12-17-2008, 02:23 PM
Dryrod, I know nothing about digital photography. But I do know about conventional picture taking. So maybe I can offer some suggestions.
I assume you understand that light sources are not all the same? That standard florescent bulbs, for instance, do not contain any red pigment? And that incandescent light is warm and daylight is cold?
One difference between standard cameras and digital is that with film you have to physically adjust for those light conditions. With better digital cameras, the camera does it for you, reading the light and adjusting automatically based on its white-scale reading.
And, of course, you can always massage things after you download the images---which is a whole lot easier than working magic in the darkroom.
Points one and two for digital.
Color depth perception is greater with film than digital, however. That's why if I take a photo of a fly, both it and the background card will show their true colors. But the card with a digital camera will go gray, unless you take steps. The closer you put the card to the subject, the less of a problem this will be. But there are other reasons not to do that.
Point one to film.
And, even with film, if you get too far back, you lose color definition.
The solution, in both cases, is to use a fill light on the background. Won't bore you with why this works with film, but with digital you are establishing a foreground and background with the same white-scale values.
One problem, always, is resolving true color. With film, you have to use a daylight-balanced light source for this, or you will get color shifts. With digital, because of its self-adjusting nature, you don't. So long as your white-scale is balanced, what you see is what you get.
The ultimate table-top macro work, with film, is to use a medical camera. With those, the lens, itself, is surrounded by a daylight-balanced ring light. But they are incredibly expensive.
Point three for digital.
Macrophotography is a whole nuther world, in many respects.
I'm assuming a digital works the same in this regard as a standard camera? On macro settings, your depth-of-field is very small. And the closer you get to the subject, the tighter the depth of field becomes---to the point where you can actually have the near wing of a streamer in focus and the far wing blurry. Or the front jaw of the vise will be blurry, but the fly in focus.
Sometimes that's an advantage. But, often enough, because of this, you might forego the macro setting. Instead, use a short zoom lens, and back off to where the fly fills the frame (or as much of it as you want). This increases the depth of field, and the entire fly will be in focus.
There are, too, physical reasons why the whole subject may or may not be in focus. With film, there is a depth of emulsion problem. With a very tight depth of field, the difference in the emulsion layers can actually affect final focus. Because digital is only a single layer of electrons, as it were, this is not a problem.
Point four for digital.
Wow! I'm really building a case for digital here. Maybe it's time I broke down and bought one.
Brook
[url "http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com"]http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com[/url]
[signature]
I assume you understand that light sources are not all the same? That standard florescent bulbs, for instance, do not contain any red pigment? And that incandescent light is warm and daylight is cold?
One difference between standard cameras and digital is that with film you have to physically adjust for those light conditions. With better digital cameras, the camera does it for you, reading the light and adjusting automatically based on its white-scale reading.
And, of course, you can always massage things after you download the images---which is a whole lot easier than working magic in the darkroom.
Points one and two for digital.
Color depth perception is greater with film than digital, however. That's why if I take a photo of a fly, both it and the background card will show their true colors. But the card with a digital camera will go gray, unless you take steps. The closer you put the card to the subject, the less of a problem this will be. But there are other reasons not to do that.
Point one to film.
And, even with film, if you get too far back, you lose color definition.
The solution, in both cases, is to use a fill light on the background. Won't bore you with why this works with film, but with digital you are establishing a foreground and background with the same white-scale values.
One problem, always, is resolving true color. With film, you have to use a daylight-balanced light source for this, or you will get color shifts. With digital, because of its self-adjusting nature, you don't. So long as your white-scale is balanced, what you see is what you get.
The ultimate table-top macro work, with film, is to use a medical camera. With those, the lens, itself, is surrounded by a daylight-balanced ring light. But they are incredibly expensive.
Point three for digital.
Macrophotography is a whole nuther world, in many respects.
I'm assuming a digital works the same in this regard as a standard camera? On macro settings, your depth-of-field is very small. And the closer you get to the subject, the tighter the depth of field becomes---to the point where you can actually have the near wing of a streamer in focus and the far wing blurry. Or the front jaw of the vise will be blurry, but the fly in focus.
Sometimes that's an advantage. But, often enough, because of this, you might forego the macro setting. Instead, use a short zoom lens, and back off to where the fly fills the frame (or as much of it as you want). This increases the depth of field, and the entire fly will be in focus.
There are, too, physical reasons why the whole subject may or may not be in focus. With film, there is a depth of emulsion problem. With a very tight depth of field, the difference in the emulsion layers can actually affect final focus. Because digital is only a single layer of electrons, as it were, this is not a problem.
Point four for digital.
Wow! I'm really building a case for digital here. Maybe it's time I broke down and bought one.
Brook
[url "http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com"]http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com[/url]
[signature]