Not realy - imagine car drivers with E-cars would ask you : "Are you still driving an analogue car " ?Probably older film users who wanted to make it sound special. I shoot film. I don't shoot analog.
Is it young people who started with digital who call it "analog"?
Easy maths : 4,5 x 6 has 2,8...x the space of 35mm film. 6x7 has (around) 5,2
Meanwhile I hear people (especially young peple) calling a face-to-face conversation without technical means "analog"...
Well said, +1A film camera combines physics, mechanics, engineering, chemistry, an elementary time machine and magic all in one beautiful tactile instrument.
Well, it will certainly be trendy. Will you also be gluten free? Why not be a photographer without the labels.So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer and let others figure out what I mean. It shouldn't be too hard.
Tech pan maybe. Fine grained normal film 10-20MP, grainy stuff <10MP
... So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer ...
Well, it will certainly be trendy. Will you also be gluten free? Why not be a photographer without the labels.
All photographers are ORGANIC photographers, although there are cameras which are motion triggered and do not entail the need for an organic being to operate themDespite the over-usage of the term, a much more appropriate designation for film-based photography is "organic." Organic chemistry is any chemistry which is based on carbon-chain molecules. And many of the chemicals used in film photography meet this definition. So, from now on, I will refer to myself as an Organic photographer and let others figure out what I mean. It shouldn't be too hard.
This is only true when scanned. The actual resolution of the positive, and/or negative is much higher!
I am referring to the amount of detail in the negative or transparancy. Actual measurable detail visible under the microscope (as opposed to spurious theoretical numbers). Everyone's who's looked at this over the years tends to arrive at answers between 10 and 20 MP for ordinary fine-grained 35mm.
What you are describing is at best a flawed method of making such a determination!
Why do you think measuring the practical resolving power of film is such a poor method? What's your preferred method for determining the amount of detail that film can capture?
I agree with tomfrh. If one examines the actual strip of film to determine the amount of particles that responded to the light, then this is the most accurate measurement. It might be tedious, but if/when one determines the number of particles per millimeter of film, this should be an accurate determination of film resolution. Particles per millimeter can be converted to line pairs per millimeter (a common term for determining and comparing resolution), which can then, through a simple calculation, determine a given piece of film's MP content.
For example, if a very fine grained film is examined -- one that resolves 100 lppmm, for example -- this corresponds to (24mm x 100lppmm x 2) x (36mm x 100lppmm x 2) = 34.56 mp.
The x2 is necessary to convert from line pairs per mm to lines per mm, or pixels (or dots) per mm.
If one foregoes the conversion to lppmm in the above example, then this means that the pixel (or particle) count must be 200 particles per millimeter. Thus (24mm x 200ppm) x (36mm x 200ppm) = 34.56mp
But let's say one counts "only" 100 particles per millimeter on a film strip, then we're looking at (24mm x 100ppm) x (36mm x 100ppm) = 8.64 mp
So, determining a type of film's resolution is independent of any sort of lens or interpretation. It's just observation, measurement, and math. Obviously a limiting factor in terms of an image's results is the resolution of the lens being used to produce the image. 100lppmm is a very high number for any given lens. Typically the best I've ever seen with lens resolution tests is around 70lppmm. So let's use that number instead of the film's theoretical limit:
(70lppmm x 24mm x 2) x (70lppmm x 36mm x 2) = 16.9344 mp. Which is, if you ask me, a real world number, one that accurately reflects a fine-grained film's working resolution.
Why do you think measuring the practical resolving power of film is such a poor method? What's your preferred method for determining the amount of detail that film can capture?
George Mann,
We were talking about resolving power, not aesthetic qualities. You said the actual resolution of the negative/positive is much higher than what I said.
I love film, but I don’t understand this game of pretending a 35mm frame an can resolve hundreds of meapixels.
Instead of looking at the resolution, how about looking at the picture?
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?