It’s only analogous from the hobby enjoyment perspective. What is high end about reversal film? I use Ektachrome but I’d rather use the Portra films (actually I’d rather use a good digital camera).
This is akin to trying to explain the true value of an expensive high end audio system to someone who has zero interest in the hobby, and would never want spend the kind of money required to own it.
The TSA really could care less.Does that mean that it's safe for the film to put it into checked baggage, or that the TSA has no problem with you destroying your film that way?
For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.
Does that mean that it's safe for the film to put it into checked baggage, or that the TSA has no problem with you destroying your film that way?
You would be surprised to learn how few photographers have actually produced an image on slide film, let alone viewed it directly.
What is high end about reversal film?
For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.
I read it to mean they think developed film is OK to put in checked bags. They say that all undeveloped film should stay with you when you go through the checkpoints.
But my OP was not really concerned with technical image quality, but more with the rationale of shooting colour negative film in an old camera when you are then going to scan the film; my question was, why not just go digital all the way?
I think the responses in the first few pages demonstrate that for a great many people, the final image and its appearance is not all that matters - unless perhaps you include in 'appearance' intangible aspects that result in something like "appearance to the mind's eye"...I'm referring to arguments some put forth about the desire to handle a particular kind of camera, or the fun they have handling film. While all these factors of course somehow affect the end result, some of them do so very indirectly and often with ambiguous effects on technical image quality.In my opinion, it is the appearance of the final image ... in the eyes of the person who made it ... that is the only thing that matters, and inevitably that means two people looking at two images, one taken with film and the other with a CMOS detector, will disagree as to which one is "better".
Slide film. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But for me, a digital capture can easily outperform slide film, with less less hussle.
View attachment 407818
Oh Alan ... a well done slide projector show is just so much more impressive than looking at images over the web or on a TV screen. Everyone did it at one time. But then there were those dreaded three-hour long vacation picture sessions of every motel between Boise and New Orleans, and the visit to the Croquet Hall of Fame. Then that era ended, and you got stuck watching dreaded holiday gathering videos of the same kind of boring stuff instead.
We didn't have anything like a movie theater in the mountains; but sometimes lecturers would come through and give slide shows of their exotic place travels in the basketball gym. When my brother was a young commercial photographer, he had a pal who repeatedly won international slide show competitions, and actually made a good living at it; he was a Leicaphile. I did very carefully choreographed slide shows of my own Pentax shots; and those images were quite good. But it would be another decade and a half before I learned how to make actual color prints myself.
Good catch Alan, I missed that; your explanation is sensible.
Part of this thread seems to have morphed a bit into comparing film (especially transparency film) with CMOS sensors. (My OP excluded transparency film, for several reasons, but one was because I knew some people feel that scanned transparency film has exceptional qualities).
Comparing analogue film quality to digital CMOS image quality, even from a simplistic objective resolution perspective (let alone overall image quality), is not trivial. Technically, the Shannon sampling theorem should help (roughly stated, the pixel sampling should be at least twice that of the finest detail being recorded), but it's that "at least" part ... in the presence of noise/grain ... that makes the comparison tricky ... many practioners, based on their experience (not theory) would say it should be 3X-4X, not twice. I spent quite a lot of time in my past career comparing analogue and digital images, and it's not straightforward even considering only purely objective measures (which are just part of the story of course).
In my opinion, it is the appearance of the final image ... in the eyes of the person who made it ... that is the only thing that matters, and inevitably that means two people looking at two images, one taken with film and the other with a CMOS detector, will disagree as to which one is "better".
But my OP was not really concerned with technical image quality, but more with the rationale of shooting colour negative film in an old camera when you are then going to scan the film; my question was, why not just go digital all the way?
I'm not taking sides and by the way, there is no correct answer to my original question! All opinions have validity.
Sure but I said so because you only need the basic 24MP to have better details than a frame of 35mm film.
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?