Re: Digital vs film

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

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 22, 12:48 pm, 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.


    I don't want to stomp on the fantasies of some young person trying to
    become interested in the idea of being a real photographer, so let
    them have their Holgas, etc., and the fun of discovery. But, if they
    start with the "film has higher resolution or more information"
    nonsense, that's when to politely correct them.
    RichA, Aug 22, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 22/08/2012 3:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Aug 22, 12:48 pm, 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.

    >
    > I don't want to stomp on the fantasies of some young person trying to
    > become interested in the idea of being a real photographer, so let
    > them have their Holgas, etc., and the fun of discovery. But, if they
    > start with the "film has higher resolution or more information"
    > nonsense, that's when to politely correct them.
    >



    http://www.hayibo.com/hipsters-stun...fail-to-make-them-professional-photographers/

    --
    Usenet Account, Aug 22, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    nick c Guest

    On 8/22/2012 12:50 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Aug 22, 12:48 pm, 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.

    >
    > I don't want to stomp on the fantasies of some young person trying to
    > become interested in the idea of being a real photographer, so let
    > them have their Holgas, etc., and the fun of discovery. But, if they
    > start with the "film has higher resolution or more information"
    > nonsense, that's when to politely correct them.
    >


    Like you, I have no desire to stomp on someones fantasies, providing
    they are definitely fantasies.

    I sometimes shoot both digital as well as film (much more digital than
    film). When I have prints made directly from film as processed by a film
    lab and match them with the same photo prints made by home scanning the
    same film to digital (then processed in Adobe Photoshop) I can see
    differences between the prints. The lab processed film prints seem to
    look a tad richer and sharper. Besides, I like having access to various
    types of films that can produce different results, both in color as well
    as B@W. However, I did find shooting infrared film to be a pain. To
    offset that pain I can recall great results processing photo's taken
    with a studio one-shot prism divided (three film holder) camera and
    processed in Carbro (pigment); sometimes in dye-transfer (ink) to reduce
    time and costs.

    Would I opt to go back to shooting film exclusively? No .... not in my
    lifetime. I'm an amateur and will always be an amateur. I like digital
    because I have little waste and low costs as compared to when I use
    film. I discard more shots than I keep. On the other hand, I still have
    negatives shot in the 40's and have lost digital photos due to HD failure.

    I have always disliked discarding unexposed film in rolls of film just
    so I can obtain several photos I may have shot on a particular roll of
    film. I dislike storing multiples of various types of film (bulk buying
    in film lots) in my refrigerator just in case I decide to use a
    particular type of film. With film I worried about heat and reducing
    time to get film processed, with digital the concern rates a shrug. I
    can think of many advantages digital has over film ..... but film still
    holds a richness and sharpness by lab processing (at least to my eye)
    over that of digital processing. However, I have often found when
    separately viewing photos made by either system it's difficult to choose
    one over the other.

    In the end, I'll applaud those who still cling to film regardless of
    their reasons why. Their accomplishments are joys to themselves and I,
    for one, would not attempt to dim their creative dreams. After all, art,
    as in artistic creativeness, is in the eye of the beholder.
    nick c, Aug 23, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <k13sdf$egm$>, nick c <>
    wrote:

    > I sometimes shoot both digital as well as film (much more digital than
    > film). When I have prints made directly from film as processed by a film
    > lab and match them with the same photo prints made by home scanning the
    > same film to digital (then processed in Adobe Photoshop) I can see
    > differences between the prints.


    there will be differences, but the question not if they're different
    but can digital duplicate what film can do, and the answer is
    absolutely.

    > The lab processed film prints seem to
    > look a tad richer and sharper.


    then your digital images weren't properly processed.

    > Besides, I like having access to various
    > types of films that can produce different results, both in color as well
    > as B@W.


    you can do *much* more in photoshop than what you get from different
    films.

    > However, I did find shooting infrared film to be a pain.


    infrared film was a huge pain. digital infrared is great.

    > To
    > offset that pain I can recall great results processing photo's taken
    > with a studio one-shot prism divided (three film holder) camera and
    > processed in Carbro (pigment); sometimes in dye-transfer (ink) to reduce
    > time and costs.
    >
    > Would I opt to go back to shooting film exclusively? No .... not in my
    > lifetime. I'm an amateur and will always be an amateur. I like digital
    > because I have little waste and low costs as compared to when I use
    > film. I discard more shots than I keep. On the other hand, I still have
    > negatives shot in the 40's and have lost digital photos due to HD failure.


    only because you didn't backup. that's not a fault of digital, that's a
    fault of the user.

    you *can't* backup negatives (a copy is not as good as the original).
    if there's a fire or flood, the originals will be *gone*. even mold may
    have ruined them, or they just get scratched.

    digital is immune to all of that. you can make as many copies as you
    want, each one identical to the original, and store them in multiple
    locations so if any one location is lost, you have others.
    nospam, Aug 23, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:38:55 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k13sdf$egm$>, nick c <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I sometimes shoot both digital as well as film (much more digital than

    >
    > > film). When I have prints made directly from film as processed by a film

    >
    > > lab and match them with the same photo prints made by home scanning the

    >
    > > same film to digital (then processed in Adobe Photoshop) I can see

    >
    > > differences between the prints.

    >
    >
    >
    > there will be differences, but the question not if they're different
    >
    > but can digital duplicate what film can do, and the answer is
    >
    > absolutely.
    >
    >
    >
    > > The lab processed film prints seem to

    >
    > > look a tad richer and sharper.

    >
    >
    >
    > then your digital images weren't properly processed.


    This seems starnge when so many praise photos such as Ansly adams who used film
    can;t anyone do better with a modern DSLR than he did with film.
    Or are those pictures of mountain ranges that seel for $1,000s copyrighted.


    >
    > > Besides, I like having access to various

    >
    > > types of films that can produce different results, both in color as well

    >
    > > as B@W.

    >
    >
    >
    > you can do *much* more in photoshop than what you get from different
    >
    > films.


    I wasn;t aware photoshop has film speed settings ;-)

    >
    >
    >
    > > However, I did find shooting infrared film to be a pain.

    >
    >
    >
    > infrared film was a huge pain. digital infrared is great.


    I used IR film I did find it that much of a pain, but digital I've yet to do IR so don't know. When I did Colour & B&W IR I just went to a shop in London broguhgt the film loaded it and took picures, I've heard that with a digital camera I have to buy a particular model or send it in for modification and then saend it back again afterwards is that true ?
    (presently have a G10 and a borrowed finepix HS10

    >
    >
    >
    > > To

    >
    > > offset that pain I can recall great results processing photo's taken

    >
    > > with a studio one-shot prism divided (three film holder) camera and

    >
    > > processed in Carbro (pigment); sometimes in dye-transfer (ink) to reduce

    >
    > > time and costs.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Would I opt to go back to shooting film exclusively? No .... not in my

    >
    > > lifetime. I'm an amateur and will always be an amateur. I like digital

    >
    > > because I have little waste and low costs as compared to when I use

    >
    > > film. I discard more shots than I keep. On the other hand, I still have

    >
    > > negatives shot in the 40's and have lost digital photos due to HD failure.

    >
    >
    >
    > only because you didn't backup. that's not a fault of digital, that's a
    >
    > fault of the user.


    I agree with that, I'm sure even pros have had film destroyed, ther ewass afamosu war photographer that sent his film for developing and it got lost or destroyed, so in those cases an iphone with icloud would have been a better option if it'd be availble.

    >
    >
    >
    > you *can't* backup negatives (a copy is not as good as the original).


    true but you can takje two shots of the same thing. :)
    I've done that on a few occasions.


    > if there's a fire or flood, the originals will be *gone*. even mold may
    >
    > have ruined them, or they just get scratched.


