tim_huggins Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Adam, you've made the first step in understanding that manufacturers' sole goal is to sell you something new. If new also happens to be better, that may be a nice coincidence but it is certainly not a requirement. Digital cameras are great. They can encourage experimentation with their instant feedback and "free" pictures. You can easily send pictures to friends and family around the world. But no digital camera will ever be able to match the color, resolution or fidelity of film. You at least have the honesty and curiosity to see that for yourself and admit it. Unlike some of the posters on this thread, you didn't get rid of your perfectly good film equipment to dive head-first onto the digital bandwagon. Some of these folks now need to convince themselves that throwing good money after bad was the "right" decision, so spending hours needing to tweak pictures in Photoshop is now a good thing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_dc Posted June 13, 2007 Share Posted June 13, 2007 I'm coming at this thread very late but the title of the thread struck me 'so different'. Yes there's a (minor) dynamic issue (and in particular blown highlights where film has a decent shoulder and CCD has none), also CCDs use a coloured filter array coupled with a colour reconstruction process which may account for some of your noted differences. And yes there's lot more. In a nutshell the technologies are as different as night and day and just like digital music reproduction sounds different from analog, or microwave cooked food tastes different from heat based cooked food you get different results. You simply have to relearn how to use the medium with the techniques of old going by the wayside. I rediscovered my roots when switching from film to digital - in many ways it was like discovering the hobby all over again. So enjoy the moment and get back to basics. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustys pics Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 "The D200 puts all of that rendering work directly into your hands. No one is going to do it for you. What comes out of the camera is not a finished image, not any more than the film that comes out of your OM2 is not a finished image." Bull. That slide which I get back IS a finished image. And YES, it's far more efficient to pay a good lab who knows how to do that. A few years back, some sales reps and digital "experts" came to our university to convince our dept. to buy some fancy and expensive color calibration software and hardware. By the time he finished talking about color spaces, reflection densities of monitors, papers, etc. we were all thoroughly confused and utterly in agreement that this product was not going to solve the HUGE drawback of digital photo; getting what's on the screen to resemble in some small way what comes out on paper. At the end I made the comment about how great it used to be to send off a roll of slides, and get back 36 perfectly color corrected images ready to be projected. The guy turned to me and said earnestly; "That system did, and STILL has a lot of merit." Shoot in RAW all the time? Jeez, I may as well coat my own wet plates. Both are about as time consuming. Yes. I do shoot digital. Quite a bit. However, I'm not blind to its inadequacies and serious drawbacks. Like Mr. Oleson said, "All I wanted to do was take some pictures....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now