This thread has now gone full circle! (Was sorry I started it for a while) :-(
If someone such as Frank or myself has been using film cameras for as long as we have: 1.) How long would it be before I could load, adjust and shoot a *ist D by feel, in the dark, and be as confident I did it right as with say, an ME Super or MX? Answer = Years! 2.) How about the behavior and drawbacks/strengths of Digi vs film? Or wet/optical processing/printing vs Photoshop? Answer = More years of learning! 3.) What if I just happen to LIKE grain? I've used fast film just to get more grain, I believe it adds character and "authenticity" to some photos. This is MY hobby, I'm not very good at it, but I enjoy it! Another "hobby" of mine is repairng electronics, that I AM good at, will you presume to tell me which soldering iron or multimeter is the "best" for me? Of course not! My favorite saying heard on this list so far is still: "It's All About The Image". Who the H*** cares HOW the image was "born", anybody care that I was born in Berea, Ohio, USA? Or is the fact that I'm here, and that I'm me the facts that really matter? It may surprise you that sometimes, when one of you presents a wonderful image for me to enjoy, I totally forget to look at the bottom line to see what camers/lens/process produced it!! I just enjoy it, and that's all. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. > > > --- Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rubish, I have compared records played back on a > > LP12 and CD on a top of the > > line LINN CD player with DAC and there really was no > > discernable quality > > difference. When CD frist came out perhaps you could > > have argued there was a > > difference - but nowadays things are a lot better. > <snipped personal message to JCO> > > I think (hey, lookie here, he's bringing it back to > photography! <vbg>) that the sad truth is that it's > the software that in the vast majority of cases, is > the limiting factor in sound quality. Most mass > produced CD's and vinyl just sounds bad. Period. It > sounds bad on lousy equipment, it sounds bad on good > equipment. > > I also think (does anyone really care what I think? > <VBG>) that the medium (ie: film or digital sensor) > in ~most~ cases doesn't make much difference in the > quality of the final image, especially for the average > consumer. Please, all you MF and LF guys, don't jump > all over me, I merely said that for ~most~ people > (including many pros) for ~most~ applications both > media work just fine, and aren't limiting. > > So, it's really about storage, handling and > convenience, and again, for ~most~ people digital is > the way to go. > > That doesn't mean it's better. Just different. > > I prefer film for all sorts of reasons, not the least > which is that I don't have a digital capture system, > and quite frankly, I'm just comfortable with film, > having used it for about 40 years now (I think I was > around 8 or 10 when I got my first Brownie Starflash). > > For 90% (or more) of the applications right now, > quality isn't an issue, IMHO. > > Okay, now you can all jump all over me, and tell me > I'm wrong! <vbg> > > cheers, > frank > > ===== > "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" > ******** > "Of course it's all luck" > -- Henri Cartier-Bresson > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca >
