Kind of. Due to the (near) linear response of sensors, as opposed to the decidedly non-linear response of film, there are some technical differences between how digital and film work underneath in terms of optimal data representation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very true. When I switched from film to digital, there was definitely an "exposure learning curve". Where I was use to the substantial shoulder of Fuji cromes (loved the old RMS, less so Provia), I'd routinely overexpose a half to whole stop from my incident meter. Suddenly, with digital, I'm now shooting almost on the meter. It took me a shoot to realize, "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto". It was good thing I shot RAW and not JPEG, because most of the blown highlights held. But, there were a few sweaty palms when I first opened images.