Some Reassuring News from Ilford!

If I was to claim that Dan Brown's stories were massively better than Shakespeare's plays because Brown used a word processor which produced sharp, clean and easy to read sentences and Shakespeare wrote by hand using a quill which is all smudges and scrawls, we can see straight away that this is a very odd argument indeed. But photographers do it all the time.

perkeleellinen said:

But photographers do it all the time.

Click to expand...

No, faux-tographers do it all the time.

:munch:

perkeleellinen said:

I wonder if authors argue about how their stories are massively better when typed on a word processor rather than by a typewriter.

Click to expand...

Actually I've heard my wife, an aspiring author, grouse a bit about this.

The thing that I see, and I believe it applies to photography too, is that an "original idea" needs to be written out fully, there are no shortcuts. At this point in the process the only thing that matters is which tool the "artist" is most comfortable with.

The fact remains that the limiting factor for resolving power is the LENS, not the film or the chip. Modern films, both black-and-white and color, can resolve detail to the near molecular level. Even the best prime lenses for 35mm/FF DSLR can only resolve 125 lp/mm. Film is capable of greater resolving power than that- Velvia is capable of resolving 160 lp/mm. A 35mm Velvia transparency is the equivalent of a 22mp sensor. So unless you are shooting some medium format lens (with a resolving power greater than any known 35mm lens - (not going to happen - no MF lens resolves higher lp/mm than 35mm lenses do) on a medium format image chip, the current state of the art is not going to have a digital file out-resolving a film negative. Even if you have more pixels crammed on the chip, the limiting factor is the resolution of the lens.

Poisson Du Jour said:

I suspect that LF film is going to continue to drop away more rapidly than 35mm — elsewhere in APUG there was a post about Fuji discontinuing Velvia and Provia in 5x4 quickload (?)...

Click to expand...

I disagree. Color film will be the first to go, initially E-6 and C-41 later. In the realm of black and white, I think LF film will be around longest. It doesn't require perforating and assembly in metal cannisters like 35mm, doesn't need paper backing like 120 and, since it's larger, uses up more of a master roll per camera exposure.

So get out there and shoot some LF. Better yet, ULF.

clayne said:

Seriously, you sound like someone who hangs out at DPR rather than someone who actually burns film on a regular basis. If you actually preferred film for it's "look" you'd probably find less time to argue about BS such as the amount of grain in film vs digital.



Then stop comparing things based off of "resolving power" dude. You contradict yourself and it's quite apparent you're a pixel peeper.

Click to expand...

1. I didn't bring the subject of digital up. I think it might have been you!
2. I never contradicted myself.
3. Learn to read and comprehend.
4. What is DPR? Someone mention I hang out there?!?

Andy K said:

Show us your 'proof' or STFU.

Click to expand...

If I have to show you proof, then what does it say about you? Where have you been? Have you been taking pictures? Have you been using both mediums? If the answer is no, then STFU!

André E.C. said:

No, you don't prefer or shoot film 95% of the time, if you did, you wouldn't say the atrocious things you so often present us with. Avoid that topic you so much love or leave digimon, your "fish" don't sell at this marketplace, you don't belong here.

Click to expand...

Ok, we'll have it your way. Since you're a mind-reading deluded snob that has no reasoning abilities, I won't debate you.

I never brought up digital in this thread...I was responding to one of you snobs that think any medium that is not film is craaap.

It is sad that there is little objectivity, little truth in this forum.

'nuff said... closed.