[rollei_list] Re: Rolleiflex photo among the best- 2010
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:15:23 -0300
Digital or film, the best option is a good original requiring a
minimal of image correction during the final product process, less
time=more money. Anyway film demands more concentration from the
photographer, your number of frames is very limited and then your
number of shots is limited too. If I was a commercial wedding
photographer I'd use a digital camera to take a lot of images about
the ceremony and party to assure a good result without lossing time on
PS long time retouching and a film MF camera for some special wedding
portraits.-
Carlos
2010/3/1 John Wild <jwild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The point that digital is cheap per shot and so one can take many frames at
> no extra cost is not really a valid reason when comparing it to film, in
> fact the reverse is true...
>
> Having been recently looking through a 'How to' Photoshop book again, as far
> as digital is concerned it is so easy to clone eyes for the 'blinking bride'
> or remove the telegraph pole growing from a head or the taxicab in front of
> the church. So really with digital, only a few shots ARE necessary... but
> with film, on the other hand, it is not (was not) easy to make these
> corrections and so more shots would be a 'safer' option. This surely shows
> that photographers from the analogue era were more skillful at 'timing' and
> 'seeing' the shots than those in the digital era. Of course a Rolleiflex TLR
> or Leica did not suffer from mirror black-out like SLRs, so the photographer
> could actually see what he had captured. Try and do that with a digital
> camera without viewfinder on a sunny day... Have to take 4Mb of shots per
> setup just to make sure just one shot does comes out...
>
> John
>
> On 01/03/2010 13:45, "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Yes Eric, knowing you have a few frames in your camera, you always
>> want to get the best from each shot, but if you have a doubt about a
>> new shot to improve something about the same subject, "film is cheap"
>> (it also depends about the kind of photography you are doing of
>> course). The number of shots you can take with a digital camera is
>> beyond my imagination, when I use my digital P&S camera I think about
>> it like a film camera regarding the number of shots in spite of the 2
>> GB.
>>
>> Carlos
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
