Wanna see what a Nikon D3 ccan do?

Your wife obviously has a gift for capturing the moment. Looking at those photos you feel as if you are part of the wedding, even as a total stranger, and you can feel the emotions of the event. Funny, that seems to be the element I never get in my own photos. Damn!
 
J J Kapsberger said:
Blancmange is how I'd describe the utterly lifeless tonality that sensor seems to deliver.
Click to expand...

Expecting the shaped tonality we've come to expect from film from a digital sensor will be a long road of disappointment. Lambasting digital for this reason is nonsensical, because it's now up to the photographer to tune the rendering to suit.

To quote Pascal Dangin (from The New Yorker):
“Photography as we knew it, meaning film and Kodak and all that, was a very subjective process. With film images you had emotions. You used to go out and buy film like Fuji, because it was more saturated, or you liked Agfa because it gave you a rounded color palette.” With a ten-dollar roll of film, he explained, you were essentially buying ten dollars’ worth of someone’s ideas. “Software, right now, is objective. ‘Let the user create whatever he wants.’ Which is great, but it doesn’t really produce good photography.”​
This doesn't mean that digital is "bad", it just means that color work depends more fully on the photographer's skill and vision (and time and energy) with digital than it does with film. Top-flight color film printing also depends on a high degree of skill and vision, but digital loses that first step out-of-the-box tonality that some people miss. For those who embrace it, digital color work can be a new avenue to the challenges and joys of craft.
 
That's actually a very good point about photography generally, not just digital v. film (& a great article about Dangin).

jwhitley said:
Expecting the shaped tonality we've come to expect from film from a digital sensor will be a long road of disappointment. Lambasting digital for this reason is nonsensical, because it's now up to the photographer to tune the rendering to suit.

To quote Pascal Dangin (from The New Yorker):
“Photography as we knew it, meaning film and Kodak and all that, was a very subjective process. With film images you had emotions. You used to go out and buy film like Fuji, because it was more saturated, or you liked Agfa because it gave you a rounded color palette.” With a ten-dollar roll of film, he explained, you were essentially buying ten dollars’ worth of someone’s ideas. “Software, right now, is objective. ‘Let the user create whatever he wants.’ Which is great, but it doesn’t really produce good photography.”​
This doesn't mean that digital is "bad", it just means that color work depends more fully on the photographer's skill and vision (and time and energy) with digital than it does with film. Top-flight color film printing also depends on a high degree of skill and vision, but digital loses that first step out-of-the-box tonality that some people miss. For those who embrace it, digital color work can be a new avenue to the challenges and joys of craft.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the link pesphoto. Her photos did a fine job of capturing the feeling of a wedding, and reminded me that you couldn't pay me enough to get married a second time.

Not that I could find someone else to marry me, of course.

Cheers,
Mike
 
myoptic3 said:
Is this an ad or something? It doesn't look like the usual post on here. I will probably get flamed for this, but to me they look like DSLR pics.
Click to expand...

You bet!!
I am Nikon Kiu and I am gonna endorse the Nikon!! Don't like it?? :p

Darn, I was led to believe the highest was ISO 3200
and then I am told the Darn camera does in-between ISO 5000

I AM impressed!!!

Kiu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom