Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,813   Posts: 1,581,593   Online: 867
      
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 104

Thread: Film revival

  1. #81
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    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.
    Yes, but what I said was, it could acquire the mantle of authenticity. With film it will have come from a camera, not generated in-computer without being based on anything which actually exists. It is a photograph. If computer generated digital imagery is indistinguishable from camera-captured digital imagery, could it not devalue the digital camera image? An image on film is certainly telling the truth compared to a digital image which is not a photograph, i.e., one not taken with a digital camera. The Hubble's a digital camera, but its images portray truth which a CG image of someone's notion of what things look like out there does not.
    I have already experienced people thinking images of mine were either photoshopped or CGI. When I showed them the original Kodachromes, with mounts showing dates like 1977, they were amazed. Even more so when I tell them they were created in-camera, with no manipulation other than exposure.
    Last edited by lxdude; 07-12-2012 at 12:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    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. #82
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    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.
    Yes. Which is why I asked the question I asked.

    But, I didn't ask you, I asked PKM-25.

    If it's OK with you I'd like to get an answer from PKM-25 on it. Thanks.

  3. #83
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by BobD View Post
    Yes. Which is why I asked the question I asked.

    But, I didn't ask you, I asked PKM-25.

    If it's OK with you I'd like to get an answer from PKM-25 on it. Thanks.
    Bob, I don't understand this. You pose a question to another poster in a public forum and you know the answer to this question. Somebody else answers this question, and you seem to complain that the answer, which you knew already, isn't coming from the user you asked.

    I don't know your intention but the way I read it sounds as if you were going to "challenge" a user or to publicly test his knowledge or what. Isn't this just a forum? People ask questions and people answer.

    Besides, the answer is that probably the downsizing algorithm has more information to work with and makes a better job downsizing a 30mp image to 1 mp than downsizing a 10mp image to 1mp (but that's not of interest to this forum).
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    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.


    I think wht lxdude was getting at is not so much the fact that manipulation has gone on in both mediums, but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.

    Digital images can represent cold perfection, but real life is not perfect.

  5. #85
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by rolleiman View Post
    I think wht lxdude was getting at is not so much the fact that manipulation has gone on in both mediums, but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.

    Digital images can represent cold perfection, but real life is not perfect.
    Post capture/exposure manipulation is alteration. An untouched digital file isn't necessarily more remote from reality than a negative. Either can be manipulated en route to a print.

  6. #86
    vintagepics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    Images
    15
    All that being said, have any of you noticed the rise in film camera costs on Ebay? It seems just about a year or so ago I could pick up a C3 for about $5. Now you can't touch one for under $20. I guess its a good thing, which may be showing the rising interst in film agin, especially with all the pod casts out there on the subject now. Or maybe its the revival of the lomo following. Either way, I think film is here to stay.
    Rick Lanning
    Retired Crime Scene Photog.

  7. #87
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by vintagepics View Post
    All that being said, have any of you noticed the rise in film camera costs on Ebay? It seems just about a year or so ago I could pick up a C3 for about $5. Now you can't touch one for under $20. I guess its a good thing, which may be showing the rising interst in film agin, especially with all the pod casts out there on the subject now. Or maybe its the revival of the lomo following. Either way, I think film is here to stay.
    OK, generalizations at ten paces. It depends. Collectability affects prices. Fast 35mm primes are being used widely on MILCs and video and are going for silly money sometimes. 35mm SLR film bodies? Not so much. Not seeing any stampedes on eBay.

  8. #88
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Bob, I don't understand this. You pose a question to another poster in a public forum and you know the answer to this question. ...
    No, I don't know the answer to the question I asked. That is why I asked it. Perhaps reading the posts more carefully will make it clearer to you.

  9. #89
    vintagepics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    Images
    15
    I see your point. As I have seen a sharp rise in cameras such as the C3, there has been a huge drop in camera prices such as the N90s. Interesting.
    Rick Lanning
    Retired Crime Scene Photog.

  10. #90
    vintagepics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Post capture/exposure manipulation is alteration. An untouched digital file isn't necessarily more remote from reality than a negative. Either can be manipulated en route to a print.
    Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that grain in an emulsion is stacked, and has a depth to it, and the sensors on a digital camera are placed side by side? I've noticed that prints on silver often have have what appears to be depth to the image, where as digital seems to lack this.
    Rick Lanning
    Retired Crime Scene Photog.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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