<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Out of ten professional photographers 9 shoot digital. Because it makes a lot of sense.<hr></blockquote>
But what sort of sense?
Turn-around sense? No question.
Financial sense? No question if you shoot more than the occasional image.
Resolution sense? Slow, fine grain color films offer about 12 megs of resolution. Faster films drop to the 6-8 meg range. That amount of resolution is available in moderately priced digitals.
Convenience sense? No question when it comes in number of shots before reloading, adapting to different light sources, etc.
Quality sense? This is where the question lies.
The quality of my digital images greatly exceeds the quality of what I was able to produce with film. Is that due to the fact that I learned how to be a better photographer? (Thank you, digital.) Or because I now have the opportunity to edit my shots? (Thank you, digital.)
Could it be that I could get even better shots were I to abandon digital and return to film? (Well, certainly not at higher ISO settings.)
But is there something that one can get with film (aside from an old familiar look) that they can't get from digital? Or is it a lack of digital file handling skills?
Inquiring minds want to know.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Out of ten professional photographers 9 shoot digital. Because it makes a lot of sense.<hr></blockquote>
If you want to put bread on the table, indeed you shoot digital.
If you want the ultimate in quality, you will probably shoot film.
"... If you want the ultimate in quality, you will probably shoot film..."
That's a very inaccurate generalization.
Some the best photographers alive - artists who answer to no one and to whom quality is the only thing that matters - choose digital.
Cheers,
Terry
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>Some the best photographers alive - artists who answer to no one and to whom quality is the only thing that matters - choose digital.<hr></blockquote>
How about this.
Some the best photographers alive - artists who answer to no one and to whom quality is the only thing that matters - choose film.
Like I keep saying, it's horses for courses, but some will insist in claiming that one (digital or film that is) is absolutely superior to the other.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>I'm glad to see you (once again) back-pedalled.<hr></blockquote>
Ditto!
Cheers,
Gareth
Dear Gareth,
1.) In Post #31 you state that if you want to ultimate quality, you will probably shoot film.
2.) In Post #33 you state that it's silly to pronounce that one medium is superior over the other.
You are - as usual - all over the map, falling over yourself.
So sad that you're not tired of this silly dance by now, because it's really, really boring...
Cheers.
Terry
Probably - in all likelihood; very likely - so says the dictionary anyway.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>In Post #33 you state that it's silly to pronounce that one medium is superior over the other.<hr></blockquote>
Just as I always have done. It's pointless. And quality is just one aspect of photography, even ultimate quality is subjective.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>You are - as usual - all over the map, falling over yourself.<hr></blockquote>
I really don't think so.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>So sad that you're not tired of this silly dance by now, because it's really, really boring...<hr></blockquote>
I think it takes two Terry. Are you tired of it yet, or are you gonna keep on bitching and trying to scrore points?
Cheers Terry
I have to say that I agree with gareth. For quality then its film.
But that is merely my opinion, and I am in Nepal shooting mainly digital.
I do agree with Terry that it is subjective.
But Gentlemen please. We are all artists, we all answer to no one, and back pedalling and fighting should be left to the politicians of this world.
Peace.
Raf
trusted partner
