Thread: Stirring the Film vs digital pot...

I think it's a mute point at this stage. Digital sensors are improving in both sensitivity and resolution every year, while every year another cherished film stock stops being manufactured.

Meanwhile, these articles are starting to use the same sorts of phrases that the old "Vinyl vs CD" articles used to use.

Yes, pretty much a mute point - don't hear much of it any more. Used to be a moot point though.

John

"... old vynal vs CD debate..."

Yes, having lived through that all, I can agree.. to a point.

But it did'nt take many decades before Philips/Sony engineers conceded that they 'may' have got it wrong... regarding limits of frequency response and noise-floor, neither of which was a limited with the old technology.

Medical specialists have been one of the biggest single users of Kodachrome, because under reasonable storage conditions it is 'Forever' and colour/balance does not alter at all.

Sales of B&W film and paper are as good as ever. I am actually re establishing a darkroom , there's something special about watching prints develop.
I doubt I would use colour film again, digital has improved so much.
Pete

Reluctantly, I gotta agree. Even my old flip-phone (Samsung) does an impressive job of colour pics, especially in marginal light...
- Lens is virtually unbreakable too..... )

However, I'd respectfully argue that 'Film/Paper' for B&W has more... "Oomph". Remember, that what isn't obvious can be just as important (artistically) as what is.

A drum scanner used to cost $300,000 !!!

But ... the advantage of digital is not in the resolution ... its in being able to evaluate your shots on the run. This doesn't effect many Pro photographers, who know what they are doing, are practised and prepare for each event or photograph. But it sure effects amateurs.

And then there's video ... which is available now in various digital formats. Hopefully the film buffs aren't arguing that film is better for the amateur.