Re: Digital vs film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nospam, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> 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'.
    nospam, Aug 22, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nospam

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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/custom-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>
    nospam, Aug 23, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nospam

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:16:18 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:05:46 -0700, nospam <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >><> 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/custom-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
    tony cooper, Aug 23, 2012
    #3
  4. nospam

    PeterN Guest

    On 8/22/2012 9:25 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:16:18 +1200, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:05:46 -0700, nospam <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >>> <> 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/custom-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
    PeterN, Aug 25, 2012
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,200
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,083
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,179
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,935
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Negative Print film vs. Slide Film

    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    684
    Stacey
    Jul 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page