It's all over but the shouting
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
ekahs retsam
New Member
Gonz said:
Image degradation is a product of re-interpolation. The original sample datasets are redistributed with a certain amount of error. The error is proportional to the square of the distance between the data points used in the image. This form of sampling is normally expressed by a percentage in most programs. If the original file is not overwritten no image degradation should occur in afile.
BlurOfSerenity
New Member
FILM WILL NEVER DIE!!!!
but it is not flawless. ever have, or talk to someone who's had, a roll of film shredded by a developing machine?
i have. then again, i worked in a photolab for 2 years. it's not infallible, just as digital is not infallible.
ever been looking for that one negative to reprint, only to find that it's all scratched? a regular photolab printing machine's not going to fix that.
i can see why people think digital is so much better. especially if people know how to get proper prints. none of this "i used my inkjet!" bullshit. a hearty laugh to those who honestly believe those pictures are going to hold up to anything. i even doubt kodak picture maker technology.
but i say film will never die, because i think that even if you can't buy it in the store or get it developed at a lab, people -- especially the enthusiasts -- will keep winding and developing their own film. it may become "obsolete", but i dont think it will die out alltogether any time in my lifespan.
but it is not flawless. ever have, or talk to someone who's had, a roll of film shredded by a developing machine?
i have. then again, i worked in a photolab for 2 years. it's not infallible, just as digital is not infallible.
ever been looking for that one negative to reprint, only to find that it's all scratched? a regular photolab printing machine's not going to fix that.
i can see why people think digital is so much better. especially if people know how to get proper prints. none of this "i used my inkjet!" bullshit. a hearty laugh to those who honestly believe those pictures are going to hold up to anything. i even doubt kodak picture maker technology.
but i say film will never die, because i think that even if you can't buy it in the store or get it developed at a lab, people -- especially the enthusiasts -- will keep winding and developing their own film. it may become "obsolete", but i dont think it will die out alltogether any time in my lifespan.
Winky
Well-Known Member
So when digi cams can meet or exceed film will ya believe the death
of the invention introduced by Thomas Edison in 1889?
Digital versus Film
Therefore film can resolve about 4000-6500 pixels per inch.
Even awful media like LP vinyl records still have their followers...Hello people: LPs sucked then, they still suck today
of the invention introduced by Thomas Edison in 1889?
Digital versus Film
Therefore film can resolve about 4000-6500 pixels per inch.
Even awful media like LP vinyl records still have their followers...Hello people: LPs sucked then, they still suck today
Winky
Well-Known Member
Digital offers several advantages to the photographers while working.
1) The ability to see the image right away. This is my favorite reason for using digital capture. It gives me a level of comfort because I can see if my lighting, expression, exposure, etc. are correct right away rather than wait to see the film back from the lab in a few days.
2) The ability to change the ISO ( or the equivalent of film speed) on the fly. This allows the photographer to go in and out of a myriad of lighting situations without having to suddenly change film to match the light levels from place to place at a wedding.
3) A virtually unlimited number of photographs can be captured at an event. This can be the boon and the bane of the photographers’ existence, though, because if you shoot them, you've got to edit them. But it frees the photographer from thinking “I can only shoot 10, 12 or whatever number of rolls of film at this event in order to keep it within budget.”
4) The ability to make black and white and sepia toned photographs from the digital capture. When one shoots digitally (unless they are capturied in a black and white only mode on the Fuji S2) every photograph can become a black and white and/or sepia image. Parents may want an image in color, the couple may want to have it in black and white.
5) Digital workflow. Many photographers now offer what is often called a magazine style (or flush mounted) album. Images shot on film would have to be scanned in order to produce this type of album. While it is totally doable, it adds time and another step in the process. Digital capture elimnates the scanning and often the time spent dust spotting the scan made from negatives. (Though I know of a very talented photographer -- George Weir, who is a WEDDING PHOTOJOURNALIST ASSOCIATION member -- who prefers film and has his images scanned to disk to allow him to still post images online and then create images for his lab. He has created a digital workflow without using digital capture and is very pleased with the results).
6) Freedom to experiment. This is a corollary to reason one. I will often shoot images that I would not even try with film because I know I will be able to erase it if it doesn’t work and modify it because I’ll be seeing the results immediately.
I was on a foreign trip last year and stuck in the bus on a rainy day. I literally pointed the camera out the window and just made some exposures just for the fun of it. And it was fun! Some of those images were totally unexpected and I would not have “wasted” film on it. But because I had the immediate feedback I could see what was working, modify it as I shot and make some different images. link
1) The ability to see the image right away. This is my favorite reason for using digital capture. It gives me a level of comfort because I can see if my lighting, expression, exposure, etc. are correct right away rather than wait to see the film back from the lab in a few days.
2) The ability to change the ISO ( or the equivalent of film speed) on the fly. This allows the photographer to go in and out of a myriad of lighting situations without having to suddenly change film to match the light levels from place to place at a wedding.
3) A virtually unlimited number of photographs can be captured at an event. This can be the boon and the bane of the photographers’ existence, though, because if you shoot them, you've got to edit them. But it frees the photographer from thinking “I can only shoot 10, 12 or whatever number of rolls of film at this event in order to keep it within budget.”
4) The ability to make black and white and sepia toned photographs from the digital capture. When one shoots digitally (unless they are capturied in a black and white only mode on the Fuji S2) every photograph can become a black and white and/or sepia image. Parents may want an image in color, the couple may want to have it in black and white.
5) Digital workflow. Many photographers now offer what is often called a magazine style (or flush mounted) album. Images shot on film would have to be scanned in order to produce this type of album. While it is totally doable, it adds time and another step in the process. Digital capture elimnates the scanning and often the time spent dust spotting the scan made from negatives. (Though I know of a very talented photographer -- George Weir, who is a WEDDING PHOTOJOURNALIST ASSOCIATION member -- who prefers film and has his images scanned to disk to allow him to still post images online and then create images for his lab. He has created a digital workflow without using digital capture and is very pleased with the results).
6) Freedom to experiment. This is a corollary to reason one. I will often shoot images that I would not even try with film because I know I will be able to erase it if it doesn’t work and modify it because I’ll be seeing the results immediately.
I was on a foreign trip last year and stuck in the bus on a rainy day. I literally pointed the camera out the window and just made some exposures just for the fun of it. And it was fun! Some of those images were totally unexpected and I would not have “wasted” film on it. But because I had the immediate feedback I could see what was working, modify it as I shot and make some different images. link
BlurOfSerenity
New Member
Winky said:
no, i won't.
film photography might be on life support, but it can be kept alive.
even if it's quality is surpassed by digital, i will always love film and i know i'm not alone in that!
ekahs retsam
New Member
I think the real difference in the two cameras, as far as quality, is the noticeable difference in the amount of noise especially in low light conditions.