Comments on: The Dynamic Range of Film http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html Photos, Reviews, Instruction Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:11:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Zacuto’s DSLR vs Film 2010 Shootout « Fido Lab Blog http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html/comment-page-1#comment-6879 Zacuto’s DSLR vs Film 2010 Shootout « Fido Lab Blog Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:18:05 +0000 http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/?p=1318#comment-6879 [...] Rockwell – Free Digital Camera Lawrence Ripsher – The Resolution of Film Lawrence Ripsher – The Dynamic Range of Film CameraQuest – Olympus 35 RC (~£30 on [...] [...] Rockwell – Free Digital Camera Lawrence Ripsher – The Resolution of Film Lawrence Ripsher – The Dynamic Range of Film CameraQuest – Olympus 35 RC (~£30 on [...]

]]> By: buy r4 dsi http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html/comment-page-1#comment-4424 buy r4 dsi Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:48:59 +0000 http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/?p=1318#comment-4424 I was just passing by this site and came across your post.Its interesting and also informative.I will keep visiting here often. I was just passing by this site and came across your post.Its interesting and also informative.I will keep visiting here often.

]]> By: Filippo M. http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html/comment-page-1#comment-3567 Filippo M. Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:58:23 +0000 http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/?p=1318#comment-3567 Wrote my comment while you were posting yours. Nice to hear you will continue to experiment! Wrote my comment while you were posting yours. Nice to hear you will continue to experiment!

]]> By: Filippo M. http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html/comment-page-1#comment-3566 Filippo M. Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:52:32 +0000 http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/?p=1318#comment-3566 Thinking more about my comment, I realized that usually photographers using negative film expose for the shadows and then 'underexpose' a few stops according to the amount of detail they want to retain in the lights. Actually it should bring the same result (same exposure) of my suggestion just through a contrary mental process and of course, there's no true unique rule: it depends on your creative purposes. However, for what I experienced and read the best perfomances of the best sensors nowadays surpasses the one of the negative film, having a dynamic range superior to 12 STOP in the case of many DSLR and reaching 11 STOP in the best compact cameras (at base ISO). The main differences is that digital dynamic range is usually wide in the shadows but narrow in the lights: in this field negative film still retains a sensible advantage for their nature that allows them to register layers over layers of information instead of pure white over a certain limit. Your approach for the exposure of this photo seems to be more digital/slides oriented even if for me it really contributes to the mood of the photo. What do you think? Looking forward to hearing your opinions! Thinking more about my comment, I realized that usually photographers using negative film expose for the shadows and then ‘underexpose’ a few stops according to the amount of detail they want to retain in the lights. Actually it should bring the same result (same exposure) of my suggestion just through a contrary mental process and of course, there’s no true unique rule: it depends on your creative purposes.
However, for what I experienced and read the best perfomances of the best sensors nowadays surpasses the one of the negative film, having a dynamic range superior to 12 STOP in the case of many DSLR and reaching 11 STOP in the best compact cameras (at base ISO). The main differences is that digital dynamic range is usually wide in the shadows but narrow in the lights: in this field negative film still retains a sensible advantage for their nature that allows them to register layers over layers of information instead of pure white over a certain limit.
Your approach for the exposure of this photo seems to be more digital/slides oriented even if for me it really contributes to the mood of the photo.
What do you think? Looking forward to hearing your opinions!

]]> By: Lawrence Ripsher http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html/comment-page-1#comment-3563 Lawrence Ripsher Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:28:54 +0000 http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/?p=1318#comment-3563 Interesting... agree with the process of overexposing slightly. that's what i do in scenes like this when matrix metering is selected (with both digital and film). Just dial in +0.7. That or matrix meter off the ground and exposure lock, followed by a recompose. What you suggested would overexpose and you may be right about being "wide on the right". Will definitely repeat the test and compare with digital for kicks. Stay tuned. Interesting… agree with the process of overexposing slightly. that’s what i do in scenes like this when matrix metering is selected (with both digital and film). Just dial in +0.7. That or matrix meter off the ground and exposure lock, followed by a recompose.

What you suggested would overexpose and you may be right about being “wide on the right”. Will definitely repeat the test and compare with digital for kicks. Stay tuned.

]]> By: Filippo M. http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2010/01/the-dynamic-range-of-film.html/comment-page-1#comment-3502 Filippo M. Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:47:31 +0000 http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/?p=1318#comment-3502 Lawrence, what about metering for the sky and then ''overexposing'' at least 2 stops? I would usually follow this method rather than the contrary, counting on the film's dynamic range ability to retain the highlights (that is much better than digital sensors). For what I know, film's dynamic range is particularly wide 'on the right' to the contrary of digital. Your way to go seems to be digital-like and I wonder if we would get similar results from opposite approaches. I actually think that the colors and the light would look more natural in such a way but the sky could be far less detailed than in your shot (as it must have appeared to human eye with the sun in your face) even trying to recover some highlights in PP. So, at the end, it would be just a matter of taste and I guess your version could be preferable with such a subject (no people involved). But that's just my hypothesis; if you're going to experiment more, could you try such a comparison for knowledge's sake? ;) Lawrence, what about metering for the sky and then ”overexposing” at least 2 stops? I would usually follow this method rather than the contrary, counting on the film’s dynamic range ability to retain the highlights (that is much better than digital sensors).
For what I know, film’s dynamic range is particularly wide ‘on the right’ to the contrary of digital. Your way to go seems to be digital-like and I wonder if we would get similar results from opposite approaches.
I actually think that the colors and the light would look more natural in such a way but the sky could be far less detailed than in your shot (as it must have appeared to human eye with the sun in your face) even trying to recover some highlights in PP. So, at the end, it would be just a matter of taste and I guess your version could be preferable with such a subject (no people involved). But that’s just my hypothesis; if you’re going to experiment more, could you try such a comparison for knowledge’s sake? ;)

]]>