Re: Analog shmanalog

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



All this says is that digital capture and analog capture may have different results, but I've never seen a comparison of the same scene between the two methods created by the same (expert) person.  I'll bet such a comparison even then will not settle the question.

Most of the arguments are made by devout believers of one system or the other. . . after all, why should they change their opinion?

  -yoram


On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Randy Little wrote:

while great images can be made on both there are very distinguishable visual difference between film and digital.    Digital will always capture in a linear fashion and thus high lights and shadows will always have a different feel then a photo chemical process.   While shadow quality might improve over the next decade.  Hight lights in Digital will be an issue for a while.   HDRI capture can get them but they for sure don't feel like film.   

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com

[some deleted text]


On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Herschel Mair wrote:

analog shmanalog... a great image is a great image. 

Jan you have some great images and the process you chose to make them is interesting but secondary.

Great pics are made by photographers not cameras. Nobody asks the restaurant manager what kind of stove the chef uses... 

If I find digital more inspiring than film, then who's to argue with that? And Vice versa. The process that the artist used is as interesting as it contributed to the art.

Herschel Mair Photographer and Retoucher Santa Fe NM 505 695 8450







[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux