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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
The fling-and-pray that is darkroom work does
not compare to the precision and variety of edits that can be made by digital. I bet to respectfully disagree. If you want precision then film is the only way that's ***unadulterated*** by processing software and human edits. Have you seen how digital captures lights in mist? Go to usefilm and find some examples, even from the fabled $**** digital cameras. There is no question that digital is the most direct path from what you saw as you looked through the viewfinder to a finished print to hang on a wall. Direct in terms of speed? I guess your use of the word "precision" suggests otherwise. You have a lens and photochemically reactive film, what's more *direct* than that? I can only suspect you're not serious. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: Or maybe you just hang out in the shallower end of the gene pool I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started.. Do humorlessness and film advocacy go together (he says as he ducks)? This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine until both my parents are gone Why because you can't scan them? Because scanning is a huge, time-consuming job and I'm not close yet to finishing the scanning of my own pre-digital negatives. The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more usable, copyable, and shareable. See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or prints can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints and ussually they can be made to look better than the original. Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But scanning is slow and tedious. In contrast--making copies of image that are digitial in the first place is extremely fast, cheap, and easy and, so is much more likely to happen. Mark -- Stacey |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
But
scanning is slow and tedious. are you scanning individual prints or film strips? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: Or maybe you just hang out in the shallower end of the gene pool I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started.. Do humorlessness and film advocacy go together (he says as he ducks)? This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine until both my parents are gone Why because you can't scan them? Because scanning is a huge, time-consuming job and I'm not close yet to finishing the scanning of my own pre-digital negatives. The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more usable, copyable, and shareable. See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or prints can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints and ussually they can be made to look better than the original. Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But scanning is slow and tedious. In contrast--making copies of image that are digitial in the first place is extremely fast, cheap, and easy and, so is much more likely to happen. Mark -- Stacey -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But scanning is slow and tedious. In contrast--making copies of image that are digitial in the first place is extremely fast, cheap, and easy and, so is much more likely to happen. Where the quality of digital is up to the end use of the image, then that convenience is of course dominant. The higher end digital cameras certainly can be used for 95% of photography. But there remain uses of film images that digital can't yet match, and so film thrives. There are the digital holdouts who stick to film for a variety of reasons, which include stubborness, tradition, investment, etc, ad nauseum (as too often debated in these groups). If one were to scan 20 years worth of negatives and slides, it would be tedious at best. But if he selects the images really worth scanning, it shouldn't be so bad. Sharing? A friend returned from a trip to Corsica recently with nearly 600 images on her P&S digital camera. I 'donated' webspace to her (360MB) to gen links and send around... that is two weeks worth of images. I've urged her to cut it down to, say, 100 images, but to date she hasn't dug in to do it. The effort of downselecting is in fact made worse due to her prolifigate rate of image production. I've looked at many, and as vacation snaps go, many are very well composed and interesting .... but not 600 worth. IOW, there has been an exchange of tedium. One set of work abandoned and a new set of work created. Cheers, Alan -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Stacey - don't let the Newgroup Tantrum Troopers get to you
If you prefer fim based media - hey, it is fine with me das B "Stacey" wrote in message ... Mark Weaver wrote: Or maybe you just hang out in the shallower end of the gene pool I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started.. This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine until both my parents are gone Why because you can't scan them? My 94-year-old grandfather still has all his photos...including the photos of my mother's childhood--most of which I've never seen. Why because they can't be scanned? The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more usable, copyable, and shareable. See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or prints can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints and ussually they can be made to look better than the original. -- Stacey |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
MikeWhy wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message ... And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints and ussually they can be made to look better than the original. And around we go again... I lose track from moment to moment of who is pro-digital, and who is clinging by bleeding fingernails to fondly held beliefs. How about the people who are neither? :-) Yes, Stacey, this of course is the major strength of digital. The price of admission, and the cost and pain of archiving, are made more than worthwhile by the ease of correcting and manipulating an imperfectly captured image, whether it was partly photochemical or entirely digital. Which is why I'm still shooting film. I trust it for storing the image and I have the -option- of digitizing it with no loss of quality, in fact with MF it's higher quality. If the digital file gets "lost" I still have the negatives. The only downside is I have to buy film that I can see. I already own plenty of Medformat stuff so I see no reason to jump ship to try to save film costs. -- Stacey |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
Mark Weaver wrote:
"Stacey" wrote in message This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine until both my parents are gone Why because you can't scan them? Because scanning is a huge, time-consuming job and I'm not close yet to finishing the scanning of my own pre-digital negatives. Come on, I've scanned a BUNCH of prints and a good scanner can scan a print right on the money 95% of the time in auto mode, plenty good enough to copy some family snapshots. The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more usable, copyable, and shareable. See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or prints can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints and ussually they can be made to look better than the original. Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But scanning is slow and tedious. So you've never gotten "double prints"? You act like only one print can be made from a negative or reprints are a major hassle. If these prints your parents have are important, it couldn't take more than a night to scan them and give them back. Then you have analog and digital copies instead of just one type. -- Stacey |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
"Stacey" wrote in message
... MikeWhy wrote: "Stacey" wrote in message ... And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints and ussually they can be made to look better than the original. And around we go again... I lose track from moment to moment of who is pro-digital, and who is clinging by bleeding fingernails to fondly held beliefs. How about the people who are neither? :-) Thank you for that. I had forgotten the moderate, reasonable view in my haste to belittle the strongly polarized. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner | Mike | Digital Photography | 6 | July 5th 04 07:06 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Will we always be able to buy film? | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 30 | January 28th 04 05:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |