10000 shots spent

How many megapixels do you guys need? You can work with 4 but 16 is plenty for a full frame 35mm sensor. And 40??? Give me a break. :lol: Yes, I'd love to have a play with it but unless I have a specialist need for it, it can stay in the shop.

I can remember "back in the day" when talking of breaking the 640K ram barrier in the PC, being asked "just how much RAM does a guy need?". Technology will always grow, and we will always look back on it in amazement and ask "how did we get by with such limitations?".



Digital is just way too expensive - unless you're budgeting to a 5 year plan. :lol:

So I think as long as film has a warmer character and is 10 x cheaper, it will always be the prefered option for some - even if the rest are playing with 192bit gigapixels. :lol:


There will come a time when digital will be cheap, much more so than film. All too soon film will loose it's "economy of scale" as more and more manufacturers shut down and move on to "new and better" technologies. Film will go the way of the buggy whip and will be reserved for the elite artisan, well out of reach of the weekend point and shooters.

To bring the thread back on topic. If you shoot a lot, and many of us do, digital is already cheaper than film. Economy of scale has already entered into the equasion. I shoot things that I may not have with film, just because the camera is always with me and there is no cost per frame untill I go to print. To shoot 10,000 frames is really not a lot if the camera is an extension of you, the person. What I see with my camera. Pushing the shutter is just a reflex.
 
jadin said:
That's just it, you don't have to view from a distance with enough megapixels. And I wouldn't consider that specialist work either.
When I do a print, it's intended to be viewed as a whole. If it's viewed to closely then the essence of the image is gone. There may well be smaller elements to the picture but they are meant to be seen within the context of the whole picture - not as sections in their own right. If I wanted that, I'd do a seperate photo for it.

jadin said:
What about all the medium and large format shooters out there? Do you think they are wasting all that film? I don't. It allows them much more flexibility as to what sizes they can and cannot print.
They're shooting film aren't they? Shooting a larger format reduces the grain.

I think the ones shooting with 40MP digital backs are waisting there time though - unless they have a specialist agenda.
 
jstuedle said:
Pushing the shutter is just a reflex.
It's the same with me when I shoot digital - that's why I get better results from film. ;)

The point I'm making is that technology has already reached the point where the MP's are big enough for people to swap over from film; But it's not just about the MP's.
 
Marctwo said:
When I do a print, it's intended to be viewed as a whole. If it's viewed to closely then the essence of the image is gone. There may well be smaller elements to the picture but they are meant to be seen within the context of the whole picture - not as sections in their own right. If I wanted that, I'd do a seperate photo for it.

That's your personal perception of how photography should be displayed. I love images that look beautiful on whole and yet I can stare at the smaller elements for hours. Photos within photos should be praised, not shunned!

Marctwo said:
They're shooting film aren't they? Shooting a larger format reduces the grain.

I think the ones shooting with 40MP digital backs are waisting there time though - unless they have a specialist agenda.

I highly doubt the only reason they choose larger formats is grain reduction.
 
jadin said:
That's your personal perception of how photography should be displayed. I love images that look beautiful on whole and yet I can stare at the smaller elements for hours. Photos within photos should be praised, not shunned!
If you're talking about doing extremely large photographic prints then that in itself is specialised.

If you're talking about billboard/poster campaigns then no-one will waste so much ink in printing them that resolute anyway.
jadin said:
I highly doubt the only reason they choose larger formats is grain reduction.
I'm sure you're right - but it's still film.
 
Marctwo said:
If you're talking about doing extremely large photographic prints then that in itself is specialised.

If you're talking about billboard/poster campaigns then no-one will waste so much ink in printing them that resolute anyway.

I'm talking about any photograph! Even a 4x6! I really don't see how having multiple levels of elements is considered specialized...

Marctwo said:
I'm sure you're right - but it's still film.

You asked who needed more than 16 MP. I'm answering. Surely the photographer's using med / large format might want to use digital if it had comparable resolution to film...
 
jadin said:
I'm talking about any photograph! Even a 4x6! I really don't see how having multiple levels of elements is considered specialized...
That's already been covered.
jadin said:
You asked who needed more than 16 MP. I'm answering. Surely the photographer's using med / large format might want to use digital if it had comparable resolution to film...
16MP is comparable in real terms. But as said, it's not just about the MP's.
 
The point I'm making is that technology has already reached the point where the MP's are big enough for people to swap over from film; But it's not just about the MP's.

This point has been made over and over. Once the pixel density get's to about 10 MP in DX format, digital has overtaken film if you compare them at digital min ISO ratings. Six to eight MP equals film to most shooters eyes. The pixel density of the D2X is the highest today. It already is pushing the resolving power of the best lenses available in 35mm format. At full frame, 20MP would be about the same pixel size. To exceed that would require an advance in lens technology that I don't think we can afford. Just a little trivia and personal observation. We do keep going OT, don't I, er, a, we?
 
jstuedle said:
We do keep going OT, don't I, er, a, we?

i often wonder if construction guys sit around arguing over the future of the nail since screws are so plentiful, cheap, and better vs. quantity of nails and the nail gun, or the nail gun vs. the "obsolete" hammer :scratch:
 
panzershreck said:
i often wonder if construction guys sit around arguing over the future of the nail since screws are so plentiful, cheap, and better vs. quantity of nails and the nail gun, or the nail gun vs. the "obsolete" hammer :scratch:

Of course not! They never went to college! They can't figure out things like that!

.
..
...
....

:er:
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top