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
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) -- Bob D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message . .. Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) No 35mm film camera I ever used can touch the 5D. And, if the 50D delivers as promised, the gap will grow even more. The difference is there at ISO 100, but by ISO 800 digital absolutely blows film out of the water. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" wrote:
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files, I repectfully disagree. First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data. They need to be processed into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already second generation. And second you cannot view the JPEG file directly, either. It is either printed on some paper or displayed on a display device like a CRT or LCD or projector. Thus what you are seeing is third generation at best. jue |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message . .. ........I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) -- You need to change your colour lab Bobby boy - seriously. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
In message , Jürgen Exner
writes "RoushPhotoOnline.com" wrote: Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files, I repectfully disagree. First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data. Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc. They need to be processed into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already second generation. No the resultant JPEG/TIFF/PNG is second generation. However I get to chose the parameters far more than you can in a dark room. If you screw up the developing you can't go back -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message . .. Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) -- Bob D. To almost everyone's replies... It is interesting how you make the difference into a hot sport of only seeking the best of perfection you can find in what you do, and racing_it_up that digital is the answer in all of it's perfection capabilities... does anyone remember "art" and the artististic capabilities of film photography? I personally can and yet cannot justify the digital application of such effects as to being unnatural and artificial, as well as too easily done... "apply filter effect"... done. I have seen printed digital photographic art in galleries and online and in magazines and I think it is mundane, boring and obvious no matter how fantastic it is. What is acceptable 'to me' is the developing and scanning of film, that level of digital and not much more. IMO digital slr is for business imagery including weddings, wildlife, sports, war, and journalism photography. P/S cameras are just for that, capturing a memory. But as far as real art that is true art, film is the only way to go. And darkroom all the better. I think art should be "Earthy", and humanly done by actual work and imagination. I really believe there should be some level of differenciation in everyone's digital thinking about it. Try to, in your own mental capabilities, scope yourself a much grander overall picture of photography and all of it's involvements. Yet, I scan film to digital because I am too financially strapped to own a darkroom. And that is because of health problems. -- })))* Giant_Alex not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H wrote: In message , Jürgen Exner writes "RoushPhotoOnline.com" wrote: Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files, I repectfully disagree. First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data. Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc. You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data. They need to be processed into some picture format, very often JPEG. So your JPEG file is already second generation. No the resultant JPEG/TIFF/PNG is second generation. However I get to chose the parameters far more than you can in a dark room. You can also choose parameters even just for viewing the RAW data without saving it as a JPEG, TIFF, etc. Steve |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
Bob wrote on Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:03:29 -0400:
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) Can you buy film or new film cameras any more? -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"James Silverton" wrote:
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more? Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format, but most of "the usual suspscts" are still producing medium format film cameras: Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Alpa, Horseman. Fujifilm has announced the first new folding camera in 25 years for release this fall. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote: Can you buy film or new film cameras any more? Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format, Don't get snotty! yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter. -- -- 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
35mm film vs Digital..what is the difference? | Marion | 35mm Photo Equipment | 252 | January 3rd 07 12:08 AM |
35mm Film vs Digital again | Graham Fountain | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | December 22nd 05 04:45 AM |
Digital images to 35mm slide film | Malevil | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 13th 05 06:07 AM |
35mm film vs digital | Conrad Weiler | Digital Photography | 49 | January 5th 05 04:01 AM |
Developing 35mm film into digital | Stuart Droker | Film & Labs | 1 | September 20th 04 04:15 PM |