    One of the problems of bulk film loaders I found.
    But then again it's difficult to delete a negive by a single key press.

    The problemn with digital imagaies is also how and where to store them.

    Storage space is an interesting one, film takes more space and is genrally more difficult to search through, but with a folder of images it's quitev possible to loose them without even knowing

    >
    >
    >
    > digital is immune to all of that. you can make as many copies as you
    >
    > want, each one identical to the original, and store them in multiple
    >
    > locations so if any one location is lost, you have others.


    AT a small cost which cost would be unwilling to do with film.
    I'm willing to spend £100 on an external hard drive to back up my data but in the days of film I didnt;' even consider spending money on a lockable draw for my films or prints. I wonder those film users do you put teh4 filmin a safe place perhaps a bank vault, mostley the answer is no.



    Q to anyone reading can you find/locate your first few prints/images you took, the same Q goes to the digital images.
    Whisky-dave, Aug 24, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, August 24, 2012 3:17:57 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-08-24 06:00:25 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:38:55 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:

    >
    > >> In article <k13sdf$egm$>, nick c <>

    >
    > >> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >
    >
    > >>> However, I did find shooting infrared film to be a pain.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> infrared film was a huge pain. digital infrared is great.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I used IR film I did find it that much of a pain, but digital I've yet to d

    >
    > > o IR so don't know. When I did Colour & B&W IR I just went to a shop in Lon

    >
    > > don broguhgt the film loaded it and took picures, I've heard that with a di

    >
    > > gital camera I have to buy a particular model or send it in for modificatio

    >
    > > n and then saend it back again afterwards is that true ?

    >
    > > (presently have a G10 and a borrowed finepix HS10

    >
    >
    >
    > Try these guys;
    >
    > < http://www.lifepixel.com/ >


    That's intresting, but still seems more hassle than I went through with my canon A1, and more expensive.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <<< Le Snip Again >>>
    >
    >
    >
    > >> only because you didn't backup. that's not a fault of digital, that's a

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> fault of the user.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > I agree with that, I'm sure even pros have had film destroyed, ther ewass a

    >
    > > famosu war photographer that sent his film for developing and it got lost

    >
    > > or destroyed, so in those cases an iphone with icloud would have been a bet

    >
    > > ter option if it'd be availble.

    >
    >
    >
    > That was Robert Capa and his D-Day shots on Omaha Beach. Part of the
    >
    > story was, it was supposedly Larry Burrows who was the LIFE darkroom
    >
    > apprentice who cooked the negatives at the wrong temperature. The
    >
    > result was 11 historic frames.
    >
    > < http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html >


    yes that's the one, I'd never thought about such problems
    and the disapointment of it all.
    But I'm guessing he didn;t have to worry about charging batteries in the field.



    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > Savageduck
    Whisky-dave, Aug 24, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > The lab processed film prints seem to
    > > > look a tad richer and sharper.

    > >
    > > then your digital images weren't properly processed.

    >
    > This seems starnge when so many praise photos such as Ansly adams who used
    > film can;t anyone do better with a modern DSLR than he did with film.
    > Or are those pictures of mountain ranges that seel for $1,000s copyrighted.


    technically a dslr could do better.

    artistically is an entirely different matter.

    what matters is the photographer, not the camera.

    > > > Besides, I like having access to various
    > > > types of films that can produce different results, both in color as well
    > > > as B@W.

    > >
    > > you can do *much* more in photoshop than what you get from different
    > > films.

    >
    > I wasn;t aware photoshop has film speed settings ;-)


    easily changed on the camera at any time, which you *can't* do with
    film unless you're shooting sheet film or swap mid-roll (big pain).

    > > > However, I did find shooting infrared film to be a pain.

    > >
    > > infrared film was a huge pain. digital infrared is great.

    >
    > I used IR film I did find it that much of a pain, but digital I've yet to do
    > IR so don't know. When I did Colour & B&W IR I just went to a shop in London
    > broguhgt the film loaded it and took picures, I've heard that with a digital
    > camera I have to buy a particular model or send it in for modification and
    > then saend it back again afterwards is that true ?
    > (presently have a G10 and a borrowed finepix HS10


    it depends on the camera. most recent digital cameras need the infrared
    cut filter removed, but on some older ones, the cut filter was weak
    enough that it wasn't that vital. you'd only need a extra stops and not
    ten or more stops.

    there were also dedicated infrared cameras such as the fuji uv-ir.

    > > if there's a fire or flood, the originals will be *gone*. even mold may
    > >
    > > have ruined them, or they just get scratched.

    >
    > One of the problems of bulk film loaders I found.
    > But then again it's difficult to delete a negive by a single key press.
    >
    > The problemn with digital imagaies is also how and where to store them.
    >
    > Storage space is an interesting one, film takes more space and is genrally
    > more difficult to search through, but with a folder of images it's quitev
    > possible to loose them without even knowing


    forgot about that. searching film negatives is a bitch. most people
    never catalogued them and have no idea which negative goes with which
    print (if they even know where the negatives are).

    with digital, a couple of key taps and you have what you want.

    > > digital is immune to all of that. you can make as many copies as you
    > > want, each one identical to the original, and store them in multiple
    > > locations so if any one location is lost, you have others.

    >
    > AT a small cost which cost would be unwilling to do with film.
    > I'm willing to spend £100 on an external hard drive to back up my data but in
    > the days of film I didnt;' even consider spending money on a lockable draw for my films or
    > prints. I wonder those film users do you put teh4 film in a safe place perhaps a bank vault,
    > mostley the answer is no.


    true.

    > Q to anyone reading can you find/locate your first few prints/images you took, the same Q
    > goes to the digital images.


    most people are not organized. that's where apps such as lightroom come
    in.
    nospam, Aug 24, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > > > I've heard that with a
    > > > digital camera I have to buy a particular model or send it in for
    > > > modification and then saend it back again afterwards is that true ?
    > > > (presently have a G10 and a borrowed finepix HS10

    > >
    > > Try these guys;
    > >
    > > < http://www.lifepixel.com/ >

    >
    > That's intresting, but still seems more hassle than I went through with my
    > canon A1, and more expensive.


    canon a1 was a film camera and didn't have an infrared cut filter to be
    removed. you had to pay for infrared film and processing, and that adds
    up.

    some film cameras can't shoot infrared, such as some canon eos slrs
    which had an infrared led to count sprocket holes.

    digital eliminates film & processing costs whether it's infrared or
    not. if you shoot infrared more than occasionally, getting the camera
    modified is cheaper than using infrared film, if you can even get it
    anymore.
    nospam, Aug 24, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2012-08-24 06:00:25 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >> I agree with that, I'm sure even pros have had film destroyed, ther ewass a
    >> famosu war photographer that sent his film for developing and it got lost
    >> or destroyed, so in those cases an iphone with icloud would have been a bet
    >> ter option if it'd be availble.

    >
    >That was Robert Capa and his D-Day shots on Omaha Beach. Part of the
    >story was, it was supposedly Larry Burrows who was the LIFE darkroom
    >apprentice who cooked the negatives at the wrong temperature. The
    >result was 11 historic frames.
    >< http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html >



    At least we can all rest easy that, in World War 3, every battlefront
    will be equipped with a high speed wireless connection so that war
    photographers can all upload their images to the Cloud.


    Warning for Americans only: The above is irony. If you don't
    understand irony, try looking it up in the dictionary.
    Bruce, Aug 24, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Rob Guest

    On 24/08/2012 11:00 PM, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > On Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:38:55 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    >> In article <k13sdf$egm$>, nick c <>
    >>
    >>
    >>> The lab processed film prints seem to

    >>
    >>> look a tad richer and sharper.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> then your digital images weren't properly processed.

