skewed world, we unfortunately are led towards punchy and contrasty colours. Fair enough, but then I could criticise film as being unrealistic to true colours as well.
Also, on what basis are you making these claims? Using Velvia, Kodachrome, Astia? The whole bundle of palettes available by these films renders comparison in a sweeping statement so implausible as to be ridiculous.
Now as to vivid colours. Digital cameras can capture in the RGB colour space and can regularly hit the extremes. All these bits will not fall within the gamut range of the CMYK printing process. So all this extra richness is possibly excess. At the end of the day, the printing press is the end product of most of the commercial photography today. Take this into account.
As to needing to process in Photoshop, fair play. That's why professionals are always striving for better colours out of camera. But for every Photoshop action necessary, there is a white balance setting on the camera (or custom preset) that removes the need for colour correction filters. And do not forget that trannies need to be scanned, and colour corrected in the scanning software or Photoshop as well (again on the premise that the majority of commercial work is destined for the print press). Or alternatively if straight prints are made, correction has to be made as well. Same thing, different process.
Processing the colours in Photoshop should be part of EVERY professional's workflow whether digital or film. There is not point zapping off an uncalibrated file through to the printing press, because the publishing house will just mutilate all your colours again. If you're doing this colour correcting and calibrating, and conversion to CMYK, which you should be for digital or film, then there is little issue about the Photoshop necessity of digital files to be a hassle.
> when shooting outdoors, like for coperate jobs, he'll rather use his F100, if not, FM2. still, je uses his digital cam to check the lighting b4 taking it with his manual SLR.
Well, all power to him. For corporate jobs, I'd be using medium format. In all honesty, I prefer quality digital to 35mm anyday. If you had said digital loses to 120 film then that would be more of an argument. In fact, I'm also shocked that he uses his digital cam to check lighting. A pro that knows what he's doing and what he's talking about (regarding colour richness for instance) really shouldn't need to depend on a digital cam to check lighting. What if the colours aren't rich enough because it's only a digital camera?
Now, the reason why I didn't disagree with you in the first place is because I sort of agreed with you. It has been my own personal bug bear that Singaporeans in particular suffer too much distraction from technology and hence spend less effort on improving the aesthetic side of their pictures (in comparison to the work of the amateurs I see first hand in Australia and the UK). This was evident even in the period of automatic focus and exposure cameras, before the advent of digital. Digital has just compounded this problem several-fold. After all, this website for instance has about 50 times the traffic than at AsiaPhoto.com ever had. But if somebody chooses to buy a brain-replacing camera, that's their choice. If they choose to take brainless pictures, it's their choice. If they make pictures they are happy with, then that is the whole point. They are happy, and I am happy for them. And it doesn't mean nobody can take pictures anymore. There are some very good photographers on this website. Without meaning to step on anyone's toes, they may be less common than say, among a pool of 35mm manual SLR users, but they do exist.
The reason I have come out now to say something is that I feel you are wrong to condemn this technology and the 90% of its users who don't know "proper" photography. And also because the basis of your comments seem to be questionable (not necessarily wrong mind you), and based seemingly on the one professional whom you are assisting. I know that in this position is seems difficult to look beyond everything that he is saying, and to accept it as gospel truth, but just because he's a professional photographer doesn't necessarily mean he knows all there is to know about photography, although he might well do. It doesn't mean his ways of doing things are necessarily the best, although they might well be. For every eminent professional condemning digital, I'll find you one who has converted and is finding it a revelation.
Actually I don't agree with what you said.... Although I love to migrate to SLR once I've got the money(I am using digital now), I still think Digital is a good way to learn.
