I harbor no such doubts. As far as I'm concerned the axe has fallen on
the old, obsolete technology... except for special cases... like no
electrical power to charge batteries in the jungle, etc.
I don't pine for that "special look" or grain of certain film stocks.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> I've been stewing on this whole film vs digital thing. You'd think that by
> this point it would be a total moot point and every attainable conclusion
> has been met and the axe has fallen on the old obsolete technology. Or has
> it?
>
> If the axe truly fell, then we wouldn't continue to be bringing this up. We
> wouldn't have a mini-revival going in some of the ancients. And we wouldn't
> have this ongoing claim with every new camera of "finally, this camera beats
> film" nonsense or worse yet "most film-like".
>
> Just gag me with a flash-cube will ya?
>
> I believe that what is missing in digital technology today are the flaws.
> Those hideous colorcasts where the films don't respond to all colors
> equally. The color-shifts. The non-linear contrast boosts. Even, hack
> hack, the grain. Come on, anybody with half an eyeball can see that film
> sucks pond water.
>
> So, why then is film the "better choice" for some applications? Why does
> film have that "I can identify that photograph from across the room"
> characteristic? Even Photoshop actions and plugins that mimick film don't
> even come close.
>
> I have theories, and I have pictures to back up my theories, but I'm
> interested in your thoughts too before I spew.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|