TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Film vs. Digital

11 点作者 aycangulez超过 14 年前

9 条评论

jdietrich超过 14 年前
The article is completely and utterly obsolete. 35mm digital would out-resolve medium format film circa 2002, with the Canon 1Ds[1]. A 39 megapixel medium format digital back will come within spitting distance of 4x5 film[2]. Hasselblad now have a 60 megapixel medium format camera.<p>Being able to use a smaller sensor format at the same or better quality is of critical importance, because it allows the photographer to use smaller, lighter, brighter lenses. A digital MF system can happily be used handheld, whereas a 4x5 camera demands a very large and heavy tripod to work at all. Large format lenses are so slow and the cameras so bulky that a mere gust of wind can ruin an image.<p>That's at low ISO. Start cranking up the sensitivity and digital is in a world of it's own. A Nikon D3s will produce useful images at 12800 ISO and very clean images at 6400 ISO[3].<p>For any serious use, film is absolutely stone dead. It still has a place for hobbyists and students, for whom the much cheaper equipment makes up for the inconvenience and poorer quality. For any serious use, digital is vastly, incomparably better than film.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml</a> [2] <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml</a> [3] <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3s/sample.htm" rel="nofollow">http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcame...</a>
评论 #1660127 未加载
评论 #1660087 未加载
teilo超过 14 年前
Ken Rockwell is largely regarded as a crank in the Pro-Am photographic community. He is well known for making blanket statements like: "A Nikon D40 is all the camera you will ever need" and "6MP is enough resolution for anybody." and "all higher MP gets you is more noise". All wrong.<p>The biggest problem with this article is that he assumes that film has infinite resolution. This was just as ridiculous in 2006 as it is today. Anyone who knows a thing about analog encoding techniques will instantly spot the fallacy in this argument. The resolution of film is certainly more "organic" in nature, but it is not even remotely infinite. Film has grain, and while it is difficult to pin a precise equivalent PPI on film grain, it is nevertheless the case that you cannot exceed the resolution of the grain.<p>Since 2006 the resolution of full-frame digital sensors has vastly surpassed film, and with Canon's announcement of a 120MP sensor, and the mainstreaming of 4K digital video, there seems to be no end in sight. As it is, the biggest bottleneck to resolution is now the glass. It is becoming increasingly difficult and more expensive to create glass with enough clarity, and low enough distortion to take advantage of the higher MP sensors.
评论 #1660077 未加载
评论 #1660120 未加载
jnovek超过 14 年前
Some context for those unfamiliar -- Ken Rockwell is considered to be a bit of an agitator in some photography circles and this particular post is comparable to Zed Shaw's "Rails is a Ghetto" in infamy.<p>At the time there was a lot of sensationalist noise that film was "dead", and I think that's why he spends so much time focusing on the virtues of film photography.
评论 #1659870 未加载
评论 #1660106 未加载
stan_rogers超过 14 年前
Hmmm. Apparently he has never shot a grey card (or a Photodisk) or used a densitometer. Or he left it behind as "kid stuff" when he became an expert. One card per day per film lot ought to be enough to make consistent, repeatable prints.<p>The grey card is also the key to getting professional negative printing done as well. (And there were several entire industries dependent on professional labs. Portraiture, weddings and forensic photography were almost always done on negs, usually Kodak Vericolor 160 shot at 100 or 125, later split between Portra 160 and Fujicolor Reala; the prints from transparencies were too garish for skin tones.) Think of it as "white balance" for film. One standard 18%-grey exposure with push/pull instructions would do for both souping the negs and printing. Get the grey right, and all of the qualities of the light, including filtration, come in the package (modulo reciprocity failure if you print murals from small or medium format).<p>[Okay, I'll admit it -- as a photographer, I was an immaculate technician but no sort of an artist. It still bugs me that guys like this guy and David Brooks can make a living at the game without knowing any of the voodoo behind what they do. In our world, it's as if Larry Wall <i>really did</i> create Perl accidentally by falling asleep face-first on his keyboard. It ain't right.]
antidaily超过 14 年前
"<i>Extremely</i> skilled photographers can get better results on film". Not just skilled. Extremely skilled. Doesn't sounds like me. But I love that old tech still works in the right hands.
评论 #1660147 未加载
CWuestefeld超过 14 年前
He's speaking mostly from a theoretical perspective. For me, and everyone I know, the investment necessary for the super-pro equipment just isn't going to happen. That those things exist aren't really relevant to me.<p>Then he says that digicams are more expensive, and that film cams <i>and their lenses</i> last forever. The thing is that, in general, the lenses for 35mm cams are generally usable for DSLRs as well. My Pentax DSLR can accept any lens ever made for any Pentax 35mm.<p>While he does mention workflow as an advantage for digital, I think it deserves greater emphasis. That's not just because there's no need to send out to a lab (or go in your own darkroom with all the chemicals). It's also because of the availability of tools like PhotoShop, allowing us to do all kinds of post-production. Basic editing like exposure correction you could do in the darkroom. But color balance pretty much requires that you shift to digital. And of course there's really fancy editing like removing unwanted objects, changing sharpness and contrast, etc. The extreme flexibility of digital images is a killer feature.
burningion超过 14 年前
Photography has been a big hobby of mine. You can see some of my film photography over at <a href="http://www.zothcorp.com/photos/" rel="nofollow">http://www.zothcorp.com/photos/</a>. That being said, I recommend everyone who's serious about learning photography start shooting with a digital camera, then switch over to a film camera.<p>Digital is a great to learn exposure, because you get results so quickly. You can see immediately the effects of over or under exposure.<p>But film has a much greater latitude than digital. That is, it's very easy to blow out your highlights on a digital camera. Have whites that are completely white and ugly.<p>With film you get a nice curve on your highlights, and so you can preserve more detail. You also get that thing called grain, and a physical product.<p>Shooting film costs more, but you can get great results with less computer editing.<p>But really, there is no great battle. There's a place for both. My own personal preference has been film for black and white, digital for color.
aycangulez超过 14 年前
"A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII" says it all.
评论 #1659724 未加载
评论 #1659878 未加载
评论 #1660112 未加载
grk超过 14 年前
Keep in mind that this is a pretty old article (2006), so things could've changed a lot.