Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,954   Online: 798
      
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 104

Thread: Film revival

  1. #71
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,651
    My response goes to support rolleiman's suggestion that the still camera market could get left to film.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #72
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    My response goes to support rolleiman's suggestion that the still camera market could get left to film.
    Unlikely since cameras are here now--and will only get better--that do both video and stills with aplomb.

    But we're annoyingly OT with this sort of discussion.

  3. #73
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,651
    I really should have put it in the context of what I was thinking about: At some point, computer generated imaging will be indistinguishable from an image made with a camera. Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    I really should have put it in the context of what I was thinking about: At some point, computer generated imaging will be indistinguishable from an image made with a camera. Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.
    We may be there already. My son who works in an architect's office, tells me that computer generated imaging of their newly constructed housing complexes, has removed the need to hire a specialist architectual photographer to do the job.

    Another example of the changing media world; ex photo colleagues doing newspaper work, tell me they've been told
    that they should consider their main function is to supply the web edition of the paper with video-clips from stories, stills for the printed version of the newspaper can be taken from the video if needed, the quality, apparently only has to be "good enough".

    This seems to re-inforce the notion that photographers aiming for real quality, will probably regard medium format as their preferred medium, with systems like Hasselblad still around. There is no equal to taking your time omposing on that fabulous 6x6 screen

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,917
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    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.
    Not only that, when I have about 10 seconds to get a great image of Isreali Minister of Defense Ehud Barack or Shaun White's best run in the pipe, you can bet your shmegapixels my camera is at 10 FPS, people blink and do weird things with their mouths when talking and it is frozen in a photograph.

    I also don't buy this "25MPX is a waste on a computer screen" thing either, I see a big difference between 12 and 36MP on my Apple 30" monitor when the photograph is sized to fit.

    That said, if I had no 35mm film camera and I now wanted one and had the choice between a brand new $1,000 F200 or a $200 F100, you can bet I will take the cheaper and just as able used model. Since I use a darkroom to print, I don't have as much interest as I used to in 35mm instead using medium and now large format.

    So the F100, FM3A, M3 and Xpan I have ought to last me a long, long time. That being said, the brilliant new technology that Chamonix brought to the 45N-2 was very much worth paying new for, especially that it was equal to the used price of most decent 4x5 field cameras....but I digress...

  6. #76
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    This seems to re-inforce the notion that photographers aiming for real quality, will probably regard medium format as their preferred medium, with systems like Hasselblad still around. There is no equal to taking your time omposing on that fabulous 6x6 screen
    There's much better - taking your time composing on an 8x10 ground glass. Even larger is better but hits diminishing returns quickly. I stop at 4x5 because of the size and difficulty of acquiring and relocating bigger enlargers.

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    There's much better - taking your time composing on an 8x10 ground glass. Even larger is better but hits diminishing returns quickly. I stop at 4x5 because of the size and difficulty of acquiring and relocating bigger enlargers.
    Yes indeed. When you can see individual blades of grass on the GG, or tell what tree those leaves on the other shore of the river came from..... that weeny little 2 1/4"x2 1/4" screen starts to remind you of the preview screen on a DSLR.

  8. #78
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    I also don't buy this "25MPX is a waste on a computer screen" thing either, I see a big difference between 12 and 36MP on my Apple 30" monitor when the photograph is sized to fit.
    Since a computer screen has a fixed number of pixels, how do you explain that?

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by BobD View Post
    Since a computer screen has a fixed number of pixels, how do you explain that?

    The resizing algorithms that are used to make an image fit the screen size very often introduce artifacts in the image. Only when looking at a digital image at 1:1 on a monitor can you really tell what it looks like.

  10. #80

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,030
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.

    Have you never seen some of the great in-camera masking image manipulation work that used to be the mainstay of commercial labs before digital? An image on film is no more (or less) telling the truth than a digital image. You can create fake images with either technology.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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