# the 90's-- howd that crazy era work.



## Luke (Aug 8, 2006)

Right, so since ive started shooting black and white and c41 bulk rolled (35mm) and developing myself and scanning myself i've started to love film.  The one thing i dont love (sometimes anyway) is grain to iso ratio.  See i look at digital and think that guy just got a noiseless 12.7 megpixel image at 400 iso....  
As such i was wondering, how did people shoot front covers for magazines etc predigital was it:
a) low iso
b) medium format
c) grain, deal with it pal
peoples experiences
(being 14 i wasnt really paying attention for most of the 90's...)
I shot a model with 400 speed film and she got standard portfolio prints that were quite nice (standard means 11 by 14)  but perhaps i should have shot lower iso, never used pan f myself but i can get a grainless 9 megapixel image from delta 100.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 8, 2006)

All of the above.  If you want grainless, stick with digital.  Grain is what makes the image with film.  Even low ISO films will have grain you can see in 35mm format.


----------



## Luke (Aug 8, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> All of the above.  If you want grainless, stick with digital.  Grain is what makes the image with film.  Even low ISO films will have grain you can see in 35mm format.


yeah, yeah but in the 90's photojournalists mustve been making shots with tri x at 800, so i assume people just didnt mind. 
Hey, i love grain if it's nicely done, im really into the whole rangefinder street photog black and white arrogant prick only use prime lense with leica scene ...... oh


----------



## Luke_H (Aug 8, 2006)

To me, grain = accutance in a lot of photos.  They almost look more 'real' than some noiseless digital shots.  I didn't like it at first when I got going in film, but I appreciate it now.  My quest is to find the sharpest film developer combo regardless of its grain properties.  I've seen Tmax 100 developed in Tmax or Microdol X and it doesn't have much grain, but it also looks blurry to me.   I pick sharpness over grainless. 

I wasn't into photography in the 90s, so I don't remember ever analyzing printed work for scrutiny though. 

I really like the look of this Arista 200 in 35mm (hate the 120) that I got for 19.99/100' roll.  (fomapan creative 200)

I've been developing it in D76 1:1.  It's probably the sharpest combo for the least grain I have found so far.  I don't use Tmax100 though, which might be better yet.


----------



## Philip Weir (Aug 8, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> All of the above.  If you want grainless, stick with digital.  Grain is what makes the image with film.  Even low ISO films will have grain you can see in 35mm format.



Can't agree with "ksmattfish" Unless you are using a digital back on a medium format camera, you won't get the fine grain on digital as you get from film.  A good quality 35mm slide would need about 28meg image size to be comparable. Even the top of the range pro Nikon or Canon won't compare with a negative shot on say a Hasselblad or Mamiya RB/RZ.:mrgreen: 

www.philipweirphotography.com


----------



## fightheheathens (Aug 8, 2006)

Ilford PanF + 50 ISO is my favorite black and white film developed with either the ilford developer or T max developer. I personally have trouble seeing the grain through one of those focusing grain developer thingies when blown up to 8x10 size. 
as far as color goes. Fugi Velvia 50 or 100 still give better results then any digital i've seen so far. but its also close to 12 dollars for a roll...


----------



## Solarize (Aug 8, 2006)

So you get grain with film and pixels with digital.  I'd choose the former any day of the week.  You shouldnt be getting better quality with digital than film.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 8, 2006)

Philip Weir said:
			
		

> Unless you are using a digital back on a medium format camera, you won't get the fine grain on digital as you get from film.



You are talking resolution.  I am talking grain.  There is absolutely *no grain* in any of the photos made with my 20D.  You can see noise, which sort of takes the place of grain, at ISO 800 and above, but at ISO 400 and slower it's non-existent.  In fact, sometimes I add noise so that it looks more like the grain of film.

I just sold eleven 16"x20" and 20"x24" prints.  Half were taken with my 20D, and the rest were taken with a mix of 6x6cm, 6x7cm, and 4x5in film.  The prints from the 20D were grainless and noiseless.  The 6x6 and 6x7 enlargements showed grain that could be seen at normal viewing distances (and the 6x7 neg was shot on Tmax 100).  The medium and large format prints showed more fine detail, but the prints from the DSLR were super smooth.  

I'm not saying that grain, or the lack there-of, is a good or bad thing.  To each their own.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 8, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> yeah, yeah but in the 90's photojournalists mustve been making shots with tri x at 800, so i assume people just didnt mind.



Compare it to shots made in the 80s, or 70s, or 40s.  Film technology has always gotten better, and continues to do so.  Fuji just introduced some new  emulsions.  Photojournalists used to have to use 4x5 to get a decent print, then as film technology got better, they moved to 120, and eventually 35mm.  In the 70s and 80s it was blasphemy to suggest a professional portrait or wedding photographer would use 35mm film, but by the 90s film technology had improved enough to make it work.

If you can find an example of a print made from pro ISO 400 color neg film from the 80s, and compare it to a similarly sized print made from pro ISO 400 color neg film from 2006 there is a significant difference in the amount of chunky grain.  The 80s film looks more like modern ISO 800+, and the 2006 ISO 400 film compares closer to ISO 100 or 200 1980's film, as far as grain goes.

Grain is not evil.  It's just grain.  Some people like it, some people dont.  Photographers tend to notice it, but non-photographer viewers usually don't.


----------



## JamesD (Aug 8, 2006)

Medium or large format, low-ISO slide film.  That's the only way to get images with virtually no visible grain.  If you can make the grain smaller than the dots that make up the image in a print magazine, it won't tend to be seen.  Plus, as Matt has said, photographers tend to notice grain.


----------



## Luke (Aug 9, 2006)

okay first of all.
grain is the equivalent of digital noise here.
If you look at a shot made on an EOS 1D mark 11, at 400, there is 0% noise at 16.7 flipping megapixels!!!!
On delta 400, developed as per manufacturers recomendations in ilfotec DD-X, grain is visible as soon as the width is more than 1700 pixels across, that, my friends, is annoying when i want speed, and good prints.
Why was film so underdeveloped(PUN INTENDED) compared to digital, digital had 5 seconds in frame (ALSO INTENDED) and already pushing (INTENDED) what we thought possible.
Further more, I am a slide film noob, is it much different in terms of grain to colour print film of an equal iso?


----------



## Luke_H (Aug 9, 2006)

I've shot fuji velvia 50 with my Nikon N80 using the 50mm AF/D 1.8 lens and it is probably the most grainless film I've used to date. However, my low-end D50 with the same lens in place spanks that film. Not to mention a wider tonal range I imagine, or at least more 'information' to work with in the print than the slide film.

I've been told I can blow my DSLR outta the water with 35mm slide film, but have yet to see proof. Medium format is cheating (for the purposes of the experiment), since the exposed surface area of the negative is so much larger than the digital sensor. 

I've just come to appreciate both for what they are. Some of my most appreciated exposures are Tri-X pushed to 2000iso with giant grain and missing killed highlights/shadows. 

The longer I work with everything, the more I am learning what I'm up against and creating a mental toolbox so to speak to convey different looks to the viewers of my stuff. 

I suppose I could be lazy and shoot everything with my DSLR, but I get my own personal enjoyment out of shooting b&w film and processing it myself. 

You can always run b&w film scans through software like NoiseNinja and mute the grain and boost the sharpness. 

Here's Tri-X 400 shot at 1000iso, developed in Diafine, scanned in 24bit color (gives it that sepia sorta look) and then NoiseNinja applied (Yashica Electro 35 GS @ f1.7, AP):


----------



## Luke (Aug 9, 2006)

Luke_H said:
			
		

> I've shot fuji velvia 50 with my Nikon N80 using the 50mm AF/D 1.8 lens and it is probably the most grainless film I've used to date. However, my low-end D50 with the same lens in place spanks that film. Not to mention a wider tonal range I imagine, or at least more 'information' to work with in the print than the slide film.
> 
> I've been told I can blow my DSLR outta the water with 35mm slide film, but have yet to see proof. Medium format is cheating (for the purposes of the experiment), since the exposed surface area of the negative is so much larger than the digital sensor.
> 
> ...


im more of a delta guy myself   I love the stuff, but yeah trust me, i love black and white, i was wheened on it.  Im just annoyed when i want grainless prints.