    >
    > This seems starnge when so many praise photos such as Ansly adams who used film
    > can;t anyone do better with a modern DSLR than he did with film.
    > Or are those pictures of mountain ranges that seel for $1,000s copyrighted.
    >
    >


    Do you really think there is a difference - is it a difference between
    digital and film.

    Both processes you can get very similar results.

    Looking beyond that, I think its a lot to do with format not the
    equipment or lenses, not that you need super hot you beaut camera and
    lens for digital or film. Even if it be just a DX / FX format is so much
    better. hence 6x6 or 4x5 or 8x10 give a better feel to an image.

    Even images from a medium format sensor and MF lenses, are so much
    better than the DX format and 35mm film







    >>
    >>> Besides, I like having access to various

    >>
    >>> types of films that can produce different results, both in color as well

    >>
    >>> as B@W.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> you can do *much* more in photoshop than what you get from different
    >>
    >> films.

    >
    > I wasn;t aware photoshop has film speed settings ;-)
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> However, I did find shooting infrared film to be a pain.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> infrared film was a huge pain. digital infrared is great.

    >
    > I used IR film I did find it that much of a pain, but digital I've yet to do IR so don't know. When I did Colour & B&W IR I just went to a shop in London broguhgt the film loaded it and took picures, I've heard that with a digital camera I have to buy a particular model or send it in for modification and then saend it back again afterwards is that true ?
    > (presently have a G10 and a borrowed finepix HS10
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> To

    >>
    >>> offset that pain I can recall great results processing photo's taken

    >>
    >>> with a studio one-shot prism divided (three film holder) camera and

    >>
    >>> processed in Carbro (pigment); sometimes in dye-transfer (ink) to reduce

    >>
    >>> time and costs.

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> Would I opt to go back to shooting film exclusively? No .... not in my

    >>
    >>> lifetime. I'm an amateur and will always be an amateur. I like digital

    >>
    >>> because I have little waste and low costs as compared to when I use

    >>
    >>> film. I discard more shots than I keep. On the other hand, I still have

    >>
    >>> negatives shot in the 40's and have lost digital photos due to HD failure.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> only because you didn't backup. that's not a fault of digital, that's a
    >>
    >> fault of the user.

    >
    > I agree with that, I'm sure even pros have had film destroyed, ther ewass a famosu war photographer that sent his film for developing and it got lost or destroyed, so in those cases an iphone with icloud would have been a better option if it'd be availble.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> you *can't* backup negatives (a copy is not as good as the original).

    >
    > true but you can takje two shots of the same thing. :)
    > I've done that on a few occasions.
    >
    >
    >> if there's a fire or flood, the originals will be *gone*. even mold may
    >>
    >> have ruined them, or they just get scratched.

    >
    > One of the problems of bulk film loaders I found.
    > But then again it's difficult to delete a negive by a single key press.
    >
    > The problemn with digital imagaies is also how and where to store them.
    >
    > Storage space is an interesting one, film takes more space and is genrally more difficult to search through, but with a folder of images it's quitev possible to loose them without even knowing
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> digital is immune to all of that. you can make as many copies as you
    >>
    >> want, each one identical to the original, and store them in multiple
    >>
    >> locations so if any one location is lost, you have others.

    >
    > AT a small cost which cost would be unwilling to do with film.
    > I'm willing to spend £100 on an external hard drive to back up my data but in the days of film I didnt;' even consider spending money on a lockable draw for my films or prints. I wonder those film users do you put teh4 film in a safe place perhaps a bank vault, mostley the answer is no.
    >
    >
    >
    > Q to anyone reading can you find/locate your first few prints/images you took, the same Q goes to the digital images.
    >
    >
    Rob, Aug 26, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    JeffWorsnop Guest

    On Friday, 24 August 2012 19:14:10 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    > >On 2012-08-24 06:00:25 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:

    >
    > >> I agree with that, I'm sure even pros have had film destroyed, ther ewass a

    >
    > >> famosu war photographer that sent his film for developing and it got lost

    >
    > >> or destroyed, so in those cases an iphone with icloud would have been a bet

    >
    > >> ter option if it'd be availble.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >That was Robert Capa and his D-Day shots on Omaha Beach. Part of the

    >
    > >story was, it was supposedly Larry Burrows who was the LIFE darkroom

    >
    > >apprentice who cooked the negatives at the wrong temperature. The

    >
    > >result was 11 historic frames.

