Digital can never replace film

[gns]

never mind.

 

[Petroleum V. Nasby]

Posting tiny scanned or processed jpgs on the intertubes, and bickering whether one looks too "digital" or not is like seeing Jesus on a piece of toast.

It's a form of insanity.

 

[retro]

Yes, digital IS easier than film photography. Why would that in itself, be a bad thing?

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

Sorry to keep rebutting you, but McDonal's is not successful because people are lazy.

Since the word "lazy" does not appear in my post I don't understand
what you are rebutting. I said McDonalds was easier than preparing
one's own meals. That's all.

You might want to read a post before commenting on it. If you
don't understand something, just ask for clarification.

 

[sepiareverb]

Only way I can think of to really test which is "better" would be to see how big a print you can make without running into problems, and that would only be a way to test one specific camera/lens combination against another. Come to think of it, it wouldn't prove anything then either, becaue if the digital camera didn't do very well, it could be because of the editing program or the quality of the printer. Might even be because of the brand of ink or the kind of paper. With film cameras, the type of film, choice of developer, and choice of paper come into it. With both types there are different lenses. You can't use the same lens in a comparison because digital and film cameras have different crop factors, which would have an effect on edge-to-edge performance. Even if you could figure out a way to resolve all that, then you'd still have to figure out what "best" means. There are a lot more variables than just the cameras.

Not to mention that plenty of people can't seem to be able to tell the difference between an image shot with the same medium but with a Jupiter vs a Summicron. Lets just let the OP prefer his film set up and the rest of us ours.

 

[George S.]

You might want to read a post before commenting on it. If you
don't understand something, just ask for clarification.

I understand you have difficulty understanding something that's inferred and not rigidly presented all neatly in front of you. You might want to take the stick out of your arse, you may breathe a little easier.

 

[kevin m]

You might want to take the stick out of your arse, you may breathe a little easier.

Is that called for? 😡

 

[Pablito]

Posting tiny scanned or processed jpgs on the intertubes, and bickering whether one looks too "digital" or not is like seeing Jesus on a piece of toast..

or like seeing a piece of toast on Jesus:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/5132/

 

[retro]

I understand you have difficulty understanding something that's inferred and not rigidly presented all neatly in front of you. You might want to take the stick out of your arse, you may breathe a little easier.

OK, George. No need for that kind of thing. It's annoying to
attribute things said to a person that were not said. Please
read posts a little more carefully before commenting on them.
Just common courtesy.

 

[George S.]

I objected to the lecturing tone you used, and you're using it again. Maybe the next time you criticize someone for not getting the true meaning of one of your posts you'll go back and reread it yourself, but no, you couldn't possibly even think of doing that now could you? It HAS to be the other guy who got it wrong.

 

[Pherdinand]

Hhaha-I really don't get this.
I thought you HAD the magic plugin to make digital really really look good and really really like "pushed tri-x".
A little bit of consistency would make it easier to understand your point.

Oh and by the way, I can see dead people.

 

[pesphoto]

Oh and by the way, I can see dead people.

You might wanna have that checked by a specialist.......😉

 

[Pherdinand]

You might wanna have that checked by a specialist.......😉

hehe. i think i've heard that advice before, but thanks for reminding me of my appointment.

 

[Chris101]

I never understand why folks get so aggravated over the differences between film and digital. It's like if the two ever collide the resulting black hole will swallow all of photography.

 

[pesphoto]

It's like if the two ever collide the resulting black hole will swallow all of photography.

so someone told you also.......I thought is was a secret.😀

 

[Al Patterson]

Let's just say that film cameras and digital cameras are entirely different tools which are best used for entirely different purposes and that suit different tastes and leave it at that.

Hey! Let's not drag common sense into this arguement....

Well said.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Hey! Let's not drag common sense into this arguement....

Well said.

Well, we've had discussions of whether sticks are best inserted anally in a straight on or sideways fashion, seeing dead people, colloquialisms and pretty much everything else. I couldn't think of anything else that had much at all to do with the OP, so as a last resort I tried common sense. Sooner or later somebody had to do it.

 

[retro]

One thing I've noticed: On forums populated by lots of film
photogs (like this one) I see what seems like much better
images than I see on forums with mostly digital camera
users.

That's my subjective opinion, of course.

 

[Nh3]

Look at this picture from our own RFF member, le vrai rdu. trix in rodinal.

I love this shot!

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

Yep, that's beautiful, but it's also shot on 120, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[kevin m]

Let's just say that film cameras and digital cameras are entirely different tools which are best used for entirely different purposes...

This would certainly come as news to people who use them both to take pictures. 😀