Film VS Digital
- Thread starter horibilis
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 3K
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
JeffGreene said:
Yeah, reading a film vs. digital thread is like watching "Alien vs. Predator". You know it's going to be a train wreck, but you still get sucked in...
Broke
Established
Kim Coxon said:
Nah -- Demolition Man was the film in question. Classy film hehe.
JB
Kim Coxon
Moderator
That's the one!
Kim
Kim
Broke said:
cmedin
Well-known
sitemistic said:
And he believes Leprechauns were actually aliens. 🙂
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm
chikne
Well-known
cmedin said:
I'm stunned 😱
Someone, tell him about the 3 little pigs ...
Kim Coxon
Moderator
As Chris says:
You weren't taking what Ken says seriously were you? 😀
Oh I forgot. It's written by someone on the internet so it must be true! :bang:
Kim
ChrisN said:
You weren't taking what Ken says seriously were you? 😀
Oh I forgot. It's written by someone on the internet so it must be true! :bang:
Kim
Sonnar Brian
Established
> Brian, even if your DSLR makes it to 70, odds are it won't know how to talk with anything else.
Yeah. My first digital images were done in 1981. Try to find a 7-track, 800BPI tape drive these days.
Yeah. My first digital images were done in 1981. Try to find a 7-track, 800BPI tape drive these days.
wgerrard
Veteran
JeffGreene said:
Huh? We're talking food here!
Sonnar Brian
Established
Of course the nicest thing about my digital SLR is that I can load it with film. And if I want to shoot color with it, I have to.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
sitemistic said:
You do know that tortilla Bell is better than McDonalds, right?
back alley
IMAGES
sitemistic said:
now, that's the real debate...meat vs. veges!!
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
sitemistic said:
Well, you can get a salad at McDonalds, but if their salad is the same quality as their burgers, you probably want to give it a pass.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Kingdomist! Vegetables are people too, you know. 😉sitemistic said:
...Mike
demian
Established
If I may return everyone a moment, there is something I would like to say that is rarely mentioned regarding all of this.
Film/digital toucehs identical arguments that began at the beginning of the last century btw painting and the new photography.
Things immediately divided between people setting up stage sets and creating "high art" photography, and people who believed in capturing reality as it is.
Then the adage, "pictures don't lie" came about.
Enter film/digital.
Pictures always lied. People created scenes, etc. but not as today's digital age where copyrights and a photogs work became more and more difficult to protect.
Additionally, as recent as these days, a hack "journalist" takes 2 digital images from the war in Iraq and pastes the 2 together in photoshop to create a big story while in a hurry of a soldier beating an Iraqi or something or other...and it almost worked.
If he were a little better at PS it would have worked. That's scary.
Anything can be *created* these days. Photography as it was known is being challenged just as it challenged painting in times past.
As the technology advances further and it all grows further and frurther away as people use their cell phones or whatever to capture images and relegates what we now know as old school film photography to an "artform," well, it is all rather interesting the cycle of things....don't you agree?
Anyway, there is no genuine record like film to "protect oneself" in these days of much needed truth in accurately recorded photojournalism, and it will become a greater and greater issue in the future.
Film is protection, you can't fake an emulsion. There is no better insurance for authenticity than a film/gelatin latent image.
Mark my words, it will come around again for these reasons alone...
ciao.
Film/digital toucehs identical arguments that began at the beginning of the last century btw painting and the new photography.
Things immediately divided between people setting up stage sets and creating "high art" photography, and people who believed in capturing reality as it is.
Then the adage, "pictures don't lie" came about.
Enter film/digital.
Pictures always lied. People created scenes, etc. but not as today's digital age where copyrights and a photogs work became more and more difficult to protect.
Additionally, as recent as these days, a hack "journalist" takes 2 digital images from the war in Iraq and pastes the 2 together in photoshop to create a big story while in a hurry of a soldier beating an Iraqi or something or other...and it almost worked.
If he were a little better at PS it would have worked. That's scary.
Anything can be *created* these days. Photography as it was known is being challenged just as it challenged painting in times past.
As the technology advances further and it all grows further and frurther away as people use their cell phones or whatever to capture images and relegates what we now know as old school film photography to an "artform," well, it is all rather interesting the cycle of things....don't you agree?
Anyway, there is no genuine record like film to "protect oneself" in these days of much needed truth in accurately recorded photojournalism, and it will become a greater and greater issue in the future.
Film is protection, you can't fake an emulsion. There is no better insurance for authenticity than a film/gelatin latent image.
Mark my words, it will come around again for these reasons alone...
ciao.
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Al Patterson said:
i thought it was demolition man
V
varjag
Guest
I might have one in an old unused Powerbook, let me know if you need it 🙂Brian Sweeney said:
wgerrard
Veteran
Demian, it all comes down to the honesty of the person creating the picture. You can monkey about with film, not as readily as with digital, but you can do it.
Ditto painting. When paintings or drawings were the only ways to 'take pictures', those artists had lots of reasons to create something that was less than a perfect image of the subject.
It would be good, however, if we all adopted some kind of standard that would allow anyone to quickly determine how often a digital image had been edited.
Ditto painting. When paintings or drawings were the only ways to 'take pictures', those artists had lots of reasons to create something that was less than a perfect image of the subject.
It would be good, however, if we all adopted some kind of standard that would allow anyone to quickly determine how often a digital image had been edited.
Kent
Finally at home...
Al Patterson said:
What about Subway?
Pherdinand said:
Oh, come on! She is hot in any movie! (As is Diane Lane who starred in Judge Dredd).
cmedin
Well-known
Kent said:
Probably the most overrated fast food joint around. Sure, they can make some 'healthy' (i.e. low calorie) subs, but 95% of the customers load up with cheese and mayo and whatnot and nullify that. But really, it's mostly sugary bread, lots of cheap lettuce, and a tiny sprinkle of meat to go with it...
Similar threads
