If settings are set to most ideal on both a digital and a film camera, which would take the best image? I’ve handled a few different digital cameras(Nikon D50, Sony DSC-F828, Nikon D80, and a few other). Obviously these are midrange and not top of the line cameras. Regardless, my photographs never come out as rich as I imagine they should turn out. I would also like to accomplish this without digital manipulation(photoshop, etc.). I can post examples of photographs which turn out great but colors weren’t as rich as I would like them to. I’m unsure if the output I’m looking for can only be attained by film cameras? Or whether I need to be taking more photographs for better competence.
Digital cameras have become so advanced that shooting with film has become a choice of style for most cases. The other case is if you need to shoot higher resolution than a digital can shoot.
It sounds like the problem(s) that you are having with digital cameras is that you don’t have it setup up correctly. The cameras that you mentioned should allow you to adjust the settings through a computer interface (this is easiest) as well as set them up through the cameras interface. It shoulds like your color tempurature isn’t set correctly. You also need to know a bit about setting the ISO speed to coincide with the apperature and shutter speed that you are looking to snap the photo at.
BTW - I love shooting film but shoot ~ 98% digital.
the line cameras. Regardless, my photographs never come out as rich as I imagine they should turn out. I would also like to accomplish this without digital manipulation(photoshop, etc.). I can post examples of photographs which turn out great but
explain to me why you do not want ‘digital manipulation’, when you evaluate film you are evaluating the camera+lens, the film you use, the developing process you use and the printing process you use. When you shoot digital you are evaluating the camera+lens, the RAW converter you use, the photoshop settings you use for ‘development’ and the printing process you use. It is quite comparable, you can’t evaluate a digital camera without the whole ‘digital development’ process.
Try to shoot some velvia and then some provia, would you expect your prints to look the same with both? I doubt it, same thing is you shoot with a digital camera (which by default has very ‘neutral settings’) and in photoshop you can make things look however you want them (B/W, super-saturated-velvia, more pop/contrasty, …). You could make them look that way in-camera as well (by upping the saturation/sharpness, say) but why would you want to, when you can get a neutral RAW file and change it however you want it later.
I definitely don’t adjust the ISO much- I’m going to have to give that setting more of a go. As for the color temperature, I’ll have to read up on that. The current camera I have(Sony DSC) allows an adjustable light source setting but I cannot find the color temperature settings.
Basically, this came up while I was watching the tube and National Geographic had “10 of the most critically acclaimed photographers” take photographs of people in their natural setting. The shots looked amazingly rich. And all seemed to use a non digital camera(frankly I don’t know what kind it is, they seemed to look down into a viewfinder instead of the usual look-ahead viewfinder).
You need to over expose by 2-3 stops when shooting on snow unless you are using an external light meter and even then you typically have to over expose. Your camera should have a setting that allows you to set this. And then you will need to change your saturation.
Like Marco said…it’s best to do it after. The only downfall is when you are trying to get a lot of photos out quickly and then you can write or create a script to do it for you.
I knew someone was going to ask me that! And with all honesty, I don’t know. I just feel like I’m not doing something right if I have to manipulate it via digital manipulation.
Are you talking about the f-stops? I had it at its widest aperture setting (2.2) and almost its fastest shutter speed since the dogs were moving quite a bit. Or is there another setting?
I am not familiar with your camera but with most mid priced digital SLRs you adjust the fs of the lens and then the camera body’s computer has an interface where you can have calculate going over. If you are already maxed this might turn out a bit over developed or grainy looking.
“Basically, this came up while I was watching the tube and National Geographic had “10 of the most critically acclaimed photographers” take photographs of people in their natural setting. The shots looked amazingly rich. And all seemed to use a non digital camera(frankly I don’t know what kind it is, they seemed to look down into a viewfinder instead of the usual look-ahead viewfinder).”
Those are typically medium format film or digital cameras. The main difference besides price is the surface area size of a medium format is 6 centimeters rather than 35mm. Also, a lot of people believe there is better optics available for medium.
I don’t know what those dogs are supposed to look like, but I liked them just as you shot them. My uncle had a husky or a malimut (sp?) and it looked VERY similar to that.