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 10, 2006)

The Yashica Electro GS, GT, GSN and GTN's are among the most under-rated cameras I know of.  Happily, they're readily available and the battery problem has a simple work-around.  The f1.7 lens is excellent.  A great 'street' camera.


----------



## Luke_H (Aug 10, 2006)

Yep, I have 6 or 7 of them now...  I usually grab my N80 when I go out so I can shoot in manual mode to know the shutter times, but I love the E35s.  They're the cameras that got me inspired to get into film photography.   

The t-grained stuff seems to yield the most grain-free prints and give you a sanely fast enough ISO that you can handhold your shots.   My favorite prints I've got are grainy, pushed Tri-X that I used a CPL and 25A filter on a sunny day with, however.  I figure I can convert digital to monotone and channel mix it in photoshop if I want grainless b&w ;-) 

The act of doing all the b&w film stuff on my own has pushed me from one side to the other.  I use to hate digital noise and associated it with film grain.  Now I'm almost a junkie for the bunched up grain and contrast I get out of negatives developed 1:25 in Rodinal.


----------



## markc (Aug 10, 2006)

Yup. Grain.

Heh. Should try pushing T-Max or Delta 3200 to 6400 or so. Now that's grain.


----------



## JamesD (Aug 10, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> okay first of all.
> grain is the equivalent of digital noise here.
> If you look at a shot made on an EOS 1D mark 11, at 400, there is 0% noise at 16.7 flipping megapixels!!!!
> On delta 400, developed as per manufacturers recomendations in ilfotec DD-X, grain is visible as soon as the width is more than 1700 pixels across, that, my friends, is annoying when i want speed, and good prints.
> ...


 
I typed up a long post after I read this, but I'm not going to post most of it.  It's not strictly on the topic of the thread, and I'm not going to help start a film vs. digital debate--although that'd be hard to do, considering my position on both sides.

Instead, I'll stick to a few basic facts.

First off, to address your initial statement, noise and grain are completely different things, and not equivalent at all.  Digital sensors are of fixed sensitivity, which is a product of surface area (need I point out that this is fixed?), and therefore require amplification, which introduces noise.  Silver grains are of variable size, and therefore variable sensitivity, and therefore require no amplification, per se.  However, as grain size increases, resolution decreases.  No digital image is ever without noise, just as no film-based image is ever without grain.  Both technologies have tradeoffs for sensitivity--digital trades the accuracy of intensity measurement, where film trades resolution.  Neither one gets something for nothing, but they trade different things.

With that said, I'll add that you are absolutely right that a digital image probably won't show any readily apparent distortion of intensity measurement (that is, "noise") when shot at the amplification factor "ISO 400."  I could find it, probably with the naked eye, and definately with appropriate software or dedicated test equipment, but it's not visually objectionable, and I prefer to not expend the effort.

I'm not going to address what resolution will show grain, mostly because grain size is variable in the negative, and pixel size is fixed in the sensor (it's variable in the procesing and print); they are fundamentally different and no simple comparison can be made in the space of this post.  This is particularly true when you take into account lossy compression techniques.

I will say that digital technology is wonderful, getting better all the time, and will soon surpass traditional materials in every respect.  You won't hear me say anything different.  However, they're not quite there yet.  A large number of other factors comes into play... dynamic range, color accuracy (which varies between brands and products), simplicity of processing, etc.

However, its incorrect to say that film is underdeveloped.  Film is at a mature stage, while digital technology is in its infancy.  Digital technology will surpass film in the near future, but right now, and most likely for at least a few more years, film still has superior dynamic range and superior contrast.  Dynamic range is the difference between maximum and minimum signals the medium can record (in a nutshell), while contrast is the difference actually recorded on film.  This means that the negative stores more information, and can reproduce more of the range of information it stores, both at the same time.

Digital on the other hand, probably does (in upper-end cameras) have resolution superior to all but the finest-grained films.. and it has that resolution at all "sensitivities" or "ISO speeds"  (which are actually amplification factors, not sensitivities, and merely labelled "ISO" for convenience).

Now, to answer your first question, it's not that film is underdeveloped; rather, it's that it is approaching the limits of its potential, whereas digital has barely begun.  Look at where digital is now in comparison to film, and where it was a couple of years ago, and it's easy to see that digital will soon be top dog.  It just ain't quite grown-up enough just yet.  However, it's possible to work within the constraints of the medium, taking advantage of its strengths--and exploit its weaknesses, too--to produce great imagery.  We've been doing it for decades with film.  Some of us, being the gluttons for punishment that we are, work with even more limited media and techniques, such as paper negatives and pinhole cameras, to produce some very nice and quite unique images.  It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it, that counts.

As for your second question... I believe that slide film is usually finer-grained than color negative film of the same sensitivity, but I'm not sure.  I rarely use slide film, so I'll defer to those more knowledgeable about it.


----------



## JamesD (Aug 10, 2006)

Just to reiterate here... I'm not trying to start or assist with a film vs. digital debate here.  I've tried to present a balanced, factual explanation of a few concepts that seem misunderstood or overlooked, without knocking or promoting either medium more than the other.  Yes, I'm a film guy, but that's because I prefer it, not because I think digital is evil.  And I can afford a film camera, but not a digital one.

Let's try to not get up in arms, try to remain civil, and hopefully each of us may attain enlightenment greather than what we already posess.  Myself included.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 10, 2006)

Grain is your friend/// learn to use it...I have spoken


----------



## Luke (Aug 11, 2006)

yeah yeah i get you, I'm no noob when it comes to flim, and I like it much more, MUCH more than digital in most respects, except when i want a grainless print, thats the only time i get annoyed.  
First of all, yeah of course grain and noise are different, and i know that they are fixed sensitivty sensors, but, digital gets noise while film gets grainl, so really, theyre the same thing with the exception of this:  digital noise looks crap, while grain is rather nice.  when i asked why film was underdeveloped i was expressing surprise that the limits of a physical reproduction of the same size (35mm) were so different to the digital equivalent.
That being said.  
Delta 100 with the 25A is friggin awesome and i wouldnt give up the ability to shoot handheld, silently, stealthily with no meter capturing street moments for the world and still being able to use images that are a stop under of over.  
And yes, I would probably trade my film cameras for an EOS-1D mark II, It's an amazing cam!


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 11, 2006)

I have little to add to this debated other that I agree with Matt that 35mm DSLR are already sharper that MF film.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 11, 2006)

Did you mean sharp or grainless.  I m sure you didnt mean sharp did you.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 11, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Did you mean sharp or grainless. I m sure you didnt mean sharp did you.


 
Both  , but mainly that digital is grain less and far sharper that film, he also applied that a good 35mm 8mp DSLR was sharper that MF film.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 11, 2006)

so a dslr with a bad lens is sharper than a medium format camera with a good lens thats interesting I had no idea.  Now are we talking after it's printed on paper to or just when it is in digital format.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 11, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> so a dslr with a bad lens is sharper than a medium format camera with a good lens thats interesting I had no idea. Now are we talking after it's printed on paper to or just when it is in digital format.


 
never say bad and I do not own any bad lenses ether, hope that don&#8217;t sound to pompous


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 11, 2006)

I never met a lens I didn't like.... Or a bourbon either


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 11, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> I never met a lens I didn't like.... Or a bourbon either


you must have never owed an Quanteray lens, i need to go find so bourbon


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 11, 2006)

never even heard of one..


----------



## digital flower (Aug 12, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> As such i was wondering, how did people shoot front covers for magazines etc predigital was it:



Disclaimer: this information predates the 90's  

While growing up one of my neighbors had a small art studio on his property. He and about 10 other artist spent all day hunched over light tables with transparencies of pictures adding and deeping colors, taking out imperfections and generally 'photoshopping' the pictures by hand. He had contracts with several of the huge fashion magazines, Playboy (we weren't allowed to see) and others. As I remembered just about every picture from every issue, including the ads were touched up. So, at least some, of the magazine covers you saw were not straight from the camera. They underwent some processing before publication.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> (being 14 i wasnt really paying attention for most of the 90's...)



I know what you mean. Like I said this was more like the 70's and I wished I had been paying more attention.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Aug 13, 2006)

How unusual. A mass debate about which is 'better' - digital or film.
Having worked professionally in Photography for over 30 years I had always assumed that that the most important thing was the picture.
I was obviously mistaken.
When people were looking at my pictures I now know they weren't admiring the image or the skill with which it was wrought, but were looking to see how much grain there was.
Right.
My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter a damn wether you use film or digital, get it grainy or grainless just so long as you get the image you want.

Several points: 
If an image is being used for reproduction in a magazine or newspaper (and that is how most people see images) then it doesn't matter what state the image is in. The half-tone process used in offset litho printing generally homogenizes everything anyway.

Photographs for publication have always been retouched. In the 'old' days they used pencils, scalpels and chemicals on the neg. Now they use PS. The reasons and the results are pretty much the same though.

And if you want to know where digital is heading:
http://www.sinar.ch/site/index__0-e-1744-54-1865.html

I'm an old school film buff but I still think digital is wonderful: it's film and polaroid rolled into one with no farting around for days in the darkroom - and the results are immediate.
But then, I'm more interested in the image than the process.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 13, 2006)

As usual some of the others cut to the core... So trust me this is from a personal point of view.  I no longer shoot for money.  If I did, I would be shooting a medium quality digital slr.  In my opinion when you shoot for money, you produce sufficient quality to get paid.  So in that I am in agreement with Hertz and I have never said any different.   Most of the customers I had wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a six mega and a 15 mega.  They just wouldn't buy any image so big that I couldn't turn the camera to blowup without huge crops.

But alas I don't shoot for money, I shoot for fun.  Now it is the whole process that I enjoy.  It's building the camera (can't build degital cameras at least not yet), it's loading the film holder, (shoving a card in the slot isnt as satisfying), It's fussing over the exposure because getting it right the first time is essential (since I only carry two exposures) after the shot it's developing the film.  Then it does become a digital picture so I have no problem with digital as such.  I just try to remember what digital is and what it isn't.  (I work with photo editiors doing just what I did in a darkroom nothing more)

I lament what is GOING to happen to film, but I won't personally be here to see it, so I guess I shouldn't bother commenting....But then like everyone here I love to shoot and I love to hear the sound of my own typing, even though I don't say anything earth shattering.

Nice to see you hertz dont see enough of you


----------



## JamesD (Aug 13, 2006)

Bah. 

From this point forward, I'm keeping my opinions, my facts, and my lies to myself.  It's just too easy to give the wrong impression.

:banghead:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Aug 13, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> Bah.
> 
> From this point forward, I'm keeping my opinions, my facts, and my lies to myself.  It's just too easy to give the wrong impression.


But you gave the right impression - and I was agreeing with you, only phrasing it differently. (To be honest I didn't read your post properly first time around - I was looking at the previous ones and being lazy) Although having me agree with you is not necessarily a good thing


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 14, 2006)

A personal note to all on this thread;

Please don't become disgruntled.  Please.

You are all my photographic friends.  All of you.  And sometimes more than simply photographic.  I have learned much by reading your posts.  I have learned, with time, to 'read' your personalities and to adjust and relate to them.

