View Poll Results: What format do you primarily shoot?
- 486. You may not vote on this poll
9th October 2004, 01:25 PM
....and that quote is supposed to say something for the quality of film? Nostalgia is one thing, fidelity is another, I guess there are folk who still like the noisy scratchiness from an LP......
Originally Posted by whoelse
9th October 2004, 03:30 PM
with regards to spielberg's quote, he was talking about movie film, moving at 24fps (right?)
grain takes on a different character then, because the position of the grain constantly changes so you get this beautiful organic effect.
Now, grain in a single photo is a different thing. firstly, enlarge a 35mm negative to 11x14 and look at those spots of coloured grain on your picture, staring back at you. It is not the same effect as what spielberg is talking about because the grain is not moving, it's just these distracting spots staring back at you.
For that matter, take a single frame from a movie and enlarge it to 11x14 and you'll see that the grain is ugly and distracting when it's not moving.
and student, yeah I like black and white grain I still do my black and white work on film. but dynamic range is extremely important when you're taking colour photos and you get clumps of colour instead of smooth gradual tones.
digital black and white still has a long way to go
9th October 2004, 08:41 PM
My reference was strictly to black & white! I do not shoot color.
Originally Posted by mattlock
9th October 2004, 09:11 PM
B & W...Way to go....!!!
9th October 2004, 10:53 PM
9th October 2004, 11:01 PM
shoots film, because I can't really affor d a digital camera.
but I might go digital if I can somehow afford it.
but it doesn't really matter as long as if gave me what I'm looking for?
again does black and white look & smell as good in print from digital?
20th January 2005, 10:18 PM
I still use film. But I have nothing against digital.
20th January 2005, 10:42 PM
I also mainly shoot Film.. am using Nikon FM, FE10 and CP5700.. no money to buy DSLRs...
20th January 2005, 10:46 PM
Same here...no $$$ to buy DSLRs!
Originally Posted by Ashleyy
20th January 2005, 11:15 PM
Me also shot mostly firm,except wildlife and sport which need loads of film to get a good one.
21st January 2005, 02:36 AM
Well its only a matter of time before "film grain" mode is added to DSLRs. Choose the type of film and grain look you want.
21st January 2005, 02:53 AM
even on film, grain/color defer from roll to roll...
21st January 2005, 01:55 PM
21st January 2005, 04:09 PM
Yes, but once you've loaded that film, you are stuck with that roll until you finish it. With a digicam I can shoot B&W one frame and high ISO colour the next.
Originally Posted by sumball
You don't need to be "very good" in PS skills nor spend "lots of $" to get the right applications. A lot of good freeware out there that help with sharpening, B&W conversion etc, and a small amount of time learning some post-processing tricks will get you to a decent level, much less time needed than to learn dark-room technique I reckon
Originally Posted by sumball
21st January 2005, 04:33 PM
i think it really depends on the market you're based in...
Spore mainly sees 80% of its commercial photogs going digital, with the exception of posed shots where med and large format chrome shots still RULE...
even for sph and the press agencies here, they're all converting to digital due to the cost..
whereas in other parts of the world, the various departments of huge press agencies still rely solely on film for the detail and hardiness of media esp if their assignments are based out in ridiculous locations.
I do know that here in San Francisco where i'm based, the press company i work with still rely largely on film for their non time sensitive shots... even the general population here largely still fall back on the basics of film....
i guess the ang mohs here still prefer the detail and richness film will ALWAYS offer.
as for myself, i've used film to earn my bread and butter for the past 30 years, and well, even though i use digital now and then for work, i still rely largely on my film based systems for everything else that isn't time sensitive.
Regardless of whether it's full frame, a 60 k 645, 6x7 digi back (yes, it exists), Digital media with even the best editing software, will never ever be able to compete in the detail, richness and naturality film has and will always offer.
my rb67s have served me well for 20 yrs...
i don't see my 1dmk2 serving me beyond 2006.
21st January 2005, 07:42 PM
Not 100% correct, what you need to do is a film picker and get ready many films. The worse, scan in the film and PS it?
Originally Posted by dkw
23rd January 2005, 09:56 AM
Agree with you man! Digital cameras lifespan is short!
Originally Posted by F5user
But many ppl that I had seen still believe that theirs DSLR can last them for lifetime!
Last edited by XXX Boy; 23rd January 2005 at 10:20 AM.
23rd January 2005, 10:15 AM
Shoot slide film here... Scanners are A+ and archiving is simply a label and putting in a box.
Got Ekatachrome slides that go back 35+ years.... Scanned in, they look like new.... My 3MB cam photos from 4 yrs ago cant compare....
23rd January 2005, 11:46 AM
I guess it's only a matter of time when there will be a clear line between those that shoot for convenience, and those that shoot for quality.
And yet again, there are those that think 18 mp is quality, like how we thought 3.2 mp was quality 3 years ago.
I can clearly say that chromes will never be matched in quality and natural colour rendition; at least not within these 10 years or so. Back here in our studio we even have a View camera with a digi back (4x5 full frame) and sadly, the 80 mp picture cannot be compared to a simple 6x7 slide.
23rd January 2005, 11:56 AM
So film will never die then.