Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
settle down op, you're the one exclaiming that you are just now learning about technicolor. in less than a few posts, you're all the sudden the snarky expert.
lolz.
|
Where the hell do you get that idea that I'm upset?
Also I'm in no way claiming to be an expert on the IB Technicolor process. But being a photographer with a fair amount of experience I do know a couple of things about film. Now granted I'm no Ken Marcus... Not even close to being in his league. But just the same since I've been able to earn a living as a photographer in both the film and digital age I think I'm qualified enough to point a few things out.
.
For me if someone took 2 identical photos but used digital for one and a good quality film for the other. All things considered equal there would be 2 photos with different properties to each other. Which would be considered superior would depend on personal preferences.
Now if someone took that digital photo and applied the relevant "photoshop" techniques. No matter how good someone does the job I'm most likely going to spot the fake photo each time. Digital made to look like film is always going to look like a rip off to anyone that knows the difference.
Again most of this depends on what someone is doing and trying to accomplish. For example in today's current porn environment I wouldn't shoot gonzo with anything other than my Canon EOS 70D.
(heck I don't even bother properly light the room) But on the other hand if I'm going for a lo-fi noir look then I'm going to do it in film.
(Plus single frame of 35mm film when even poorly scanned still will work out to about 25MP)
So trust me that I'm not ranting at all against digital photography... But I would hardly say that it's superior to film.... It has its uses and vice versa.