| | Before, when I used rolls of film I used to tell the camera that I had a film that was one step slower than it actually was, like this; I put a 100 ISO film in the camera but told the camera that I had a 50 ISO instead. I did this because I liked the colours better. Is there any way i can do this with a digital camera? |
| | The closest thing I can think of that would give you that result would be to just overexpose by 1 stop. In aperture priority, just go 1 stop to the right. ISO speeds jump by 1 stop up or down respectively, so that ISO 50 is one stop slower than ISO 100, and ISO 200 is 2 stops faster than ISO 50 and so on.In any case, just fiddle with your exposures until you match that effect. It seems odd though, because all your images would have been quite overexposed, with blown highlights everywhere. Not sure if that would suit every shot. Hope that was of help. |
| | Thanks Maliketh.
I´ll give that a try.
I need to say that when I used to push the film the the "wrong" way, I did not mention this at the lab. Hence the results weren´t overexposed, but rather the opposite. Saturated in rich colour. It was quite nice in fact. Not for all purposes, but when suitable it was a nice effect indeed. |
| | I've found, in my humble experience, that digital sensor reacts differently to film. You can recover detail in over exposed film, but it's lost in digital; conversely, you can recover detail in shadows of digital, but not film. Skies, with digital, tend to over expose, looking white on one side and blue on the other. |
| | I recommend to shot RAW. You may want to experience a little bit with raw. Currently most cameras offer 12-bit images where a color is represented in 2^12 levels = 4096. The standard jpg is storing 256 levels (8-bit), so overexposed details are represented in a very small range most of them lost.
You may want to use bracketing and then combine digitally the underexposed image with the overexposed image, eg. sky from underexposed, foreground from overexposed. It's an ugly workflow, but we have to wait years until cheap 16- or 20-bit cameras will appear on the market. Until that you can extract a lot of detail from a 12-bit RAW. |
| | I agree with the RAW shooting comment! It is possible to recover from overexposed images by as much as 2 stops, bringing detail back into the highlight areas, where with a JPG you are dead in the water! How,ever, underexposure tends to lead to richer, more saturated images than does overexposure. Overexposure when adjusted to correct levels in PS or NX (Nikon man) tends to crush any noise in the blacks so is advantageous from that aspect. |
| | With the onset of technology and the computerrs, Picture imaging has gone a long way from that using the Film. So what is the picture quality difference of a picture taken with a film and that with a digital cam? 
|
| | photographers still use film?  |
| | can you give the advantages and disadvatages of using film and digital camera? 
|
