8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Skip M" wrote in
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02:

And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher
resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than
some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to
find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs,

Any medium format film.

or the
Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even the
20D.

Any 35mm film.

You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer
discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I
continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available for
printing negs better than the papers available for digital prints.



--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Skip M" wrote in
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02:

And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher
resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than
some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to
find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs,

Any medium format film.

or the
Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even the
20D.

Any 35mm film.

You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer
discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I
continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available for
printing negs better than the papers available for digital prints.



--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"Skip M" wrote in
news:ts9ud.129$2r.45@fed1read02:

And, vis a vis your earlier statement, film doesn't have higher
resolution than digital. Some film may have higher resolution than
some digital cameras, same with accutance. But I'd challenge you to
find a film that competes with the high resolution MF backs,

Any medium format film.

or the
Mamiya ZD, or 35mm that competes with the Canon 1Ds mkII, or even the
20D.

Any 35mm film.

You can discuss lpmm, but in real life, film does not offer
discernable advantages over digital, any more. The only reason I
continue to shoot film is that I like some of the papers available for
printing negs better than the papers available for digital prints.



--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon Pike posted:
"Fitpix" wrote in
:


"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in
:

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked
in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was
even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens
of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill
their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital
many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought
to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone
actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better
camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not
true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have
better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you
have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that
the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a building
using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD, or the
only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from cave
painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which
according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a
great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image
upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that anyone
with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to paint.
BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio.

http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Jon Pike posted:
"Fitpix" wrote in
:


"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in
:

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked
in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was
even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens
of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill
their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital
many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought
to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone
actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better
camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not
true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have
better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you
have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that
the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a building
using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD, or the
only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from cave
painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which
according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a
great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image
upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that anyone
with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to paint.
BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio.

http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Jon Pike posted:
"Fitpix" wrote in
:


"Jon Pike" wrote in message
. 159...
Carl wrote in
:

Jon Pike wrote:
"Fitpix" wrote in news:QY0ud.33168
:


Why is film better?

snip... It encourages people to learn
how to do photography instead of just take pictures.

Sorry, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. How does it
achieve this exactly?

Most people, when learning film, don't go out and spend 1000$ on a
body that has all the automatic bells & whistles. Especially since
you don't really need to spend the $ to be able to take good
pictures.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Jon, I think your answer would simply depend on the person. I worked
in and managed camera shops for about 5 years and before there was
even the idea of digital you still had people burning through dozens
of rolls of film with little thought. Now the same type of peole fill
their hard drive with crap. Regardless of it being film or digital
many people will pick up "photography" and never put a bit of thought
to an image, I think we could call them snapshooters.

I call them "picture takers" to completely differentiate them from anyone
actually -doing- photography.

One thing I have
noticed with both is there will ALWAYS be the group who think a better
camera = better photography and of course we know that really is not
true.

Yes, but I doubt this group is "most" people.

With digital I see more people taking crappy pix and then adding
a ton of stuff in Photoshop or other programs and trying to pass it
off as "art". I think it boils down to each person and their
individual desire to grow as a photographer that ends up being the
deciding factor, not the medium.

Well, only to a point. With film, if you want to be guarenteed to have
better pictures, you -have- to learn photoGRAPHY. With digital, all you
have to do is learn photoSHOP.

Again, you're exhibiting unrealistic ideals. That's like saying that
the only way to be a great architect is to learn how to draw a building
using a T-square, compass and triangles instead of using CAD, or the
only way to be a great painter is to learn all the basics, from cave
painting to modernism. Here's a painting by Jan van Eyck, which
according to you, probably wouldn't be considered a real painting or a
great one, since he never looked at the subject, but painted the image
upside-down as it was cast through a lens. You caould argue that anyone
with a brush could do the same thing, without learning how to paint.
BTW, the original format is 1:1, matching the lens ratio.

http://www.abcgallery.com/E/eyck/eyck2.JPG
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's
expense.

Actually, you're just a hypocrite.

Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's
better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them!

digital isn't "better" than film.

That's progress! Keep it up and someday I may remove you from the digital
dullard category in my NG names list.
Film, Ahhhh!
me

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's
expense.

Actually, you're just a hypocrite.

Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's
better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them!

digital isn't "better" than film.

That's progress! Keep it up and someday I may remove you from the digital
dullard category in my NG names list.
Film, Ahhhh!
me

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's
expense.

Actually, you're just a hypocrite.

Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's
better, and it's hopeless to try and explain it to them!

digital isn't "better" than film.

That's progress! Keep it up and someday I may remove you from the digital
dullard category in my NG names list.
Film, Ahhhh!
me

"Skip M" wrote in message
news:jA9ud.131$2r.107@fed1read02...
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
me wrote:

Film good, digital fecal!

Why do you even own a computer and post on Usenet?

So I can have a good laugh once and a while at digital dullard's
expense.
Film, digital dullards can't even understand *why* it's better, and it's
hopeless to try and explain it to them!
me

film has advantages, especially when working in black and white.

Progress too. Now try harder.
Film, I get it, you don't,
me