Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Thanks for the comments everyone. The point I was trying to make, which I've tried to do a few times here and haven't yet done it well yet, was not about whether film or digital is better. I'm trying to make a simpler point and that is [I'm going to try it again! :-o ] I don't think its possible, especially now, to use web-based images to judge whether film is better for b&w, digital is better for color, etc.. The images on the web, whether created by film or pixel-thingys, are too manipulated and too small, and too illuminated by our monitors, etc. to make these judgements... IMO.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Jamie,
I'm sorry but I see the opposite ... a lack of shadow detail in that image and a hell of a lot of noise in other areas and it's not necessarily characteristic of digital but of a tiny sensor IMO and I just didn't think that particualr scene suited this look of limited tonality and confused detail. But on the other hand Rem's image of his son looks fine to me because it's a more suitable subject material.
I have no issue with digital or I wouldn't have shelled out for a D700 and I love what that camera can produce. I just like cameras to be cameras and phones to be phones ... I guess it's my pet issue!
Hell ... I even stopped using a mobile when I discovered I couldn't get a decent one without a damned camera in it!
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Hi there Brian. I bet this survey didn't take into account that the girl on the left looks like she might want to go to bed with me, where the girl on the right might want to for a hike.
BTMarcais
Well-known
Hi there Brian. I bet this survey didn't take into account that the girl on the left looks like she might want to go to bed with me, where the girl on the right might want to for a hike.
Either way could rather quickly get us in trouble w/ our wives...
I thought the graphs were especially fun, even if they only had Leica point and shoots, no M or R cameras in the mix.
Oh, and I'm not sure my wife will let me get an iPhone now.
-Brian
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Oh yeah... I missed that. I think if we don't mention this link to the wives, they'll never know... probably... maybe... nah, they'll find out. :-(
remegius
Well-known
And now, dear boy, you are getting down to the nitty gritty. I see the questions about image quality receding into the distance.
Cheers...
Rem
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sorry Rem ... I didn't mean to offend you by getting on my high horse about it ...I apologise!
remegius
Well-known
Sorry Rem ... I didn't mean to offend you by getting on my high horse about it ...I apologize!
My Dear Keith...you most certainly did not offend me, and there is absolutely no need to apologize. We certainly all have the right to display some passion about those things that move us, and a little banter along the way is perfectly acceptable in my view :angel:
Cheers...
Rem
igi
Well-known
Ha! the iphone still ain't going to produce enough bokeh!
:angel:
:angel:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
If you carry a phone in your car anyway, a camera phone might actually be useful, as a backup just in case you get into an accident and need to be able to take pictures of it.
Steve_F
Well-known
A nice image - for on screen viewing. It's all about "Horses for courses". I've hundreds of photos of my children taken on a 3GS and they are acceptable for looking on a monitor or small prints.
For decent black and white images to put on the wall, say 16"x12" thru 24"x20" I use film in my Leica or Mamiya RZ 67 and hand print them on Ilford MGIV FB.
Steve.
For decent black and white images to put on the wall, say 16"x12" thru 24"x20" I use film in my Leica or Mamiya RZ 67 and hand print them on Ilford MGIV FB.
Steve.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
Oh, and I'm not sure my wife will let me get an iPhone now.
-Brian
Doesn't surprise me at all. Clearly, iPhone users have very low standards
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I've got an iPhone 4 coming next week and I have to admit I am really excited about the idea of using it as a snapshot camera. I am, god help me, even excited about Hipstamatic.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I carry an iPhone. It's handy for spontaneous photos, good for phone conversations (of course) and a reliable substitute for my desktop computer when I'm not at home. I've even posted a few pictures on RFF made with it after swearing that I used it in the spirit of rangefinding. In a few years or months you'll be able to take pictures with your pack of chewing gum or your dog's water bowl. It just won't matter.
That is a good idea. Time for a new phone. And I could make it into a D-Mount.
On quality vs convenience: I used to carry a Model 48 Instamatic 110 or a Minolta 16, both subminiature. A lot of people used 110. For most people, Cell phones and small digitals have replaced them.