It has come at a price: when any of you feel hurt, I hurt with you.  I think it's called empathy.  In one of the Scandinavian languoages, the phrase is 'Oof da.'


----------



## Luke (Aug 14, 2006)

hehe, im not disgruntled, like most here, i think digital is cool but i have my reasons for shooting film.  I've come to my descision, i want grainless prints, ill shoot pan f, digital, or MF.  Easy.
I think HVR is def right, but to be honest, i didnt really see this turning into a digi verse film debate.  Yeah, when i can buy a mf digi back i will, then again, when i can buy a leica i will, and when i can buy a EOS-1 mk11 i will.  So for now im going to crank up the delta to 1600 and have some fun.
And yeah, i will be angry when flim gets the heave ho, hopefully ilford will keep supporting diehards though .
 peace out


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 14, 2006)

I'm gonna shoot it as long as they make and hopefully It'll still be around when I'm gone.

If I should accidentally outlast film, I will be looking for a way to retro fit a good lens on a cheap digital camera.


----------



## PNA (Aug 15, 2006)

I've got $.02......!!!

I read all the above threads and have determined that y&#8217;al are right! 

However, the bottom line as I see it is this&#8230;&#8230;all of us enjoy shooting regardless of the format, film or digital, that&#8217;s why we&#8217;re here. The method we use to the final print differs greatly but the end results are close enough to be the same. There&#8217;s only two people who count regarding the final print, you and the customer (assuming the prints are being sold). One of you stated that the customer realistically couldn&#8217;t see what the grain/noise levels are and wasn&#8217;t really concerned with it, just the way the picture looked! And you&#8217;re right.  I was in the printing business for several years and to a customer, none of them knew that a finished color print from a 4 color press was made up of thousand, nay millions of DPIs. And that each dot was different and that composed color dots made the picture, they were amazed when they examined the print with a 10X glass. The technology of the industry has changed with the intro of digital.

I do agree that the digital world has over taken film and for many reasons, but that doesn&#8217;t make it better (or worse) than what film still has to offer.


----------



## santino (Aug 20, 2006)

I personally like grain, my latest 30x30 cm print was shot with the Pentacon Six (6x6) with Biometar 80mm lens on Lucky 400 film, underexposed at 1000 ISO and developed in Ilford Multigrade RC developer for 5 mins. it's my fav. way to get much grain (thought I don't use it with 35mm film because it gets useless unless you really want a "graphical" effect).


----------



## JoeVanCleave (Sep 9, 2006)

Luke said:
			
		

> ....As such i was wondering, how did people shoot front covers for magazines etc predigital...


 
Back in 'the day', most (color) magazine covers were shot using transparency film, not C-41 or B/W. 

And it was much slower than EI400 film. Usually less than EI100.

And it was usually medium format 6x6 or 6x7 (Hasselblad or Mamiya were common), not 35mm. Which is one reason why medium format systems are now being dumped so cheaply: professionals have refreshed their equipment inventory with electronic imaging systems. For high-dollar fashion magazines and the like, 4"x5" transparency film was not uncommon.

And they used lots of bright lights, which is why all those high-powered flash and continuous lighting systems were maturely developed technologies years prior to electronic imaging: you needed the light because of the slow, high resolution film.

And most color films strictly speaking don't have "grain" in the same way that silver gelatin B/W films do; instead, they have 'dye globules', which make them appear to be less "grainy", for the same ISO, as compared to silver gelatin B/W film. Which, by the way, is one reason why the newer B/W C-41 films look so good.


----------



## JDP (Sep 9, 2006)

Oi. Anyone else feeling old? I turn thi...

I turn thir......

I enter my 3rd decade towards the end of this month, and I remember my HS photography class in 92 with Pentax K1000s.

I need a drink now.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 9, 2006)

The best looking film I ever shot bar none was the kodachrome 25 slide film. In 120 that stuff was flawless....

Agfa made some c41 stuff I have 35mm 25x30 grainless prints on my stuido wall made with their 25 speed.... also the origninal kodak c41 25 speed later called royal gold.... I only shot it in 35 but I bet it would hae been great in 120 except it scratched so easily.


----------



## JamesD (Sep 9, 2006)

JDP said:
			
		

> Oi. Anyone else feeling old? I turn thi...
> 
> I turn thir......
> 
> ...




Are you sure it's not your fourth decade? :twisted: 

I'm in my third decade now... it sucks.  Used to always want to grow up, now I'd love to be a teenager again...


----------



## mysteryscribe (Sep 9, 2006)

but with money and a cool car...


----------



## Don Simon (Sep 10, 2006)

Luke_H said:
			
		

> Here's Tri-X 400 shot at 1000iso, developed in Diafine, scanned in 24bit color (gives it that sepia sorta look) and then NoiseNinja applied (Yashica Electro 35 GS @ f1.7, AP):


Sorry for getting off-topic, but... ooh. That's nice. Have you sharpened that with the software, or is the image really that sharp with the lens wide open? If the latter, I'm suddenly feeling the need to add an Electro to my collection.

Anywho...
The film vs digital thing just goes round and round, in fact I'm pretty sure Dante wrote about a circle of hell in which one is forced to endlessly debate the merits of full-frame DSLR RAW files versus drum-scanned 6x6 negatives. Ultimately, you just need to use what _you_ feel is the best tool for getting the image you want. I mean, as long as you're not using a pinhole, right? (Having lit the touchpaper, I will now retire to a safe distance and wait for Mysteryscribe to explode  )


----------



## JamesD (Oct 1, 2006)

ZaphodB said:
			
		

> Ultimately, you just need to use what _you_ feel is the best tool for getting the image you want. I mean, as long as you're not using a pinhole, right?



_-counts to ten, counts to twenty... counts to.... six and a half...-_ 

BLASPHEMY!!

You'll pry my pinholes out of my cerealbox cameras, which you'll have to pry out of my hands, when I'm cold, dead, and have given up on haunting!

_-grumbles about these upstart photographers and their "glass lenses"-_


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 1, 2006)

oh hell james go shoot a pinhole lol...


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 1, 2006)

Sorry fellas, couldn't resist :lmao:


----------



## fmw (Oct 6, 2006)

I remember in the 90's when art directors started wanting digital images for Photoshop. I couldn't just send transparencies.  I had to digitize my transparencies to deliver them on CD.  I would make a 4X5 or medium format exposure on transparency film and then scan the film and compress the dickens out of it to get it to the art directors in the form they wanted.   

I used to scratch my head and wonder why I spent the money for those wonderful Schneider lenses on the view camera.  We had stopped actually using that amazing image making power years earlier when they stopped using process cameras in the printing business.

The images that current-technology digital cameras are producing are better than what the ad agencies and publishers were actually using 10 years ago to be sure.  Perhaps not as good as the images we used with process cameras.  It's been a long time since Ansel Adams labored over his beloved 8X10 negatives.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Oct 6, 2006)

not to mention pack muled them into jellystone.  Ah the smell of mule sweat.


----------



## Don Simon (Oct 8, 2006)

So not content with using an obsolete format, this Amstel Adams or whatever his name is insists on using _mules_ instead of flying in on private helicopter? Sounds like the man's being wilfully obtuse. Look, the guy hasn't even set up a DeviantArt account... 

:sillysmi:


----------



## rwebbart (Nov 7, 2006)

EDIT
Everything I said was said earlier in the thread, so nevermind. It's what I get for being to lazy to read.


----------



## fmw (Nov 8, 2006)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Several points:
> If an image is being used for reproduction in a magazine or newspaper (and that is how most people see images) then it doesn't matter what state the image is in. The half-tone process used in offset litho printing generally homogenizes everything anyway.
> 
> .


 
There you go.  I was going to answer the question but he has answered it succinctly right there.  That's why you don't see grain in photos that come from a printing press.


----------

