vcilli wrote:



Are you using film? If so, it would be interesting to know why.

If you are using digital, like most of us these days, you may have noticed that no film is involved, either in the production or presentation of the images.

Also, I see that so far, only two images of cats have been posted, versus four of dogs. The first rule in Lamma photography is that cat shots should out-number dog shots. (I make up these rules as I go along.)

By the way, my real name is not Alan. This is just a statement of fact, not a personal attack on myself, but in any case the whole matter is sub judice.

PET JUDICE

I use film for serious photos and digital for snapshots. There are good reasons to choose either one, but film usually wins me over.

First, when using film you're not bound by the color space of digital, like Adobe RGB. Film has a broader range of colors than what's possible on a digital display. It has no brightness endpoints, either - there is always a highlight or shadow that can be pulled out later. Most DSLRS have a 12-bit linear range (pro models might have 14), but they can't match the range of film.

I don't need a computer to use film, and the negatives can be seen long after I'm gone. I wonder sometimes whether software 50 years from now will be able to read the digital .png/.dng/.tiff files I shoot today. I bought a Pentax K200D (digital) last year, and I had to wait almost a month for Adobe to release a Lightroom update that could even open my pictures.

Images shot on film are not compressed in any way. JPEG and even some RAW images are compressed, so there is a loss of information. Film never needs sharpening, never needs white balance adjustment, and never needs noise reduction.

Film is slower - but that's a good thing for me. I take a lot less pictures when using film because they are more deliberate. I have to think more about aperture, shutter speed, film speed, composition, etc., which usually results in better shots.

No megapixel race. I've read that the effective resolution of film is 25 megapixels, blowing away any digital body I have now.

Of course, there are a lot of good reasons to shoot digital, like workflow speed, cost, and the creative possibilities of Photoshop. But at the end of the day I'm more attracted to film - Fuji Velvia 100 for landscapes and objects; Kodak Portra 160 for people; and Tri-X 400 for black and white. Even the expired Kodak Gold 400 I bought on Main Street can give acceptable results:

Very unpersuasive.



Digital displays are perfectly capable of rendering thousands of colors, so many they can't all be seen by the human eye.

Digital images can also be printed, subject to the same process and media limitations as film.

The point about "brightness endpoints," whatever they are, is unclear. Could you clarify what you are trying to say here? It's true that the large dynamic range of digital sensors has proved a design headache, and it's easy to introduce blown highlights in images, but the same applies to film, surely?



Since film is an analog medium, this point is completely meaningless.



Negatives last longer than digital files? You must be joking. This would depend on archival techniques. Why is old movie stock now being restored digitally? The necessary software will be available, you can be sure of that.



Again, a meaningless comparison between analog and digital. Film images are certainly subject to mechanical and optical limitations.



Wrong. The term Unsharp Mask has been adopted from film.



Film invites all kinds of darkroom adjustments. The adjustment of images is a positive, creative possibility, not a limitation.



Noise is a digital phenomenon. The nearest film equivalent is assumed to be grain. Ever seen a film image with absolutely no grain? I think not.



So a digital photographer never thinks about these things? I think you are confusing digital photography with "point and shoot," normally a sarcastic term that can be applied to a lot of film cameras and photographers.



It seems that you are the one introducing a megapixel race. The quality of the final image (prior to printing and its limitations) depends on a lot of factors, not simply effective resolution. In any case the quality of a digital image depends to a great extent on the overall size and design of the sensor, and the size of its photosites and the distance between photosites, not the number of megapixels per se. It's in this sense that the megapixel race has come to be seen as a dubious tool of marketing.

Some digitals can already go above 25MP. Admittedly, they won't suit everyone's budget and certainly not mine.

An interesting defence of film says that there's something about the interplay of light and film emulsion in an enclosed space that can't be rivaled by digital. In other words, the end image is superior, but superior in ways that are extremely subjective and very subtle. Couple this with the sarcastic put-down of processing in software as "manipulation," and you have the basis for film snobbery and a very aggressive backlash in the art world. Still, I think it's pretty clear where photography is headed, and digital tech is constantly improving, at a very fast pace.

I'd love to see some of your pictures.

1100101001100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010
1100101001010111010100000101010101011101010000101000101010
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010
1010100000101000101010001010001010101010100000101000101010
1100101001010111010100001010001010101010100000101000101010

How strange... I posted a picture of myself exposing my bare ass at you but it seems to have been corrupted. Damn computers.

If this is addressed to me, I'm sorry, I only shoot digital.

Actually, I did shoot a cat (digitally) on the island of Malta, recently, and I'd be happy to post it, but I think the spirit here, if not the rule, is Lamma only.

Good afternoon, Vcilli, I don't believe we've met. You must be my long lost identical twin (hugs and tears).

Kalistofa - he showed you his now you show us yours.

All film becomes true eventually.

Afternoon, Birdface. Didn't see you there...

Granola Eater wrote:



Wow, as personal attacks go, this one seems pretty ineffectual. Still, not to worry, there is software that will recover images from the raw data, if it's the file system that has been corrupted. In your case, I think we can assume it's just the file system.

Try the freeware ZAR. The name is an acronym for Zero Assured Results. I think that would apply in this case.

Are you talking to me? It's me your long lost cousin (more hugs and tears).

Nice pictures, vcilli. It is great to see the familiar Lamma characters and places. Thanks.

I like homeslice's first picture of Lamma Day. I always see that guy helping out with festivals and such.

Since this was not originally intended as a topic about Film verus Digital, I have opened a new topic for discussion of precisely that, in this Pictures & Stories forum.

I've started by offering three of my digital images as samples that can be critiqued and generally kicked around. They were taken using a by now ancient Nikon D70, clocking in at a mere 6 megapixels, so there's no gee-whiz technology involved.

What is involved are the issues. For example, vcilli assumes that film is best for "serious" photography, digital for snapshots. Where do these assumptions arise?

Even the most intelligent commentators on photography will often sneeringly refer to "manipulation" in software. So what is the adjustment of film images in the darkroom? Where does art begin and manipulation end? These are things that come to mind.

No, please, post your cat and dog images elsewhere.

To us designers, we still think that film is the best quality recording media, digital can't compare. Even though I switch to an EOS cam, I still keep my FM2 with me. It is so nice to see such beautiful photos done by film.

Why not dogs photo, since there are already many people putting up cats photo on the site. They are all even.

What we want to know is why film is the best recording medium, not these lazy assertions and assumptions, these old wives' tales that are about as stupid as saying a Mac is better for graphics etc.

Perhaps you could post a longer effort, actually supplying arguments based on facts and reasons, to the new topic I have opened on Film versus Digital.

Perhaps you think it is enough to simply assert your status as a designer, an implied expert. It is not. What do you mean by designer? What do you actually do? What is your actual experience of film versus digital?

Inquiring minds want to KNOW. We are not interested in your mere assertions.

kalistoffa

guess which one of the people who has posted on this topic is a professional, highly skilled ,award winning photographer.

_________________
wooooooooooooooooh

G.O.D.S, if you'd actually been reading this topic, you'd know the question is irrelevant. In any case, the issues that arose here are now being discussed in the Film versus Digital topic, where both professional award winning photographers and hopeless bungling amateurs are all welcome, as far as I am concerned, if they can offer reasoned arguments on the merits of Film versus Digital.

After your contribution to the abject travesty of the Drug Traffickers? forum, we are all looking forward, I am sure, to the gems you will yourself offer up on this topic.

editing your posts to look less idiotic? nice one.

_________________
wooooooooooooooooh