Film VS Digital

JeffGreene said:
No more film versus digital threads!! Pleeeeze! Each to his own!:eek:

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...
 
Kim Coxon said:
What was that film where Sly was a policeman taken out of deep freeze to catch a criminal and the finest restaurant in town was Taco Bell's? :D

Kim


Nah -- Demolition Man was the film in question. Classy film hehe.

JB
 
As Chris says:
ChrisN said:
Also from the same site:

"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself."

You weren't taking what Ken says seriously were you? :D

Oh I forgot. It's written by someone on the internet so it must be true! :bang:

Kim
 
> 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.
 
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.
 
sitemistic said:
Al, I'm a vegetarian. Neither holds much hope for me :)

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
Finding 80MByte 2.5" SCSI notebook drives is really hard these days.
I might have one in an old unused Powerbook, let me know if you need it :)
 
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.
 
Al Patterson said:
You do know that Taco Bell is better than McDonalds, right?

What about Subway?


Pherdinand said:
Sandra's hot in that movie.

Oh, come on! She is hot in any movie! (As is Diane Lane who starred in Judge Dredd).
 
Kent said:
What about Subway?

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...
 
Back
Top Bottom