'Why Film Still Wins Over Digital SLRs'

No
But I need to refer you to the Nikon DSLR forum that I belong to where even professional DSLR photographers admit to the quality of film :)
 
I've heard many professional photographers say they prefer film because of the brilliant colors and contrast it produces vs digital. That seems to be about it though from what I've read.

I'm real happy to be shooting digital. Just through my learning in the last couple weeks, I would have wasted hundreds of dollars of film. Digital is a much cheaper and more available medium. It is also more useful than film ever was. I still think digital takes the cake because of its availability and versatility. :medals:
 
I think film is probably still best for those who know how to really use it and get the most out of it. For the rest of us, digital is fine.
 
I very much like the quality of film also ... some of the best reasons I can express for saying that is the film Saving private Ryan.

The smoothness of panning in film is horrifically missing in the digital version of that movie. Also with the visuals of the explosions. In the digital format the movie seems jumpy.

Sorry, ditigal might work better for stills, but for movies I still perfer film.
 
Are we sure about this? Even when post processing pictures in RAW format? I will agree that the camera's rendition to .JPG can be flawed.

Oh and I should add that for film to really shine, you have to either develop them yourselves or find a quality lab to do it.
 
Another reason

Well suppose your grandchildren find one of the memory cards from your digital camera. What are the chances the format today's pics are saved in will be readable by their computer?

Donald
 
There is still a distinct need for film cameras. As for the "which is better quality" argument, I will stay out of it as I see advantages to both and my eye isn't good enough to be able to nitpick that finely. :kilroy:

I still prefer film for B&W. I haven't found a conversion workflow yet that can duplicate APX out of a film camera with a digital shot...just something about how that film translates color into greyscale that I like.

When it comes to color...well, I'm pretty much a digital convert. Haven't bought any color film in a few years now.
 
Cratermaker said:
Oh and I should add that for film to really shine, you have to either develop them yourselves or find a quality lab to do it.
Click to expand...

The same applies to getting digitals printed too. Good digital prints rely on good hardware just as much as good film shots do.
 
This is an interesting discussion, and I think the point about media formats and what folks will be able to read quite topical. One of the problems with the NASA video's was that the equipment used to shoot and playback the video was no longer available. This was discovered when some original tapes found in facilities in Australia could not be viewed. It took some time for NASA to lay it's hands on equipment old enough to play back the tapes (ironically, the walk on the moon shots are all transmitted digital images-- who knew?). When these tapes finally viewed it was found that they did not contain any footage of the moon missions.

However, that tape sent NASA in a tizzy looking for the originals. While they think that they were most likely taped over, there is still a slim chance they may be out there somewhere....hope we have a playback unit that can decipher them if they are found.

The black and white video of the walk on the moon that the world saw is actually a recording made off a camera pointed at the monitor in Australia (which happened to be in the footprint during the walk). It was the feed to this monitor being recorded on tape that NASA would like to find. Supposedly the images on the monitor itself were incredible.

As to quality of (analog vs. digital)...a friend of mine still owns a reel to reel deck with his original tapes from the 60's and 70's. These are cantankerous machines, and the tape is a mess; you have to manage the hiss through inadequate dolby technology, you can't find a particular piece of music, and the tapes take up a lot of space, gets brittle, and occasionally shoots off the reels in a fit of spite.

That being said, the fidelity from these old tapes is far superior to anything I've heard digitally. I have a CD of the Stan Getz/Joao Gilberto Verve session recorded in 1963 (this is the recording that produced "The Girl from Ipenema"). It is excellent. My friend has the original in reel to reel tape format. It is absolutely incredible. Gilberto's wife, Astrud, was in the studio, and you can actually hear her breathing in the background (She eventually did the vocals for part of the album, at Getz's suggestion).

Of course I can't fit that reel to reel deck in the dashboard of my car.
 
Panther_99FS said:
No
But I need to refer you to the Nikon DSLR forum that I belong to where even professional DSLR photographers admit to the quality of film :)
Click to expand...

This particular subject started when one of the forum members posed a question debating whether or not he should get a Nikon D700 or a Medium-Format Film System. In this case, the member asked about the Hasselblad 500C (click on "Hasselblad 500c" for some very interesting information) :)
 
Kiwikat,
Canons definitely outnumber Nikons, but I consider this analagous to Nissans outnumbering Ferraris' :bump:
 
Panther_99FS said:
Kiwikat,
Canons definitely outnumber Nikons, but I consider this analagous to Nissans outnumbering Ferraris' :bump:
Click to expand...

:ernae:

It is cool there is some talk of photography here now. I've always thought it goes hand in hand with aviation.

I wonder if there'd be enough interest to make a subforum for photography talk and pics from airshows and whatever else people want to share etc.

:running: to get my friend's 400 L to point at Panther :naturesm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top