Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Film vs. digital

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 10:32:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In August I finally bought a Nikon D70. I wanted a Nikon that was
digital, could use my old Nikon lenses, wasn't too expensive, and would
hopefully return reasonable quality pictures.

Since I got the D70, I won't go back to film if I can avoid it [I did
have to go back to using my N70 for two days, while waiting for a new
one toarrive by 2nd-day Air, when I dropped my D70 in a mountain
stream and destroyed it]. I've been shooting solely Nikon since I
bought my first Nikon, a Nikon "F" in 1959 while stationed in Japan. I
have owned numerous models of Nikon through the years and was using the
N70 just before I bought the D70. My other favorite Nikons were the
8008 and 8008S.

I seldom make a print larger tan 8 X 12 but have no doubt I could make
a fine 16 X 20 from an D70 image. I have a CoolsScan ED-8000 so am able
to get the most of what my older film images have to offer but once you
go to "no grain" digital, you're probably not going back to film. I
used to think that the number of bytes in an image file was a
reasonable ineicator of how good it was. To make a long story short, up
to 16 X 20 prints, the digital 6.1 megapixel D70 is the equivalend of
Kodak ISO 100 color negative film.

Also, these days almost everybody uses the Internet or a PC to display
their photos. Email combined with digital images makes it a snap to
distribute what you have to friends or to photo groups. If the person
has a fast Internet connection, you can send very high quality images
with no ghastly waits.

Other unexpected benefits of digital is that it works so much better
and easier when using PhotoShop [CS in my case]. Also, I don't worry
about the expense of wasting film, I don't need to proceess it and wait
for it to be processed. I can immediately send an image to Costco to be
printed via the Internet thus saving a 20 mile round trip and the gas
that goes with that venture.

I recently shot some pictures with the D70 and duplicated the shots
with the N70 and ISO 100 Kodak negative film, which I scanned on the
ED-8000. It was roughly equivalent. Any ISO higher than that just
couldn't match the digital D70 image. My email address needs to be
changed as film is now a thing of the past for me.

Tom Roach

More about : film digital

Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:48:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1102779136.151703.310090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<"kodakfilm@gmail.com"> wrote:
> To make a long story short, up
> to 16 X 20 prints, the digital 6.1 megapixel D70 is the equivalend of
> Kodak ISO 100 color negative film.


Yeah. And at 400 ISO!

Britain's biggest photo mag, Amateur Photographer, *still* claims that
35mm film is superior. It is just so patently idiotic.

--
- Eolake
--
email@maccreator.com
http://MacCreator.com
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:55:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
> In article <1102779136.151703.310090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <"kodakfilm@gmail.com"> wrote:
>> To make a long story short, up
>> to 16 X 20 prints, the digital 6.1 megapixel D70 is the equivalend of
>> Kodak ISO 100 color negative film.
>
>
> Yeah. And at 400 ISO!
>
> Britain's biggest photo mag, Amateur Photographer, *still* claims that
> 35mm film is superior. It is just so patently idiotic.

Why can't people just accept "different"?
Related resources
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:55:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:320u58F30s680U1@individual.net...
> Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
>> In article <1102779136.151703.310090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> <"kodakfilm@gmail.com"> wrote:
>>> To make a long story short, up
>>> to 16 X 20 prints, the digital 6.1 megapixel D70 is the equivalend of
>>> Kodak ISO 100 color negative film.
>>
>>
>> Yeah. And at 400 ISO!
>>
>> Britain's biggest photo mag, Amateur Photographer, *still* claims that
>> 35mm film is superior. It is just so patently idiotic.
>
> Why can't people just accept "different"?
>

That's what makes the world go round. If every one was the same, we would
all own a (Insert camera of your choice). We would all drive a (insert car
of your choice), etc. It sure would be a dull world.

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:55:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Why can't people just accept "different"?
>>
>
> That's what makes the world go round. If every one was the same, we would
> all own a (Insert camera of your choice). We would all drive a (insert
> car of your choice), etc. It sure would be a dull world.

Yes people are very different; but why can't many of us accept that? Why
would anyone else care if John Doe loves film and Suzie Que loves digital?
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 10:14:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:320u58F30s680U1@individual.net...
> Eolake Stobblehouse wrote:
>> In article <1102779136.151703.310090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> <"kodakfilm@gmail.com"> wrote:
>>> To make a long story short, up
>>> to 16 X 20 prints, the digital 6.1 megapixel D70 is the equivalend of
>>> Kodak ISO 100 color negative film.
>>
>>
>> Yeah. And at 400 ISO!
>>
>> Britain's biggest photo mag, Amateur Photographer, *still* claims that
>> 35mm film is superior. It is just so patently idiotic.
>
> Why can't people just accept "different"?
>

Here, here!! Exactly.
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 2:13:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:
<snip>
> Yes people are very different; but why can't many of us accept that? Why
> would anyone else care if John Doe loves film and Suzie Que loves digital?
<snip>

Because people tend to get hiked up about things they can discuss. You
can reliably strike up a discussion with anyone about wether 8mp is
better than 6mp because, as everyone knows, the sensor in the camera is
the only thing that matters and a higher number always beats a lower
number. Simple as that.

If you want to discuss wether this photograph is better than that other
photograph, you got to have an opinion about something that is generally
attributed to taste, and that's a lot harder to do. You wouldn't want
everybody else to think you got a bad taste, would you ? (I say "you",
but I don't mean any of the posters here, just a way of writing it).

What makes a good picture good ? Composition ? Colors ? Feeling ? The
subject ? All of the above ?

Someone might have lost a relative in a car accident and for them,
pictures involving cars might forever strike a bad note in their hearts.
To argue wether it's a good picture or not with them would possibly be a
futile experiment.

I once had a talk with a person that had posted a huge amount of
photographs on a board as part of a amateur photo exhibition. He had
digital prints as well as 35mm film prints, black&white, color, you name
it. One image stood out though as it had been reduced in quality to the
absurd by reducing the resolution of the digital image to less than
50000 pixels. You could literally see each and every pixel on his print.
When asked why he would ruin such a picture (it was a picture of an old
man) by doing that he said that the whole point was to show that
whatever you do, you cannot capture an image of an analog world with a
digital medium. It will always come out as distinct pixels no matter how
many of them there are. When asked why he would do that when he also had
35mm prints and if he didn't think higher of the digital world, why not
do only 35mm prints, he answered "Oh, there are pixels here too, they're
just not square and we're not equipped to distinguish them from one
another".

I think the whole point is to stop arguing about wether 35mm is better
than digital or vice versa, and how many megapixels we actually need,
and just take some pictures. If those pictures tickle your bone, who
cares what anyone else says.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
http://www.vkarlsen.no/
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x0270466B
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 5:30:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

> I once had a talk with a person that had posted a huge amount of
> photographs on a board as part of a amateur photo exhibition. He had
> digital prints as well as 35mm film prints, black&white, color, you name
> it. One image stood out though as it had been reduced in quality to the
> absurd by reducing the resolution of the digital image to less than
> 50000 pixels. You could literally see each and every pixel on his print.
> When asked why he would ruin such a picture (it was a picture of an old
> man) by doing that he said that the whole point was to show that
> whatever you do, you cannot capture an image of an analog world with a
> digital medium. It will always come out as distinct pixels no matter how
> many of them there are. When asked why he would do that when he also had
> 35mm prints and if he didn't think higher of the digital world, why not
> do only 35mm prints, he answered "Oh, there are pixels here too, they're
> just not square and we're not equipped to distinguish them from one
> another".
>
> I think the whole point is to stop arguing about wether 35mm is better
> than digital or vice versa, and how many megapixels we actually need,
> and just take some pictures. If those pictures tickle your bone, who
> cares what anyone else says.

We might pause for a second and ask ourselves why our picture taking
impulse skyrockets when we get our first digital camera.

Most of us assume it it because we don't have to pay for film any more,
or get it developed and printed, or wait for the results. I disagree.

There is just something intriguing about a digital image. I'm thinking
it is the lack of grain (in a low ISO image). The resolution, the color,
everything seems just so "perfect." But that doesn't completely account
for this fascination. Film can be grain-free, if you go to medium and
large format. Maybe that begins to describe the difference - digital is
more like larger format film, and the superiority of large format is
just as fascinating in film photography.

Or maybe there are other factors that someone can think of.

Gary Eickmeier
>
December 12, 2004 7:16:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in news:p CYud.103636
$Oc.80611@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:

> There is just something intriguing about a digital image. I'm thinking
> it is the lack of grain (in a low ISO image). The resolution, the color,
> everything seems just so "perfect." But that doesn't completely account
> for this fascination. Film can be grain-free, if you go to medium and
> large format. Maybe that begins to describe the difference - digital is
> more like larger format film, and the superiority of large format is
> just as fascinating in film photography.
>
> Or maybe there are other factors that someone can think of.
>

Maybe just because it's different, and we want to shoot a lot to see how it
works.

I've used MF and 4x5 cameras, and I don't think compact digital cameras
produce results very similar to them. Expecially not 4x5.

Even iso 400 4x5 is smooth and clear and full of more detail than one can
imagine, until one sees it first hand.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 12:07:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> We might pause for a second and ask ourselves why our picture taking
> impulse skyrockets when we get our first digital camera.
> Most of us assume it it because we don't have to pay for film any
> more, or get it developed and printed, or wait for the results. I
> disagree.

Well, to be honest (and to add my personal but ultimately insignificant data
point), the lack of on-going film costs is *exactly* what attracted me! I
got interested in photography when I was a teenager, but the film and
development costs (not to mention the impossibility of setting up my own
darkroom) prevented me from taking it very far. Last year, the falling
price of the 5-mp Nikon 5700 combined with the fact that I already had a
computer and access to Photoshop made it economically possible for me to get
back into it. If I were limited to film photography, the cost and the
learning curve would have remained too daunting for me to pursue, but with a
digital camera I can have a LOT of relatively cheap fun and learn quickly
from my mistakes/experiments. In fact, I've already become a great
photographic artist - just ask my family!
:-)
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> writes:

> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
> digital photography...
>
> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same
> as winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The pain
> of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by endless
> dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching the images
> magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...

Um, a DSLR doesn't need a sampled "click" sound. It has a real mirror
and a real shutter, which make actual sounds.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:27:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
digital photography...

Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...

Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...

But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
I'll really, really enjoy it.

- Eugel
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
> digital photography...
>
> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>
> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>
> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>
> - Eugel

Eugel,

Did you revisit your blowup doll after you started going out with real
women?

Jimmy
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
> digital photography...
>
> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>
> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>
> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>
> - Eugel
>
>
>
>
>
Buy a 20D, the click-whirr-thump of the shutter and mirror slamming around
will take you back to the days of the F2, or, in my case, 1n. And it isn't
sampled, it's real! All that's missing is the shrill squeal of the film
being advanced...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
January 16, 2005 1:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eugel Yeo wrote:
> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
> digital photography...
>
> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>
> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>
> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>
> - Eugel

With my digicam, I feel free to take more photos than I ever took on film. I don't have to finish a roll, or use expensive
film in part only, to develop my pictures. My computer is my darkroom, and even with inexpensive software I can edit and
amendphotos in ways that would be tricky and time consuming in a darkroom, even if I bough very expensive darkroom gear and
had space for a darkroom. I'm having more fun than ever with photography, and I'm being more creative than ever.

The last time I used my film cameras (I have two), was on a trip to Alaska three years ago. When I bought my wife a digicam,
she said she would continue to take photos on film. She did - just long enough to use the film in the camera.

To me, nostalgia for old technology isn't very romantic.
January 16, 2005 1:27:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg>,
"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
> digital photography...
>
> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>
> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>
> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>

A lot of information is lost when we go from analog to digital. Nothing
matches the beauty of light on silver.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:27:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jimmy Smith" <nospam@pleaseno.more> wrote in message
news:QhaGd.9763$BP1.9363@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
>> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
>> digital photography...
>>
>> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
>> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
>> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
>> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
>> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
>> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
>> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>>
>> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
>> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>>
>> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
>> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>>
>> - Eugel
>
> Eugel,
>
> Did you revisit your blowup doll after you started going out with real
> women?
>
> Jimmy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
To use your analogy, I think his point is that he's still lusting after real
women after he bought the ultra realistic blowup doll...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
January 16, 2005 2:09:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg...
>
> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>

This article might just say what you are sensing intuitively, but are having
trouble putting into words:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 10:20:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> writes:

> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:44:51 -0800, fishfry
> <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg>,
>> "Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
>>> digital photography...
>>>
>>> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
>>> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
>>> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
>>> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
>>> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
>>> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
>>> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>>>
>>> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
>>> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>>>
>>> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
>>> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>>>
>>
>>A lot of information is lost when we go from analog to digital. Nothing
>>matches the beauty of light on silver.
>
>
> Did color film ever use silver? How about C41?

Not only *did* it, it still *does*.

Not in the final image, though; it's in the undeveloped film, and is
bleached out during processing. But the photo-sensitive compounds are
still silver-based.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 12:48:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:44:51 -0800, fishfry
<BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote:

>In article <41e9284f$1@news.starhub.net.sg>,
> "Eugel Yeo" <clean_uranus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Call me jurassic, but there's an element of romance that's missing from
>> digital photography...
>>
>> Formatting and inserting a Lexar card into a D70 isnt quite the same as
>> winding in a roll of Ektachrome into my F2. The instant response
>> and immediacy of image capture is also different, no matter how
>> realistically the "click" sound is sampled into the dslr. The
>> pain of unwinding the film into steel spools, skin corroded by
>> endless dipping into toxic chemicals, and the joy of watching
>> the images magically appear on strips of celluloid hung up to dry...
>>
>> Unloading images thru a usb cable, firing up XP and photoshop
>> may be less painful, and you can't beat the instant gratification...
>>
>> But one of these days, I'm going to revisit my old slr, and I suspect
>> I'll really, really enjoy it.
>>
>
>A lot of information is lost when we go from analog to digital. Nothing
>matches the beauty of light on silver.


Did color film ever use silver? How about C41?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 1:39:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
> rafe bustin <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> writes:
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:44:51 -0800, fishfry
> >>
> >>A lot of information is lost when we go from analog to digital. Nothing
> >>matches the beauty of light on silver.
> >
> > Did color film ever use silver? How about C41?
>
> Not only *did* it, it still *does*.
>
> Not in the final image, though; it's in the undeveloped film, and is
> bleached out during processing.

Which is to say that there is absolutely no "light on silver" in a color
image. None, zip, nada. Mattaku arimasen. Nihil ex nihils (don't setq nil).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 4:24:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:

>Which is to say that there is absolutely no "light on silver" in a color
>image. None, zip, nada. Mattaku arimasen. Nihil ex nihils (don't setq nil).

Yeah, but anyone snobbish enough to say "nothing matches the beauty of
light on silver" probably thinks that colour is inferior to B&W too.

Dave
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 5:00:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <csn191$4d6$3@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>,
davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote:

> Yeah, but anyone snobbish enough to say "nothing matches the beauty of
> light on silver" probably thinks that colour is inferior to B&W too.
>
> Dave

A shitty print is a shitty print. A great optical silver print will most
certainly beat a shitty digital print, or even a shitty color print.
Likewise poor technique in the darkroom does not produce good silver
prints and a good color print will be more pleasing than a less superb
silver one.

Silver does beat color in proven lifespan, why because its proven that
it lasts longer, just like platinum ones. All current claims aside color
with a 100+ life span remains to be seen.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:13:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:

> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> writes:
>
>
>>Which is to say that there is absolutely no "light on silver" in a color
>>image. None, zip, nada. Mattaku arimasen. Nihil ex nihils (don't setq nil).
>
>
> Yeah, but anyone snobbish enough to say "nothing matches the beauty of
> light on silver" probably thinks that colour is inferior to B&W too.
>
> Dave

You mean it ISN'T? :-)
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 12:17:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gregory Blank wrote:

>
> A shitty print is a shitty print. A great optical silver print will most
> certainly beat a shitty digital print, or even a shitty color print.
> Likewise poor technique in the darkroom does not produce good silver
> prints and a good color print will be more pleasing than a less superb
> silver one.
>
Yeah, but a print is a print- lacking inherently in dynamic range. Now,
a transparency- ah, that is the real thing! Whether a print is digital
or film based, it will never beat a good transparency, whether digital
or film based.

However, most output techniques of digital to transparency tend to be
more limited in dynamic range than a film transparency. Now, I would
say a good film transparency is superior to virtually any digital image,
but unfortunately film transparency seems to be a dying art. As long as
we are talking prints, seems to me it makes little difference.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 6:32:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <35a0d3F4iv4pmU1@individual.net>,
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> Gregory Blank wrote:
>
> >
> > A shitty print is a shitty print. A great optical silver print will most
> > certainly beat a shitty digital print, or even a shitty color print.
> > Likewise poor technique in the darkroom does not produce good silver
> > prints and a good color print will be more pleasing than a less superb
> > silver one.
> >
> Yeah, but a print is a print- lacking inherently in dynamic range. Now,
> a transparency- ah, that is the real thing! Whether a print is digital
> or film based, it will never beat a good transparency, whether digital
> or film based.

Color Negative film does not lack dynamic range. The only hold back
is color print material some times.

Slides have Better color saturation only and less latitude so if
exposure is not dead on you have nothing,..on both sides of exposure.

I do my own CN printing and have done Slide to print as
well for about 18 years. I prefer the subtle color of CN to the somewhat
contrast prone positive print materials.

>
> However, most output techniques of digital to transparency tend to be
> more limited in dynamic range than a film transparency.

That we agree,...and resolution is an issue as well.

> Now, I would say a good film transparency is superior to virtually any digital image,
> but unfortunately film transparency seems to be a dying art. As long as
> we are talking prints, seems to me it makes little difference.

By good you mean MF and up correct? Film still has a few better
attributes even at 35mm size.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
!