My first roll of film.

[cgipson1]

I always welcome Helen's opinion. She knows what she is talking about AND she listens and not just bash people. People keep telling me to shoot with film (including derrel), and sure enough.. drama again. Maybe I should haven't tried film. Nothing but drama here.

everyone and anyone really interested in photography should shoot a little film sometime.... gives a whole different perspective! And think about the days when we didn't scan everything in and edit it digitally... your print was pretty much it!

 

[Derrel]

Yes! More opinions stated as fact!

Nice job Derrel, you really showed Robin what was up by being able to tell which were film and which were digital. Great work. A+. 10/10 would read again.

Tyler,
Schwettylens's images in that thread look SOOOO HORRIBLE that it's almost impossible to evaluate their origin....it seems almost like he is trying to "game" the results. No matter what method he used, every single picture in that other post looks God-awful. Who cares whether they were made with film or digital--they are so technically coarse and low-rez that NONE of the pictures are a good representation of either film, nor of digital imaging. They all look really "bad". I'm not quite sure why anybody would even bother with his post.

 

[Derrel]

Maybe I should have used a hand held meter and put it on kid's forehead just before I took the shot? I shouldnt trust my in camera metering?

Schwetty: if you took an in-camera reflected light meter reading of a woman in a white dress, how many f/stops of exposure adjustment would be needed to make her dress appear as a detailed white, when the film was given standard development and printed on a normal contrast grade of paper? Do you even KNOW the answer, even approximately?

The idea that you "trust" your camera's in-camera reflected light meter readings shows that you do not understand how B&W film needs to be metered AND how it needs to be exposed. What KIND of hand-held meter reading would you trust? Do you realize that there are two broad, vastly different basic light metering methods?

 

[Robin Usagani]

I probably put the dress between +1 and +2

 

[o hey tyler]

Lots of people agree that film grain has a nostalgic quality to it. I often use a processing setup to emulate film grain in a digital image, and I feel that it does a pretty good job. Actually, Schwetty is the one who turned me on to it. Visual Supply Co (VSCO)

It's not exactly like film grain, but I dig it.

"Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the YOUNG Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??

I'm not really a fan of Classic Rock.

We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO looks exactly like film.

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.

Please Derrel, refer to the post prior to this one that also involves large text. If I stated anywhere that VSCO looks exactly like film, I will gladly redact my comments. Are you incapable of reading? Are you that old, senile, and partially blind that you cannot understand that I stated an OPINION? Do you need a stronger prescription for your horned rimmed glasses? I was not ARGUING for anything, I was stating how I FEEL on the topic. Do you get that? Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to put together a power point presentation and walk you through the differences between FACT and OPINION? Maybe I'll even throw in a slide on what arguing a FACT is, because I haven't argued any FACTS at all.

Furthermore, you choose to attack the fact that I like to recreationally smoke marijuana, and apparently (according to you) makes everything look the same. I however, do not seem to suffer from the level of reading incomprehension that you seem to. What do you think you'd attribute that to? I have a few ideas, but I'm not cold enough to divulge them here.

Yes! More opinions stated as fact!

Nice job Derrel, you really showed Robin what was up by being able to tell which were film and which were digital. Great work. A+. 10/10 would read again.

Tyler,
Schwettylens's images in that thread look SOOOO HORRIBLE that it's almost impossible to evaluate their origin....

Well, for you it should be easy. Since you're so versed in what film looks like and all. Shouldn't really matter. You've been shooting film for SO MANY YEARS, so you should know, right?

it seems almost like he is trying to "game" the results. No matter what method he used, every single picture in that other post looks God-awful.

In your opinion.

Who cares whether they were made with film or digital--they are so technically coarse and low-rez that NONE of the pictures are a good representation of either film, nor of digital imaging.

In your opinion.

They all look really "bad".

Is that why you never post images?

 

[pixmedic1 1]

"Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the YOUNG Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??

We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO looks exactly like film. I am sure HelenB is getting a good laugh at this too. And Buckster.

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.

AC-DC was awesome with bon scott, but was still pretty great afterwards. Van-Hagar was never as good, but i did like sammy hagars solo stuff. David lee roth still the best. Queen had the best concerts, Styx was pretty good too until they lost denis deyoung, tommy shaw just wasnt enough to carry them the same way. Dizamn i miss the 80's...

 

[gsgary]

Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit. I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which. VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files. It should be a good challenge!

why would you shoot digital and then try to make look like film

 

[dxqcanada2 1]

... the more important question ... why would you shoot Film and digitize it ?

 

[gsgary]

Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit. I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which. VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files. It should be a good challenge!

It is easy to tell the difference

 

[Robin Usagani]

... the more important question ... why would you shoot Film and digitize it ?

Because we are on an Internet forum?

 

[rokvi]

"Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the YOUNG Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??

We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO looks exactly like film. I am sure HelenB is getting a good laugh at this too. And Buckster.

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.

AC-DC was awesome with bon scott, but was still pretty great afterwards. Van-Hagar was never as good, but i did like sammy hagars solo stuff. David lee roth still the best. Queen had the best concerts, Styx was pretty good too until they lost denis deyoung, tommy shaw just wasnt enough to carry them the same way. Dizamn i miss the 80's...

Sorry I'm just trollin here.

 

[Kerbouchard]

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

It's not a big deal. I'm old enough and experienced enough in a number of fields to have seen some of the things I put a lot of effort into mastering to the best of my ability become truly and completely obsolete (film is not yet in that category, of course). I have found that it doesn't matter, because a human's capacity to learn and move on is effectively infinite. Learning new stuff keeps the flame alive.



Thank goodness that we are all different. I have never thought about 'entering the work force' - I just looked for jobs in things I was good at that I stood a good chance of getting, knowing that change was part of life. So far I've done a bunch of weird things I could never have planned.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

Well, I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff I could talk to you about that is completely over your head and irrelevant to you, but I'm not sure of the point you are making. Should everything on this forum be relevant to you?

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

Absolutely, why let observable facts get in the way of vague, uninformed notions?

Thanks for the response. We certainly have different outllooks on life and it was interesting to read a bit of yours.

Regards,
George

 

[sm4him]

...So---was Foreigner as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the YOUNG Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??

AC-DC was awesome with bon scott, but was still pretty great afterwards. Van-Hagar was never as good, but i did like sammy hagars solo stuff. David lee roth still the best. Queen had the best concerts, Styx was pretty good too until they lost denis deyoung, tommy shaw just wasnt enough to carry them the same way. Dizamn i miss the 80's...

+1 for Queen; and "Yes" was awesome in concert!
I do SO wish that was what this thread was about...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

douchebag comment of the year.

 

[JAC526]

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome. I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

This comment is one of the most ignorant things I have read on this forum.

I feel sorry for you.