Digital vs Film - just give in!

wrote:

There's no point in even debating this even further. Just tell the
digital people that digital is indeed better and then head off to B&H to
buy your film. That's what I've started doing and I've had much more
peace in my life ever since. I have a digital-head at work that I used
to argue with - but it's just a waste of time. He's convinced that film
is "dead" and that digital is the 100% future of photography - so why
argue? The most recent discussion I had with him, he was amazed that
they still made slide film and still sold viewers for it. I just cut it
short because I knew where he was heading. They just want to be right
and so as far as I'm concerned they are. End of story.

Yes!!

This approach works exquisitely well in almost all areas of fanaticism.
I've often used it myself with great success. Been wondering how long
before some insightful poster would see it's relevance in these rec.photo
groups.

The absolutely most frustrating outcome for someone looking for a fight is
to take a big, hard swing at nothing but air. ("You right, Boss. You right.
See 'ya later...")

Ken

wrote:

There's no point in even debating this even further. Just tell the
digital people that digital is indeed better and then head off to B&H to
buy your film.

Good point, maybe they'll get tired of being agreed with?

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
wrote:

There's no point in even debating this even further. Just tell the
digital people that digital is indeed better and then head off to B&H to
buy your film.

Good point, maybe they'll get tired of being agreed with?

Yeah! Maybe they will just go away.

BTW, who are "they"? Name some names, please. Similar to the royal "we", the
"they" I think are the dissonant voices in ourselves. The eternal conflict
between what we wish to be, and what our better senses tell us really is,
causes these feelings of persecution. A friend of mine was fond of saying
"Sh*t in one hand; a wish in the other. Which one you gonna to get?"
Whatever that means. Or more broadly: "We have met the enemy. And they are
us."

Name some names, and quote some quotes. If we're to have a ****ing match, we
should at least have it on a factual basis. You know, hold it to a higher
standard than our film-forever discussions.

agree, even with the evidence on the table for everybody to see,
"they" keep coming.
So be it. Only time i give a serious reply these days is when people
attack me on the investments i made for my darkroom.
In those cases i answer something along the line of: sure, and what if
you would have actually paid for the software you are using to work
your digi's..............

For the rest, let's see what the future brings. Keep in mind that we
(photgraphers) don't laugh at painters anymore for being obsolete.

Jack



On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:39:07 GMT, wrote:

There's no point in even debating this even further. Just tell the
digital people that digital is indeed better and then head off to B&H to
buy your film. That's what I've started doing and I've had much more
peace in my life ever since. I have a digital-head at work that I used
to argue with - but it's just a waste of time. He's convinced that film
is "dead" and that digital is the 100% future of photography - so why
argue? The most recent discussion I had with him, he was amazed that
they still made slide film and still sold viewers for it. I just cut it
short because I knew where he was heading. They just want to be right
and so as far as I'm concerned they are. End of story.

"MikeWhy" wrote:

BTW, who are "they"? Name some names, please. Similar to the royal "we",
the
"they" I think are the dissonant voices in ourselves. The eternal conflict
between what we wish to be, and what our better senses tell us really is,
causes these feelings of persecution. A friend of mine was fond of saying
"Sh*t in one hand; a wish in the other. Which one you gonna to get?"
Whatever that means. Or more broadly: "We have met the enemy. And they are
us."

Name some names, and quote some quotes. If we're to have a ****ing match,
we
should at least have it on a factual basis. You know, hold it to a higher
standard than our film-forever discussions.

"You right, Boss. You right. See 'ya later..."

Whooosh!

Ken

"RolandRB" wrote in message
om...

Another one of these trolls. But yes, digital cameras are geting
better. I like the ultra-small format digital because of the increased
depth of field (not all digital cameras use that small format and so
lack that increased depth of field).

Presuming you print to the same size print, then they do not have different
DOF. You might as well "throw those hasselblads away" right now if you can't
handle the principles of photography by now.

"RolandRB" wrote in message
om...

Another one of these trolls. But yes, digital cameras are geting
better. I like the ultra-small format digital because of the increased
depth of field (not all digital cameras use that small format and so
lack that increased depth of field).

Presuming you print to the same size print, then they do not have different
DOF. You might as well "throw those hasselblads away" right now if you can't
handle the principles of photography by now.

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"RolandRB" wrote in message
om...

Another one of these trolls. But yes, digital cameras are geting
better. I like the ultra-small format digital because of the increased
depth of field (not all digital cameras use that small format and so
lack that increased depth of field).

Presuming you print to the same size print, then they do not have
different
DOF.

Oops. You're suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.

You might as well "throw those hasselblads away" right now if you can't
handle the principles of photography by now.

If you don't understand how DOF changes with format, you might want to take
your own advice.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

If you don't understand how DOF changes with format, you might want to
take
your own advice.

Now David, let's sit down here with our favorite beverage and think this
through. I'll have coffee, thanks.

Okay, here's the case. I have two cameras side-by-side. One is Hasselblad
SWC (38mm), the other is a 4x5 with a 3" (76mm) lens. Now I know that these
formats do not correspond perfectly, but using the 5" dimension of the later
the later suffices to give about twice the size format of the former.

Each is shot at F16 with a subject that will demonstrate DOF adequately. A
good example would focus at an object at, say, 10 feet with objects in the
background diminishing gradually to infinity.

Print the outcome from each to, say, 16" (the 5" side of 4x5 to 16" which
gives a slighly cropped image.) That's close enough for our example.

Do you see any significant difference in the DOF?

The point being that looking from the point of outcome: the print (and what
other method matters?), two cameras side by side with different formats and
corresponding (equivalent for each format) focal length lenses at the same
Fstop will produce the same DOF in the same sized prints.

Or do I need to have an Alzheimer's test?

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

If you don't understand how DOF changes with format, you might want to
take
your own advice.

Now David, let's sit down here with our favorite beverage and think this
through. I'll have coffee, thanks.

Okay, here's the case. I have two cameras side-by-side. One is Hasselblad
SWC (38mm), the other is a 4x5 with a 3" (76mm) lens. Now I know that these
formats do not correspond perfectly, but using the 5" dimension of the later
the later suffices to give about twice the size format of the former.

Each is shot at F16 with a subject that will demonstrate DOF adequately. A
good example would focus at an object at, say, 10 feet with objects in the
background diminishing gradually to infinity.

Print the outcome from each to, say, 16" (the 5" side of 4x5 to 16" which
gives a slighly cropped image.) That's close enough for our example.

Do you see any significant difference in the DOF?

The point being that looking from the point of outcome: the print (and what
other method matters?), two cameras side by side with different formats and
corresponding (equivalent for each format) focal length lenses at the same
Fstop will produce the same DOF in the same sized prints.

Or do I need to have an Alzheimer's test?