Bubbles Photos w/ new camera

[Szalinski]

Double post, please excuse.

[Szalinski]

No. I'm picky. I like the way film looks. Digital is too - sterile - or artificial looking. An interpretation of the image, rather that the image itself. It's kinda hard to put into words; it's more of an impression. Audiophiles put forth a similar argument (vinyl vs. CD).

As Kharn pointed out that is all changing. Most of the professionals I know are all digital now. When the professionals go that way it is usually a clear sign of approval.

I saw similar arguments about Film and video. Now with all the HD and cinematic processing features in the cameras they are now shooting full feature length movies.

Digital cinematography's acceptance was cemented 2009 when Slumdog Millionaire became the first movie shot mainly in digital to be awarded the Academy Award for Best Cinematography[1] and the highest grossing movie in the history of cinema, Avatar, not only was shot on digital cameras as well, but also made the main revenues at the box office no longer by film, but digital projection. In 2010 the Academy Award for Best Cinematography again was won by a movie shot digital, and the Academy Award for the Best Foreign Language Film, El secreto de sus ojos, as well was won by a movie shot digitally.

Time to embrace the future, Szalinski, and while you're at it get yourself a bigger screen

Ahh, you're too easy! Movie producers are always trying to get the best image they can and still stay in budget. Take all the time needed to set up all the scenes, build all the models and special miniature sets, shot enough film that you are absolutely sure that you will have initial images that when developed will be acceptable, and you will still have to cut, matte and edit before you have a set of final cuts. AND you have to pay everyone for all this. Now compare that to having your live scenes shot and viewed right there, and being able to download them to a computer to do all the SFX with only a relatively few days of keypunching. No models, model makers, sets, miniatures, painters, pyrotechnics experts, etcetera, again with the cost of paying for all of it and is there any question as to why Hollywood loves digital? Avatar took years to do in a computer. It couldn't have been made at all without virtual reality. Even if it could it would have cost hundreds of billions, not millions, of dollars. If you were paying the bills, would you use film, even if you knew it gave a better image? BTW, Imax is still film, I believe. At least that's what I always see packed into the projector here.

News and sports photographs love digital naturally because all they have to do is shoot the picture, call their publisher on their cell phone and download it. Done deal, I'll pick up my check when I get there. Is it any wonder they use it? Snap shooters and hobbyists don't have to worry about getting everything right the first time, they can just try again (and again, and again...) until they do get it right. And of course they can then send instant copies to their friends and relatives over the phone right then and there ("ain't she just adorable?" ). It's easy, and while not fool proof, at least it allows "do-overs" IOW you don't always need to know what to do, or be sure you got it right; you can always fix it, right there, right now. so yeah, for these people, digital is better, but it still won't look as good.

Why do you think the people who advertise digital cameras use phrases like "Closer to film than ever before". "The closest to a film image yet achieved". If it's so great now, why do they still compare it to film? Because it's close, but not quite. Then, of course there is the look of digital, which is the camera's interpretation of the image, translated into billions of 1's and 0's. whereas film is the image!

Artist photographers, especially landscape and still life photographers use digital, sure. They use it to make sure their setup and composition is correct. Then they set up their medium format, 5x7 or 8x10 film camera for that one in a million shot that hope will be be displayed on a museum wall at sizes as large as 80x100 inches in size. Photographers who's photos are going to be enlarged to the size of bill boards are not using 14 mega pixel "35 mm" cameras, I assure you. Even a 35mm negative wouldn't be used for this! Just try blowing up one of your digital photos to these sizes and look at how good your image quality is. In fact, in order to give the same true resolution as a Velvia50 35 mm slide, a digital camera would have to have around 100 megapixels (full frame). For medium format, over 500MP. That's half a billion Pixels!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ve ... hotography
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

How much money do you want to spend on a camera? I can get a professional grade 35mm for under $300. New.

Oh, and did you know that it wasn't until recently (2008) that magazines like Arizona Highways would even accept a digital image? And even today film is their preferred format (4x5 or larger, please.).

But it still boils down to the final judge, and that's the person taking the picture. "Eye of the beholder". And this beholder doesn't like the look of 1's and 0's.

And yes, I am planning on getting a bigger monitor.

[janesays]

Bubbles looks excited about the new camera. I love the photos.