[rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers

  • From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:20:05 -0800

You would transfer the images to a newer media. Simple. Few retain imags in
DVD these days anyway.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Shannon Hong <triode12@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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.<http://livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=669758>
>



-- 
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

Other related posts: