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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
David J. Littleboy wrote:
It does, because it directly contradicts the statement that the difference between film and digital is that the former is continuous. The problem with invoking quanta in this argument is that you run the risk of being accused of making trivial arguments, simply because you are. ? And because, as someone already pointed out, and as you repeat below, the discrete levels of digtal are fine enough too for it all to be considered continuous. You've missed my point: the naive understanding of "analog" and "continuous" are quite wrong. An "analog" signal with 1 part in 256 of noise, only has 256 different levels that can be discriminated. [...] Not at all. I'm afraid, David, that "noone" is quite right in (most) what he says in his reply. And there's even more to be said, but it's perhaps not necessary to say all of it right now? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
Q.G. de Bakker wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 4:43 AM:
And because, as someone already pointed out, and as you repeat below, the discrete levels of digtal are fine enough too for it all to be considered continuous. You've missed my point: the naive understanding of "analog" and "continuous" are quite wrong. An "analog" signal with 1 part in 256 of noise, only has 256 different levels that can be discriminated. [...] Not at all. I'm afraid, David, that "noone" is quite right in (most) what he says in his reply. Oh, but don't let his "inability" to read the truth interfere with his understanding of it: the two are quite separate in his mind... And there's even more to be said, but it's perhaps not necessary to say all of it right now? Of course not. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... David J Taylor wrote: Alan Browne wrote: [] 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. It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just clips at peak white. Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital. Forgive us who avoid overexposure. Obviously, it is in the best interests of the photograph to avoid overall over-exposure. But there are many times when the portions of the scene will be over-exposed when other portions are correctly exposed. This is where film's "soft-clip" tolerance to over-exposure becomes an advantage. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
Ken Hart1 wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... David J Taylor wrote: Alan Browne wrote: [] 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. It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just clips at peak white. Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital. Forgive us who avoid overexposure. Obviously, it is in the best interests of the photograph to avoid overall over-exposure. But there are many times when the portions of the scene will be over-exposed when other portions are correctly exposed. This is where film's "soft-clip" tolerance to over-exposure becomes an advantage. I don't disagree. However, in my experience (which ain't the end all, but still...) there are often uncontrollable highlights which regardless of conditions will be well above the sensor (neg film or otherwise), so it's not a real concern ... (you can't do anything about them so the photog can only try to minimize their impact on the composition. That's how I approach it (and as I otherwise shoot 90% slide it amounts to pretty much the same thing anyway)). Certainly wedding photogs are doing entire weddings on digital (why the Fujifilm S3 (etc) cameras are popular with some of them (per another poster in another thread)) but such seem limited in pixel growth. Maybe they'll stun the world with a FF sensor. Otherwise we all see 12 Mpix cameras being wielded fearlessly by wedding photogs and no film camera in sight ... even for the formals. -- -- 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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
On 2008-12-28 18:05:03 -0500, "DRS" said:
"frank" wrote in message [...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. When digital cameras function on the quantum level, I will switch. -- Michael |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
"Michael" wrote in message
news:2008122920140216807-adunc79617@mypacksnet On 2008-12-28 18:05:03 -0500, "DRS" said: "frank" wrote in message [...] Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that is not how the world works. Quanta. When digital cameras function on the quantum level, I will switch. I don't know of any using Josephson switches so I'll not argue the point further, but as both film and sensors are by definition photon-sensitive they operate at the quantum level every time you use them. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
Alan Browne wrote:
Ken Hart1 wrote: "Alan Browne" wrote in message ... David J Taylor wrote: Alan Browne wrote: [] 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. It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just clips at peak white. Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital. Forgive us who avoid overexposure. Obviously, it is in the best interests of the photograph to avoid overall over-exposure. But there are many times when the portions of the scene will be over-exposed when other portions are correctly exposed. This is where film's "soft-clip" tolerance to over-exposure becomes an advantage. I don't disagree. However, in my experience (which ain't the end all, but still...) there are often uncontrollable highlights which regardless of conditions will be well above the sensor (neg film or otherwise), so it's not a real concern ... (you can't do anything about them so the photog can only try to minimize their impact on the composition. That's how I approach it (and as I otherwise shoot 90% slide it amounts to pretty much the same thing anyway)). Certainly wedding photogs are doing entire weddings on digital (why the Fujifilm S3 (etc) cameras are popular with some of them (per another poster in another thread)) but such seem limited in pixel growth. Maybe they'll stun the world with a FF sensor. Otherwise we all see 12 Mpix cameras being wielded fearlessly by wedding photogs and no film camera in sight ... even for the formals. While I enjoy shooting with my S2, S3 and S5, there's a rising trend in high end wedding photography, film. Google Jose Villa and Leah McCormick for example. While some may say they're the exceptions, more and more professional shooters I talk to are starting to go back to film, if only for special projects. The supposed savings digital offers are just transferring film and processing costs to post production costs. While there is truly some amazing work going on these days, the majority of the portrait work (I am co-owner of a portrait and commercial studio) takes just as long (and if you're paying somebody to do your post work, often costs more) as film based workflows. The majority of the product work I do digitally (Phase One scanback on a Sinar)needs little to no post work, one of the side benefits of having matured as a photographer in the film era (you get it right in camera or not at all) and not typical, from what I've heard from my clients (and their designers/graphic artists) I can shoot weddings and the like digitally, but find I can do it more profitably using film, for everything but the reception/candids. The classic white dress/black tux issue rears it's head more than I'd prefer, but I know that I can expose for the black tux and get a workable, high quality image with film, in the real world, under less than ideal conditions. In the studio, with controlled lighting and absolute control, digital can produce an image as good or better. Now if I could just find clients willing to get married in my studio, I'd probably go all digital. We may be an unusual situation, I process all film in house, we print up to 10x in house on a Frontier, and I enjoy the technical end of it as much as the creative side, but I don't think I'm alone. There's a place for both, and the "film must die" camp really needs to ask themselves if having one less tool is really in everybody's best interest. erie |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
erie patsellis wrote:
While I enjoy shooting with my S2, S3 and S5, there's a rising trend in high end wedding photography, film. Google Jose Villa and Leah McCormick for example. While some may say they're the exceptions, more and more professional shooters I talk to are starting to go back to film, if only for special projects. I find it interesting to see why photographers move from one medium to another, so I went looking for information on the two named photographers... Are you *sure* they moved back to film from digital? JV seems to have been a film person all his life, and I couldn't find any references to LM going digital and returning either. I'm not saying there aren't people going back to film, but when it comes to actual examples, it seems to be more anecdote than information. And it has to be said that for someone who has always shot weddings on MF, as many do and I used to, the equivalent quality has not been affordably available until very recently. I've certainly heard stories from 'pro's who were silly enough to early-adopt and use technology that was quite obviously not going to perform as well or conveniently as film. And then surprise, surprise, they returned to film. Yet those who wait and choose carefully, seem to do ok... http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/ (Nikon D3/D700) Scroll down and take a look, especially at the shots in challenging light.. Worth noting that his style is to display quite contrasty web images, but it seems to me that he is getting more usable dynamic range out of his Nikons than I ever could out of the best wedding films, and of course the low-light ability of those cameras is simply astonishing (let alone the inconvenience of having to have separate backs/cameras loaded with high-iso film).. The supposed savings digital offers are just transferring film and processing costs to post production costs. While there is truly some amazing work going on these days, the majority of the portrait work (I am co-owner of a portrait and commercial studio) takes just as long (and if you're paying somebody to do your post work, often costs more) as film based workflows. The majority of the product work I do digitally (Phase One scanback on a Sinar)needs little to no post work, one of the side benefits of having matured as a photographer in the film era (you get it right in camera or not at all) and not typical, from what I've heard from my clients (and their designers/graphic artists) No arguments there. I can shoot weddings and the like digitally, but find I can do it more profitably using film, for everything but the reception/candids. The classic white dress/black tux issue rears it's head more than I'd prefer, but I know that I can expose for the black tux and get a workable, high quality image with film, in the real world, under less than ideal conditions. Admittedly, numbers don't count for that much, but it has to be said that the better sensors are now exceeding the range of the best films.. But it also has to be said that a different approach is required, so if you are getting what you want now, why on earth would anyone change and go thru the pain of learning a new approach? Until film supplies/processing services dry up... We may be an unusual situation, I process all film in house, we print up to 10x in house on a Frontier, and I enjoy the technical end of it as much as the creative side, but I don't think I'm alone. There's a place for both, and the "film must die" camp really needs to ask themselves if having one less tool is really in everybody's best interest. I'm not sure there *is* a 'film must die' camp, except by those who are trolling. Personally I find it wonderful that digital is now maturing into a viable alternative even to MF, but I also find it a little sad to watch how quickly the marketplace dumps on film users. I'm still smarting over Kodachrome 25, Konica Impresa... |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 5:37 PM:
I'm not saying there aren't people going back to film, but when it comes to actual examples, it seems to be more anecdote than information. Ever tried looking where the correct information resides instead of newsgroups dedicated to scamming digital wares? And it has to be said that for someone who has always shot weddings on MF, as many do and I used to, the equivalent quality has not been affordably available until very recently. So your claims more than three years ago that it was available were what? The usual lies? Until film supplies/processing services dry up... you and I will be dead before that happens, so stop that "film is gone" crap or you'll hear from me every single time... I'm not sure there *is* a 'film must die' camp, except by those who are trolling. Such as you? how quickly the marketplace dumps on film users. I'm still smarting over Kodachrome 25, Konica Impresa... Really? Then why not open your mind to Adox CMS 20, Provia 400X, New Velvia, Ektar 100? Of course: if you chose to live in the past, you can't complain when the reality of the present slaps you in the face... |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix
In message , Noons
writes Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 5:37 PM: Until film supplies/processing services dry up... you and I will be dead before that happens, so stop that "film is gone" crap or you'll hear from me every single time... Interesting... A recent UK Pro photographers magazine was lamenting the fact that virtually all the professional processing places have gone. It cited the decline in several major UK cities. Some had gone from 10 processors down to one or zero. Whilst one is enough it also noted the overnight or 24 hour services had gone. It appears that the demand is so low that the tend to run a batch once a week or 10 days. This isn't digital scanning or propaganda as the piece was written by a 35mm /MF film user. He was also commenting that whilst film was still available the number of places stocking it, like vinyl records, saw getting fewer. Practically speaking only specialised places and the range carried was much smaller. My local Calumet now stocks less than 10% of the film it used to hold 5 years ago. And the range is much smaller. I'm not sure there *is* a 'film must die' camp, except by those who are trolling. Such as you? I don't thinks so. Film IS dying that is a fact. Usage of 35mm film is down 90% (extrapolating the number of processing plants closed over the last few years and the reduction in the number of places still selling film and the amounts they sell.) I was going to say closure of professional processing plants but my local boots only ran the fill processing machines once a week. Now it is once a fortnight. They are getting to the point where it is no longer cost effective to have the machines in store. The smaller branches have already lost the film processors all together There is not just the demand with all the digital P&S and "reasonable" camera-phones. The local Boots does have 10 serve yourself digital print kiosks and a continually running 1 hour turn round bulk printer. Whilst you may get the odd slow down in the decline in the use of film and even the odd local small blip in usage the trend is solidly down. It is now a minority thing and the number of new users is a drop in the ocean compared to those moving to digital. More to the point new photographers will not even use film at all. My local collages find there is a zero take up for the photography courses involving film or darkrooms. So as the current film users age and die off the art will go with them Film is just not dead and unlikely to be so for probably at least another decade, perhaps 2 but I can't see any revival. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
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 |