DCB
Well-known
I was thinking...
Film records what it sees.
Chips record and it think it sees.
Thoughts?
Peace
Film records what it sees.
Chips record and it think it sees.
Thoughts?
Peace
craygc
Well-known
Firstly, neither film nor digital record what it see. The colour pallet, tone response, latitude, dynamic range are always going to be intrinsic to the capture medium. Therefore, its never possible to record what is actually seen.
However, if I read between your lines I assume that your thoughts are more around the idea that film simple records the light that hits it, versus digital, which has to then process that light based on a bayer pattern interpolation, etc. If that is the direction of the discussion, I would suggest it still falls under my first statement - its just whether that interpretation of the light is hidden in chemistry or the software-based processing of the initial linear luminance data.
Obviously different results in the outcome but not really that philosophically different based on the way you've phrased your question...
However, if I read between your lines I assume that your thoughts are more around the idea that film simple records the light that hits it, versus digital, which has to then process that light based on a bayer pattern interpolation, etc. If that is the direction of the discussion, I would suggest it still falls under my first statement - its just whether that interpretation of the light is hidden in chemistry or the software-based processing of the initial linear luminance data.
Obviously different results in the outcome but not really that philosophically different based on the way you've phrased your question...
