Thread: Film scanners?
View Single Post
  #133  
Old April 21st 17, 05:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Film scanners?

In article , Bill W
wrote:

It's not a film shooter that has claimed superiority. It's the person
who says that film shooters can only produce mediocre results that is
claiming superiority.


Claiming superiority of a technology, and I fully agree. But there are
film shooters who claim superiority of the final output using film.


anyone claiming that is delusional, just like the audiophools who claim
that vinyl sounds better than cds. they live in a fantasyland.

Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming.


yep, and it is. simple physics.

If you take two
identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film,
and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal
quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would
argue with that.


i would.

if the same photographer takes two photos of the same subject, same
lighting, same lens, same exposure, etc., one with a film camera and
one with an full frame digital slr, the digital camera will always be
able to produce a higher quality result.

the digital photo can be downgraded to look like the film photo if
that's the look someone wants, but the film photo can't ever be
improved to match the output of the digital slr. not possible.

similarly, an audio cd can be downgraded to sound like a vinyl record,
but it's not possible for a record, no matter how good it is, to be as
good as digital audio. not possible.

But if processing is needed or simply wanted for
artistic purposes, which would you rather work with, especially if
it's major work?


obviously, digital is easier and can do more, but even without any
processing, film can't match what digital can do.