Yes indeed. When you can see individual blades of grass on the GG, or tell what tree those leaves on the other shore of the river came from..... that weeny little 2 1/4"x2 1/4" screen starts to remind you of the preview screen on a DSLR.
There's much better - taking your time composing on an 8x10 ground glass. Even larger is better but hits diminishing returns quickly. I stop at 4x5 because of the size and difficulty of acquiring and relocating bigger enlargers.
I also don't buy this "25MPX is a waste on a computer screen" thing either, I see a big difference between 12 and 36MP on my Apple 30" monitor when the photograph is sized to fit.
Since a computer screen has a fixed number of pixels, how do you explain that?
Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.
Have you never seen some of the great in-camera masking image manipulation work that used to be the mainstay of commercial labs before digital? An image on film is no more (or less) telling the truth than a digital image. You can create fake images with either technology.
The resizing algorithms that are used to make an image fit the screen size very often introduce artifacts in the image. Only when looking at a digital image at 1:1 on a monitor can you really tell what it looks like.
Yes. Which is why I asked the question I asked.
But, I didn't ask you, I asked PKM-25.
If it's OK with you I'd like to get an answer from PKM-25 on it. Thanks.
Have you never seen some of the great in-camera masking image manipulation work that used to be the mainstay of commercial labs before digital? An image on film is no more (or less) telling the truth than a digital image. You can create fake images with either technology.
I think wht lxdude was getting at is not so much the fact that manipulation has gone on in both mediums, but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.
Digital images can represent cold perfection, but real life is not perfect.
All that being said, have any of you noticed the rise in film camera costs on Ebay? It seems just about a year or so ago I could pick up a C3 for about $5. Now you can't touch one for under $20. I guess its a good thing, which may be showing the rising interst in film agin, especially with all the pod casts out there on the subject now. Or maybe its the revival of the lomo following. Either way, I think film is here to stay.
Bob, I don't understand this. You pose a question to another poster in a public forum and you know the answer to this question. ...
I see your point. As I have seen a sharp rise in cameras such as the C3, there has been a huge drop in camera prices such as the N90s. Interesting.
Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that grain in an emulsion is stacked, and has a depth to it, and the sensors on a digital camera are placed side by side? I've noticed that prints on silver often have have what appears to be depth to the image, where as digital seems to lack this.
Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that grain in an emulsion is stacked, and has a depth to it, and the sensors on a digital camera are placed side by side? I've noticed that prints on silver often have have what appears to be depth to the image, where as digital seems to lack this.
The Hubble's a digital camera, but its images portray truth which a CG image of someone's notion of what things look like out there does not.
but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.
A friend, in order to demonstrate the incredible capability of the (then) new Nikon D3 of opening up the shadows in available light photography, had taken a night shot of a churchyard in which every conceivable area of darkness had been opened up to reveal every last bit of detail in the church.
I sell vintage camera equipment at local camera shows (2 per month). Most of the items for sale at these shows are from the film era. The shows are more popular than ever with lots of young people attending, many having never used a film camera before. Some are there to hunt for legacy lenses for their digital cameras but many are there strictly for film gear. Medium format cameras are very popular, especially TLRs. The 35mm SLRs are not so popular except for AE-1s and K1000s and a few others.
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?