[rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again.
- From: "dnygr" <dnygr@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:17:59 GMT
While I doubt my children and grandchildren will be able to access my digital
photos easily, I am sure they will have no problem with my negatives. It may
difficult for them to find someone to print the negatives, but they can put
them up to the light and see what they've got, should they have interest to.
Dated, no longer supported digital files will be harder to see.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: "Shannon Hong" <triode12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent 1/13/2009 5:00:56 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again...was RE:
OT Ancient Computers
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
The other problem with Digital data is storage.
Computer storage technology keeps evolving, standards/formats keep changing.
CDs and DVDs don't last forever especially the recordable kind (Dyes fade,
storage devices fail/become obsolete). HDD spindles wear out and fail over
time. Even digital data is prone to corruption. Multiple copies should be made
and stored on separate sets of media to ensure that you have redundancy.
One has to keep transferring the data to newer storage mediums and if you have
a lot of data this may or may not be a PITA. While one needs to store film
well, once you have done so, you don't have to do the above every 5 yrs or so.
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:47:51 -0800
From: genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again...was RE:
OT Ancient Computers
On reflection, there ARE a lot of ways in which digital cameras have become
superior to film cameras. Convenience and operating cost are 2. No way I
could provide my local ballet company with 1000 exposures of a performance on
film. Neither they nor I could afford it. And the resolution and total visual
information on a good 10-plus Mpixel camera can be very high. I did a 40 inch
tall poster that looked really nice. I am probably going to buy a 5D Mk2 here
pretty soon because it is such a powerful tool for these kinds of things. I
will not be giving up my film cameras though; and it is not just because I am
so sentimental about the medium. I really do find the response curve of
digital sensors to be significantly inferior to film as of my Rebel Xsi or my
buddy's 5D. Not even close really. The transition to shadow or highlight is
so much smoother and more beautiful on film to my eye. Everyone who looks at
the prints notices it. The 5d MK2 is supposed to be better. I will
reserve judgement. In any case, I have no doubt, the gap will continue to
narrow, and one day I WILL be using film because I just love working with it
and my old cameras, enlargers, etc.On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Frank
Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On the contrary, Frank, I believe
both statements to be true. In all my recent experience digital -is- in all
practical ways superior to film. OTOH it is a matter of personal choice so if
somebody wants to use film that is fine by me :-)
On 13 Jan, 2009, at 16:46, Eric Goldstein wrote:Frank, glad to read this much
more reasonable and modest statement
about digital's capabilities, and your own personal abilities and
tastes, in contrast to this earlier statement:In all practical ways digital has
exceeded the capability of film for some time. Certainly if there is an
effect which one wishes to achieve, using a vintage LF lens for example, film
may have to be the
choice but that does not make film better, just an appropriate choice in some
circumstances.
Eric Goldstein
--
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Frank Dernie
<Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I quite agree, a matter of personal choice.
I get p*ssed off when people say
it meeds 67, or choose any other number, megapixels for digital to match
film which is patently ridiculous. Which film? what other parameter than
resolution?
I get better dynamic range, a smoother look and plenty of resolution from
digital. My prints look more 3 dimensional and real - particularly skin
tones. I still like the look of B&W film for portraits, actually, but not
for anything else.
Some photographers prefer film so for them it is better, obviously.
best regards,
Frank
On 13 Jan, 2009, at 13:56, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:But that doesn't
mitigate that the other works "better" for others, and no
amount of discussion is going to change that. Even if it is as simple as
someone likes to use a particular camera, that's good enough IMO.---
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
--
Be Just and Fear Not
Download free emoticons today! Holiday cheer from Messenger.
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again. - dnygr
