Fujitsu
Well-known
Forget it. With digital you´ll spent hours in front of the machine to "tune" your pictures to look like film.
emraphoto
Veteran
myth # 214
remegius
Well-known
gilpen123
Gil
The D700 is worth considering. There are very good manual focus Nikon primes that you can use as well. Better weather sealing and faster frame/sec.
Fujitsu
Well-known
Not a myth. I´ve been there. I am getting paid for it and I know how the crap looks i get from photographers to work with.
Yes, the D700 was a step forward in low light, anywhere else its the bad old yellowish Nikon digital look, sucky skin tones that break apart to yellows and reds once you start adjusting levels.
With film even a wrong balance looks cool, with digital wrong is just wrong and "right" is hard to hit, especially when you have to deal with a series of shots taken at different locations.
You dont have to agree (some people are just not as sensitive to color and overall balance) but please dont post something uneducated and silly as "myth".
Fujitsu
Well-known
None of the manual focus primes is weather sealed though...
emraphoto
Veteran
i reckon i am pretty "educated". everything i shoot in color has to be color balanced. regardless of my sensitivity to color i assure you the picture desk is very sensitive. i have also been up to my eyeballs in film for many moons. all of it involves getting paid.
if you are working, and shoot a lot, film is not faster by any stretch of the imagination. the idea that you have to shoot willy nilly with a digital camera and then try and correct later isn't a rule. if you get your exposures and color right in camera, have it dialed in properly then there is no film format available that is as fast. i can shoot my frames, go sit in my van and caption/tag them all, color correct and dump them into the FTP in about 20-30 mins. i cannot even get close to that with film. and i shoot a LOT of film. getting consistent results under varying conditions is part of my job.
i give big props to the differing opinions thing but nothing can convince me that what your saying is anything more than myth. sorry.
Fujitsu
Well-known
The funny thing is, I dont see anything in color on your site...
I see crappy color samples on other sites in your signature (blown highlights, destroyed skin tones...). Photojournalism has come a long way. I dont think it developed to the better today. It got faster and cheaper and it will be replaced by hordes of amateurs and iphones within the next decade for the most part.
Who said film is faster?
You know, "i give big props to the differing opinions thing but nothing can convince me that what your saying is anything more than" uneducated. "sorry."
Why is it that hard for some people to accept that other still prefer the look of film?
user237428934
User deletion pending
You did. So I think the answer of emraphoto is more than appropriate. Your personal attack is not appropriate.
hamustar
Member
why not some of those sony FF? they have in-body stabilisers.
emraphoto
Veteran
"Why is it that hard for some people to accept that other still prefer the look of film?"
i am getting confused now. i thought we were talking about the "myth" of increased post when shooting digital? and you have also missed my statement about shooting film myself. loads of it. when the job at hand allows it i continue to shoot film.
if you want to fight and trade personal attacks then you will need to find someone else. if you want to add your experiences with "speedy" film workflows that will rival a digital version then lay it on me. i am all ears.
i am getting confused now. i thought we were talking about the "myth" of increased post when shooting digital? and you have also missed my statement about shooting film myself. loads of it. when the job at hand allows it i continue to shoot film.
if you want to fight and trade personal attacks then you will need to find someone else. if you want to add your experiences with "speedy" film workflows that will rival a digital version then lay it on me. i am all ears.
Last edited: