compur
Been spending a lot of time on here!
People are stating the problem but ignoring the cause.
What problem do you mean and what do you feel is its cause?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People are stating the problem but ignoring the cause.
What problem do you mean and what do you feel is its cause?
Hello everyone
I have read this forum for a couple of weeks and trying to find an answer to my question:
What makes film photography irreplaceable by digital one? Why so many people admit that digital photos are not that good?
I hope that there are enthusiasts of photography who could share their opinion and convince me that traditional photo do have soul
I would appreciate your help! I am writing a project on the film photography phenomenon and I would be glad to support it with your opinion.
Thank you in advance
Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film holds much more detail....
Because 'digital' photography is the biggest fraud perpetrated on man since...well in history. Film holds much more detail....
I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".
Here is a nice analysis:
Spur Nano Edge, two
I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".
Here is a nice analysis:
Spur Nano Edge, two
the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see The Rest of the Picture) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.
I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.
I find this an interesting and intriguing statement. I also happen to agree.
I also suspect you have much more info on this topic. Could you elaborate?
Well just look at the size of film grains vs the size of 4 sensor cells in digital cameras. There is some 'sharpness' but no fine detail. Skin looks like vinyl. If you blow up a digital image beyond a certain point it simply breaks up. Film doesn't do that, at least not "all of a sudden".
Here is a nice analysis:
Spur Nano Edge, two
the referenced article clearly ignores non Bayer Pattern Sensors, believe it or not, there are other options besides DSLR's for digital imaging. You may want to take a look around the betterlight site (specifically see The Rest of the Picture) for some real world comparisions between dslr's, scanbacks and film before taking everything written in this article as gospel.
I personally prefer film, but digital imaging has matured to the point (at least at the higher end) where it competes favorably with film, and in may ways (noise, detail ) surpasses it.
surprisingly not as expensive as some of the outfits you see around here, what's a 1DSmkIII cost with a few L lenses, or a D3X with a few ED lenses??? $10K+??? it's not inconceivable to walk around with $25K in a camera bag these days between two bodies and a handful of L lenses.
While a Betterlight 6k isn't cheap @ ~$15k, there are alternatives, the earlier version, the Dicomed Field Pro, gives you 90% of the performance for under (usually well under) $1k, as an example.
I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::
I have probably less than $500 in all the cameras and lenses that I have purchased lately. Granted, when I purchased my first good camera back in the early 80,s (suddenly old) it was at least that much but a decent digital can run into the thousands. The point being, is that film is much less expensive than digital to get into but tends to add up when you start getting into developing. As I said before they both have there uses and everyone is going to have a different opinion so lets all just get along and play nice:hug::
In 2009, $500.00 from 1980 is worth:
$1,300.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$1,150.00 using the GDP deflator
$1,290.00 using the unskilled wage
$1,430.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$1,890.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$2,560.00 using the relative share of GDP
Measuring Worth - Relative Value of US Dollars
Thank you for response
Till know I found out that opinions are divided. Film enthusiasts claim that digital cameras kill the art of photography. On the other hand, people whose job is connected with cameras admit that the digital cameras facilitate their work (e.g. taking a lot of photos and then working and retouching them).
I am looking for information about particular scenes which you could capture only while using analog camera (or only with digital one).