Hi,
I am a former studio pro shooter, I shot mainly advertising work on large & medium format and the digital V film debate I find amusing....there is lots of nonsense talked and lots on mis-information...this is my view for what it is worth.
1. Resolution & pixel count is quoted regularly, however there are LOTS of other aspects to image quality which are conveniently ignored or glossed over, such as tonal gradation, contrast, ability to hold shadow & highlight detail, proper natural colour reproduction..etc.
2. To produce 'proper' quality digital images DOES require lots of time on a PC with good software and the ability to use it properly..this hardly makes digital faster or more convenient in my opinion.
3. There is an increasing number of pro & semi-pro users of digital actually moving back to film after finally realising digital is not all Nikon & Canon make it out to be.
4. The market for some MF film gear is actually increasing and some items are going up in value!
5. It is true that at first look, a properly executed digital print can look cleaner, sharper etc than a film print, however look a little longer and the limitations of digital become apparent.....I saw some large digital prints at the NEC focus on imaging show, produced by Sigma on their stand, they looked very impressive at first but a longer look and they just looked wrong! the colours were un-natural and looked 'forced' like Velvia on steroids! also the tonal gradation was not so good, highlight detail was lost and they just looked TOO sharp and generally un-natural.
6.It seems to me people are confusing 'sharper' with 'better'. In comparison to the above, the 'Earth from the air' travelling show featured 5 foot by 3 foot prints from 35mm Velvia, with stunning results, which I believe no digital camera could hope to get near.
I do not see Charlie Waite, Lee Frost, Joe Cornish or other highly regarded landscape photographers using digital...they still use medium format film..that should tell it's own story,
I am a former studio pro shooter, I shot mainly advertising work on large & medium format and the digital V film debate I find amusing....there is lots of nonsense talked and lots on mis-information...this is my view for what it is worth.
1. Resolution & pixel count is quoted regularly, however there are LOTS of other aspects to image quality which are conveniently ignored or glossed over, such as tonal gradation, contrast, ability to hold shadow & highlight detail, proper natural colour reproduction..etc.
2. To produce 'proper' quality digital images DOES require lots of time on a PC with good software and the ability to use it properly..this hardly makes digital faster or more convenient in my opinion.
3. There is an increasing number of pro & semi-pro users of digital actually moving back to film after finally realising digital is not all Nikon & Canon make it out to be.
4. The market for some MF film gear is actually increasing and some items are going up in value!
5. It is true that at first look, a properly executed digital print can look cleaner, sharper etc than a film print, however look a little longer and the limitations of digital become apparent.....I saw some large digital prints at the NEC focus on imaging show, produced by Sigma on their stand, they looked very impressive at first but a longer look and they just looked wrong! the colours were un-natural and looked 'forced' like Velvia on steroids! also the tonal gradation was not so good, highlight detail was lost and they just looked TOO sharp and generally un-natural.
6.It seems to me people are confusing 'sharper' with 'better'. In comparison to the above, the 'Earth from the air' travelling show featured 5 foot by 3 foot prints from 35mm Velvia, with stunning results, which I believe no digital camera could hope to get near.
I do not see Charlie Waite, Lee Frost, Joe Cornish or other highly regarded landscape photographers using digital...they still use medium format film..that should tell it's own story,
Regards Steve.