Guest stnami Posted July 31, 2010 Share #181 Posted July 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) the joke will remain as another thread Film vs. Digital will appear again on this forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 Hi Guest stnami, Take a look here Film vs. Digital. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
hoppyman Posted July 31, 2010 Share #182 Posted July 31, 2010 Bil are you really suggesting that the possibility of a nuclear war is a reason why film is the preferred medium!!!!! Don't you think that is getting just a little bit silly! Paper is immune to EMP but does not react so favourably to the blast overpressure nor the thermal radiation that can peak at tens of millions of degrees. Fortunately your eyeballs may be melted so you won't be able to see that your prints were incinerated along with your house and all of its contents before the blast wave disassembles everything :D:D Look, to be serious again, of course film and digital can and do co-exist and people may prefer one or the other (or both). Some reasons are logical and some more emotional but they are all valid for the holders. No-one's mind will be changed by such arguments of course. Certainly. An EMP is what is generated by a nuclear blast. It fries electronics within range. So if the blast don't get you, you are dumped back in the Victorian era by all your electronic equipment that is not "hardened" being rendered useless. Paper, funnily enough, is immune to EMP... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 31, 2010 Share #183 Posted July 31, 2010 Bit of a shit that I cannot hit the thanks on my own posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 31, 2010 Share #184 Posted July 31, 2010 For that we are thankful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 31, 2010 Share #185 Posted July 31, 2010 Digital is better because you can no longer get film through airport X-ray without having to check in here first. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/127083-film-vs-digital/?do=findComment&comment=1392495'>More sharing options...
StS Posted July 31, 2010 Share #186 Posted July 31, 2010 No it isn't. It's like discussing how wine is stored, rather than what it tastes like. I guess the issue is similar, one can't really discuss, how wine tastes, the only method I know is, when gathered around an open wine bottle. It appears to be similar in photography, one can't really discuss, how to take a good photo. I have the feeling, during the process of taking a picture I like, I only appear to think "hey, this works". This is not much material for discussion. Stefan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted July 31, 2010 Share #187 Posted July 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bil are you really suggesting that the possibility of a nuclear war is a reason why film is the preferred medium!!!!! Don't you think that is getting just a little bit silly! Geoff, old chap, don't take things so literally... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartie Posted July 31, 2010 Share #188 Posted July 31, 2010 I`ve got a real simple solution to this "Film vs Digital" thread.....for those who wish to use film........use film!.....and for those who wish to use digital.......use digital...it`s not rocket science.Now let`s all get on with taking pictures. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted July 31, 2010 Share #189 Posted July 31, 2010 Whilst on holiday my wife took this digital file and I took this film photo which was digitized by a pro lab. I enhanced both with Nikon Capture NX2. The moral being, digital or film, I can make anything look bad Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/127083-film-vs-digital/?do=findComment&comment=1392655'>More sharing options...
wblynch Posted July 31, 2010 Share #190 Posted July 31, 2010 Whilst on holiday my wife took this digital file and I took this film photo which was digitized by a pro lab. I enhanced both with Nikon Capture NX2. The moral being, digital or film, I can make anything look bad You shouldn't feel bad. After all... your photo has more ducks !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 31, 2010 Share #191 Posted July 31, 2010 Geoff, old chap, don't take things so literally... Regards, Bill Bill old cobber, just continuing what you had begun in the same vein. I am considering wallpapering my house with film negatives though. It should make a nice hurricane shelter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reinert Posted August 1, 2010 Share #192 Posted August 1, 2010 My R6's will outlive me and you don't have to worry about being outclassed by a "newer" digicam. Film gives you many advantages that can't be duplicated in digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 1, 2010 Share #193 Posted August 1, 2010 My R6's will outlive me and you don't have to worry about being outclassed by a "newer" digicam.Film gives you many advantages that can't be duplicated in digital. Yes, but remember the reverse is also true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted August 1, 2010 Share #194 Posted August 1, 2010 I've seen very few posts that speak to the differences in presentation and viewing options for either film or digital images. In many instances, the presentation (or end use) can dictate whether film or digital may be preferred For a film photo, there are options for B&W negatives and prints that can be manipulated, B&W or Color transparencies that cannot be manipulated directly (but that's not to say dupes may be pristine) or color prints where the printing process can be manipulated. Transparencies can be projected, printed or transferred to CD/DVD. How you choose to use and view film photography provides a decent range of opportunities and venues; however, instant gratification is not possible. Digital photos must be computer processed if you want an image that is viewable on anything other than the camera's finder. Manipulation is possible, beginning with selection of the camera's firmware options, and viewing options are via computer-generated prints or by projection via a digital projector using CD/DVD or sticks. Opposed tyo film, instant gratification is possible - - thus the use of digital cameras for journalism pays off with near-instant transmission to the customer being possible. I guess all the verbiage above is to emphasize that the choice between film and digital depends on the need or desire for how the finished image will be produced, seen and used in the time permitted (or expected) and in the level of detail, color accuracy and authenticity of what the photographer saw when the shutter release was pressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted August 1, 2010 Share #195 Posted August 1, 2010 The only issue I have with film is my fail rate. I lose one, maybe two shots per roll. I do a lot of macro work. More often than not, I work in dark, dingy alleys. Of course, this will (often) bring me down to 1/60th of a second at F2. Sometimes longer. I try to find a balance. I really dislike film grain so that's an issue. I have tried Portra NC 400 and I'm quite happy with that but I would never go higher. I like reala 100 but unfortunately, 100 takes a lot more time than 400 (obviously). The other issue is the extremely shallow DoF of macro photography. Sometimes, even a millimeter between one surface and another is the difference between a fail or pass. I would like to shoot at a higher F number but the places I work won't allow me to do that. What I mean by that is, tripod. I am really stuck. Sometimes, I work in very nasty heroin and crack alleys. If I have over 10 grand hanging around my neck, the last thing I want to do is hang around a bunch of "Jonesing" heroin addicts. This is a get in and get out situation. Work fast and split. The situation doesn't allow time for me to dick around with tripods. Yes, a monopod is better than nothing but, it's not optimal. The only thing I miss from a digicam is image stabilization. ... having said that, when the shot works on film, it really really really works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted August 1, 2010 Share #196 Posted August 1, 2010 I'm almost certain that no railway in the US used Brunel's broad gauge. It took much more labour and material to build the permanent way (that's one reason other British companies didn't follow the GWR's lead) and most American railroad companies were desperate to get the track built as quickly and cheaply as possible to start earning revenue. But a lot of Southern railroads did use a broader gauge than 4'8.5", often 5 foot. Thanks John, I stand corrected. However I have done some research on this, the Erie railway did use a 6 foot gauge in the United states for a short time but then converted to the standard gauge. ........Apologies for being off topic. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wblynch Posted August 1, 2010 Share #197 Posted August 1, 2010 Maybe what you need is a $100 35mm slr. It will help your focusing and you won't have to worry bout $10,000 of gear around your neck. It might be a liberating experience? The only issue I have with film is my fail rate. I lose one, maybe two shots per roll. ...I do a lot of macro work. More often than not, I work in dark, dingy alleys... ...Sometimes, I work in very nasty heroin and crack alleys. If I have over 10 grand hanging around my neck, the last thing I want to do is hang around a bunch of "Jonesing" heroin addicts... ... having said that, when the shot works on film, it really really really works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 1, 2010 Share #198 Posted August 1, 2010 I'm almost certain that no railway in the US used Brunel's broad gauge. It took much more labour and material to build the permanent way (that's one reason other British companies didn't follow the GWR's lead) and most American railroad companies were desperate to get the track built as quickly and cheaply as possible to start earning revenue. But a lot of Southern railroads did use a broader gauge than 4'8.5", often 5 foot. The world's railways use "Standard Gauge" 4' 81/2" track, because that's what the British engineers who built most of them used. And they use that gauge, because that's the gauge used by the Romans on their chariots and carts. In the 1700s, the best roads in Britain were still the Roman roads laid down a millennium and a half previously. These had ruts in the road which were made by the Roman chariots. The only way to get a decent ride in a 18C cart was to have the wheel gauge set the same as the Romans. The Romans used that standard, because that was the minimum width that would accommodate two horses, pulling a chariot or cart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted August 1, 2010 Share #199 Posted August 1, 2010 I`ve got a real simple solution to this "Film vs Digital" thread.....for those who wish to use film........use film!.....and for those who wish to use digital.......use digital...it`s not rocket science.Now let`s all get on with taking pictures. Andy ...sorry, Andy, not acceptable - we need every forum member to step forward, state their preferences and why. And please do not ask where the value (if any) of the exercise lies. Apparently that is not the point. Incidentally, where do you stand on the matter? You didn't think you would get off that easily, did you? This dead horse needs much more flogging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 1, 2010 Share #200 Posted August 1, 2010 This dead horse needs much more flogging. Frank?! Is that you!? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.