I agree with Mr. Graywolf here. There is something quite wonderful about those old cameras, something lasting and solid about their feel. And film has qualities that are not found in digital images. Yes, I know all about how to add grain and use different plugins to simulate film, but it's like having sex with a mannequin. Something's missing.
As an aside, something I wanted to comment upon a few days ago, I think it was Mr. Robb who mentioned that instead of using regular B&W film, it's so much easier to use color film and convert it in Photoshop. Well, for some people that may be true. It is easier. But the results are nowhere close to using true B&W film. There is no similar grain structure, and the quality of the conversion depends on the skill of the person using Photoshop. But yes, for some this is the way to go for they have no other path to follow, no previous experience or direction upon which to rely. Speaking of digital watches, LaCie has a nice one that's recently come on the market. http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10128 Jerry Todd Dancing Frog Studio Calaveras, CA > [Original Message] > From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 7/22/2004 9:07:02 AM > Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > Another thing to think about, watches are all digital now. Except for some > reason there are a few very expensive mechanical watches still made and sold. > No, someone who is in the market for a plastic Timex probably never even heard > of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them. > > No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually > for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and > Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had > the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I > feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since.
