View Single Post
  #15  
Old 26th April 2019
Naughty Nigel's Avatar
Naughty Nigel Naughty Nigel is online now
Full member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Land of the Prince Bishops
Posts: 10,199
Thanks: 415
Thanked 589 Times in 500 Posts
Likes: 3,522
Liked 2,534 Times in 1,662 Posts
Re: An army of clones

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricoh View Post
In terms of images, don't you think that digital is just too clinical in detail? (Probably why it's used extensively in medical imaging.) I also wonder why some choose to use digital but then try to emulate the so-called shortcomings of film in PP, eg the old school films such as Kodak Gold. Doesn't it make sense to shoot Gold in the first place, organically! As for B&W, digital is in the wilderness, it simply doesn't offer the results obtainable using film.
Hmmm. I think fifteen years of using digital has probably changed our photographic tastes so that most people now prefer the clinical detail and sharpness of digital, and the lack of film grain, although it obviously depends on the genre of photography.

I am not actually too sure how this works though. Is it the extreme resolution, crystal clarity and sharpness of digital that people crave, the eye popping (and sometimes unrealistic colours), the binary contrast (with little shadow detail), the 'in your face' nature of digital images or something else?

High resolution scans of MF films provide just as much, if not more detail than digital, but without the same clinical sharpness, which somehow looks better than digital to my eyes.

By choice, and in my own time, I much prefer to use my film cameras, but if I was only allowed one camera for all purposes it would have to be digital, and probably FF. If I really wanted the 'film look' I can add something like that in PP, but I cannot get detail out of 35 mm film that doesn't exist.
__________________
---------------

Naughty Nigel


Difficult is worth doing
Reply With Quote