Has anyone gone from film to digital and back to film? If so why?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by jime, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. jime

    jime Guest

    Has anyone gone from film to digital and back to film? If so why?

    jime, Mar 11, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. jime

    Sinner Guest

    What format film? The only real advantages digital holds over film, is its
    relative inexpensiveness, and its convenience. All other things, camera and
    lens quality, being equal, fill will always provide the sharper image. I
    don't think sensors will ever achieve the density levels of film emulsion.
    Sinner, Mar 11, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. jime

    Michael Guest

    Thank you sinner. I agree with you. But we will now have to face 736
    posts about "sharpness." Any attempt to explain the information storage
    of film vs "megapixels" will fall on deaf ears.
    Michael, Mar 11, 2008
  4. jime

    Sinner Guest

    All one need do is look at a couple of Ansel Adams prints and the comparison
    becomes moot.
    Sinner, Mar 11, 2008
  5. jime

    aglet Guest

    Are you kidding me?!! You get much better resolution with digitial!! I've
    got a 12.4 pixel ... I'm sorry, I can't go on ... laughing to hard ...
    You're absolutely correct, of course. Got me to thinking ... if Ansel Adams
    had used a digital camera and photoshop, I wonder what his legacy would be.
    No doubt he was a great photographer. And a lot of his darkroom activities
    can be duplicated with Photoshop. But without the richness that only film
    provides, I think he would have been known as an excellent photographer
    during his day, but perhaps not earned the same place historically as he
    aglet, Mar 11, 2008
  6. jime

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I don't know enough about A. A. to add a comment to that part of the thread,
    but I'd like to point two things out.

    First of all, "never say never." I have no doubt that digital sensors will
    not only catch up to film in every facet, but will eventually surpass it,
    and I'm sure that sensors will even go on to add dementions to image
    capturing that film currently cannot approach. However, this assumes that
    film will not evolve any further than its current status.

    Second, the above notwithstanding, I'd love to go back to digital if I could
    afford it.

    My darkroom is waiting patiently for me to win the lottery. Guess I'd
    better get out there and buy a ticket...

    Dudley Hanks, Mar 11, 2008
  7. jime

    Noons Guest

    Because I get better IQ and more consistent
    results with film capture.
    Note that I use film for taking the photo
    but the rest of my workflow is digital.
    Noons, Mar 11, 2008
  8. jime

    Ken Hart Guest

    No, I skipped that part of the learning curve and left everyone else to
    discover that film is better.
    Ken Hart, Mar 12, 2008
  9. jime

    Michael Guest

    The digital group will likely point out that Ansel Adams used large
    format which even they admit is well beyond the reach of digital "at
    this time" as they would say. So I would put up against digital the
    photos of W. Eugene Smith, who was the very great photojournalist
    working during WW II and the decades after it, whose 35mm prints far
    surpass anything digital.
    Michael, Mar 12, 2008
  10. jime

    Rudy Benner Guest

    Clark goes into this in some detail.


    Rudy Benner, Mar 12, 2008
  11. jime

    Sinner Guest

    Sinner, Mar 12, 2008
  12. jime

    Rudy Benner Guest

    Some of us have post secondary education.
    Rudy Benner, Mar 12, 2008
  13. jime

    Sinner Guest

    Sinner, Mar 12, 2008
  14. jime

    aglet Guest

    So, we find it interesting. Thanks, Rudy.
    aglet, Mar 12, 2008
  15. jime

    Peter Guest

    Yup, full of good information and quite a few neat shots. I particularly
    liked his idea of using a digital camera to simulate large format work. I
    have done this to make panoramics but never thought of it for large format
    simulation. Now does anyone know what software will help, or must we do it
    the old fashioned way.
    Peter, Mar 12, 2008
  16. jime

    Rudy Benner Guest

    I have PTGui and Autopano and of course Photoshop CS3 (much better than it
    was in CS2).

    You do not have to make a panorama, even just covering the same area,
    perhaps even moving the camera slightly will work nicely.

    Someone recently did a shot of the moon that way and stitched them,
    incredible detail.

    For a free program, look for Autostitch.
    Rudy Benner, Mar 12, 2008
  17. jime

    Peter Guest

    I am at a fortunate stage in life where function is more important than
    price. Not that I want to spend when I don't have to. I have tried hand
    stitching and the biggest issue I have when is seamless blending. I use CS3,
    but for panoramics I use some program that came free from Nikon, called
    Arcsoft. It's main drawback is that my version only works with JPEGs. My
    workaround is that when I am shooting for panaramics I shoot in JPEG, stitch
    and then do my thing in PS.
    If I am shooting to simulate large format, then the conversion to JPEG could
    leave artifacts that would defeat the purpose of the simulation.
    Peter, Mar 12, 2008
  18. jime

    Peter Guest

    I just downloaded PtGui. The program looks interesting, but I guess I will
    have to shoot juat for that purpose. unfortunately, I will not be able to go
    out shooting until this weekend. Do you have any hints to mae my learning
    curve smaller?
    Peter, Mar 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.