Film Photography Survey

Started Nov 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,284
Well said

Mark Smith wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

And the additional digitizing required to display on a monitor makes that "digital look" even more pronounced. Great examples, thanks.

There is no additional digitising needed....

"Digitizing" in that the file is turned into a 96 ppi image on the monitor....that additional "digitizing"  I guess the "rendering process" from file to computer display at monitor native resolution is a better description of what I was thinking .  Once again, my lack of vocabulary gets the better of me

Like I said I can scan and print and make a neg to print on the same RA4 paper they will look very similar, scan those prints and the character of the originating medium will still be there-FACT

Yes, all true....and they look very un-film like when displayed on a Acer - V Series 19"  Monitor

....the look of film can be displayed digitally; programs like Silver FX pro and NIK prove that.

Then no need for film....glad we got that out of the way. Glad you went there and not I. I've never been comfortable saying software can perfectly mimic the look of film

No there is no real need for film in most cases, correct it has been like that for 10 years or so.

Film is a nieche, some emulsions and systems can't be mimicked like large format but that will change. Most of us that still use film do so because we enjoy the cameras and physicality of the medium–but then you're not stupid you know that right?

Software can't mimic all types of film true but that doesn't mean that digital is such a poor medium that it can't display the 'look and feel' in a simple browser, let alone on a CMM system.

Well said, thank you for clarifying

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow