I've always thought it's kind of obvious to say film isn't good at doing what digital does best, and digital isn't as good at doing what film does best. Uh... yeah, no kidding! I mean, since more than ten years ago, boneheads have been comparing flatbed scanned film to native digital images, or LF film to small format digital, or... well don't get me started
And last April while I was photographing in Moab Utah, one of the other people on the off-road trail told me that his son's new 10 megapixel Canon could beat the pants off the Hasselblad .
Steve
What I'm mainly worried about is paper.
sounds correct, those hasselblods are for retro fiends and space cadets, they are so 1969 so neil stretch armstrong and buzz lightyear.
and do not even get me started on that carol zeiss guy and his crummy lens.
I found that article, and most of the comments to be refreshingly free of the Film vs Digital dick waving that so often goes on.
I use a point and shoot digital for grab shots, I'm not over convinced about the quality. I use film in numerous camera for the stuff I hope will be worth showing outside the family circle. I like what I do.
I also shoot film in a ratio of about 20:1 to digital.
suits me
FWIW, I'm sure there is another thread here on APUG discussing this very blog. I seem to remember that Christopher Walrath started that thread (but I certainly could be mistaken).
sounds correct, those hasselblods are for retro fiends and space cadets, they are so 1969 so neil stretch armstrong and buzz lightyear. and do not even get me started on that carol zeiss guy and his crummy lens.
... and you know youre either lying or blind if you insist you can get great black and white conversions from digital ...
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?