Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,965   Posts: 1,523,317   Online: 1196
      
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

Thread: Film revival

  1. #51
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    I think the question is: Will digital shooters ever realize that they can't view a 25 megapixel image on their monitor without re-sizing it down to about a 1 megapixel image and figure out that they just threw away most of the MP they just paid big money to capture. Or, that a half ounce of printer ink costs more than most 35mm SLRs today.

  2. #52
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,554
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by BobD View Post
    I think the question is: Will digital shooters ever realize that they can't view a 25 megapixel image on their monitor without re-sizing it down to about a 1 megapixel image
    I have mentioned this before: On another forum I used to frequent, there was a question asked "How many of you print your pictures?"

    Probably at least 75% of the replies stated that they never or rarely printed and only uploaded their images to websites or viewed them on their monitors yet these seemed to be the same people who always had to have the latest multi mega pixel wonder as soon as it came out.


    Steve.

  3. #53
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    It is also true that people can, and likely often do, zoom in in the image they see on the monitor, it's a very natural instinct. There is difference between a "zoomable" image and one that cannot be zoomed. And they can crop a portrait and it still maintains a "large" dimension etc.

    People/Consumers are not so irrational as one think.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  4. #54
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    It is also true that people can, and likely often do, zoom in in the image they see on the monitor, it's a very natural instinct. There is difference between a "zoomable" image and one that cannot be zoomed. And they can crop a portrait and it still maintains a "large" dimension etc.

    People/Consumers are not so irrational as one think.
    Huh?

  5. #55
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by BobD View Post
    Huh?
    To be clearer, if you watch pictures in your computer, when you look at an image the computer - as said in above posts - resizes the image on screen so that it can be contained within its pixel dimensions, but you can normally zoom in and see a larger portion of a less reduced image, until you arrive at seeing the image pixel by pixel (in real pixel dimensions).

    If you resize your image to post it somewhere, there obviously is no benefit in zooming - if this is what raises the doubt which causes your elaborated question
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I have mentioned this before: On another forum I used to frequent, there was a question asked "How many of you print your pictures?"


    Steve.
    Another facet of this "wastage of images", is the fact that when I was working professionally, I noticed that photographers brought up on digi cameras constantly "machine-gun" their subjects in semi-panic mode, whereas the ones who learnt their craft on manual film cameras like myself, would concentrate on the subject and shoot a single frame at the "vital moment", when you knew instinctively everything came together and the expression was "right".

    This meant I could fully cover an assignment with 30 frames or less shot, whereas the digi born & bred photographer would be wading his way through more than 200 shots, in the hope he'd got a few that were relevent and sharp.

    One of the main benefits of film photography are the various formats, particularly medium format, that allow you to compose carefully and "get it right on screen". Whilst digis have live screens on the back, they are not optical, and often give a false impression of brightness etc., plus, use them too often and just watch your battery drain away.

  7. #57
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    Another facet of this "wastage of images", is the fact that when I was working professionally, I noticed that photographers brought up on digi cameras constantly "machine-gun" their subjects in semi-panic mode, whereas the ones who learnt their craft on manual film cameras like myself, would concentrate on the subject and shoot a single frame at the "vital moment", when you knew instinctively everything came together and the expression was "right".

    This meant I could fully cover an assignment with 30 frames or less shot, whereas the digi born & bred photographer would be wading his way through more than 200 shots, in the hope he'd got a few that were relevent and sharp.

    One of the main benefits of film photography are the various formats, particularly medium format, that allow you to compose carefully and "get it right on screen". Whilst digis have live screens on the back, they are not optical, and often give a false impression of brightness etc., plus, use them too often and just watch your battery drain away.
    This is something of an enduring truism. For studio work, tethered shooting with an assistant at the monitor or brief review breaks minimizes "spray and pray" and mindless chimping. Digital allows fast lighting changes rather than piles of wasted polaroids and/or blown rolls and wasted time and money on reshoots. Pros I know, especially those with film experience, don't seem to do things quite the way you characterize them. They're mindful of the technologies' limitations and benefits relative to film.

