Main > Everything Else
Film vs Digital
Ken Layton:
35mm film has been standardized for nearly 100 years. "Digital" standards keep changing.
The reason we have pictures still around after 100 or more years is because the film contains silver.
bishmasterb:
--- Quote from: Ken Layton on September 01, 2008, 10:03:18 am ---35mm film has been standardized for nearly 100 years. "Digital" standards keep changing.
The reason we have pictures still around after 100 or more years is because the film contains silver.
--- End quote ---
Of course digital standards keep changing, the technology is still in its infancy. Nonetheless, I don't have any problems opening or viewing the JPEGs from 10 years ago taken with my Kodak DCS-315. And I seriously doubt that I'll have any trouble opening them 50 or 100 years from now as well.
Neither will my relatives, because I've effortlessly emailed them perfect copies of the photographs.
Ken, I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you're resistant to digital because you have a lot of familiarity and expertise with film, I completely understand. If you are arguing that the common consumer or professional should stay with film, the points you've raised don't even come close to overcoming the efficiencies attained by digital.
ark_ader:
--- Quote from: protokatie on August 31, 2008, 07:29:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: ark_ader on August 31, 2008, 05:23:10 pm ---
--- Quote from: Jdurg on August 31, 2008, 02:10:34 pm ---I can instantly see the image I took and know whether or not I need to adjust my lighting or positioning in my picture. All this can be done in a matter of seconds.
Can you do that with a "film-based" camera? ;)
--- End quote ---
Yes.
--- End quote ---
We aren't talking about Polaroid here, ark :P
--- End quote ---
Either am I.
I can see the shot and take it, get it developed and it looks the same as I visualized it. 8)
Try that with a digital camera. Try that with a traditional film camera. No dark shadows, red eyes or ghosting. ;)
I used to have a portfolio of all my special low light and high speed pictures. My favorite is of New York New York via helicopter the image is just stunning or the Las Vegas strip just before sunset (sold a lot of those). I used to work with all different types of film, some experimental and some technical. You cannot compare skill with point and shoot. Sadly all that will be moot in a few years. :'(
patrickl:
So you are saying film is better because you are a better photographer and you use film?
Ummon:
--- Quote from: bishmasterb on August 31, 2008, 04:19:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: Ken Layton on August 31, 2008, 02:05:31 pm ---I can take pictures without a battery in my camera. Can you do that with a 'digital' one?
--- End quote ---
Technological advances are rarely ALL good. While they are made up of many beneficial changes, often they include compromises and even negative aspects.
For example, cars have to have gasoline, maintenance and repairs. The oil must be checked, the tires inflated and rotated, and they can of course be dangerous. But, we put up with all of those things because they beat horse drawn carriages. Keeping hay on hand for food and disposing of horse ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- just plain sucks.
--- End quote ---
That's a little messy, as there were at least two other alternatives at the time.
--- Quote from: Donkey_Kong on August 31, 2008, 02:28:00 pm ---Ken...you realize that you have 'technician' directly under your avatar...yet I think you arguing against one of the biggest 'technical' advances in modern photgraphy. The digital camera. :dizzy:
Something not stirring the kool aid, ace! :laugh2:
--- End quote ---
Actually, technicians seem to be the stodgy ones when it comes to advancements. Engineers are similar.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version