Thinking bout going to digital

[zaroba]

No request, absolutelly, just a wish and looks lika a valid one. Why don't you have any ? you don't like any of your pictures ?

oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos. I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic
I have over 2.5k digital photos dating back to 2007 on my PC, I'm actually in the process of uploading them to my website.

Really it would be a matter of looking threw them all for the ones I like the most.
Off hand I know of one that I truly do love. You wont understand it though:

 

[limr32 1]

Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.

And I would also like to clarify something: when you say "state-of-the-art sensors" do you mean the sensors that are in any current digital cameras? (Current meaning the last couple of years - not older digital sensors) Or does it refer only to the top-of-the-line digital cameras?

I don't want to get involved in the film/digital head butting here just want to keep the tech accurate. Digital continues to develop at a fairly rapid pace. Back a decade or more especially when most digital cameras were equipped with 10 bit A/D converters you could compare film and digital dynamic range and make a case for film. We're now solidly using 14 bit A/D converters in modern digital cameras with 16 bit converters showing up at the very high end. Yes -- top of the line stuff like a Nikon D800 which is very expensive. It would take two years of my film costs back in 1995 to buy one today. Film is mature tech and if improvements are made they are incremental at best. In 2008 I was shooting a 10 mgpx camera with a 10 bit A/D converter. Your statement may have been accurate then. Do the math and compare the difference between 2^10 and 2^14 and then try next year's 2^16. Film dynamic range got passed up somewhere between 2^12 and 2^14.

Joe

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

 

[timor]

oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos. I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic

No, absolutely no, I am not sarcastic. (But if you weren't sure it means, that I handled myself well ) You see, my opinion here is, that the final goal of photography is a print. Not everything has to be printed, but what you consider impressive should. Having portfolio of good prints first of all elevates a photographer by showing, that his skills are complete, then print looks different, than a computer screen image, usually it loses somewhat of it's brilliance (no backlight) so it is a control of processing. And then print just pinned to the wall could be looked upon at any given time, could be studied at any given time and that will stimulate your sensitivity as a photographer.

 

[gsgary]

oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos. I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic

No, absolutely no, I am not sarcastic. (But if you weren't sure it means, that I handled myself well ) You see, my opinion here is, that the final goal of photography is a print. Not everything has to be printed, but what you consider impressive should. Having portfolio of good prints first of all elevates a photographer by showing, that his skills are complete, then print looks different, than a computer screen image, usually it loses somewhat of it's brilliance (no backlight) so it is a control of processing. And then print just pinned to the wall could be looked upon at any given time, could be studied at any given time and that will stimulate your sensitivity as a photographer.

Have you been on the pewo because I have

 

[timor]

oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos. I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic

No, absolutely no, I am not sarcastic. (But if you weren't sure it means, that I handled myself well ) You see, my opinion here is, that the final goal of photography is a print. Not everything has to be printed, but what you consider impressive should. Having portfolio of good prints first of all elevates a photographer by showing, that his skills are complete, then print looks different, than a computer screen image, usually it loses somewhat of it's brilliance (no backlight) so it is a control of processing. And then print just pinned to the wall could be looked upon at any given time, could be studied at any given time and that will stimulate your sensitivity as a photographer.

Have you been on the pewo because I have

Piwo. No I am at work, but that reminds me I have none for the evening.:shock: :meh:

 

[Browncoat]

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

The Nikon D800/800E/810 exceeds the dynamic range of film. Most other sensors in the past couple years either meet or exceed also. I say most, because some still aren't up to snuff...at least in my opinion. Aside from nostalgic value, DR was previously film's one claim to fame over digital, but those days are over.

Film is a horse drawn carriage. It's more about the ride and the "experience".

 

[greybeard36 8]

Digital has given me creative freedom I never felt like I had with film. Nothing like the immediate feedback you get with a dSLR. Much better in low light. Can you imagine have variable ASA film from 100-6400? I think you will wonder why you haven't done it sooner.

 

[CameraClicker]

oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos. I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic

No, absolutely no, I am not sarcastic. (But if you weren't sure it means, that I handled myself well ) You see, my opinion here is, that the final goal of photography is a print. Not everything has to be printed, but what you consider impressive should. Having portfolio of good prints first of all elevates a photographer by showing, that his skills are complete, then print looks different, than a computer screen image, usually it loses somewhat of it's brilliance (no backlight) so it is a control of processing. And then print just pinned to the wall could be looked upon at any given time, could be studied at any given time and that will stimulate your sensitivity as a photographer.

I always preferred slides to prints. Large monitors are great, screensaver runs when the machines are not being used and I have a couple of thousand photos in the screensaver loop. Our walls are fairly clean, some original Indian carvings and only a couple of pictures, the rest are all on monitors and change every few seconds. I print a lot, just not for me.

 

[timor]

oh heavens no, I have plenty of photos. I just couldn't tell if your post was serious or sarcastic

No, absolutely no, I am not sarcastic. (But if you weren't sure it means, that I handled myself well ) You see, my opinion here is, that the final goal of photography is a print. Not everything has to be printed, but what you consider impressive should. Having portfolio of good prints first of all elevates a photographer by showing, that his skills are complete, then print looks different, than a computer screen image, usually it loses somewhat of it's brilliance (no backlight) so it is a control of processing. And then print just pinned to the wall could be looked upon at any given time, could be studied at any given time and that will stimulate your sensitivity as a photographer.

I always preferred slides to prints. Large monitors are great, screensaver runs when the machines are not being used and I have a couple of thousand photos in the screensaver loop. Our walls are fairly clean, some original Indian carvings and only a couple of pictures, the rest are all on monitors and change every few seconds. I print a lot, just not for me.

You are not getting the idea. Or you just print for money ?

 

[gsgary]

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

The Nikon D800/800E/810 exceeds the dynamic range of film. Most other sensors in the past couple years either meet or exceed also. I say most, because some still aren't up to snuff...at least in my opinion. Aside from nostalgic value, DR was previously film's one claim to fame over digital, but those days are over.

Film is a horse drawn carriage. It's more about the ride and the "experience".

It doesn't beat medium format for dynamic range

 

[gsgary]

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

The Nikon D800/800E/810 exceeds the dynamic range of film. Most other sensors in the past couple years either meet or exceed also. I say most, because some still aren't up to snuff...at least in my opinion. Aside from nostalgic value, DR was previously film's one claim to fame over digital, but those days are over.

Film is a horse drawn carriage. It's more about the ride and the "experience".

And it doesn't beat the Sony A7

 

[timor]

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

The Nikon D800/800E/810 exceeds the dynamic range of film. Most other sensors in the past couple years either meet or exceed also. I say most, because some still aren't up to snuff...at least in my opinion. Aside from nostalgic value, DR was previously film's one claim to fame over digital, but those days are over.

Film is a horse drawn carriage. It's more about the ride and the "experience".

And it doesn't beat the Sony A7

Gary, I told you already something about thid discussion.
Riding a horse drown carrige is now activity of social elite. The knowledge how to control horse is all but lost to wide population as well as the experience from that ride.

 

[gsgary]

I have been on the Pivow

 

[gsgary]

Piwo

 

[timor]

Piwo

Forgot about that.