I've been stewing on this whole film vs digital thing. You'd think that by
this point it would be a total moot point and every attainable conclusion
has been met and the axe has fallen on the old obsolete technology. Or has
it?
If the axe truly fell, then we wouldn't continue to be bringing this up. We
wouldn't have a mini-revival going in some of the ancients. And we wouldn't
have this ongoing claim with every new camera of "finally, this camera beats
film" nonsense or worse yet "most film-like".
Just gag me with a flash-cube will ya?
I believe that what is missing in digital technology today are the flaws.
Those hideous colorcasts where the films don't respond to all colors
equally. The color-shifts. The non-linear contrast boosts. Even, hack
hack, the grain. Come on, anybody with half an eyeball can see that film
sucks pond water.
So, why then is film the "better choice" for some applications? Why does
film have that "I can identify that photograph from across the room"
characteristic? Even Photoshop actions and plugins that mimick film don't
even come close.
I have theories, and I have pictures to back up my theories, but I'm
interested in your thoughts too before I spew.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|