DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Film is stil the best
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 130, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/07/2006 01:48:46 PM · #101
This past weekend I shot both film (4 rolls of 24) and digital (140). I was on a landscape photography workshop. I shot film because I wanted full frame with my 17-40mm lens and multiple exposures in camera. I also wanted 2 bodies so I didn't have to change lenses all the time. I don't know which is better but film makes me slow down to think about what I'm shooting.

I think my next digital will be full frame.
03/07/2006 02:01:12 PM · #102
Originally posted by IceRock:

Orange are better than apples and who eat apple get lazy by eating it, If you eat 12 orange it is more difficult job and you have to be accurate to peel it properly and think more accurate about the job. But in stead many just eat apple because thy are so lazy.

So also colors are diffrent and orange is 99999 % more beautiful

Ice


I'm confused. In this thread did I say anything like that? Why did you reply to me with that?

FYI: I shoot digital most of the time because I'm too lazy to set up the MF for everything. I only use the MF when there is something I really want to get.
03/07/2006 02:41:15 PM · #103
Daryl sorry it was not meant to you but this is how I find the discussion are regarding who is better film or digital :)

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by IceRock:

Orange are better than apples and who eat apple get lazy by eating it, If you eat 12 orange it is more difficult job and you have to be accurate to peel it properly and think more accurate about the job. But in stead many just eat apple because thy are so lazy.

So also colors are diffrent and orange is 99999 % more beautiful

Ice


I'm confused. In this thread did I say anything like that? Why did you reply to me with that?

FYI: I shoot digital most of the time because I'm too lazy to set up the MF for everything. I only use the MF when there is something I really want to get.
03/07/2006 03:12:17 PM · #104
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scottwilson:

I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5.


Sorry to break it to you Scott, but those are not high res and they are no comparison to what you can get out of MF or LF.

I've seen photos from the Fuji 617 blown up to about 4 feet wide and you can take a magnifying glass to it and still see even more detail. Nothing digital can touch that other then maybe the MF digital backs.


Your comments puzzle me, the car photos is 173 Mega pixel, this is far past what you can get with MF. The image is 15539 pixels wide, not something that you will see from a 4 x 5 camera with any degree of sharpness at all.

The beach photo has fewer pixels but is still 15,728 pixels wide and has a total of a bit over 94 MP.

Scott

Scott

03/07/2006 04:12:28 PM · #105
Originally posted by scottwilson:

Your comments puzzle me, the car photos is 173 Mega pixel, this is far past what you can get with MF. The image is 15539 pixels wide, not something that you will see from a 4 x 5 camera with any degree of sharpness at all.

The beach photo has fewer pixels but is still 15,728 pixels wide and has a total of a bit over 94 MP.

Scott

Scott


Resolution is measured in MTF, not MP. MP is a digital only term so you can't compare that to film.
03/07/2006 04:52:17 PM · #106
let's discuss this: does a person need to be classically trained and knowledgeable about the inner workings of his extremely expensive, top of the line piano in order to sit down and write a brilliant song?

art is not science. it is not quanitifiable - not in megapixels or film size. artistic talent can not be bought and sold. a true artist can make a brilliant photograph using a 5 dollar fischer price toy camera or an $18,000 39mp digital back.

people with true musical talent can walk up to that piano, be it made of plastic or made of the purest ivory, and compose a song that will make at least a few people in this world stand up and say "damn."

the same holds true for photographic talent.

don't hide behind your tools.
03/07/2006 05:15:32 PM · #107
Originally posted by sofap:

When you shoot film it is more of a challange, I shoot trans (SLIDE FILM) with a Hasselblad 500ELM or 500CM with out TTL or even a meter in the camera. I use a hand held meter. With print film you have a 2 or 3 stop fudge with trans you only have a 1/3 ftop fudge. It is so easy to shoot DIGITAL that it takes away from the skill and tallent of photography. If you can shoot good with a DIGITAL that does not mean you can do the same with film, but if you can shoot good with film DIGITAL is a snap. Most of the time I set my DIGITAL on Manual and ust my hand haeld meter for exposutr.


I agree with a lot of this statement, however no matter what format you shoot it's composition and lighting that are the most important things. If you can make a good image with film, it does not necessarly mean you can do good with digital. I'm still coping with the proportion issue. Shooting 35mm for so many years I have deveoped a great sense of balance within the proportions of 35mm, however with my digital I still struggle with this. I have only gone digital since last May. I have shot everything from disc cameras to 8 X 10 cameras. If your talking about pure clarity and detail nothing beats a 8 X 10 camera.

I also forgot to mention that when you shoot medium and large format cameras with chrome film (slide) you should, or at least have the option to check lighting and exposure with polaroid.

Kevin

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 17:25:15.
03/07/2006 05:35:59 PM · #108
Originally posted by mci:

let's discuss this: does a person need to be classically trained and knowledgeable about the inner workings of his extremely expensive, top of the line piano in order to sit down and write a brilliant song?

Welllll... yes!

Originally posted by mci:

art is not science. it is not quanitifiable - not in megapixels or film size. artistic talent can not be bought and sold. a true artist can make a brilliant photograph using a 5 dollar fischer price toy camera or an $18,000 39mp digital back.

True, but it is just a LOT harder.

Originally posted by mci:

people with true musical talent can walk up to that piano, be it made of plastic or made of the purest ivory, and compose a song that will make at least a few people in this world stand up and say "damn."... the same holds true for photographic talent.

They cannot do that unless they understand the basics of pianos intimately beforehand. That only happens with years of study and practice.

Originally posted by mci:

don't hide behind your tools.

Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. If you don't know your tools the 1% won't get you anywhere.

03/07/2006 05:36:52 PM · #109
Originally posted by scottwilson:

Originally posted by sofap:

When was the last time you had a 40x60 print made from your digital that was sharp and crisp.


I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5. As an example here is snap shot photo of my carcar.jpgwarrning this is a fairly large photo and will take a long time to down load if you don't have high speed internet.

For those who don't have high speed here is a small version of the photo car small photo and a 100% crop from the photo crop

Here is a shot of the beach that would also be hard to match with a film camera, hit original at the bottom of the photo to see the full res version.
beach

When it come to hi-res you just can't beat digital.

Scott


Here is the licence plate :
03/07/2006 05:41:58 PM · #110
Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by mci:

let's discuss this: does a person need to be classically trained and knowledgeable about the inner workings of his extremely expensive, top of the line piano in order to sit down and write a brilliant song?

Welllll... yes!


Is Bull!

I can play a song I wrote on a $10 guitar as easy as I could a $1000 guitar but I dont need to know how to make one.

I can take a image on a film camera as easy as I could on a digital camera as long as I can push down with my finger on the shutter release. I dont need to know anymore than that. Crappy or brilliant is subjective.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 17:45:58.
03/07/2006 05:58:19 PM · #111
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by mci:

let's discuss this: does a person need to be classically trained and knowledgeable about the inner workings of his extremely expensive, top of the line piano in order to sit down and write a brilliant song?

Welllll... yes!


Is Bull!

I can play a song I wrote on a $10 guitar as easy as I could a $1000 guitar but I dont need to know how to make one.

Crapy or brilliant is subjective.

I'm sure you are correct and that you will regale us with your knowledge of all the great music composed on $10 guitars.

You are, however, correct that crappy and brilliant are subjective. The majority of humanity determines what is brilliant. Nobody cares about what is crappy.

03/07/2006 06:06:01 PM · #112
Originally posted by stdavidson:


I'm sure you are correct and that you will regale us with your knowledge of all the great music composed on $10 guitars.

You are, however, correct that crappy and brilliant are subjective. The majority of humanity determines what is brilliant. Nobody cares about what is crappy.


If you re-read my post you will see I said "I can play a song I wrote..." Not I can give you a list of all the great songs written on a $10 guitar.

But since you brought it up ... All the great blues songs written in the 20's, 30's & 40's I'm sure were written on guitars that could not have cost more than 10 bucks!

Just My $.02

EDIT: As an aside the best guitar player ever Jimi Hendrix played pawn shop guitars most of his career.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 18:08:22.
03/07/2006 06:07:06 PM · #113
Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by scottwilson:

Originally posted by sofap:

When was the last time you had a 40x60 print made from your digital that was sharp and crisp.


I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5. As an example here is snap shot photo of my carcar.jpgwarrning this is a fairly large photo and will take a long time to down load if you don't have high speed internet.

For those who don't have high speed here is a small version of the photo car small photo and a 100% crop from the photo crop

Here is a shot of the beach that would also be hard to match with a film camera, hit original at the bottom of the photo to see the full res version.
beach

When it come to hi-res you just can't beat digital.

Scott


Here is the licence plate :


Which is pretty good when you consider it was cropped from this.

Car photo
03/07/2006 06:18:25 PM · #114
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by stdavidson:


I'm sure you are correct and that you will regale us with your knowledge of all the great music composed on $10 guitars.

You are, however, correct that crappy and brilliant are subjective. The majority of humanity determines what is brilliant. Nobody cares about what is crappy.


If you re-read my post you will see I said "I can play a song I wrote..." Not I can give you a list of all the great songs written on a $10 guitar.

But since you brought it up ... All the great blues songs written in the 20's, 30's & 40's I'm sure were written on guitars that could not have cost more than 10 bucks!

Just My $.02

EDIT: As an aside the best guitar player ever Jimi Hendrix played pawn shop guitars most of his career.

not to mention Kurt Cobain... moved an entire generation with pawn shop guitars... now, back to the point... comparing film to digital is futile.. mainly because film has had MUCH more time to ... umm.. develop.. technically.. if you want to compare them like that.. then compare the film images taken from the same developmental stage as digital is at now.. and compare it to painitngs... I'm talking about comparing Mathew Brady's photographs to paintings done at the same period and see which is more detailed... where will digital be after the 150 years that film has had to advnce?? who knows.. but the comparison here is like comparing a newborn infant to a middle aged man and saying that the man is better...
03/07/2006 07:10:22 PM · #115
Originally posted by scottwilson:

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by scottwilson:

Originally posted by sofap:

When was the last time you had a 40x60 print made from your digital that was sharp and crisp.


I like digital because I can get very high resolution photos, higher then I could get using film even 4x5. As an example here is snap shot photo of my carcar.jpgwarrning this is a fairly large photo and will take a long time to down load if you don't have high speed internet.

For those who don't have high speed here is a small version of the photo car small photo and a 100% crop from the photo crop

Here is a shot of the beach that would also be hard to match with a film camera, hit original at the bottom of the photo to see the full res version.
beach

When it come to hi-res you just can't beat digital.

Scott


Here is the licence plate :


Which is pretty good when you consider it was cropped from this.

Car photo


And go to one of Thomas Mangleson's galleries and check out his 617 panoramics. If you think this is impressive, his stuff will knock your socks off.
03/07/2006 07:15:33 PM · #116
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I can take a image on a film camera as easy as I could on a digital camera as long as I can push down with my finger on the shutter release. I dont need to know anymore than that. Crappy or brilliant is subjective.


Ummm, if you want to be a good photographer you should know a little more then just how to push the shutter button. :)
03/07/2006 07:26:49 PM · #117
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by scottwilson:

Your comments puzzle me, the car photos is 173 Mega pixel, this is far past what you can get with MF. The image is 15539 pixels wide, not something that you will see from a 4 x 5 camera with any degree of sharpness at all.

The beach photo has fewer pixels but is still 15,728 pixels wide and has a total of a bit over 94 MP.

Scott

Scott


Resolution is measured in MTF, not MP. MP is a digital only term so you can't compare that to film.


A 4x5 chrome scanned @ 4000 dpi is 20,000 x 16,000, which is a 915 MB file. Much larger than your image you referenced.

99% of camera useers don't print anything bigger than an 8x10 or 11x14 at the very biggest. It's sort of like SACD's vs. mp3's. Of coarse the SACD is a ton better, but if most users can't hear (or see it in photography) then they won't care.

Because there are some certain people here, as usual, who are on a "I'm better than you because I know how to shoot film" ego trip.

No ego trip at all. Film is harder, it's a fact. Why do think there is such a boom in digital photography? Everybody who had the desire and tried it before with film found out it was much easier with digital.
03/07/2006 07:31:27 PM · #118
When I used film:
1. took film to processing facility.
2. Went back to processing facility to retrieve the slides.
3. selected which slides to print
4. took slides to processing facility
5. went back to processing facility to reject the badly printed slides.
6. took slides to another processing facility for prints.
7. went back, prints look totally different to 1st batch
8. finally got acceptable prints that still were not what I wanted.
9. After years of this crap finally found a lab that processed to satisfaction.
10. The good lab went out of business.

With digital camera:
1. Calibrate my monitor and printer.
2. load images into computer.
3. print exactly what I wanted.

No contest!!
03/07/2006 07:34:09 PM · #119
Originally posted by ElGordo:

When I used film:
1. took film to processing facility.
2. Went back to processing facility to retrieve the slides.
3. selected which slides to print
4. took slides to processing facility
5. went back to processing facility to reject the badly printed slides.
6. took slides to another processing facility for prints.
7. went back, prints look totally different to 1st batch
8. finally got acceptable prints that still were not what I wanted.
9. After years of this crap finally found a lab that processed to satisfaction.
10. The good lab went out of business.

With digital camera:
1. Calibrate my monitor and printer.
2. load images into computer.
3. print exactly what I wanted.

No contest!!


The thread isn't about which is most convenient, it's about which is better for very large prints.

Film is a pain in the ass, but for those that want a little extra, is worth it.
03/07/2006 07:36:13 PM · #120
Originally posted by LoudDog:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I can take a image on a film camera as easy as I could on a digital camera as long as I can push down with my finger on the shutter release. I dont need to know anymore than that. Crappy or brilliant is subjective.


Ummm, if you want to be a good photographer you should know a little more then just how to push the shutter button. :)


Thats what my fiancée keeps telling me! :)
03/07/2006 07:42:41 PM · #121
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:



The thread isn't about which is most convenient, it's about which is better for very large prints.

Film is a pain in the ass, but for those that want a little extra, is worth it.


"Film is the best. I shoot more film than I do digital and with out a dought film ROULS."

"Film is stil the best"

What's the thread about again?

Oh, right, the best.

I guess a PhaseOne p45 would be the best then wouldn't it?

Digital wins. :P
03/07/2006 07:44:10 PM · #122
Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:



The thread isn't about which is most convenient, it's about which is better for very large prints.

Film is a pain in the ass, but for those that want a little extra, is worth it.


"Film is the best. I shoot more film than I do digital and with out a dought film ROULS."

"Film is stil the best"

What's the thread about again?

Oh, right, the best.

I guess a PhaseOne p45 would be the best then wouldn't it?

Digital wins. :P


Not compared to an 8x10 chrome...
03/07/2006 07:47:27 PM · #123
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:



Not compared to an 8x10 chrome...


Give em another year or two.
03/07/2006 07:49:08 PM · #124
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:



The thread isn't about which is most convenient, it's about which is better for very large prints.

Film is a pain in the ass, but for those that want a little extra, is worth it.


No such distinction was made by the thread originator in his initial post.
Are we talking about 35mm vs. DSLR or are we comparing medium and large format to DSLR?
If 35mm vs. DSLR then the question of resolution is moot though film may have a slight edge in dynamic range, IMO not worth the extra hassle. With either film or DSLR, the grain and pixel sizes are significantly smaller than the lens CoC thereby nulling the resolution question. A decent quality 8 megapixel image easily rivals 35mm frame for subject detail if the same crop is used.
03/07/2006 07:49:10 PM · #125
Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:



Not compared to an 8x10 chrome...


Give em another year or two.


Printed big, I don't think it's better than a 4x5 chrome, and B&W film will have even more resolution.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:37:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:37:07 AM EDT.