View Single Post
  #7  
Old 11-11-2005, 10:51 AM
jdb
Registered User

jdb is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 68
Great topic!

I will act as defence lawyer for film...

One major advantage that film has is price. You don't need a PC, uber GPU etc... and a background in image processing (therefore expensive image processing software - barring freeware) to get a good image. Also, most images these day are many many images stacked and processed / darkframes subtracted / noise reduction...blah blah, whereas film is mostly just one image acquired with skill / luck / good equipment (conceded - this also applies to digital imaging)...

If you look at some of the most incredible images ever taken (ala David Malin) they are on film...in fact, I would hazard a guess and say that these images are probably what inspired most digiphiles in more recent times.

Getting back to my original argument - film is cheaper, although if you wanted to argue that it requires $50,000 worth of Agfa (or whatever) auto-processing equipment then you would be entirely correct.

Time is also another factor - I bet I could get a roll of film processed faster than it would take to process 24 digital images (hrmmm...that could be a better argument!)...

BTW - I own both an SLR and a DSLR and my SLR is collecting dust...! Also, after years of messing around with film I never really got a good shot - 2 weeks with a DSLR and I've got some great shots! Merely making an argument purely for arguments sake!

p.s. Chris - how is M45 coming along?
Reply With Quote