Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Digital vs film

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Digital vs film

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred
Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I had a chat today with a young lady who has studied photography. She
> mentioned that nowadays there is a trend among, how to say, let's call
> them "high end photographers" to use film instead of digital, because
> supposedly with film you can do things you can't with digital.


some photographers might want to use film to be unique, anything you
can do with film can be done with digital.

note that they'll never say what those things you supposedly can't do
with digital are.

> To me this sounds a bit like those purists who use vacuum tube
> amplifiers instead of solid state ones, because as far as I know
> anything which you can do with film can be done with digital. Supposedly
> film is more tolerant for overexposures, but with digital you can for
> instance use HDR to extend the dynamic range. And all other colour and
> exposure effects should also be doable with digital, shoudln't they?


basically yes. there are a lot of people who still think film is the
only correct rendition, and are completely blind to the fact that
digital is much better. what's really bizarre is that they want digital
to be 'film-like', but never mention *which* film.

the same crap happened with cds versus vinyl records. some people liked
the 'warmth' of vinyl, which really meant 'the distortion i'm used to'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Printing is the weak end of the digital process.


no it isn't.

> That's why people
> such as Ilford offer monochrome printing services such as
> http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/about
>
> Unfortunately they can't do the same thing with colour printing
> http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/...color-printing


they're selling something, so they're going to claim their way is
better.

prints have been done digitally for years, even if you shoot film. the
negative is scanned and then printed on actual photo paper, exposed by
lasers.

<http://www.pccolour.com/services_lambda.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightJet>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2012
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:16:18 +1200, Eric Stevens
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:05:46 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Printing is the weak end of the digital process.

>>
>>no it isn't.
>>
>>> That's why people
>>> such as Ilford offer monochrome printing services such as
>>> http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/about
>>>
>>> Unfortunately they can't do the same thing with colour printing
>>> http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/...color-printing

>>
>>they're selling something, so they're going to claim their way is
>>better.
>>
>>prints have been done digitally for years, even if you shoot film. the
>>negative is scanned and then printed on actual photo paper, exposed by
>>lasers.
>>
>><http://www.pccolour.com/services_lambda.html>
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightJet>

>
>How come you are agreeing with me?


You can be assured that any time he agrees with anything, he misread
what was said.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2012
On 8/22/2012 9:25 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:16:18 +1200, Eric Stevens
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:05:46 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Printing is the weak end of the digital process.
>>>
>>> no it isn't.
>>>
>>>> That's why people
>>>> such as Ilford offer monochrome printing services such as
>>>> http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/about
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately they can't do the same thing with colour printing
>>>> http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/...color-printing
>>>
>>> they're selling something, so they're going to claim their way is
>>> better.
>>>
>>> prints have been done digitally for years, even if you shoot film. the
>>> negative is scanned and then printed on actual photo paper, exposed by
>>> lasers.
>>>
>>> <http://www.pccolour.com/services_lambda.html>
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightJet>

>>
>> How come you are agreeing with me?

>
> You can be assured that any time he agrees with anything, he misread
> what was said.
>

Or he forgot what he originally wrote.

--
Peter
 
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
DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o) Sharp Shooter Digital Photography 10 06-22-2005 05:44 AM
Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras brian Digital Photography 108 12-18-2004 10:01 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
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner Mike Digital Photography 6 07-05-2004 06:06 PM
digital images: from film vs from digital camera H. S. Digital Photography 10 11-08-2003 06:52 PM



Advertisments