Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>     I'd be curious to hear (now or later) a comparison between the 
> digital SLR's and the film ones. 

Sure.  I don't imagine there'd be a big difference between a DSLR and a 
decent digital camera of non-slr stripe.  Of course, a digital camera where 
you're viewing what the camera is viewing is a bunch easier to deal with odd 
situations like long-term exposures and such.

> I'm guessing noise would be a big benefit. 

I don't know what that means. Certainly the non-SLR digital cameras can be 
set to be completely silent. I got many a good pictures I wasn't supposed to 
be taking that way. ;-)

 > But does it improve workflow, etc?

Well, the film camera originally went into books. The digital photos got 
composed and then printed out on 8x11 pages. (Sadly, there are really no 
decent photo composition programs out there that make putting together such 
pages easy and flexible, to the point where I'd begun writing one myself.)

I later scanned and touched up the best of the printed photos, and I select 
down the way-too-many digital photos I take and arrange them in directories 
and such.

So the flow is utterly different, at least for vacation photos.

>     Do you touch up (lightly or heavily) your photos using some 
> software? 

Pretty much. Mostly just contrast and such.

> Did this change because of the digital SLR, or did you do that 
> even with film (darkroom? scan and touch up?).

Scan and retouch. I think film is much more forgiving of color balance and 
contrast than digital seems to be.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message