Basic DPI question; digital vs. film

"doug (critiques are welcomed)" wrote in
message

I just read a few of the Basic DPI posts, which pitted digital against film.

My general impression is that yes, film can still outperform digital in terms of capturing and outputting detail.

On the other hand, there are many advantages to the digital medium. We all know what they are.

If you want to produce work that is similar to Ansel Adams, then I’d have to encourage you to work with an 8×10 film camera, build a darkroom, and do it the old fashioned way, which is certainly a real craft.

In my case, my goal is to output 8×10 color prints and maybe go as large as 16 x 20’s. (using a 8.2mp at 100 ISO)
I think digital will enable me to be relatively prolific, and will satisfy my creative need to experiment with imagery that will range from murky to hard-edged. I’ll be able to afford to shoot lots of photos, relative to film, and that will result in a greater number of excellent photos being produced.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. -doug

Your luck is in…
The 20D has a B&W mode!
Also sepia mode …so in the rare likehood you intended to print a photo and sepia tone it… Canon have it covered.
Pity my 20D dies suddenly. But then not all of them do and I’m sure Canon will fix it pronto.

doug (critiques are welcomed) wrote:

I just read a few of the Basic DPI posts, which pitted digital against film.

My general impression is that yes, film can still outperform digital in terms of capturing and outputting detail.

On the other hand, there are many advantages to the digital medium. We all know what they are.

If you want to produce work that is similar to Ansel Adams, then I’d have to encourage you to work with an 8×10 film camera, build a darkroom, and do it the old fashioned way, which is certainly a real craft.

In my case, my goal is to output 8×10 color prints and maybe go as large as 16 x 20’s. (using a 8.2mp at 100 ISO)
I think digital will enable me to be relatively prolific, and will satisfy my creative need to experiment with imagery that will range from murky to hard-edged. I’ll be able to afford to shoot lots of photos, relative to film, and that will result in a greater number of excellent photos being produced.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. -doug

I think the weather could be changing very soon, looks like the clouds are coming in from the NE.
Just my thoughts

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

doug (critiques are welcomed) wrote:

I just read a few of the Basic DPI posts, which pitted digital against film.

My general impression is that yes, film can still outperform digital in terms of capturing and outputting detail.

On the other hand, there are many advantages to the digital medium. We all know what they are.

If you want to produce work that is similar to Ansel Adams, then I’d have to encourage you to work with an 8×10 film camera, build a darkroom, and do it the old fashioned way, which is certainly a real craft.

In my case, my goal is to output 8×10 color prints and maybe go as large as 16 x 20’s. (using a 8.2mp at 100 ISO)
I think digital will enable me to be relatively prolific, and will satisfy my creative need to experiment with imagery that will range from murky to hard-edged. I’ll be able to afford to shoot lots of photos, relative to film, and that will result in a greater number of excellent photos being produced.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. -doug

I think the weather could be changing very soon, looks like the clouds are coming in from the NE.
Just my thoughts

Stephan

Stephan, why are you doing your impression of a prick?
….Just my thoughts on your arbitrary thoughts. Your remarks are a terrible welcome. -doug

Stephan, why are you doing your impression of a prick?
…Just my thoughts on your arbitrary thoughts. Your remarks are a terrible welcome. -doug

Maybe just because you are slightly annoying popping in this group and exposing yourself:
"Hey guys, me and myself we do this and like that and blablabla…" Got it?

Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message

Stephan, why are you doing your impression of a prick?
…Just my thoughts on your arbitrary thoughts. Your remarks are a terrible welcome. -doug

Maybe just because you are slightly annoying popping in this group and exposing yourself:
"Hey guys, me and myself we do this and like that and blablabla…" Got it?

Stephan

Doug is using his powers to force you to not only read his postings, but to respond to them. Your will power has been replaced by his. Whining will only make it worse.

Cripes! Is he supposed to lurk for a certain period of time before introducing himself? You may just need supplemental B-vitamins.

Peadge 😮

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:40:07 GMT, "Ryadia" wrote:

Those are my thoughts on the subject. -doug

Your luck is in…
The 20D has a B&W mode!

And if you’re daft enough to use it….

You should take all images in colour and then use the channel mixer to make an image black and white. You get a far better range of tones than letting the camera decide.

The B&W mode is useful for beginners as a visualisation tool, but shouldn’t be used to take the actual image.

Also sepia mode …so in the rare likehood you intended to print a photo and sepia tone it… Canon have it covered.

And the same applies as to B&W mode.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:56:10 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Stephan, why are you doing your impression of a prick?
…Just my thoughts on your arbitrary thoughts. Your remarks are a terrible welcome. -doug

Maybe just because you are slightly annoying popping in this group and exposing yourself:
"Hey guys, me and myself we do this and like that and blablabla…" Got it?

Hi hon,

You having a bad day? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

You should take all images in colour and then use the channel mixer to make an image black and white. You get a far better range of tones than letting the camera decide.

The B&W mode is useful for beginners as a visualisation tool, but shouldn’t be used to take the actual image.

Also sepia mode …so in the rare likehood you intended to print a photo and sepia tone it… Canon have it covered.

And the same applies as to B&W mode.

Interesting tip. Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind. I’ve got a lot to learn about Photoshop. -doug

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:56:10 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Stephan, why are you doing your impression of a prick?
…Just my thoughts on your arbitrary thoughts. Your remarks are a terrible welcome. -doug

Maybe just because you are slightly annoying popping in this group and exposing yourself:
"Hey guys, me and myself we do this and like that and blablabla…" Got it?

Hi hon,

You having a bad day? 😉

Yes, sweetheart, but today is another day and it looks better 😉

Stephan

Peadge wrote:

snip<
Cripes! Is he supposed to lurk for a certain period of time before introducing himself? >snip<

Tell me Peadge, if you join a group of people you don’t know, let’s say at a restaurant maybe, do you start by talking and talking more about you and yourself or do you lurk for a while and jump in slowly? Reminds me of The Cable Guy, did you see that movie?

Stephan

"Stephan" wrote in message

Peadge wrote:

snip<
Cripes! Is he supposed to lurk for a certain period of time before introducing himself? >snip<

Tell me Peadge, if you join a group of people you don’t know, let’s say at a restaurant maybe, do you start by talking and talking more about you and yourself or do you lurk for a while and jump in slowly? Reminds me of The Cable Guy, did you see that movie?

Stephan

How do you know he hasn’t been lurking for some time?

I understand what you’re saying, but posting to a NG and reading responses is such a slow process saturated with a certain personal disconnectedness, as compared to slowing sliding over towards an interesting group at a bar or restaurant. There should be ample time (and distance) to choose to ignore the post completely.or lurk.

Doug’s "entrance" apparently bothered you enough to immediately respond with subtle sarcasm. Opening up to a new group of people, as Doug was doing, is invariably awkward, and those of us who have been here for some time can either greet him as a fellow Photoshop user, or stick our collective foot out and hope he lands on his face. I usually give the person the benefit of the doubt, figuring he may well fall on his face without any help from me. Should that be the case, mine would likely be the first hand offered to help him back up. He may have some valuable knowledge to offer or cool artwork to share or a question that may prove to be a great challenge.

I usually visit several graphics-related and web design-related NGs for the sole purpose of helping people I don’t even know solve problems. I’ve responded to a few off topic postings and found it is easy to find an argument and even easier to be drawn into them, like a feeding frenzy of vultures on a dead carcass. I’m fairly new to all NGs, having only subscribed to them in the last few weeks.

Your responses were quite subtle at first, but connoted a certain disdain for anything and everything Doug had to say or ask, including a legitimate NG-related question. Your disparaging remarks reminded me of an old Kung Fu episode where Caine is working on a railroad. Another worker rebuffs Caine for not speaking very much. Caine said something to the effect of, "If what one has to say is no better than silence, one should remain silent."

I know we all have bad days, and maybe yesterday’s was yours. Hopefully when it’s my turn, someone will slap me upside the head and say, "Hey! Don’t slurp your soup!"

Peadge J

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:19:19 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 22:56:10 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Stephan, why are you doing your impression of a prick?
…Just my thoughts on your arbitrary thoughts. Your remarks are a terrible welcome. -doug

Maybe just because you are slightly annoying popping in this group and exposing yourself:
"Hey guys, me and myself we do this and like that and blablabla…" Got it?

Hi hon,

You having a bad day? 😉

Yes, sweetheart, but today is another day and it looks better 😉

Good. We wouldn’t want you to get the same rep as He Who Shall Be Nameless But Is A Right Pain In The Ass 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

Good. We wouldn’t want you to get the same rep as He Who Shall Be Nameless But Is A Right Pain In The Ass 😉

That would take many, many more bad days wouldn’t it?

Stephan

Maybe this isnt the right newsgroup for our friend Stephan?

jopi

"Stephan" schreef in bericht

Hecate wrote:

Good. We wouldn’t want you to get the same rep as He Who Shall Be Nameless But Is A Right Pain In The Ass 😉

That would take many, many more bad days wouldn’t it?

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Good. We wouldn’t want you to get the same rep as He Who Shall Be Nameless But Is A Right Pain In The Ass 😉

That would take many, many more bad days wouldn’t it?

Now I understand what the function of the gargoyle on top of Notre Dame is – to make the everything else look better 🙂
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:36:27 +0100, "jopi" wrote:

Maybe this isnt the right newsgroup for our friend Stephan?

And he’s been around for years and you’ve made how many useful posts?

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Mike Russell wrote:

Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Good. We wouldn’t want you to get the same rep as He Who Shall Be Nameless But Is A Right Pain In The Ass 😉

That would take many, many more bad days wouldn’t it?

Now I understand what the function of the gargoyle on top of Notre Dame is – to make the everything else look better 🙂

You’re right Mike!
Look: http://tinyurl.com/7yjde
It’s Him!

Stephan

Stephan wrote:
[re Notre Dame gargoyle]

Now I understand what the function of the gargoyle on top of Notre Dame is – to make the everything else look better 🙂

You’re right Mike!
Look: http://tinyurl.com/7yjde
It’s Him!

LOL – good one. I’ve been up there and didn’t see that picture at all. How did you get it from that angle – a wide angle lens?
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Mike Russell wrote:

Stephan wrote:
[re Notre Dame gargoyle]

Now I understand what the function of the gargoyle on top of Notre Dame is – to make the everything else look better 🙂

You’re right Mike!
Look: http://tinyurl.com/7yjde
It’s Him!

LOL – good one. I’ve been up there and didn’t see that picture at all. How did you get it from that angle – a wide angle lens?
—

No, my zoom was around 50mm.
Maybe you went there before they finished building. 😉

Stephan

Today’s digital cameras can produce a nice output, but there is a certain art and craftmanship that film cameras can produce if the whole process is controlled. My general opinion on the subject of digital versus film is governed by the output. If your output is going to be the web or digital, use a digital camera. If you are shooting for publication digital is far superior because you are taking out steps of degradation of printing, scanning etc to get your picture to final publication. However if you are shooting pictures for family photos, to be put in a photo album or for art to hang on a wall, film should be your medium of choice. I know about channel mixing and other properties of Photoshop, but if you are shooting BW film portraits, use a green filter, for BW film landscapes use a yellow or red filter on your camera. Both formats can be used with polarizing filters and such. There’s a whole science and art to how to work with film, much of the knowledge conveys to digital in the use of Photoshop and general picture making techniques. Again, I repeat, the final output should determine your decision to use digital or film.

In article <j4pqd.5785$>,
critiques are welcomed wrote:

I just read a few of the Basic DPI posts, which pitted digital against film.

My general impression is that yes, film can still outperform digital in terms of capturing and outputting detail.

On the other hand, there are many advantages to the digital medium. We all know what they are.

If you want to produce work that is similar to Ansel Adams, then I’d have to encourage you to work with an 8×10 film camera, build a darkroom, and do it the old fashioned way, which is certainly a real craft.

In my case, my goal is to output 8×10 color prints and maybe go as large as 16 x 20’s. (using a 8.2mp at 100 ISO)
I think digital will enable me to be relatively prolific, and will satisfy my creative need to experiment with imagery that will range from murky to hard-edged. I’ll be able to afford to shoot lots of photos, relative to film, and that will result in a greater number of excellent photos being produced.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. -doug