On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We choose a film, as you noted, to fit the situation or image we want
> to produce, "saturated" with Velvia or muted, medium contrast
> portraiture when we chose Portra. Both are purely choices and by our
> mere choosing, we do not "manipulate" the final image, just choose the
> final image form we want to produce.
Hi, Mafud. It's been a while... what's new? I would say that if we want
to create an image with a particular effect, and we choose a particular
film to achieve this, then we are manipulating it. My Collins English
Dictionary defines manipulate in part as "to negotiate, control, or
influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously." It
seems to me that if I choose a certain film for its effect, then I am both
controlling and influencing the final image skillfully. This is
manipulation. What you're talking about not liking sounds to me like
post-production manipulation... things like burning, dodging, and digital
editing. I would suggest that manipulation can occur both before and
after the image is recorded.
> Perhaps, as has been suggested, we should look for the virtues in both
> instead of thinking about the two exclusively different imaging techniques as
> competitors, as an either/or condition?
Sounds good to me. That will prevent some more ugly flame wars if
everyone agrees with you.
[snipping a lot of good stuff]
> "Ordinary" people may get a 6 megapixel small format digital camera sometime
> soon, but I contend that to produce the "proper" photorealistic digital
> images from it, our ordinary person would have to own an equally serious
> computer, printer and expensive software-digital imaging program and the like
> to get truly "photorealistic" images in sizes at or above 11 x 17, the
> current limit of most *medium* format backs.
This is true, but how many people make *any* colour prints at home, much
less 11x17 enlargements? Sure, it's expensive to buy a printer, paper,
and editing software, but think of how expensive it is to purchase a
complete colour film developing and printing system. People can get their
11x17 or even 4x6 prints done at a lab off their digital cameras just as
easily--and eventually even easier, I assume--than they can from
negatives. This is, of course, assuming that printing from digital files
is as easy or inexpensive as conventional prints, which it isn't at this
point. But I do think that will change very quickly. At least digital
offers the potential for Joe Smith to print some quick pictures at home,
something he wouldn't be able to easily do with conventional film.
And it's like you've said... you won't get easily-attainable
photo-realistic prints off most consumer digital cameras (yet), while you
can from a much cheaper film camera. Both technologies have their
advantages.
> *8 x 10 digital images have been blown up to near grainless 20 x 50 feet! But
> the millions of dollars in equipment required to produce such an image is of
> course beyond all but multinational corporations.
In any case, the money required for someone to purchase a film camera
capable of that feat would be far beyond the average person's means.
> I also contend that as long as "Mr. ordinary" can produce astoundingly
> good images with $7.95 one-use disposable cameras, photorealistic
> "small format" digital, as the contemplated serious competitor to
> film as depicted here, is years away, if then.
Yup, it's hard to say where the market will go. Will the throwaway
cameras give way to instant digital imaging, or will there always be a
market to cater to those people who forgot their camera at home? Time
will tell.
> *I am tickled by the fact that a "lowly" Pentax K-1000, shooting any Pentax
> "limited" lens (in manual of course), can stomp the stuffings out of all but
> the best and most expensive medium format/4 x 5 digital cameras.
And a good land-based phone can kick the stuffing out of any cel phone in
terms of audio quality, from what I understand. But cel phones are still
popular because they do things that land-based phones cannot. Convenience
and quality are always being juggled. And it's truly amazing what an
all-manual camera is capable of in the hands of the right person.
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
chris
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
