If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:07:30 -0500, Michael wrote:
About 4 years ago the digital photography newsgroups had a fairly large number of posts from 35mm film users that proclaimed that 35mm film SLRs were vastly superior to DSLRs and film would never die. Most of those 35mm film chauvinists appear to have become extinct well before film has. Either that or they've gone into lurk mode due to their old arguments becoming more and more unsupportable. More likely they are tired of making arguments to those who cannot understand them.' Said like a true zealot. And you're wrong. Closer to the truth might be "More likely they are tired of making the same arguments to those who are more and more able to see through their arguments." It's perfectly all right to prefer working with film, but as the number of film fans dwindle, the percentage of the remaining unreasonable film chauvinists and zealots increases. Search their wallets and purses and you'll probably find Flat Earth Society membership cards. I can appreciate the different kind of craftsmanship that the hands-on working with film provides, but working with film is much less practical than it used to be Actually, it is neither more nor less impractical. it is exactly the same. No, you're clearly wrong. The amount of time and effort may be the same, but it's less practical than the digital alternatives. Someone working for $20/hour might easily decide to switch to another job that offers $45/hour. When questioned by the old boss the reason for leaving, a good answer would be "Staying in my old, lower wage job just wasn't practical." If you were the boss, could you say with a straight face "But you could stay here and work for the same $20/hour, and nothing is changed. Your old job is just as practical as it ever was." The more you distort the message's intent, the more irrational you must become. You can defend continuing to use film, but try to use more logical, reasonable arguments. You clearly love working with film and don't mind the additional costs you have to pay in hours, effort and the ever increasing number of dollars. You don't mind paying those costs, and as long as you can easily afford to do so, film is a "practical" choice. For you. But it's not even close to being a practical choice for most photographers. Scanning negatives and making digital prints is more like a very good proof sheet. Niether digital prints from scans nor digital prints from digital originals equal fine optical enlargements from film. 4x6 and 5x7, I will grant you, are pretty much the same in any decent format. That's a pretty small one-size-fits-all box you've put digital cameras in. Do you think that their best quality is limited to 5x7 prints? If so you have much to learn. Similarly, you forget that most of the film sold for still photography is for 35mm and smaller sizes, much of it used in really inferior cameras. To get the superior prints that you talk about requires a tremendous investment (again, in more than just money) which is why MF and LF sales continue to decline. As I said, use it while you can. If you're a fairly young photographer, there's a good chance that you'll eventually see all of the major manufacturers discontinue production of film. You'll still probably be able to buy film, but it will be more expensive than ever, of lower quality, and probably much harder to get. When might this happen? Keep an eye on Hollywood and Bollywood. When they abandon film for digital, the game's over. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
frank wrote,on my timestamp of 27/12/2008 7:42 PM:
On Dec 26, 1:17 pm, "Ken Hart1" wrote: "Noons" wrote in message ... snip LOL! Dunno about others, but I've also been enjoying 70MP on my Arax 6X6 for years, around 50MP on the Fuji 645S, as well as 20MP on various types of sensor on my F, F2, F4 and F6. In fact, I can now get 20MP from images taken in 1980,1970 and even some Kodachromes from 1958. And nearly 100MP from 6X7 stuff. Oh, and it didn't cost me the price of a small car to get all that, most of the gear works even without batteries and I don't have problems focusing in the dark. And every time I get dust on the sensor, I replace it with a fresh, brand new sensor. But of course, I'm "behind the times", I'm "old school" and I don't know what "real photography" is all about. Yup. Sure. yaaaaaawn It's not "real photography" unless it involves a darkroom, precious metals, and toxic chemicals... Don't forget the cyanide... I think you haven't had enough of it yet... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"frank" wrote in message
[...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
frank wrote:
Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Sorry. Film will capture infinitely better photos than digital. This is a remarkably dumb statement. First off, the human eye cannot perceive the difference in dynamic represented by the discrete levels through most of the sensor dynamic range. IOW: it is too fine to matter. For that matter, the grain in film is very perceptible and acts in a discrete manner once it is 'turned on'. The noise of film is in 3 dimensions, and most of that is in x,y (grain). Digital noise is constrained to dynamic only. The digital image remains intact from the moment it is recorded to the many, many ways it can be used. It will not degrade over time. It will not be scanned or enlarged via other lenses. It will not face grubby hands, spills, scratches, and so on. Film cannot (practically) be flat when the image is taken. The sensor in a digital camera is much flatter than film can be, even in elaborate vacuum backed or pressure plated cameras. The resolution of digital sensors today is beyond the practical use of film. It has been so for the majority of 35mm scale photographs since they passed 12 Mpixels and likewise MF from 30 Mpixels. Do have a friend who went back to Hassy and slides as digital didn't cut it, he's having a hell of a time getting chemicals. B&H won't ship to him. He's getting some out of the UK or all places. Nice to see other side of the pond has the right attitudes. He's scanning, not sure what he's using to scan. I shoot Hassy / 120 film and scan it on a Nikon 9000ED. This is limited to about 20 rolls per year. These make for magnificent photos in the right conditions. However, the Sony a900 comes close or better for enlargements and I'm sure w/o a doubt that the Hasselblad's at 39 Mpix and up blow away 645 film (or 6x6 for that matter). This does not mean there is no place for film. But to claim film is better in every way is foolish at best. It's not even better in a few ways. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
frank wrote:
You've obviously never processed Kodak E-4 kits with the small plastic bottle of cyanide you had to mix then add to the other solution, I think it was bleach. I think there was something similar in the E-6 and C-41 kits, its been a while, I just send it out. The E4 bleach contains Potassium ferricyanide and sodium thiocyanate. Neither are particularly toxic despite their names. Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Sorry. Film will capture infinitely better photos than digital. Every grain in film is either on or off. You get the impression of continuous tone because there are a huge number of grains. Peter. -- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"DRS" wrote: "frank" wrote: [...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message ... Alan Browne wrote: Lawrence Akutagawa wrote: Where dirt on the sensor can be easily cleaned without risk (as the lens itself can be) and is not the issue it currently is. eh? Over nearly 5 years I cleaned the sensor on my 6 Mpix camera 4 times. What issue? That often? What are you doing? Playing in the mud -- again? :-) And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt gets to it? -Wolfgang You get out your 000 brush and your spotone and use your artistic skills to take care of it. Or you practice your skills and use sufficient care to avoid getting dirt/dust on the film in the first place. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
"DRS" wrote: "frank" wrote: [...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is. My point was that what is thought of as analogue is in fact quantised, that is, it is a series of discrete levels (albeit at such a fine level as to appear to be continuous at the macro level). This has nothing to do with noise. It is simply a fundamental fact about how "the world works". |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"DRS" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote: "DRS" wrote: "frank" wrote: [...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is. My point was that what is thought of as analogue is in fact quantised, that is, it is a series of discrete levels (albeit at such a fine level as to appear to be continuous at the macro level). This has nothing to do with noise. It is simply a fundamental fact about how "the world works". But it's not relevant to the discussion and therefore doesn't make the point. It _is_ relevant to the discussion that digital does a better job at representing images than analog for the very reason the film nuts claim film is better, namely the number of distinct levels is larger in digital systems due to the lower noise. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
There is some credence in films superiority, and in certain applications (weddings come to
mind), film's tolerance to exposure errors, and "soft clipping" of highlights can be a lifesaver to those who have to get the shot, and failure isn't an option. (not mindlessly argue semantics on Usenet (no offense intended, seriously)). A tool is a tool is a tool, a phillips screwdriver does little good when used with slotted screws, there is a right tool for each job. Color negative film has (and many say still is) the holy grail of wedding photographers, little to no "post" work, excellent color fidelity and scannability (My understanding is that there's a large number of shooters (mostly upper end) that have returned to film, for precisely these reasons) While you can "theoretically" represent an analog signal with a digital one (up to the Nyquist limit, of course), there is still a market for film work, and in some segments, film is clearly the winner, in other's it's a toss up. erie David J. Littleboy wrote: "DRS" wrote: "David J. Littleboy" wrote: "DRS" wrote: "frank" wrote: [...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is. My point was that what is thought of as analogue is in fact quantised, that is, it is a series of discrete levels (albeit at such a fine level as to appear to be continuous at the macro level). This has nothing to do with noise. It is simply a fundamental fact about how "the world works". But it's not relevant to the discussion and therefore doesn't make the point. It _is_ relevant to the discussion that digital does a better job at representing images than analog for the very reason the film nuts claim film is better, namely the number of distinct levels is larger in digital systems due to the lower noise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
6 or 8 MPIX? | Chuck Deitz | Digital SLR Cameras | 38 | March 9th 05 11:01 PM |
8 Mpix or 6? | Chuck Deitz | Digital ZLR Cameras | 7 | March 3rd 05 09:10 AM |
Is 4 Mpix camera just as good as 5 Mpix when available light is the limiting factor? | Woody | Digital Photography | 17 | September 26th 04 06:44 PM |