On 1/24/2016 4:48 PM, John Hudson wrote:
In as much as vinyl disk music recordings, and particularly from those recorded analogue, have an apparent sound
quality superior to that from DDD, ADD or AAD compact disks
To me, this is a matter of taste. What pleases one set of ears may please
another less.
, is the visual output from scanned film negatives superior to that obtained
directly from digital cameras
Substitute "eyes" for "ears" above. :-)
Another factor is that I can do things with digital that I couldn't with film. Of the three images I just posted, the
only one I could have captured for sure with film is the tree frog, as it sat unmoving for a long time. Had I a tripod
and 600 mm lens, I could have taken almost as good an image, I say almost because the tripod would have limited the
angle more than leaning over some stuff hand held did.
Someone else might have gotten the bee with MF film (which is what AG is talking about). Absent AF and instant view of
the results, I wouldn't take the number of film shots necessary to make a good, in-focus one likely. Results too
uncertain and cost too certain.
The rabbit was very skittish, and would never have stood still for tripod
set-up.
OR is the appeal of film somewhat akin to the retro-attraction of things old
and romantic?
Must it be "OR"? Might it not be "and"?
It looks different. Shooting it is different. Different strokes for different
folks.
Digi Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|