Digital Vs film photography and post-processing

[Yisehaq]

Hi All,
After now playing with CS2 I have come to understand that all my pictures I have taken with my rebel xt need some kind of retouching. Their saturation could greatly be improved, their sharpeness etc. I don't think we have a chance of doing this on film photography.

My question is can we produce pictures of acceptable quality that need not be retouched from a digital camera? If so, does it mean expensive gears or more expertise?

I know films produce better quality colors but what about contrast, sharpeness etc.
I know this is a very common issue many of you know the answer to.Could we discuss a bit on that please?

[tirediron]

After now playing with CS2 I have come to understand that all my pictures I have taken with my rebel xt need some kind of retouching. Their saturation could greatly be improved, their sharpeness etc. I don't think we have a chance of doing this on film photography.

Sure you do. Almost anything that you can do in Photoshop can be in the darkroom. Photoshop just makes it a lot quicker, easier, and less expensive! To increase saturation you'd shoot with Fuji Velvia as opposed to Kodachrome, sharpness isn't really an issue in film; if the image is focused, it's sharp.

My question is can we produce pictures of acceptable quality that need not be retouched from a digital camera? If so, does it mean expensive gears or more expertise?

Here you need to define "acceptable quality", but I would say in general, yes. All but the most inexpensive digital cameras will now produce good quality prints of 5x7 and 8x10 sizes. There's no more or less skill required to getting the image right 'in the camera' with a digital camera than with a film camera. You still have to understand the basics of photography; shutter spd vs apeture, DoF, focus, etc. What more expensive gear may do is make some of these things easier, but I challenge you to distinguish the difference between a 5x7 image taken with a $200 P&S or a Nikon D3, or Canon EOS 1D Mk III.

I know films produce better quality colors but what about contrast, sharpeness etc. I know this is a very common issue many of you know the answer to.Could we discuss a bit on that please?

Not true at all; each film, paper, and set of chemicals have their own characteristics. For instance, If I'm shooting sports or journalism, I'll shoot Kodachrome, develop with Dektol and print on Kodak Glossy. If I'm doing a landscape, I'll shoot with Velvia, and develop and print with Fuji products . Ilford PanF developed with Perceptol and printed on Ilford HiGloss would produce an entirely different looking print than Tri-X Pan developed with Acufine and printed on Kodak Glossy.

The luxury we have with digital is we can change all of these things with each frame, where with film, we had to make our choice, load the roll and expose it. If we wanted to change it, we had to load another roll in addition to planning our results and loading and exposing the film based on the result we hoped for.

[Marko]

My question is can we produce pictures of acceptable quality that need not be retouched from a digital camera? If so, does it mean expensive gears or more expertise?

For me the key word here is retouched....and unless I'm off I think you made a mistake with that word. I think you meant to say-post processed (which includes all the work done to a photo before it's published or printed).
and if indeed you meant to say post processed - the answer is NO.
However the answer is NO with film cameras as well.

All good images that are better than snapshots will need some dodging (lightening a specific part) and burning (darkening a specific part) - period. All the camera does is take an average of the tones in a scene and feed you back an image with those averaged out tones. Usually the result is good BUT IT IS ONLY THE STARTING POINT. Then you as the artist with real eyes will have to make the decision - this zone is too dark and you'll fix it or this zone is too light and you'll fix it. You will ALWAYS have to do this. Always.

Unless I'm off again, I am reading into the fact that you are frustrated with this process somewhat....but it was the same process in a traditional darkroom - and it will never change in my opinion. As you get better at looking at an image and 'seeing' what needs to be done, your frustration will diminish.

Remember even though they say a monkey can take a picture, it will almost always be a bad picture. Great photography is hard work.

Hope that helps,

Marko

[tegan]

Hi All,
After now playing with CS2 I have come to understand that all my pictures I have taken with my rebel xt need some kind of retouching. Their saturation could greatly be improved, their sharpeness etc. I don't think we have a chance of doing this on film photography.

Digital photography tends to be very light sensitive and where there is a great range in light to dark, the darker areas tend to lose saturation. In film photograhy it is equivalent to slide film versus print film. Using print film exposure can be off by several stops and still produce a useful print. With slide film, the exposure must be more accurate. The same is true for digital.

As to sharpness in digital, the attempt is to achieve a balance between too much sharpness which causes picture noise and grain, and too little sharpness that results in a soft image. Software can do a better job on this than the in camera processing, so it is usually left to the user to do postprocessing.

My question is can we produce pictures of acceptable quality that need not be retouched from a digital camera? If so, does it mean expensive gears or more expertise?

Everyone's concept of acceptable quality photos is different. It depends on whether you are talking about regular size prints of family style snapshots or artistic photos that you want to blow up.

The highest quality in technical digital photography is achieved with a very good camera, appropriate accessories for the shot, high quality fast lenses, and sophisticated postprocessing software. Photoshop CS3 by the way is not always the answer in that area.

I know films produce better quality colors but what about contrast, sharpeness etc.
I know this is a very common issue many of you know the answer to.Could we discuss a bit on that please?

Film has more colours, not better quality colours. The result is that a greater dynamic range and gradual blend of colours is possible without noise or artifacts.

In sharpness, film and digital are about equal, but that means using a tripod, mirror up and remote trigger or timer. This is of course rarely done by most photographers using either film or digital.

Digital tends to have about the same high contrast of colour slide film..which is often too much for some shots, since it often leads to lack of detail in shadow areas or muted "dead" colours in areas of lower light.

Tegan

[Yisehaq]

Thank you all. That was really helpful. Unfortunately from now on I am the only one to blame for my bad pictures. .

Marko you read my brain completely.

thank you all again.

[tirediron]

Thank you all. That was really helpful. Unfortunately from now on I am the only one to blame for my bad pictures. .

Marko you read my brain completely.

thank you all again.

that's the case for all of us I'm afraid....

[kiley9806]

that's the case for all of us I'm afraid....

isnt that the truth!

[Marko]

Like I said though - it does get easier with practice!

You will learn to 'see' with the practice - you'll see some of the potential trouble before you click the shutter (and perhaps re-frame or choose to shoot when the light is better)

...and you'll be able to see what needs to be done when you look at the image on your computer.

I can already see the improvement in your work Yisehaq and I can tell you are being realistic.

Sometimes people pick up a camera and have totally unrealistic expectations when it comes to photography. Ask a stranger how long it takes to become a good (just good not even great) painter and they will likely say "a couple of years".

The answer is the same with photography but few people want to spend the time...and it's too bad for them because unless you have a gift from God, it takes years to get good and much longer than that to become great.

I must say though, it makes me happy to no end to see quite a few people on our board who have a desire to learn in earnest.

Best!
Marko

[Dwayne Oakes]

Sure you can it just takes practice and solid photography fundamentals.
All my work is jpeg with no pp.

http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com

Take care Dwayne Oakes

[Yisehaq]

It really is very impressive. Thanks for sharing.