Stuart John
Well-known
It would be much easier with a print especialy a traditional B&W darkroom print compared to a dumbed down 300ppi digital lab print I find they don't have to be that big either. The top image was APX100 in rodinal and the bottom was digital D1h at ISO 800.
Here's another two...
No.1
No.2
Here's another two...
No.1
No.2
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I very much like this kind of exercise. It shows me that I don't really have to worry that I might be giving up something by getting out of film and going all digital. The fact is that the web is overflowing with great images created with digital, film... whatever. The technology behind any image doesn't matter anymore.
I'm ready to move out of film entirely. The film workflow just doesn't fit my schedule or pocketbook any longer. But I held on for a number of years now, waiting for the digital image quality (primarily the sensors' dynamic range) to reach a point where I don't think about the technology when I look at the image. And the images above certainly show that. Thanks Jack and Stuart for takiing the time to post the pictures.
I'm ready to move out of film entirely. The film workflow just doesn't fit my schedule or pocketbook any longer. But I held on for a number of years now, waiting for the digital image quality (primarily the sensors' dynamic range) to reach a point where I don't think about the technology when I look at the image. And the images above certainly show that. Thanks Jack and Stuart for takiing the time to post the pictures.
Neare
Well-known
Top one is film?
Anyhow, Jamie I know what you mean. Digital can produce great results when you put the time into it. I think that if I picked up digital again, I could produce results with greater ease. What keeps me from doing that however is the fact that no matter how technology may advance, digital is inherently not something physical. It is not something tangible. I shoot film primarily because the results I get are real, it is not some digital sensor's interpretation of the light, rather it is the light itself as it ingrains itself into the film crystals.
Results aside (for I know digital can provide adequately), I do not want to look at life through a computer screen as some calculator turns random numbers into coloured pixels.
Anyhow, Jamie I know what you mean. Digital can produce great results when you put the time into it. I think that if I picked up digital again, I could produce results with greater ease. What keeps me from doing that however is the fact that no matter how technology may advance, digital is inherently not something physical. It is not something tangible. I shoot film primarily because the results I get are real, it is not some digital sensor's interpretation of the light, rather it is the light itself as it ingrains itself into the film crystals.
Results aside (for I know digital can provide adequately), I do not want to look at life through a computer screen as some calculator turns random numbers into coloured pixels.
sjw617
Panoramist
You think light hitting a sensor is not real but light hitting chemically coated plastic is real? Makes no sense.
Steve