Hmmm... My son-in-law photographer just bought the new Hasselblad and now I see him with a new Cannon EOS 10D. His excuse; "If you take wedding pictures you just have to have something like this". Me thinks photographers are just as nutty as audiophiles. When your both, -that's REAL bad. He also happens to be a NAIM/Linn/Monitor Audio nut and that's REAL bad.

 Film images still better. - Corbu 14:20:27 02/05/04 (1)
 Re: Film images still better. - kevyo 18:37:41 04/29/04 (0)
 !!! VINYL IS DEAD !!! - Filmilly 22:42:42 10/22/03 (0)

...

Show full thread outline!

 Film images still better. - Corbu 14:20:27 02/05/04 (1)
 Re: Film images still better. - kevyo 18:37:41 04/29/04 (0)
 !!! VINYL IS DEAD !!! - Filmilly 22:42:42 10/22/03 (0)
 No, it just smells bad... - Frunobulax 07:31:27 08/13/03 (1)
 Right on Frun - R B 14:41:33 08/23/03 (0)
 yes - Dominic 21:38:01 08/12/03 (0)
 Re: !!!'FILM IS DEAD'!!!!!! Film WILL Outlast yours and my Lifetime - Joe M 21:16:25 08/12/03 (0)

For one, Movie theatres will be showing on film stock,and shooting too. It's needed to project large screens in movie houses for a long time to come. Digi can't get enough lumens to hit a large screen audience.

Also Film ala Hassey needed for those occasional 30"X 40" or larger Wedding Portraits.

Just like vinyl junkies need their fix in music, Old B&W darkroom addicts, will need film and Dextol

that is REEEAAL bad

and me personnally i don't think dig is quite up to snuff just yet, sure is hella useful though, but to get the same image quality as any half decent film camera you have to really step up with big dough. I mean i could replace my current outfit for like 400(beans 2nd hand in the great white north) maybe and to get a similar picture (res, depth, etc. etc.) in dig is gonna cost me over 1000 (eg:g2) esspecially since i can't get it seccond hand yet. Once similar image quality and features are available at competing prices then film will be moving out quick except for the types who want to get creative with the chemicals. Though my above statements don't really take into account the mass adoption of digital cameras.

partly asside, i think it's rediculous the way medium format digital backs are of bassically no use to anyone but studio photographers. The Sigma SD-9 with FOVEON is about where i'd like to get into digital.

The camera has taken many hits by people who really want Kodak to fail, but most have never used the camera or the software. And, many who have used the camera have not become proficient with the software and expect the same image out of the camera that they get with a 10D with no processing. Good images take some work.

I hate to say it, but the resolution of this camera approaches medium format. I hate to say it because I own about $15K in medium format equipment. Also, many, many digiholics confuse sharpness with detail. While it is true that you can take a 6 megapixel camera image and print it 24 x 30 - and it will look "sharp" - it lacks in detail. Sharp does not equal detail.

The unique thing about film is the different "looks" you can get just by shooting it. Velvia looks different than Provia, which looks different than E200, which looks different from EX, etc. Same with negative films. For those who say you can get the same look with a digital through post processing, I say, "you don't understand how film interacts with light." How do you predict random events and simulate that with software? Do you have a 4524K preset filter to apply? How about a 5001K filter, etc.

Digital (at this point) is a bit like putting in an upholstery tack with a 3 pound sledge. Nuances often get lost, and have to be created in post processing - my question - how do you remember what you photographed so you can tweak the nuances? Then is it real or is it your simulation of reality.

Lots of questions, to answer. Digiholics rarely want to get into the nitty gritty nuances and cop out by saying, "oh you just don't understand" - with, of course, no explanation.