Caught on film
Wonder when the world is gonna run out of film.
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
Thanks for sharing. That's a fantastic series of photos.
That is why they invented digital photography (even though it doesn't look as good)
That is amazing though.
Out here in the back country you can see hawks mating, such an amazing display of flight.
My sister explained something to me when I was a youngster that most people seem to be completely unaware of today. The world was originally black & white. It only became colored about 75 years ago. You can see the proof by looking at old photographs.
Originally Posted by K8ERV
Originally Posted by AF6LJ
A good photographer with a pro digital camera would not agree with you. It has been several years since film pictures were of better quality than digital. Mamaya now has a medium format digital camera that takes 33 mp images.
The photographer I shoot for switched to digital years ago. I was with him at a wedding when he first tried out the new digital Canon SLRs. We double shot the wedding, he used the film camera and I shot with the digital. Even back then, the results were comparable and using digital had the upper hand in more ways than one. Each wedding we shot we did 3 or 400 pics and the cost of pro film and processing was a major part of our expenses.
The reason you see so many yukky digital pics is due to the sheer number of them and most people don't know how to set up their camera or have cameras of limited abilities.
If you have a copy of the FD 2006 QST look down in the lower right corner of the front cover. I did that shot with a Sony Mavica at around a third of a megapixel. Top quality on that camera was 1.3 megapixels.
My daughter Nicole, K0LEY is taking photography in school right now. She is learning on my old but great Canon Elan IIe 35mm SLR film camera. Much to her teacher's chagrin, I stress to her that the best photographers are artists and every rule in photography can be broken in an artistic manner. I have pictures to prove it and explain to her why the picture is still good even though the subject's placement, say, violates the rule of thirds.
A skilled photographer can take breathtaking shots with a cheap camera much easier than the average Joe can do the same with a 6 thousand dollar SLR.
"The best number is 73. Why? 73 is the 21st prime number. Its mirror (37) is the 12th and its mirror (21) is the product of multiplying, 7 and 3. ... In binary, 73 is a palindrome, 1001001 which backwards is 1001001."
-Dr. Sheldon Cooper, (Jim Parsons), "Big Bang Theory"
"Just to invite your attention to "73" in Morse code--also a palindrome."
Perhaps you can answer a q.
I have a Canon 35mm film camera (AT1) with a 50mm f 2.something lens, how many Megapixels does it take to be theoretically the same?
Assume typical megamart 100/400 ISO color print film and "1 hour" processing.
Now my mistakes travel at the speed of light!
I don't know the number, but I think there are MANY more silver halide crystals than pixels in any system.
I also think the question is not which is greater, but which will do the job well. In many cases lotsa pixels or silver grains is just overkill.
(I have at least 7 digicams and none have ever been off of 1 megapixel). But then Ansel I ain't.
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
I wonder what the color depth is on those?
Originally Posted by K8MHZ
I know some of the DSLRs are 24 bit which isn't bad.
32 bit would be better though.
I have done both analogue and digital photography, I do fairly well with an old point and shoot. Someone once said it's not the quality of the tool that counts it's the experience of the person using it. (to an extent that is true)
I use to have an old Canon AE-1 I really enjoyed it.
You are absolutely correct about the artistic aspect of photography.
The "rules" make a good technician, know how to bend or break the rules is art. I have to watch myself because I have fallen into the trap of having unlimited film and having it developed in 60 seconds. I have to make myself take the time to set up the photograph and take care in composition.
(a skill I need to work on more.)
In a few years the medium format DSLRs will be affordable, I am waiting with bated breath for that day.
I remember reading somewhere that a digital camera would need a 24mp full frame sensor to achieve the same resolution of 400 ISO 35mm film. We are not too far from that however, that is still digital, aligned in a grid with limited color depth. Analog film has a random placement of silver, i.e. not in a grid.... and its color depth is infinite. And this is for relatively crappy 400 ISO... Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't give up my digital camera for anything but a good photographer with a film camera will out shoot you every day of the week.