Please help. New question about film vs. digital??

[TomC]

Hey guys,
I'm sorry if this has been covered in other posts. I've searched for the past couple of weeks trying to find this by myself. Here it goes...

I am going to be purchasing my first SLR system at the end of February. I've already decided between Nik*n and Canon which is why I'm asking this here.

While I know that 'some' post processing is necessary with either format, I want to practice and study on getting it right with the camera. I dont want to have to spend endless hours at a computer processing. I am of the belief that digital will help me get better quicker due to the fact that I can take more pictures without worrying about cost. BUT, is it possible to get comparable film quality results from a 20D (what i would buy if I go digital) from the camera setup??? Or will I HAVE to do a lot of PSing to get it close??

Let me say I've seen some wonderful pictures done digitally. Very comparable to film. However, I've seen very few that werent dolled up in photoshop.

Is this possible?? I really hope so. I look forward to your responses and maybe even some pictures from people who want to get the shot right with the camera instead of being slothful on sight (thats what I dont want to be) and correcting the images at the computer.

TomC

[ssim]

You will probably find that at the beginning you will spend hours trying to perfect your post processing skills. After awhile you will get your workflow down to where it doesn't take all that long to get your images to where you want them.

The quality from the 20D can certainly equal that of a film camera quite easily. This also depends on how big you actually decide to print them. I have seen some images where the photographer has shot JPG and claims them to be right out of the camera (I have no reason to disbelieve them). This does require you to set a few custom functions such as in camera sharpening. I personally only shoot RAW as this gives you more flexibility in post processing.

While I do not have the 20D I have enlarged some of my 1d MKII images to 16X20 and they would rival any film camera. The sensor size is comparable between the two.

It doesn't matter whether you go with Canon or Nikon. You will find that you will have to do some post processing.

[TomC]

Thanks SSIM. I'm aware there will be 'some' post processing. But I want to get it right in the field. (Or at least practice to that end) I think film seems to make you think more about your shot and all your settings etc.

I want to be able to do the same thing with Digital with comparable results. Is that possible or am I exuding wishful thinking here?

[HKFEVER]

Once you get use to the digital, and set up the camera right (fit your requirement of the sharpness and colour), then it is really up to you to edit it in the PS.

Also, with digital you save a lot of filter money, because you can but those effect in the PS.

[TomC]

Thanks for the reply HKFever. That just it. I dont want to do all the filter stuff in PS. Thats the gist of my question. With a film camera, you'd put a polarizer filter on to get that particular effect. Thats what I'm asking if I can do with digital and still get the same comparable results to film that everyone gets with the PS editing. Maybe i'm not getting my question across properly :(

[dsze]

Hi,

...good question and also good that you decided to ask this before you buy a dslr, because if you want the camera to do everything and be able to pop your memory card into a printer for instant prints, then I would assert that a dslr is not for you. Get a good P&S camera. In my opinion, a digital photographer cannot separate shooting and post-processing. You can't do one and not the other....they work together. "Dolling" up an image in PS as you put it, really isn't the case. Sometimes, photos are overdone in PS, but I view PS as the 'development' stage of my digital film. It has to be done. I often shoot having in mind a specific end result, which of course, includes various post processing steps.

This doesn't mean that you have to spend hours...you probably will at first until you learn to develop your images in PS, just as you would if you were learning to develop the film negatives. ...but you quickly establish a work-flow and your favorite processing actions and you don't have to spend hours doing it.

If you want the camera to 'finish' the photo for you, then in my opinion, you really do not need an slr. There are awesome P&S's out there that will do what you want. If you think that you'll want to deal with the hassle & costs of an slr (lenses, cleaning, post-processing) eventually, then the 20D would be a great camera....you can set up 'in-camera' processing parameters in the 20D that will do what you want...then when you decide that you want to go to the next level, which is inevitable :) you can start shooting in Adobe RGB (no in camera processing) and/or start shooting RAW and do the 'developing' in PS... Generally, speaking everytime you do something to a photo in the way of processing, the image is degraded. More degredation occurs when the camera processes than when you process in PS... Moreover, when you shoot RAW, the first step in PS is to convert the RAW file into something else... when you make adjustments to a RAW file, you degrade the image SIGNIFICANTLY less than when you adjust a jpg or Tiff or something.

My advice....don't be scared off by post processing...its half the fun!!! :)

...just some things to consider before you decide to drop thousands on an slr... hope this helps a little...

-daniel

[timmyquest]

I'm at the point where once i find an image, as long as it's nothing artistic i'm done with the post proc in no more then 10 mins. If that...

[dsze]

....to answer your question more directly; Yes, you can do the same thing in the field with a dslr as you can with a film slr regarding putting filters on achieving correct exposure and depth of field... is that what you are asking? Yes, you can set up parameters in camera and use filters and everything else you'd use with film and get comparable results.... but, you have to put the files into the computer anyway....why not spend some time up front learning to get better images? Would you agree that you have more control over your own film images if you are the one doing the shooting and the processing? If you are not that serious about photography and don't feel that you need that extra control over your images....then yes, the 20D can do what I think you are wanting and more.

-daniel

[Jon]

If your goal is to get it as right as possible in the camera, you can do that as well in digital as in film. You'll need to prepare and review your shots just as scrupulously either way. The difference is that with digital it's more convenient to go back later and improve on that shot that just missed.

My preference is to get as much as possible right in the camera, even if that means using filters, rather than to try to achieve this later. Even if you're shooting raw, you only have what was originally captured to work with. I'd prefer to nail the exposure up front by whatever means necessary than try to post-process a mis-exposed shot. If there wasn't enough tonal range to begin with, when you try to expand it later all the program can do is interpolate the intermediate points. Same thing with cropping a photo and then resampling. And some effects just can't be done in PhotoShop without completely re-doing the image; polarization effects (reflecton control, especially) are a prime example. I'd consider soft-focus to be another. But most of the photo manipulation tools in PhotoShop or other high-end image editors derived from techniques used in film and the darkroom, so you should be able to get as much done in-camera with digital as with film. Because of in-camera contrast and saturation controls, you can maybe do even a bit more with digital; it's certainly easier to change films in mid-roll when you're doing digital :{)#

[dsze]

Timmy,

...10 min. per photo? or per photo shoot? How many images are you doing in 10min? Just curious. It might help give him a better idea of the time requirements as well. For me:

My kids playing/family event, etc. (50 mixed RAW & jpg) = 2-3 minutes per image
Sr. Portrait: (150 RAW images): Post processing = 6 hours
Wedding (500 RAW images): post processing = 24 hours

-daniel

[TomC]

Hi dsze. I appreciate your response. I absolutely DONT want a P&S camera. I want and need the flexibility of SLR. Let me see if I can be more clear on what I mean.
If I take a film body and go out and shoot slide film, there is only so much post processing that can be done to the pictures. You pretty much HAVE to get it right with the camera. (These make beautiful pictures when done correctly)
I understand that there will be 'SOME' post processing which I dont think I'll mind. But if I do all the work in the field, how much post processing with PS will still be necessary to get the same type similar results??? Is this even possible or do I just have to accept the fact that in camera settings dont matter for digital and all processing HAS to be done in PS??

I hope this is clear to what I am meaning??

[timmyquest]

Timmy,

...10 min. per photo? or per photo shoot? How many images are you doing in 10min? Just curious. It might help give him a better idea of the time requirements as well. For me:

My kids playing/family event, etc. (50 mixed RAW & jpg) = 2-3 minutes per image
Sr. Portrait: (150 RAW images): Post processing = 6 hours
Wedding (500 RAW images): post processing = 24 hours

-daniel

It really depends on the shot.

If i get back from a shoot for the paper with 300 images from a basketball game i'll spend about 20 mins in C1 converting the keepers to TIFFs.

I then go through all the images and crop them, and adjust contrast.

I then take one shot and create a batch action that sharpens it slightly (one of the fantastic things about the 1D is that it requires very little sharpening), adds a little color, and saves and closes the image.

A typical shoot for the paper lasts me about 2-3 hours.

If though, i go out and take a shot of something artisitc, or a portrait, i may spend up to 10 mins per photo getting it "perfect".

Hope that clears it up a bit ;-)

[TomC]

....to answer your question more directly; Yes, you can do the same thing in the field with a dslr as you can with a film slr regarding putting filters on achieving correct exposure and depth of field... is that what you are asking? Yes, you can set up parameters in camera and use filters and everything else you'd use with film and get comparable results.... but, you have to put the files into the computer anyway....why not spend some time up front learning to get better images? Would you agree that you have more control over your own film images if you are the one doing the shooting and the processing? If you are not that serious about photography and don't feel that you need that extra control over your images....then yes, the 20D can do what I think you are wanting and more.

-daniel

Yes. This is what I'm talking about. I would also agree that having control over post processing is better. Thats why I'm even looking at digital. BUT, I still want to get the best results out of the camera that I can and then if the shot 'just missed', post process it to my liking. I want to get the best possible image but I want to do it in with the camera and my eye and then post process (as minimal as possible) to get what I initially wanted.

[dsze]

Tom,

...you can get very good results in camera with digital doing absolutely no post-proc. ....same as with film. ...but you are passing up MUCH flexibility and control and creativity by dismissing post processing. The 20D would do what you are wanting and allow you to ease into post processing at your own pace.

-daniel

[TomC]

If your goal is to get it as right as possible in the camera, you can do that as well in digital as in film. You'll need to prepare and review your shots just as scrupulously either way. The difference is that with digital it's more convenient to go back later and improve on that shot that just missed.

My preference is to get as much as possible right in the camera, even if that means using filters, rather than to try to achieve this later. Even if you're shooting raw, you only have what was originally captured to work with. I'd prefer to nail the exposure up front by whatever means necessary than try to post-process a mis-exposed shot. If there wasn't enough tonal range to begin with, when you try to expand it later all the program can do is interpolate the intermediate points. Same thing with cropping a photo and then resampling. And some effects just can't be done in PhotoShop without completely re-doing the image; polarization effects (reflecton control, especially) are a prime example. I'd consider soft-focus to be another. But most of the photo manipulation tools in PhotoShop or other high-end image editors derived from techniques used in film and the darkroom, so you should be able to get as much done in-camera with digital as with film. Because of in-camera contrast and saturation controls, you can maybe do even a bit more with digital; it's certainly easier to change films in mid-roll when you're doing digital :{)#

Thanks Jon. Thats what I'm talking about. I dont mind using PS. Actually, I want total control over my images, but I want most of the work to be done with my camera and eye. I'm hoping I can do this...

Also, is PS 7 sufficient?? I dont think I could afford CS. Geez!! :)

[dsze]

.....the old saying, "garbage in=garbage out" holds true here. You're not going to ever post process a mediocre shot into an outstanding image.... You have to be able to shoot correctly in the first place just as with film. ...even with RAW. In fact, I think I read an article recently in Digital Photo Pro mag. about the reasons that even a RAW file must be shot correctly.

-daniel

[TomC]

Tom,

...you can get very good results in camera with digital doing absolutely no post-proc. ....same as with film. ...but you are passing up MUCH flexibility and control and creativity by dismissing post processing. The 20D would do what you are wanting and allow you to ease into post processing at your own pace.

-daniel

Let me be clear. I want total control over my images as I said to Jon up above. But, I want to get the best possible images I can from the camera. I'm very interested in some of the possibilities of PS. But only as I choose. I have read a bunch of posts on this and other forums where people didnt really care what they did with the camera because they were able to fix it with PS. That was the gist of my question (which has been answered I think). :D

Quality from the camera to minimize REQUIRED post processing in PS.

[TomC]

.....the old saying, "garbage in=garbage out" holds true here. You're not going to ever post process a mediocre shot into an outstanding image.... You have to be able to shoot correctly in the first place just as with film. ...even with RAW. In fact, I think I read an article recently in Digital Photo Pro mag. about the reasons that even a RAW file must be shot correctly.

-daniel

Very cool. Thats what I'm after.

[Jon]

Also, is PS 7 sufficient?? I dont think I could afford CS. Geez!! I think there's a post around here somewhere about being able to upgrade to PSCS from PhotoShop Elements relatively inexpensively. Personally, I use Jasc's Paint Shop Pro (http://www.jasc.com/) and have been since an Adobe tech rep told me about it (disclosure - this was before Adobe bought Aldus).

[dsze]

Yes, I think you can upgrade to PSCS from Elements.. I upgraded from 7.0 and I think I spent about $150 to do it. .....yes, PS 7.0 is great, but I don't believe it will let you work with RAW files within PS itself. That was my biggest reason for upgrading.

-daniel

[eosster]

I don't think you can upgrade from Elemets to PS, but there is offer from Adobe for a full version if you bought a camera from a Canon with PS Elements for $299.00. Let me look for that link, dang I should have waited for my camera before I purchased a full version PSCS, oh well.

Cheers,

Charles,

[TomC]

I don't think you can upgrade from Elemets to PS, but there is offer from Adobe for a full version if you bought a camera from a Canon with PS Elements for $299.00. Let me look for that link, dang I should have waited for my camera before I purchased a full version PSCS, oh well.

Cheers,

Charles,

Yes please do. Also, do you know if that will run through February??

[Jon]

Jesper provided the Adobe link here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48958&highlight=PhotoShop+upgrade). Gets the price down to $299. PSP 9 does Canon Raw, uses PS plug-ins, and goes for $129 boxed.

[RichardtheSane]

Just to add to this.

I very rarely touch photoshop when I develop RAW files with capture one CS. I aim for good exposure in camera then tweak white balance contrast and saturation to my taste and crop if I need to.

That is it. Usually, I reserve PS time for good shots that may benefit some adjustments to colours and sharpness but not a lot else.

[TomC]

Just to add to this.

I very rarely touch photoshop when I develop RAW files with capture one CS. I aim for good exposure in camera then tweak white balance contrast and saturation to my taste and crop if I need to.

That is it. Usually, I reserve PS time for good shots that may benefit some adjustments to colours and sharpness but not a lot else.

Thank you very much. I'm beginning to be encouraged that this will be possible and manageable.

[ahmadof]

it seems to me you are getting caught up in what you can do and what you have to do. There is no reason you can't set up the camera the way you want (custon settings ,white balance, etc) and then try to get the perfect picture without touching it. The PS work just means you can do more IF you want to. To me, there's really not a big difference between film and digital except for 1) ease- i can convert to B&W, change filters / exposure, sharpen, vary exposure on different segments of a photo, etc. on both. It is a whole lot easier and cheaper to do it with digital rather than film. 2) the ability to do all the above over and over on a single photo you can keep playing with a picture in digital, but film, once you've chosen B&W for instance, you're done, once you've devolped, you're done. Once agin, you don't HAVE to use any of this... treat a digital SLR just like a film and to me it seems about the same.

[OneManArmy]

The truth is out there...

http://www.tracymilburn.com/aboutPhotography.html

[bfphoto]

Tom,
Much of what I would say has already been covered. However, what you need to know is that shooting digital is like shooting shooting slide film - you do need to get the exposure right on the first time. As has been pointed out, you can make some adjustments if you shoot raw, but you are much better off if you get the exposure right the first time. This will take some time until you learn all the ins and outs of your camera. There is a learning curve, especially if you are use to the lab correcting all your exposure mistakes. If you like the challenge of getting it right in the camera, then by all means go digital. I shot film and transparencies for many years, but would never go back. The control and creativity I now have with digital was never present when I shot film. Do note, however, if you shoot Canon, you will need to sharpen your files as the last step in your work flow, if you plan to make big prints. Good luck on your decision.

Bill F.

[J Rabin]

Tom.
It's a good question; avoiding most film vs. digital hype postings.
Let me offer something. With film, are you a negative or slide shooter? I spent 25 years with slides, and the transition to digital made sense since the biggest learning curve outside of post processing digital on computer IS TO GET THE EXPOSURE RIGHT. I was SOLELY a slide shooter. Many coming to digital are used to wide negative exposure latitiude. An amateur lifetime of NO exposure latitude with K-64, Agfa, Provia, etc., made accepting the lack of exposure latitude in digitial easier to bite, though still an initial shock. As in all photography, if you nail exposure and nail focus, everything else is easy, assuming composition is there. An histogram truly is "a 21st Century light meter."
Digital is still photography.
The transition to digital took me an intense 6 months+ of learning, frustration, almost ready to get a film body, recognition that post processing is integral, spending a lot more money on software and computing horsepower than I thought, trading from the 10D to 20D, and getting addicted to Canon L lenses. Time is not saved with digital. Money is not saved, except film. But quality soars. Flexibility soars. Like cropping or recovering lost highlights or shadows when shooting RAW.
After 9 months, I am taking the best pictures of my life. Digitally. Frankly, I am stunned by the quality digital offers and the flexibility post processing offers.

Film still offers 1) a "creamier" fall-off between exposure and blown out over-exposure. 2) You can operate an old Olympus OM 35mm in the worst conditions backpacking without concern for CF cards, batteries, etc. 3) The equipment lifespan of film bodies is far longer. Digital is like a PC.
Short of these kind of limitations, digital wins EVERYTHING once you commit. I shoot EVERYTHING RAW and let PhotoKit Sharpener do ALL my PhonyShop sharpening. So, for $99 sharpening was eliminated as a post processing issue. I am color managed. My wife is pissed. All my lenses were traded used at a loss for L glass. The results are so outstanding they have re-excited interest in photography.
Not only that, learning digital workflow has helped me scan many old K-64 slides, reducing noise, improving contrast, color, exposure, shadow/highlight detail, etc. Immeasurable learning. Immeasurable results and fun.
You get addicted to web sites like Luminous Landscape, or Hoffman.
It's a long story, but since Canon's metering technology is focus point weighted, get no less than a 20D since moving the focus point is the best I've ever experienced on any camera, at any price. flash exposures finally have Canon bettering Nikon matrix fill flash.
If you're not tied to a computer operating system, go Mac.
Hope these thoughts add to your thinking on the subject.

[TomC]

Thanks to everyone for responding. This site is awesome. I believe you guys have helped me make my decision about this. It does, after all, look like digital can be everything and more that I want it to be.

Again, thanks a ton!!

[HKFEVER]

If your goal is to get it as right as possible in the camera, you can do that as well in digital as in film. You'll need to prepare and review your shots just as scrupulously either way. The difference is that with digital it's more convenient to go back later and improve on that shot that just missed.:{)#Try to view the following, some is direct from the raw format, one with filter and 2 are heavily process with PS:

Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841715
Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841735
Original from camera with filter http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841806

Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841633
Processed by PS http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841773

Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841661
Processed by PS http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841673

[phili1]

Ok here is my 2 cents.

Do not wait run to buy the 20D.

Up until recently I was shooting my portraits in film and I was at the mercy of the processor who never got it right.

I now shoot all my portraits in Digital and every one is a keeper because I can now see closed eyes and frowns which I can delete and retake.

Quality, it beats my EOS film Camera hands down, and my customers do nothing but rave.

Its like having a poloroid back for my Hasselblad but better.

As far as post processing. I do none with my portraits and very little with my nature shots.

If you shoot Raw in most cases out of the Camra it is good, but raw lets you adjust color temp makeing it either warmer or cooler. Sharpness I find is pretty good out of the Camera but I tweek it with a plugin when it is marginal.

Hope that helps you decide, and oh I was a NIkon user and for the last 15 years it has been Canon all the way. They are the inovators in digital.

[4walls]

Yes, I think you can upgrade to PSCS from Elements.. I upgraded from 7.0 and I think I spent about $150 to do it. .....yes, PS 7.0 is great, but I don't believe it will let you work with RAW files within PS itself. That was my biggest reason for upgrading.

-daniel
There is a plug-in for PS7 called Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). It is no longer available on
Adobe's site for some reason...

I have it on my computer, it was a free download. Let me know if you want it and I will
fire it off to you if you are a registered user of Photoshop 7.

[HKFEVER]

There is a plug-in for PS7 called Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). It is no longer available on
Adobe's site for some reason...

I have it on my computer, it was a free download. Let me know if you want it and I will
fire it off to you if you are a registered user of Photoshop 7.
If it is possible,please send to me. I am a PS CS registered user.

[TomC]

Try to view the following, some is direct from the raw format, one with filter and 2 are heavily process with PS:

Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841715
Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841735
Original from camera with filter http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841806

Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841633
Processed by PS http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841773

Original from camera http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841661
Processed by PS http://www.pbase.com/hkfever/image/37841673
Thanks for the comparisons. That was helpful to look at. Anyone have any portraits to compare like this?

[tonyw3026]

If you want to end up with a digital image file on a c0mputer then your choices are use a DSLR, P&S or to scan the slide/print. In every case you have to do some post capture processing to match the results of a well taken slide or print. It is the nature of the beast. The P&S option getting you closest to "no processing" It's the desire for a digital file that makes the processing necessary, not the choice of equipment.

When I started to scan my slides and prints I was frustrated until I learned to accept the reality of processing. When I bought a DSLR I went through a much shorter period of frustration because I was already comfortable with PS. Even so I was initially disappointed with the results straight from the camera.

As others have said, the post processing is part of the fun. In my case well over 50% of the fun. The processing is equivalent to shooting negative film and then producing a print in the darkroom but much quicker and flexible. The mistake is to look for a digital equivalent of slide film - there is no equivalent!

[4walls]

If it is possible,please send to me. I am a PS CS registered user.
If you have CS then this ACR file is not for you... it is for PS 7 only. CS has ACR built in and updates for it are available via Adobe's website.

[NEC1236]

when you send film to be processed & printed, you loose control. If the labs chems. are depleated or the temp is down becuase of volume etc... this can change the color and density of your photo. Labs are not as reliable as we think.
So you have more control by doing your on post production.
Control not to change the picture at all.

[sparker1]

Another point of view: When I took film pictures and sent them away for processing, I always got back some that worked and some that didn't, and some in between. When making enlargements, I could "fix" some of the marginal shots. Some were never more than throw-aways. In digital, I find the same range of original results, but can now more easily fix the problems and reduce the number of throw-aways. Hours in the darkroom traded for minutes with PS, and the results are better.

[Lesmac]

What an interesting thread this has been, I've enjoyed the various comments.
I agree entirely with the view about getting things right in camera, saves time post processing.
Also I view sitting in front of the computer post processing as a digital darkroom, without all the smells of a wet darkroom, and an integral, enjoyable part of the process.
You will need to spend time getting your workflow right in PS, but once you have , it becomes intuitive, and you find you can get through images quickly.
This 'getting the workflow right' was brought home to me recently with upgrading from a 10D to a 1DS MKII, I was using my 10D workflow for 1DS MKII files, and it didn't work, so I spent around a week re thinking and experimenting, until I'm now comfortable with my workflow.
I would definitely consider upgrading to PS CS, especially if you are considering a 20D, the extra tools are worth it.
Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[dsze]

I'm curious...what was so different about your 10D workflow that it had to be changed to better suit your MKII? Are you refering to the drastic increase in pixels of your images? If so, what were you doing that didn't work with the new camera? I'm just curious. I am a firm believer that for digital photography to "work" for any purpose at all, one has to have a sound workflow, so I try to hear about as many other people's as I can even though I feel like mine is pretty good.

thanks,
-daniel

[TomC]

I'd like to hear about this as well. Also, what additional tools are there in PSCS vs PS7??

Tom

[NEC1236]

PSCS has the ability to work (correcting layers) in 16 bits instead of 8bit.
this is off the subject of limiting post production. But I have to do a lot of post production because of commercial demands. This creates HUGH files but the end result is quantitatively better once the image is brought back to 8 bit, than it would have been if just worked in 8 bit