Film vs. Digital?

[venchka]

We could take up a collection. Buy you a burrito & beer.

[studiocygnet]

Originally Posted by wclavey

OK, back again to Godwin's Law...

and that Hitler & Nazis (collectively) are probably on the faster end of that probablility increase.
Additional thoughts on that seed planted by John? ...or am I the only one intrigued by the analysis?

I think this means you lose: from the wiki article -"whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress".

But in regards to your theory, I think on general forums you are correct, however, since TPF does not allow political/religious discussions, the probability increase to hedgehogs is even.

[venchka]

Hedgehogs? Playoffs? Playoffs?

He said in his best Jim Mora voice perfected back in the day when Jim Mora was a staple on local TV.

And another thing. I was in Ritz Camera Saturday. Fondling camera bags. I was about to buy a Tamrac bag that I felt might fill a niche I have in my bag inventory. Then I saw those dreaded words on the hangtag "Digital Ready". I knew in an instant that none of my cameras could possibly work in such a bag.

Bummer. The bag had real promise too.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Yea, its a fact, an incorrect fact.

I love film as much as the next guy, but the fact is digital is far more versatile. You can make it look however you want. If you have the skills.

Kevin

And that maybe digital's greatest weakness.

johnastovall added 5 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

You are talking about tools. It is the Photographer who decides what tool is most appropriate for his interpretation of the scene before him.

Kevin

But here's the rub what tool did he carry to that scene?

Does he have all of his gear packed on faithful Mistletoe's back or just bag on his shoulder, or a camera around his neck or maybe just tucked in his pocket....

[venchka]

Posted at the RFF:

Originally Posted by venchka

Too bad they are gone. And Kodachrome soon. It's a conspiracy. The digital folks can't mimic Kodachrome or Polaroid so they kill it.

I don't have samples. I don't even have the book anymore. There are samples somewhere on the internet. Take a look at Sam Haskin's book "Cowboy Kate and other Stories." Tell me if he could have produced those photos with digital. Some of them, sure. All of them? I don't think so. Heck, I don't even know how he did it with film and silver prints.

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

And that maybe digital's greatest weakness.

I agree, the thing *some* DigiPhos do that irritates me the most is " I shot this in color but did not like it, so I converted it to B&W, what do you think"

Most of the time I think they turned their crappy color pic into a crappy pseudo B&W pic !!!!

Learning the true character of one product can yield better results than always trying to conform a digishot to your ideal.

Originally Posted by johnastovall

But here's the rub what tool did he carry to that scene?

Does he have all of his gear packed on faithful Mistletoe's back or just bag on his shoulder, or a camera around his neck or maybe just tucked in his pocket....

That's part of the deal also, sometimes you have to know how to get by with the tools on hand.

Didn't he once use a Brownie as an example of this to one of his classes ?

Kevin

KJ Smith added 11 Minutes and 0 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by toverman

But you can, if you wet-print your own photos from film, play with them in the darkroom! It's just that dodging and burning requires a little more dexterity (and ridiculous-looking tools) that way than required by various clicks with a computer mouse.

It has been said more or less here before, but it's the images that count vs. the media on which they are recorded. Someone can take a large-format film camera and come back with crummy photos just like everyone else. At least with digital less time is wasted on that crummy photo.

Yes and NO, You can manipulate the print. But most people do not have the skill or desire to add things that were not already there.

With a PC/Mac that process becomes simple.

One of the big gripes about photography is that it is to easy to reproduce your work. IE: make several copies. That process has become even easier in the digital world and digital prints will hold less value as a result.

Kevin

KJ Smith added 15 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by Flea77

I have to agree, digital is far more versatile, far easier to know you have the shot you want, and far easier to manipulate. That is one reason I love film, you have to know exactly what you are doing, there is no "oh I will fix that later in photoshop". Either you know what you are doing and you get the shot, or you don't.

I also partly agree with crackhead. While digital can somewhat recreate an image that was shot on film, it takes an awful lot of work to get it there.

Allan

I have to disagree, you can buy presets that make your digishots look like most popular films.

With either medium the best results are obtained by correct exposure in the camera.

But I have heard that "I will fix that later" in the field before.

Kevin

KJ Smith added 18 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

All of this from Stovalls little joke.........


Kevin

[Nikolai]

Ultimately, it remains true that in fact, the answer is 42.

[crackhead]

Photoshop plugins can maybe approximate the look of film, but in that case, why not just cut to the chase and y'know, actually shoot film?

I liken all these fancy Photoshop tricks to CGI.... sometimes visually striking but mostly lacking soul and character. Does anyone here actually enjoy watching CGI movies with computer-generated actors and whatnot? Give me a good Tarkovsky or Woody Allen flick any time....

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by crackhead

I liken all these fancy Photoshop tricks to CGI.... sometimes visually striking but mostly lacking soul and character.

If you can tell it was done in photoshop, then it was not done by a skilled person.

Lack of skill is lack of skill, film or digital.


Kevin

[venchka]

Originally Posted by crackhead

...Does anyone here actually enjoy watching CGI movies with computer-generated actors and whatnot? Give me a good Tarkovsky or Woody Allen flick any time....

John Ford. Monument Valley. Technicolor.

That's how you make a movie.

[johnastovall]

No, give me FITZCARRALDO actually dragging a ship over the mountain in the jungle. Now that's making a movie.

[studiocygnet]

Originally Posted by Nikolai

Ultimately, it remains true that in fact, the answer is 42.

Wow, I was one number off. I've always said there are only 43 people in the world, and the rest is done with mirrors. I'll have to change that to 42, thank you.

[venchka]

I've been hearing about that movie since forever. I guess it's time I saw it.

"Jeremiah Johnson" ain't too shabby in the real locations department either.