Just for info: I have some pics that I took with the digicam from work and some pics of identical subjects taken with Tri-X Pan. I have the film developed and the CR2 files imported. I just have to get them all ready to upload.
Or, would you think it better for me to just post the original files, unedited, and let them speak for themselves.
too many forget the basic fact that the imagery is what is important
imagery is what is importantno, just keep talking around the issue
lots of these statements are made re: film better than digital, this scanning better than that, this digital technique better than that one, blah, blah, yet no-one is ever game to offer visual proof
does it matter which mode of capture is "better", too many forget the basic fact that the imagery is what is important
well, perhaps some of us are missing the point that this is a visual imaging site, and when one of us makes a strong claim as to the visual strength of one technique over another, one could/should/possibly must give a visual example as to the truth of their strong assertion, hey hey
It is not true that film "beats digital at it's own game"...this notion is absurd at best. When one scans in a film negative, it becomes digital, and going forward is in fact a digital image. At 650 dpi, one cannot tell one from the other in regard to sharpness. As to dynamic range? Yes, film beats digital there.
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?