Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
You can state opinions in ways that are not pretentious bullshit and a put down of everyone else's opinions, you know. Like: "I've used digital capture and I've used film, both quite a lot, and I have to say that the workflow and look that I get from film is more satisfying than what I get from digital capture." You might even add the question, "What is your opinion?", to open the door for discussion of your and others' opinions. That might prove to be an interesting thread with useful information in it.
I don't know what kind of photographer you are, but I get a sense of the kind of person you are. You are passionate! I wish you peace of mind, happiness and joy my friend. Thank you for your input.
Thank you very much for the compliment, I appreciate it. And wish you the same in return.
Thank you to those who became offended by this. Mission accomplished. I'll come back to this later, but I'm a bit busy right now.
It's not a compliment, but more of an acknowledgment to your personal beliefs which are rightfully valid.Thank you very much for the compliment, I appreciate it. And wish you the same in return.
Please keep in mind that I have no axe to grind against you or anyone else personally, and please don't take my comments as a personal attack. I'd just rather not see this old meme run the same old noisome course of silly, divisive debate. It's worth going out on a limb to make that point clear than see bad feelings spread.
There's lots to be said about the differences in technique and workflow, in the rendering of captures into finished photographs, and in how the look and feel of one differs from the other between the two capture media that is objective and a matter that can increase folks' understanding and skills in either/both. Saying one is "better" than the other without good context as to what that means specifically, without credible evidence, is an old dogmatic meme that tends to divide photographers and deconstruct community rather than bring community and photographers together in a useful way that has good results for all. We are all reluctant to move out of our comfort zone and into the unknowns of new things ... but digital photography is no longer "new things" and we should be getting beyond that now.
Good light to you, enjoy doing your photography however satisfies you best. Which reminds me: I need to order some of the new Polaroid Originals film packs to test...
G
Polaroid SLR670a by MiNT
Impossible Project B&W 600 (outdated)
You don’t know how to let go and accept a thank you, do you? Bullying tactics?
Absolutely, neither the D810 nor the D850 have AA filters either, and it's becoming increasingly common. My guess is that 35mm film, except for the highest resolution ones, will look good if "scanned" with a camera with a resolution beyond 24 or 36MP. However, I do think that to maintain the native characteristics of each film type, it will have to be scanned at a resolution that is higher than what we traditionally think of as the limit of the film compared to a digital image. While a digital image consists of a fixed number of pixels of identical size, film consists of an unknown number of grains of various sizes, grains that are not arranged in any particular pattern.
Thank you Jorgen for your thought provoking and informative post.
Well, if you are shooting negative films, B&W or color, then the idea of maintaining the visual qualities of the film don't really mean anything. Those films had to be printed. In that case it was the attributes of the film and the print, as well as the process and choices of the photographer/printer. If you are scanning chromes, Polaroids, or any positive process, then preserving the "look" of the positive may be important, but there is no reason a photographer has to simply reproduce an image, after all, printing a chrome on Cibachrome paper or its Kodak alternative would have given two different results, which would not visually look like the original. Photography is a process, not a particular defined result.
Darr, what don't you like about your scanner output, besides the length of time it takes to scan?
I think for chromes, the camera idea would wrk very well. I remember doing medium-format slide dupes with a 4x5 view camera and a light box. Great results. Since the camera response and the density range of the chromes will match, the results should be fine. I would just customize your camera WB to the light box. With negative film, the density range is flatter and a scanner will optimize that better. I am not sure you camera WB would handle the orange integral mask in color neg film and I certainly would not want to try to do that in post. :banghead:
No, resolution is not the same as grain as you point out, but they are interconnected. Grain structure is also important for the perceived resolution, the details that you think you see when looking at a print, but can't find if you use a loupe. I find this particularly prominent with films like Tri-X and HP5. I agree that wet prints of negative film is always a better idea, but in a digital world, there's no way around scanning a photo if one wants to maintain a larger audience than close friends. When it comes to chromes and to a certain degree also Ektar 100, it's a totally different world.