  8. #58
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    To be clearer, if you watch pictures in your computer, when you look at an image the computer - as said in above posts - resizes the image on screen so that it can be contained within its pixel dimensions, but you can normally zoom in and see a larger portion of a less reduced image, until you arrive at seeing the image pixel by pixel (in real pixel dimensions).
    Yes, if all one wants to do is take mega-mega-pixel images and zoom in on them on one's own computer then buying the latest and greatest DSLR should be lots of fun. (Film images can be "zoomed" as well, BTW.) But, it's rather impractical to email or post such huge image files. You can print them but, as noted earlier, few people seem to do this and the printers and supplies that take advantage of such images are rather expensive. There's also some question as to whether printers can even produce any difference in print quality above certain levels of image file "resolution." Printer manufacturer's published specifications seem somewhat vague on this point.

    But, my point is as regards the usual and most common practices of the majority of DSLR shooters which appears to be to simply shoot images, re-size them down to proportions viewable on a computer monitor, thus "throwing away" the majority of the MP they paid for without realizing it, and then either emailing the pics or posting them on the web.

    Such photographers seem blissfully unaware of what actually becomes of their high-priced megapixels.

    They also seem to think that digital photography is "far less expensive" than film photography yet most seem to have few, if any, actual paper-printed photographs to show for their expenditures and they don't seem to be aware of how outrageously expensive inkjet ink is. Or, how much it costs to buy a new DSLR every couple years, not to mention the costs of printers and computers and internet fees, etc
    Last edited by BobD; 07-09-2012 at 12:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #59
    Stephen Prunier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Danvers, MA, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    Another facet of this "wastage of images", is the fact that when I was working professionally, I noticed that photographers brought up on digi cameras constantly "machine-gun" their subjects in semi-panic mode, whereas the ones who learnt their craft on manual film cameras like myself, would concentrate on the subject and shoot a single frame at the "vital moment", when you knew instinctively everything came together and the expression was "right".

    This meant I could fully cover an assignment with 30 frames or less shot, whereas the digi born & bred photographer would be wading his way through more than 200 shots, in the hope he'd got a few that were relevent and sharp.

    One of the main benefits of film photography are the various formats, particularly medium format, that allow you to compose carefully and "get it right on screen". Whilst digis have live screens on the back, they are not optical, and often give a false impression of brightness etc., plus, use them too often and just watch your battery drain away.
    When my nephew was playing hockey at his high school there was this father who took game/action shots. He was the self appointed photographer! He also knew I was a photographer who only shot film, and I always left my camera at home. On average, he would take 800 - 1000 shots at any of the events he was at and then he would upload them for the parents to view. He would never edit them first so you usually had 4-6 photos of the same image (no singles with this guy!) At every game he would always seek me out so he could say "hey Steve, I took 800 shot's, how much would that cost if it was film?" I would always respond with, "I would never shoot that much, I could get all the shots I need with 3 rolls!" To which he would say, ya but, I'm, where's the fun in that? LOL

  10. #60
    vintagepics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Prunier View Post
    When my nephew was playing hockey at his high school there was this father who took game/action shots. He was the self appointed photographer! He also knew I was a photographer who only shot film, and I always left my camera at home. On average, he would take 800 - 1000 shots at any of the events he was at and then he would upload them for the parents to view. He would never edit them first so you usually had 4-6 photos of the same image (no singles with this guy!) At every game he would always seek me out so he could say "hey Steve, I took 800 shot's, how much would that cost if it was film?" I would always respond with, "I would never shoot that much, I could get all the shots I need with 3 rolls!" To which he would say, ya but, I'm, where's the fun in that? LOL

    Tell him next time just to shoot the whole thing on video, and post the frames. Whats the difference.
    Rick Lanning
    Retired Crime Scene Photog.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin