D800 vs MF Film, not a standard question

Started Nov 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
lukaw Regular Member • Posts: 313
Re: D800 vs MF Film, not a standard question

brightcolours wrote:

lukaw wrote:

plasnu wrote:

I understand Lukaw's irritation. Digital is a newer and much more convenient technology which simply should be better, but someone still prefer the dated technology from the last century for unknown reason.

I'm not irritated. I resent spreading misleading information and trolling.

You seem to be trolling.


I talk about my experience and you talk about your lack of experience and I'm the troll?

I used to shoot MF (Hasselblad) for 30 years and I shoot digital for the last 13 years.

Good for you.

Don't patronize me, you come across as a nasty guy with issues.

Yes, the likelihood that I know what I'm talking about is by far more then  what you utter here.

I know a thing or two About film and digital. Digital surpassed film with cameras D3 & D300 and of course current models.

"Surpassed film" in which way? And what film are you talking about?

The D3 and the D300 certainly have not surpassed any of the MF or LF formats recording-surface-wise. Nor have they gained the odd and nice roll-off shoulder that colour negative film has.

Stop pretending. Yes, It surpassed 35 mm and MF format. Your assertions are detached from reality.

It has been proven that it exceeds above films.

By the way, what's the meaning "nice roll-off shoulder"?

Film users can be divided into 3 categories:

1) People that like the medium for nostalgic reason

2) People that cannot afford current quality gear and/or are unable to master post processing and handling digital files.

3) All the above.

Nonsense. There are many film users that use it for the character, feel, and even plain resolution/detail.

I agree with you that it is nonsense, the nonsense is in the statement above.

Every time the film zealots are pushed to the corner they bring up "character, feel, and even plain resolution/detail."  Some terms that they are unable to demonstrate or to prove.

Lets analyze your mambo jumbo.

You write "character" What is that? What are you talking about?

You write "feel" What are you talking about? Are you saying that there is no feel in digital?

You write "resolution" Now you made a fool out of yourself. Digital's resolution exceeds 35 & MF film's resolution

​I work as a pro for the last 45 years, clients DO NOT walk in and ask for FILM.

Of course clients don't. If clients knew everything about that, they would be knowledgeable photographers or artists themselves. It is for the photographer or artist to know what they want to achieve and which tools they must/want to use to achieve it.

The only thing they care about is the final look.

It totally depends on what kind of photographer you are. "pro" says nothing, other than that you make your living with it. But there are many very good artists and photographers that do know which limitations and which advantages different film and digital formats have. You are clearly not one of them. I am not either, by the way, I am not even a pro. But I do know that digital 135 format is the do-all and end-all!

Agree, pro doesn't mean that you are knowledgeable, however, the likelihood is that one that does it for 45 years will know a thing or two.

You are neither pro or knowledgeable. Look around you and take off your blinders.

There must be a good reason that most pros, famous pros, like Annie Leibovitz, David Ziser, Al Gilbert, Clay Blackmore, just to name a few, all use digital gear

By the way, ​there is no term DIGITAL 135, it's DSLR.

I have on my walls about 40 enlargements, 38 photographed & printed digitally and 2 photographed with film and wet printed.

How nice.

I will repeat, you're a nasty person

When some fellow photographers walk in and claim that they can see the difference, I challenge them to tell me which is which. ​They are unable to do that.

Funny/odd behavior

What's so funny? share it with us.

Where do you see "odd behavior"?

You reaction is definitely odd.

The poster that claims "More film and more adoring clients for me", disappeared when challenged to show some of her images that her clients are ​"adoring".

Disappeared? May it be that that poster is not on dpreview 24-7? Or does not feel she wants to react to every silly flaming/trolling/nonsense post?

Who asked you to speculate? who asked you to become her mouth piece?

In my opinion, your entire post is nonsense and a typical reaction of a film zealot.

If you don't like my posts, don't read it. I don't care about replies based on ignorance. The on that does the trolling, you guessed right, is you.

Does she really think that what sells is her usage of film? Give me a break. Don't insult our intelligence. ​Please show us some of the adorable images.

You first have to possess intelligence in order to insult it. There most probably are clients that choose her for the look of other work she has done, and that look may well be due to the choice of equipment MF 6x7 film format for instance).

Sorry for all the silly bold reactions, but that is due to the dpreview editor. I do with you were a bit more open to what others have to say, and a bit more respectful to the photographer you were typing about in this post.

Yes, I agree, the key word is intelligence. Your response indicates that you are not blessed with plenty of it.

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