On using the Internet and even a computer to view an image- you need to use lossless compression and 100% crops to at least show something that allows comparisons. Even with that, the viewers Monitor shows the final result. You could generate image metrics to show performance, who would care. Most people upload images to the Internet to share with their friends, not compare performance of gear.
Last edited:
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
This is all well and good, but a 35mm film camera-phone is what the word has been waiting for.
I may make my own. I have a Vivitar Ultra Wide film camera and old Nokia phone and some tape somewhere.
I may make my own. I have a Vivitar Ultra Wide film camera and old Nokia phone and some tape somewhere.
1949 ZK Sonnar, wide-open:
100% crop:
Canon 50/1.4 wide-open:
100% crop.
and wasn't that thrilling...
100% crop:
Canon 50/1.4 wide-open:
100% crop.
and wasn't that thrilling...
wgerrard
Veteran
The iPhone shot isn't bad, but I don't find it terribly compelling. The HDR bit can disappear, too. Much of the positive reaction, perhaps, stems from the fact for many of us the notion that a phone can take a decent picture is akin to the notion that a Leica can cook dinner. (I remain convinced that eventually software will allow cellphone cameras to emulate a range of focal lengths.They'll be on phones with the processing power of today's top-of-the-line desktops and with hundreds of gigs of storage. Stephen could put an RFF server in his pocket. )
Cameras in phones seem to me to be a Good Thing because it always millions of people to take pictures who would otherwise not. Are the pictures any good? Who cares? We all take a lot of crappy photos, too.
The OP's point that you cannot judge the aesthetic differences of film and digital online are perfectly valid. After all, everything online is digitized. As has been said, film should be judged on its own merits. In the end, that means prints.
The larger issue, though, is the obvious and increasing preference for digital image display. EVen if someone acknowledges that an image looks better as a traditional print, they probably don't care that it does. (Remember, hardly anyone sees good prints from film. If they see a print, it's from the drugstore.) That demand will push development of better display technology, further narrowing the quality gap between online displays and prints.
)Cameras in phones seem to me to be a Good Thing because it always millions of people to take pictures who would otherwise not. Are the pictures any good? Who cares? We all take a lot of crappy photos, too.
The OP's point that you cannot judge the aesthetic differences of film and digital online are perfectly valid. After all, everything online is digitized. As has been said, film should be judged on its own merits. In the end, that means prints.
The larger issue, though, is the obvious and increasing preference for digital image display. EVen if someone acknowledges that an image looks better as a traditional print, they probably don't care that it does. (Remember, hardly anyone sees good prints from film. If they see a print, it's from the drugstore.) That demand will push development of better display technology, further narrowing the quality gap between online displays and prints.
Last edited:
ray*j*gun
Veteran
I was helping my grandson build a model of a race car and the plastic body was white which was the same color that we were going to paint the car. He asked me why we couldn't just spray the plastic with clear coat since we were painting the car white anyway. "Because it would look like clear coated white plastic" was the best I could do.
NickTrop
Veteran
Nick,
I was wondering how you're getting along with the digital. I'm almost there. I've made my way through all the Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss cameras and lenses that I could afford (one or two at a time). I'm pretty much ready to shift over. The new Nikon D7000 has D90 low light capability AND can meter with legacy lenses... that's the last thing I was waiting for. Now I've got to get a copy of the latest Silver Efex.
Maybe I'll see you in Washington, with my "We The People Means All of Us" sign.
Jamie
Jamie -
I was never a digital hater. Initially, I thought the only worthwhile application, however, was "compact super zoom" cameras with image stabilization. Now there was something... but the average "cost of entry" was too high for what you get along with their many vices. They were pretty terrible especially for ambient light shooting. However, prices dropped, cameras improved, image quality improved... The old cliched litany of film advantages and digital issues simply no longer rings true. This is true of small format/35mm. Larger format - film. I still have a couple film cameras that I adore, and shoot them because I like to shoot them, and one in particular I just like the way its lens renders... I'll never give those up. However, small format, by and large - digital now. My next camera will be a film camera, however. It will be medium format (currently sans a medium format camera...) - probably a TLR.
As for the rally, shoot me a PM (or I'll shoot you one if I remember...) as the date approaches... Perhaps we can meet up.
N