what do the attractive offspring of insurance salesmen have to do with your argument?
Ray
g'day MHV
are you ragging digital or defending 35mm?
if digital capture is "vacuum cleaning" compared to 35mm, could not the same be said of 35mm capture compared to LF capture?
I think, however, that, potentially, a 35mm digital camera can perform the same function...
LIES! A 35mm kodachrome slide from the 50s contains more data than all but those exorbitant digital cameras today requiring tethering to computers. 22 megapixels with a good lens. MF has I believe 70, 4x5 has 300. (you have to scan them well, ye old desktop scanner is not gonna pull it off. Think drumscans)
That's very true, but in your essay you referenced that some people justify abandoning 35mm film in that digital is "better" in terms of resolution. I was merely seeking to prove these incorrect.
This is a good point. If your rationale for using 35mm is that it has more effective megapixels than current digital offerings, what happens when this is no longer valid? :confused:Maybe one day we'll have handheld, cheap cameras that have sixty gazillions megapixels. What will be the reasons for using 35mm film then, if it does not have more gazillions megapixels? Is there something else than resolution or number of pictures on a support that guides our choices?
This is a good point. If your rationale for using 35mm is that it has more effective megapixels than current digital offerings, what happens when this is no longer valid? :confused:
I keep telling myself that it's the creative elements of developing and processing film that keeps me using 35mm.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?