Really?

Streets

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
183
Reaction score
120
Location
Euless, Texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I can't comprehend why there is a thread for "FILM images". If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from. I enjoy copying old transparencies with my Sony A57 equipped with a Minolta 50mm macro lens but they never digitize as well as when they are seen when projected on a large screen. Face it; you will never duplicate, with film, the image from a quality SLR that is transferred to the internet. If I still had my Graflex XLRF with the 100mm Zeiss Planar, I would surely show you the proof of what I have stated. I do not begrudge you your use of expensive film, but really?
 
how else would you share film images on a digital medium?
its not like the entire forum can come to your house to see the images in print.
 
You will never get the quality and feel of a large format wet print with your DSLR, (or even a 35mm wet print).

You will never take quite the same image with it as the process and approaches are different.

Then the lenses are different because there is no need for retro-focus designs.

Then if you take anything with larger resolutions and reduce it for web use then you're really equalising the differences rather than exaggerating them.

Are you sure that your digital scans aren't looking the same as your digital photos because you're using the same editing methods on both and therefore reducing them to being the same?

But then if your only measure of an image is IQ that is determined by viewing from a computer monitor, one might say that your criterion for comparison is a little limited and biased anyway. There's a whole world of photography that exists beyond your computer screen.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process and the results.

35mm film scanned and resized for web, (perhaps you ain't doing it right?):

img113_sm.jpg


img124_sm.jpg


img118_sm.jpg
 
Last edited:
I can't comprehend why there is a thread for "FILM images". If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from. I enjoy copying old transparencies with my Sony A57 equipped with a Minolta 50mm macro lens but they never digitize as well as when they are seen when projected on a large screen. Face it; you will never duplicate, with film, the image from a quality SLR that is transferred to the internet. If I still had my Graflex XLRF with the 100mm Zeiss Planar, I would surely show you the proof of what I have stated. I do not begrudge you your use of expensive film, but really?
1b5PUsr.gif
 
That is exactly my point. You would also have to come to my house to see the 20x30 print made from an image from my 16MP Sony A57.
 
That is exactly my point. You would also have to come to my house to see the 20x30 print made from an image from my 16MP Sony A57.
Only if we cared enough to see the 20X30 print. You are assuming too much.
 
You will never get the quality and feel of a large format wet print with your DSLR, (or even a 35mm wet print).

You will never take quite the same image with it as the process and approaches are different.

Then the lenses are different because there is no need for retro-focus designs.

Then if you take anything with larger resolutions and reduce it for web use then you're really equalising the differences rather than exaggerating them.

Are you sure that your digital scans aren't looking the same as your digital photos because you're using the same editing methods on both and therefore reducing them to being the same?

But then if your only measure of an image is IQ that is determined by viewing from a computer monitor, one might say that your criterion for comparison is a little limited and biased anyway. There's a whole world of photography that exists beyond your computer screen.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process and the results.

35mm film scanned and resized for web, (perhaps you ain't doing it right?):

View attachment 128089

View attachment 128090

View attachment 128088

If we're into Richard measuring, How's this one? Note the file size.
 

Attachments

  • DSC00043.JPG
    DSC00043.JPG
    242.3 KB · Views: 179
Last edited by a moderator:
That is exactly my point. You would also have to come to my house to see the 20x30 print made from an image from my 16MP Sony A57.
Only if we cared enough to see the 20X30 print. You are assuming too much.

Dang, that hurt. I was so hoping you'd find time for a visit.
 
Curator of Photographs
Smithsonian American Art Museum & Renwick Gallery
1661 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Sir or Madam,

It has come to our attention that you have been and continue to digitize your vast collection of historic and rare photographs. Please cease and desist as well as remove all the digitized images to date from your web site. It has been pointed out that some only want to view a film image in it’s original state.

There fore it is requested that hence forth you have all of your rare, priceless and unique images prepared for display at a moments notice to any and all people around the world. While we realize this will be an inconvenience for the millions of people around the world using them for research, or for their own enjoyment as they do not have the means of traveling such distances, such practices of photographing and displaying such digital images on the internet should not be encouraged. Only the original photo should be viewed.

While you are at it please remove all digital images of all priceless works of art in any form, for they too should only be viewed in person.

Sincerely,

Photo Film Snobs of the World



CC: Royal Academy of Arts, London England
Le Louvre, Paris, France
The Acropolis Museum, Athens, Greece
State Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia
The British Museum, London, England
The Prado, Madrid, Spain
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York
The Vatican Museums, Vatican City, Italy
The Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
 
If we're into Richard measuring, How's this one? Note the file size.

LOL, now I know you're just blowing smoke, cookies or none. Please note the file size of the image below, it should give you a clue about what determines file size. It is, by the way, the same size as my car photo which is bigger than your's, (if we're into 'Richard Measuring - whatever that is :confused:).

Also of note is that your image is a typical digital one where in the quest for contrast and clarity you've pushed all the mid-tones towards the edges of the histogram:

histo.jpg


To me it looks harsh and frankly quite flat. In fact you have blown out pixels and deep shadows in virtually every part of the image and virtually no mid-tones. It reminds me of the really low quality B&W reproductions you used to get in some books and low circulation magazines.

Film is different to digital and has a different feel to it and large format wet prints blow the socks of DSLRs. 35mm film is limited but done correctly can produce perfectly acceptable results for publication and web use.

Digital in the wrong hands looks worse than 35mm... ;)
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    15 KB · Views: 146
Last edited:
If we're into Richard measuring, How's this one? Note the file size.

LOL, now I know you're just blowing smoke, cookies or none. Please note the file size of the image below, it should give you a clue about what determines file size. It is, by the way, the same size as my car photo which is bigger than your's, (if we're into 'Richard Measuring - whatever that is :confused:).

Also of note is that your image is a typical digital one where in the quest for contrast and clarity you've pushed all the mid-tones towards the edges of the histogram:

View attachment 128101

To me it looks harsh and frankly quite flat. In fact you have blown out pixels and deep shadows in virtually every part of the image and virtually no mid-tones. It reminds me of the really low quality B&W reproductions you used to get in some books and low circulation magazines.

Film is different to digital and has a different feel to it and large format wet prints blow the socks of DSLRs. 35mm film is limited but done correctly can produce perfectly acceptable results for publication and web use.

Digital in the wrong hands looks worse than 35mm... ;)

Tim, you old sod, you keep missing the point. There can be NO such thing as a film photo on any internet source. EVERY photo on this forum is in digital form and consist of various quantities of pixels. P.S., for a film user you are very knowledgeable about digital photography. Thanks for the scathing appraisal of my work. Cheers.
 
You have to thank the moderator for changing the term "D__K measuring" to "richard measuring". It did give me a chuckle when he did that. I must ask for forgiveness for being so "all grown up".
 
If anyone stops by my place to see my film prints, I'll provide bacon wrapped maple honey ham and all the beer you can drink.
 
Tim, you old sod, you keep missing the point. There can be NO such thing as a film photo on any internet source. EVERY photo on this forum is in digital form and consist of various quantities of pixels. P.S., for a film user you are very knowledgeable about digital photography. Thanks for the scathing appraisal of my work. Cheers.

Err... I thought the forum was titled "Film Discussion", not "Film Images". You might want to re-read that before you post a thread stating we're all wasting our time.
 
There's a whole world of photography that exists beyond your computer screen.

So hang on, you re saying people still use actual film????

Well that is interesting.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top