    >
    > >< http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html >

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > At least we can all rest easy that, in World War 3, every battlefront
    >
    > will be equipped with a high speed wireless connection so that war
    >
    > photographers can all upload their images to the Cloud.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Warning for Americans only: The above is irony. If you don't
    >
    > understand irony, try looking it up in the dictionary.


    What patronising rubbish.
    And the first bit wasn't even slightly amusing.
    JeffWorsnop, Aug 29, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, August 24, 2012 6:44:05 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > > > I've heard that with a

    >
    > > > > digital camera I have to buy a particular model or send it in for

    >
    > > > > modification and then saend it back again afterwards is that true ?

    >
    > > > > (presently have a G10 and a borrowed finepix HS10

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > Try these guys;

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > < http://www.lifepixel.com/ >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > That's intresting, but still seems more hassle than I went through withmy

    >
    > > canon A1, and more expensive.

    >
    >
    >
    > canon a1 was a film camera..


    It still is a film camera ;-P

    > and didn't have an infrared cut filter to be
    >
    > removed. you had to pay for infrared film and processing, and that adds
    >
    > up.


    4 rolls in 4 or 5 years not a great expense for me to just try it out.
    I also treid out doing my own black & white slides usign the reversal process
    it's something I wanted to try and not have to invest in new equipement or spend much money.

    >
    >
    >
    > some film cameras can't shoot infrared, such as some canon eos slrs
    >
    > which had an infrared led to count sprocket holes.


    Didn't know that intresting.
    Reminds me of the problems some had with X-rays at airports and having to buy lead lined bags to carry film & drugs in.

    >
    >
    >
    > digital eliminates film & processing costs whether it's infrared or
    >
    > not.


    It can do, but unless I have dtat processing eyes I can only see the image on the LCD of my camera. Luckily I had a few computers and a printer but still fopr most people that take up digital photography they may find a computer and printer an extra expence, my dad certainly did whgen I 'converted' him from fiolm to digital.

    > if you shoot infrared more than occasionally, getting the camera
    >
    > modified is cheaper than using infrared film, if you can even get it
    >
    > anymore.


    or processing it was E4, I do agree that if you're doing a lot of IR but how many do ? Most people I know do it for effect or fun rather than a scientific excersie, I would like to do it again, but I'm not prepared to spend 100s to do so. At least the advantage with filom was that I didn;t need to have a specialsed camera, I could just take teh IR out and start doing 'normal' photography.
    Whisky-dave, Aug 29, 2012
    #12
  13. On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:44:03 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >> I wasn;t aware photoshop has film speed settings ;-)

    >
    >easily changed on the camera at any time, which you *can't* do with
    >film unless you're shooting sheet film or swap mid-roll (big pain).


    Or use a film which allows it.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Sep 7, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Ian Guest

    "Grimly Curmudgeon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    : On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:44:03 -0700, nospam <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >> I wasn;t aware photoshop has film speed settings ;-)
    : >
    : >easily changed on the camera at any time, which you *can't* do with
    : >film unless you're shooting sheet film or swap mid-roll (big pain).
    :
    : Or use a film which allows it.

    Swapping mid-roll was slow but very easy with APS cameras.
    I did it a lot to change from 100ASA to 400ASA print and to slide.

    Regards, Ian.
    Ian, Sep 9, 2012
    #14
    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:
    1,176
    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:
    1,063
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,144
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,885
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Negative Print film vs. Slide Film

    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    667
    Stacey
    Jul 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page