largedrink
Down Under
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/02/whatever_happened_to_photography/?page=1
Interested in people's thoughts on this article.
Page 6 shows a digital conversion twenty-year-old Mamiya 645 Pro with Leaf Aptus II 22MP back.
Interested in people's thoughts on this article.
Page 6 shows a digital conversion twenty-year-old Mamiya 645 Pro with Leaf Aptus II 22MP back.
Pioneer
Veteran
I guess I didn't read this one as film vs digital. I think the author was pretty clear that film was past and digital was now.
I did find it interesting that he feels that the collapse of digital camera sales is because people have figured out that they can buy a fancy camera but they can't take pictures with it that are really any better than what they get from their camera phone. May be some truth to that.
He has personally chosen to move back to a film camera, but not so he can use film. He bought a film camera that could easily be converted to use a digital back. No film vs digital there.
I did find it interesting that he feels that the collapse of digital camera sales is because people have figured out that they can buy a fancy camera but they can't take pictures with it that are really any better than what they get from their camera phone. May be some truth to that.
He has personally chosen to move back to a film camera, but not so he can use film. He bought a film camera that could easily be converted to use a digital back. No film vs digital there.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
This article has absolutely nothing to do with film. It's about the issues the author has with currently available tools used to make digital images.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Why do I feel like reading a confused article. It's like the author is all over the place.
No love for film photography for sure.
No love for film photography for sure.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
The article ended up amusing me, for the reason that it's not really about D versus A but about this particular photographer's penchant for preferring a certain brand of medium format camera from a particular era where the motor-drive and viewfinder are field-changeable, but wants a digital output. And along the way he whines (or is it "whinges?") about the downside of mass marketing. And in the process he finds it necessary to offer a primer on photo technology for the uninitiated.
His solution, interestingly, was a DIY hack of his old MF film camera to accept a digital back, something that many here on RFF have desired for their old 35mm cameras.
~Joe
His solution, interestingly, was a DIY hack of his old MF film camera to accept a digital back, something that many here on RFF have desired for their old 35mm cameras.
~Joe
Godfrey
somewhat colored
This article seems a confused meander through the authors thoughts on photographic equipment, pet peeves, and dislike of marketing. It was hard to read as it didn't really make a useful point in any direction to me.
G
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I struggled to find a thread through the article or a "point" with which I could agree or disagree. He seems happy using digital medium format but why there's a need to evangelise and dismiss film as old / redundant technology, I have no idea. I shoot both (with a significant film bias) and will continue to do so until I decide to do otherwise - and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
What some people fail to "get" is that it's precisely the fact that film isn't "perfect" that makes it more attractive and interesting to most film enthusiasts. If our only goals were perfect colour, the ability to mix and match ISO (as opposed to being able to shoot 50 ISO to 12,800 ISO on a roll) and have the results available in an instant, we'd all use digital exclusively. We don't and that should be enough for the digerati to just get on with what they do.
The main issue I have with such articles (albeit not an obvious digital v film argument)is that anyone unfamiliar with film may just take notice of the opinions expressed and miss out on the fantastic experience and results that film can provide. I'm not being disrespectful or dismissive of digital, you understand, just saying there are advantages and drawbacks on both sides.
What some people fail to "get" is that it's precisely the fact that film isn't "perfect" that makes it more attractive and interesting to most film enthusiasts. If our only goals were perfect colour, the ability to mix and match ISO (as opposed to being able to shoot 50 ISO to 12,800 ISO on a roll) and have the results available in an instant, we'd all use digital exclusively. We don't and that should be enough for the digerati to just get on with what they do.
The main issue I have with such articles (albeit not an obvious digital v film argument)is that anyone unfamiliar with film may just take notice of the opinions expressed and miss out on the fantastic experience and results that film can provide. I'm not being disrespectful or dismissive of digital, you understand, just saying there are advantages and drawbacks on both sides.