Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Film good, digital bad.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mirjana

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 10:17:19 AM6/5/07
to
I find film more pleasing and flattering (skin tones) than *any* digital
rendition I have ever seen or used. Digital is a cold and sterile, perfect
for product shots. Any biters?

Rob Morley

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 10:41:01 AM6/5/07
to
In article <C28B2EFE.7FBC%mir...@theweddingphotographers.com>, Mirjana
mir...@theweddingphotographers.com says...

> I find film more pleasing and flattering (skin tones) than *any* digital
> rendition I have ever seen or used. Digital is a cold and sterile, perfect
> for product shots. Any biters?
>
>
Digital cameras work better if you keep them in the freezer and scribble
on them with green marker pen. :-)

Steve B

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 11:00:50 AM6/5/07
to

"Mirjana" <mir...@theweddingphotographers.com> wrote in message
news:C28B2EFE.7FBC%mir...@theweddingphotographers.com...

>I find film more pleasing and flattering (skin tones) than *any* digital
> rendition I have ever seen or used. Digital is a cold and sterile, perfect
> for product shots. Any biters?
>

None here, troll.


Richard Polhill

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 11:15:27 AM6/5/07
to

But so much more difficult to send by email.

Fat Sam

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 1:54:04 PM6/5/07
to

Yawn.


Gerald Place

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 5:35:07 PM6/5/07
to
No harm in stating a personal preference, surely. Having been working
digitally for a while I had occasion to put some Velvia in my Hasselblad. at
a client's request. I had forgotten what big slides looked like, and why the
old industry standard was 75 lines per mm.

Gerald

mir...@theweddingphotographers.com> wrote in message
news:C28B2EFE.7FBC%mir...@theweddingphotographers.com...

Randall Ainsworth

unread,
Jun 5, 2007, 8:33:03 PM6/5/07
to
In article <C28B2EFE.7FBC%mir...@theweddingphotographers.com>, Mirjana
<mir...@theweddingphotographers.com> wrote:

Maybe you should become better at creating images?

ray

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 7:55:49 AM6/6/07
to

So you don't like it - so don't use it. I have no problem with that.

Paul Furman

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 12:48:50 AM6/6/07
to
Mirjana wrote:

No.
Film does have serious advantages but color balance is not one of them.

Mirjana

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 4:15:15 AM6/6/07
to

> No.
> Film does have serious advantages but color balance is not one of them.

I tend to agree and disagree with that, I use digital for
professional/economical reasons and it is very convenient, but convenience
isn't everything. I find that digital cannot emulate the look of any
particular type of film, no matter what plugins or actions I employ. It just
doesn't have the same look and feel, which is what I hanker. It's probably
too accurate and records colours as they actually are, but in my experience
my clients want to look like Hollywood movie stars, I believe they still use
film there too.

Mirjana

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 4:16:51 AM6/6/07
to

>> I find film more pleasing and flattering (skin tones) than *any* digital
>> rendition I have ever seen or used. Digital is a cold and sterile, perfect
>> for product shots. Any biters?
>
> Maybe you should become better at creating images?


Maybe you can give me some lessons.

Noons

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 4:22:12 AM6/6/07
to
On Jun 6, 12:41 am, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In article <C28B2EFE.7FBC%mirj...@theweddingphotographers.com>, Mirjana
> mirj...@theweddingphotographers.com says...> I find film more pleasing and flattering (skin tones) than *any* digital

> > rendition I have ever seen or used. Digital is a cold and sterile, perfect
> > for product shots. Any biters?
>
> Digital cameras work better if you keep them in the freezer and scribble
> on them with green marker pen. :-)

LOL!

No One

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 7:22:04 AM6/6/07
to
Mirjana wrote:

Same reason I prefer amps with tubes.

Fat Sam

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 8:35:24 AM6/6/07
to

Your amplifier can take potographs?
;-)


Jeff R.

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 9:04:18 AM6/6/07
to

"No One" <aint...@blahblahblah.com> wrote in message
news:pvhij4-...@gandalf.greycorner.com...

Piker.
Give me my Edison cylinders.
Much warmer and natural tone than tubes or trannies.
Doesn't contribute to global warming, neither.

--
Jeff R.
(and no Hip-Hop)


Eric

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 9:53:02 AM6/6/07
to
On Jun 5, 10:17 am, Mirjana <mirj...@theweddingphotographers.com>
wrote:

> I find film more pleasing and flattering (skin tones) than *any* digital
> rendition I have ever seen or used. Digital is a cold and sterile, perfect
> for product shots. Any biters?

Aka 'pristine' master from which you then apply tonal curves and other
adjustments. Obviously you have not made the adjustment to the fact
that pictures are made in the digital darkroom as much as behind the
camera these days.

-Eric
http://brontide.blogspot.com

Unspam

unread,
Jun 6, 2007, 10:16:17 AM6/6/07
to


And therein lies the problem, post visualization (trying to get something
decent out of a dead, colourless, vapid RAW file), is eating up my surface
time (before I go on tour with Ansel Adams, where no shadows fall). I would
much prefer to be out and about scene stealing than hunched over a computer
fiddling around. I am not a master printer or colour technician, I like the
idea of handing over my analogue material to a fully trained and experienced
operator with hundreds of thousands of pounds of high end equipment at their
disposal, and let them get on with it while I soak up the rays. I will pay
good money for this convenience, and do.

Marvin

unread,
Jun 13, 2007, 1:33:12 PM6/13/07
to
You are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't change mine.
0 new messages