|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2006 07:50:33 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
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. |
Calling your bluff, Brent. If you're going to argue this point in this fashion, I want proof. The boom in digital has a lot more reasons than that. "Easy" covers a lot of territory. You have to include the geek factor, the gadget factor, the email factor, the complication and expense of scanners, the cost of processing, the fact that most digitals are P&S and cost the same as film SLRs, the advertising factor, the millions of printers that are sold with "photo printing" capability, the inundation of the American household with computers and big hard drives and memory sticks and DVD drives, the accessibility of broadband.
"Everybody" has a lot more influencing them to go digital than having "tried it before" and finding out digital was "easier". No no. You're not going to win this one with a cheap unsubstantiated argument like this, my friend :)
I also call your bluff on the ego statement, in as friendly a way as I know how.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:53:44 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
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. |
Calling your bluff, Brent. If you're going to argue this point in this fashion, I want proof. The boom in digital has a lot more reasons than that. "Easy" covers a lot of territory. You have to include the geek factor, the gadget factor, the email factor, the complication and expense of scanners, the cost of processing, the fact that most digitals are P&S and cost the same as film SLRs, the advertising factor, the millions of printers that are sold with "photo printing" capability, the inundation of the American household with computers and big hard drives and memory sticks and DVD drives, the accessibility of broadband.
"Everybody" has a lot more influencing them to go digital than having "tried it before" and finding out digital was "easier". No no. You're not going to win this one with a cheap unsubstantiated argument like this, my friend :)
I also call your bluff on the ego statement, in as friendly a way as I know how. |
If I have an ego, it doesn't have anything to do with what camera or if I use film or digital.
It's my extra large manhood. ;o)
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:56:11 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
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. |
well, when you're talking MF to MF, and not LF, then I think the p45 rules the roost for clarity and lack of grain, you can simulate film "styles" in PS so...
but yeah, 8x10 film is still king of the large print, not to mention DOF.... an actual 8x10 digital sensor would be the price of a house at this point anyways, and take 3 minutes before it could make the next exposure, of course, at that size, you could just put a laptop hard drive in the back.
For what I do most days, digital is best for me. I'd like to get some MF and LF stuff for landscapes though. |
|
|
|
03/07/2006 07:57:29 PM · #129 |
I think this subject coud be debated forever. I don't really think there is an answer.
I have been in the printing business for almost 40 years. Years ago we struggled to make type sharp, spent hours "pasting" things up and then stripping film. It was a trade. Then came the computer. Everything changed. All of a sudden everyone was a typesetter or graphic artist. It didn;t mean so much that things were out of balance or not centered or the colors were horrible. They had created it themselves and it was a masterpiece.
Now I see the same thing in photography. People pay me to design a piece and want to supply their own photos. Some are very good, some are acceptable and others are just horrible. Then I have to explain to them that if they are going to spend X amount of dollars to print in full color they really should have the photos shot professionaly. Most do.
I think there is still a place for meduim and large format photography and probably will be for some time or at least until the large format digital backs drop to a price that is within reach. Then I think the real masters of the art of photography will begin to produce digital work that blows people away. Medium and large format takes patience and practice...more time than most people are willing to spend on it.
Most of the jobs in my business that go to press today are shot digital and the majority are very nice. It allows for quick turnarounds and fast results for my clients. There is no way I would have considered turning a job around in 5 days or less if I shot film & scanned to produce a job.
I will say this. I was checking out some other photographers work on Pbase.com and stumbled across a guys work that just looked different just as thumbnails . When I clicked on the thumbnail I was amazed...blown away. Something just looked different. When I scrolled down I found that the images were shot 4x5 transparency (and scanned on a drum scanner I believe). I will look for the link.
Rick
|
|
|
|
03/07/2006 08:00:51 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
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. |
well, when you're talking MF to MF, and not LF, then I think the p45 rules the roost for clarity and lack of grain, you can simulate film "styles" in PS so...
but yeah, 8x10 film is still king of the large print, not to mention DOF.... an actual 8x10 digital sensor would be the price of a house at this point anyways, and take 3 minutes before it could make the next exposure, of course, at that size, you could just put a laptop hard drive in the back.
For what I do most days, digital is best for me. I'd like to get some MF and LF stuff for landscapes though. |
Digital is best for me for everything but landscapes. I tried shooting landscapes with digital, I missed the excitement and waiting to see if I got the shot or not. ;o)
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:37:55 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:37:55 AM EDT.
|