A couple of things to note…
Many pictures these days are SO over-processed (because ANYONE can do this) that we forget that in real life, MOST of the times, the colors just AREN’T as vibrant as we can force them to be via Photoshop, Gimp…etc. I’m not saying this is good or bad, just that I’ve played with some of my own pictures and have been astonished at some of the changes I can make. I may end up with a picture that is much more interesting or compelling than what was REALLY there. (I also believe Photography as a stand-alone art form is dying and being “reborn” as a sensor data collection + post processing…but that’s another story)
May want to check your color space. I own a D80 and usually shoot in AdobeRGB (which is the largest colorspace on the camera)…but I have found when doing comparisons…many times the other colorspaces look more “rich” depending on the situation and what I’m shooting.
At least with the D80, by default…the colors tend to be more natural looking and less “vibrant”…at least to me. When I was shopping and comparing Canon to Nikon…I found Nikon to be more “real” looking…but Canon to be more “rich.” In the end, BOTH cameras’ output can be adjusted to what YOU like.
Hope that helps! And remember that one of the benefits of digital is that “no film to develop” means you can play a LOT…learn a lot and get the camera to work how YOU want it to.
You can saturate your images in Photoshop to get richer more vibrant color. Almost every professional photographer utilizes his Photoshop tools to create the look or style he is after.
The lower end digital cameras have less dynamic range and resolution then the more expensive medium format digital backs. But they all have the capacity to make lovely images. My $32,000.00 Phase One P45+ coupled with my Hasselblads create amazingly detailed and vibrant images. My $400 Canon G10 point and shoot also makes amazingly detailed and vibrant images.
Shoot in RAW format and use a good RAW converter such as Phase One Capture One Pro, Adobe Lightroom or Raw Developer by Iridient Software. You will be able to “develop” or process the look that you want.
Do all adjustments in the processing software and let the camera do only the exposure. No sharpening, no color adjustments, nothing else.
Ensure that your input and output color space in the software matches your camera or convert to Adobe RGB and make sure that the output color space matches the file. Too often people that have problems will dull looking images are the result of working in Adobe RGB or some other color space in Photoshop but the output is being converted to sRGB for printing. sRGB is a monitor color space.
Basically, this came up while I was watching the tube and National Geographic had “10 of the most critically acclaimed photographers” take photographs of people in their natural setting. The shots looked amazingly rich.
of course they do, the vast majority of ‘nature’ photographers use Velvia slide film for their shots, and using velvia has as much to do with reality as using PS to bump up saturation…
Not to mention that any pic you’ve seen, besides being shot like that, also has gone through a lot more steps (digital and non) before it gets to your eyes: I doubt you set your eyes to the original slide right out of the camera
One thing to remember, all digital cameras need sharpening, color adjustment, and enhancement. Some of the mid end and low end dgital cameras also impart what some call a digital haze. A bluish cast that renders the image lifeless.
A friend of mine is a NYC fashion photographer. His work is amazing and he gets the majority of his “look” is post-production. His images might even take hours of post production processing.
Those are typically medium format film or digital cameras.
the only thing MF gets you is resolution, if you use the same film type (velvia, provia, astia, …) in 35mm, 645, 8x10 etc. the photo will look the same (of course given the same exposure).
Actually, digital MF gets your more than resolution. It gets you a different look that is primarily due to the lenses and format, a greater dynamic range, and smoother color due to higher bit rate. It also gets you flat field lenses without much distortion for architectural and product photography.
For example, I use Schneider Digitar lenses on an ALPA camera for architectural photography. The low distortion, contrast and color rendering capabilities of these lenses are unparalled.
Also, if one is shooting film, the emulsions between LF, MF and 35mm are NOT always the same, but I don’t shoot film in my work anymore, so I really don’t wish to get into all of the differences.
I would think you can closer to that look by playing with the in camera settings. Of course I’m not SURE about that, and it’ll take some playing. On my D80 I shoot with the following settings:
Shooting menu → Optimize image → custom →
All items are set to ZERO and I shoot in the AdobeRGB colorspace. So what I’m doing is deliberately asking the camera to do nothing to the image and I’ll make changes in Capture NX as I want/need.
Instead of that, where I use “custom” you might try shooting in “vivid” or “more vivid” and see if that gets closer to the look you’re after.
Just keep shooting lots! make mistakes…and figure out why it didn’t come out how you wanted…and apply that new knowledge! Above all…have fun!
