Digital or Film - do we need to know

[dxqcanada]

I was just thinking ... should images posted be indicated if they originated from a Film or Digital Camera ?

or it does not matter since the Film Camera image needed to be scanned to become digital in order to post it?

Should the posted images state if they have been manipulated/altered ?

 

[Josh66]

Whenever I've posted pictures scanned from negatives (not many, yet) I just say what film it was under it.

My reasoning is that someone might actually want to know what film it was, and also to avoid confusion.

I don't think it's really necessary to say if it's been manipulated - that should be fairly obvious...

 

[Battou]

With out knowing my work one would never know, but I do just that. I feel the need to do so. Being a predominately film shooter I grow tired of seeing the words "Noise", "Noisey" and the suggestions of Noise reduction, I find it irritating that people can't tell the difference between digital noise and film grain.


It's subtle, and I rarely shoot digital but for those who don't know. Whan I post a digital shot, If I give any camera information at all it is usually "auto settings" or such and such, ISO # where as with Film I use such and such, ASA # (the older speed designation)

 

[epp_b]

^ agreed: film grain is a lot nicer than digital noise. Grain can be desirable as part of an art piece, whereas noise is always blotchy and ugly.

 

[skieur]

I was just thinking ... should images posted be indicated if they originated from a Film or Digital Camera ?

or it does not matter since the Film Camera image needed to be scanned to become digital in order to post it?

Should the posted images state if they have been manipulated/altered ?

No, what difference does it make. A great shot is a great shot whether it was originally done with film or digital. The reverse is also true.

Whether an image has also been manipulated is also not relevant unless it is rather obvious, in which case it was poorly done.

skieur

 

[Overread]

Whilst at the end of the day it is as Skieur says - a great shot is a great shot no matter what kit you used. I do find it usefull when people post to say what kit they have used - not only digital or traditional, but also if it was DSLR or point and shoot as well. I say this because there are times that you want to be able to advise some one or give an opinion and without knowing what kit was used you can't give a meaningfull repy since there are limits as to what can/cannot be changed (eg a film user can't suddenly change their ISO in the field - they have to change films or camera bodies to do so).

I think in the end if your just posting a photo for photos sake and are not after advise (then firstly post in the for fun section) then such details are not essential - but if your out for any meaningful adivse then what kit you used is very important to note down.
As an aside I also like to see what kit people have used as it acts as a learning aid - being able to see all the different results kit can achive (in the right hands)

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, good comments.

For display sake, yeah it does not matter.

For criticism, then I would suggest the OP should state the equipment ... so we do not make suggestions that are not relevant.

 

[viridari]

In a perfect world, my old Mamiya C330 would embed EXIF tags into the negatives, which would then be picked up by the scanner and added to the resulting TIFF files. Then you could just look at the tags on the images that I post and know everything you need to know.