Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > digital vs. film 8x10 prints

Reply
Thread Tools

digital vs. film 8x10 prints

 
 
Mr.Happy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
a macro!).
THEY SUCK!
I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
new.
The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
Mr.Turner's network.
I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
technology...
....which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.

[if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mr.Will
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
It is still possible to take bad photos, even with digital!
I have plenty of good 10x8 prints from digital, never a complaint yet.
Of course not sure exactly HOW to "prove you wrong" by showing web based
images.
Or is this what they call "trolling"?

Mr.Will

"Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
> The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
> a macro!).
> THEY SUCK!
> I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
> new.
> The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
> Mr.Turner's network.
> I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
> A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
> technology...
> ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
> development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
> porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
>
> [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
> taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skip M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
"Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
> The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
> a macro!).
> THEY SUCK!
> I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
> new.
> The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
> Mr.Turner's network.
> I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
> A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
> technology...
> ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
> development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
> porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
>
> [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
> taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
>


Having fun back there in the 20th century? How's life under that bridge,
anyway?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
bmoag
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a "semipro."
The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints were
better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much better job
of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high quality
printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all that is
wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.


 
Reply With Quote
 
AnthonyL
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
On 1 Oct 2005 19:26:28 -0700, "Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
>The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
>a macro!).
>THEY SUCK!
>I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
>new.
>The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
>Mr.Turner's network.
>I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.


Unless you can state the settings, or at least the size of the digital
images that the prints were taken from, your post is pretty
meaningless.


--
AnthonyL
 
Reply With Quote
 
John H. Holliday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
"Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
> The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
> a macro!).
> THEY SUCK!
> I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
> new.
> The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
> Mr.Turner's network.



I saw those pictures. The photog did it that way because the bride was so
ugly...and your brother looks like the south end of a north bound mule...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005


bmoag wrote:

> I took pictures at a wedding for a relative who had also hired a "semipro."
> The semipro used digital, I used film and digital. My finished prints were
> better, but not because of the film but because I could do a much better job
> of finishing the images in Photoshop and printing them on a high quality
> printer. Poor digital image processing and printing is probably all that is
> wrong with these wedding pictures and can likely be corrected.


I'd love to know the camera settings for JPEG size.

Gary Eickmeier
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dimitrios Tzortzakakis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
Oh yes, I will go back to my film days, and spent 11 euros on the processing
of a 36 exp.film just to get 4-5 good photos (even good photographers can't
always shoot excellent pictures, checking each one individually on the lcd
screen of my Kodak CX 7300 can be memory card-space saving)and always
arguing with the relatives who will get the negatives (instead of just
burning a 40-cents CD).

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
? "Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)> ?????? ??? ??????
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
> The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
> a macro!).
> THEY SUCK!
> I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
> new.
> The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
> Mr.Turner's network.
> I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
> A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
> technology...
> ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
> development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
> porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
>
> [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
> taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
HK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005

"John H. Holliday" <nospam@okcorral> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> > My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
> > The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
> > a macro!).
> > THEY SUCK!
> > I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
> > new.
> > The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
> > Mr.Turner's network.

>
>
> I saw those pictures. The photog did it that way because the bride was so
> ugly...and your brother looks like the south end of a north bound mule...
>
>



I'm sure that answers his questions. And saying that his brother looks
symmetrical is a complement by beauty standards.

To add some sorely needed seriousness to this thread, I'm curious if the
brother saw previous pics taken with the same camera. Surely he was happy
with the photographer's work from previous occasions and perhaps the
photographer used this DSLR for the first time?? I'd make a
"pretend-to-be-a-prospect" call to this photographer and find out the
make/model/MP of the DSLR and how used to this camera he/she is. Then let
us know what you find out. Some of us here will reply with something
helpful.

Also, if the pics are printed at 300 dpi (many $100,000 photo printers in
labs print at 200 dpi, I believe), you would need 7.2 MP to be comparable to
film (300 x 300 x 8 x 10 / 1,000,000). It shouldn't appear pixelated at
that level because any recent DSLR would be 6 MP or more. What is your
primary complaint? Pixelation or something else?


 
Reply With Quote
 
kctan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
It is a matter of understanding digital workflow. your problem is due to
human error.

"Mr.Happy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> My bro just got his 8x10 prints from his wedding.
> The photog used a Canon DSLR, with 4 different lenses(one was
> a macro!).
> THEY SUCK!
> I dont know what model it was or how many MPs it had, but it was brand
> new.
> The photos look like those old black&white films that were colored by
> Mr.Turner's network.
> I think it was set at ISO100, but you could see the pixels.
> A wedding is much too serious of an event to leave it to this brand new
> technology...
> ...which as far as I am concerned is fine for saving $ on film and
> development costs, snapping 100 pics of sea gulls, grandkids, home made
> porn, emailing, posting on the web, etc. but not prints above 4x6.
>
> [if anyone wants to prove me wrong, post links to the same subject
> taken with film & digital blown up to 8x10]
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FREE 20 4x6 Digital Prints FREE 8x10 Print FREE Photo Website to Store and Share Photo's flashlarue Digital Photography 1 02-10-2006 11:47 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Why the prints from film feel more 3D then prints from digital. Victor81 Digital Photography 35 12-12-2003 07:49 AM
what scanner for 8x10 MF prints cuz cant afford... Rick Warburton Digital Photography 3 10-30-2003 04:21 AM
Re: Going from 3 to 4 MP good for 8x10 prints? CNT Digital Photography 9 09-24-2003 12:38 AM



Advertisments