Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 26, 2002, 10:36 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

I understand the convenience issue and why 6mp would be good enough. There is no vlaue to pixels that are below the limit of res.

What I can not understand is why there would be more apparent grain in a film, after it had been made digital ... unless there are limits I do not understand in the scanning.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2002, 10:41 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Lin ..

I I may for both of us?

The bottom line is that the digital high density image has passed the point where pixels are limiting for most work.

This is a pretty extreme statement. It means that film will die.

As an artist, however, I beleive it raises new questions for photography. Each technical advance in the past ... collodion, roll film, the Leica, the Rollei, the SLR ... these have had major aesthetic effects on photogrpahy as an art form.

Digital will too.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2002, 2:07 PM   #33
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,139
Default

I suspect film will be around for a very long time yet because even though digital is rapidly overtaking film in the low and medium resolution (35mm and medium format) platforms, large format is still the domain of film and will probably remain so for a good number of years. Digital has not as yet for whatever reason been able to produce the beautiful black and white results obtained with film. Because this is a limited market, it may never become important enough for digital manufacturers to apply the necessary resources to achieve parity here.

Also the perceptual differences between digital and film prints are critical for areas of art where these subtle differences are perceived by many to be important. I think film will probably be the medium of choice for at least a decade in third world countries where even many poor people can afford a disposable film camera and the cost of processing, but have limited access to computers or access to even electricity to recharge batteries. This is the primary reason why National Geographic clings to 35mm film - their photographers often spend months are even years away from civilization and as long as they can get to a postal drop to mail their film, they can work. With digital it would be next to impossible to complete many assignments.

Yes, film may eventually be completely replaced by digital, but probably not in our lifetimes...

Best regards,

Lin
Lin Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2002, 6:59 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

Stephen, I should have known it. You're an artist, not a photographer (LOL). Of course you will see the superiority of film. But don't forget us rudes who don't have an artist's interest or talent.

Actually, I'm thinking about getting another film camera because of the obvious superiority of the scanned negative, but I hope I can restrain myself. So far, my digitals look pretty good.

Bob
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2002, 8:43 PM   #35
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Interesting discussion we have here... This project is done in africa entirely in digital by 100 of photographers(Pulitzer & al) worlwide, albeit in only 1 day!

http://www.ditlafrica.com/on_assignm...l_process.html
http://www.ditlafrica.com/on_assignm...ographers.html

[Edited on 8-27-2002 by NHL]
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2002, 5:56 AM   #36
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 45
Default HI ERIC

ERIC GET THE D60!!!! YOU'LL LOVE IT
IF YOUR GOING DIGITAL YOU COULDNT MAKE A BETTER CHOICE
ALL THAT BEAUTIFUL L GLASS :-)
thomas mcconville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2002, 12:40 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

"you are an artist, not a phtographer"

I protest! What a foolish division!

Here is a test for you:

Is Hopper an artist or a photographer?

Is Wegman a phtographer or a cartoonist?

Was Weston a photographer or an artist?

Was Adams a painter or a photographer?

Is the Mona Lisa a photograph?

Is Guernica a photograph?

Did Man Ray really dip his lens in paint?

Did Gene Smith paint his images with cyanide?

Was Miinor White correct that great photographers do not need cameras?

The answers to these questions will be forwarded to GW Bush's new Departemtn of Aesthetic Surveilance!
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2002, 10:51 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

Stephen, you take me too seriously. That was said in total jest.

Still, the grain of truth in it is that many of us are very serious about our hobby, take thousands of images a year, have a smidgin (sp?) of talent, and want beautiful, frameable pictures, but are not striving for technical nirvana. A lot of the disagreement in the posts seems to result from the fact that they are coming from different segments of the market, with different, equally valid, perspectives.

We rudes need you perfectionists to blaze the trail and teach us, and you perfectionists would be pretty lonely without us rudes to badger you for information and sit admiringly at your feet . . . And we happen to take some pretty good pictures now and then too.

Your friend,

Bob
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2002, 2:41 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Oh oh! I hope you did not take me too seriously!

I was trying to (gently) pull your chain!

Actually, fo me a major disapointment here and on the web is the lack of serious photopgraphy. There are lots of gadget sites and cite where folks swap snapshots and pictorialists out of the PSA ilk, but relly really little n the way of sites where one can post one's own work or look at other interesting work.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2002, 11:40 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126
Default

Stephen, I understand your frustration. Forums, through no fault of their own, end up trying to be all things to all people (photographers).

Bob
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 AM.