From: Bruce on
On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:59:14 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 May 2010 18:03:33 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)> wrote:
>: I never thought I would say this, but I'm not going to miss
>: Kodachrome. I only use black and white film now, and only for a very
>: limited part of my work - black and white portraits and fine art
>: prints.
>: All my wedding work is now digital unless the client specifically
>: requests black and white, and that hasn't happened yet in 2010.
>Out of nothing more than idle curiosity, why don't you do your B&W wedding and
>portrait work in digital as well? Wedding photography is already so hard that
>I'd think that the extra work of converting the results of a given shoot to
>B&W would be pretty much at the noise level. Do you really get noticeably
>better results with film?

Obviously I could, but the results are quite different. Of course I
can quite easily produce a synthesised B&W image from a digital file,
but it just isn't the same.

Whether the film result is "noticeably better" is a matter of opinion,
and I don't intend to start a debate on that here, not when far more
suitable forums exist elsewhere, where it has already been discussed
to death many times. ;-)

I omitted to mention that I keep a small stock of Fuji Provia 4x5 inch
sheet film which I use for architectural photography and landscapes.
However, because of the recession, opportunities to use it are rare,
so I forgot to mention it. Until mid-2009 I also used 4x5 for food
photography. But now I do all that with a Hasselblad DSLR. Being
able to review shots immediately after taking them is invaluable.

So for me, apart from a small amount of B&W work, film is dead.

From: bart.c on
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <2010051201090774831-adunc79617(a)mypacksnet>, Michael
> <adunc79617(a)> wrote:
>> Metaphor seems lost on you.
> facts seems lost on you
>> Despite not having physical "pixels," Kodachrome "outpixels" any
>> digital media short of, perhaps, the $30K Hasselblad.
> not even remotely true. kodachrome is (was) good, but digital is
> better, and one need not spend even 1/10th of the $30k to do it.

> what are you going to do when the single remaining kodachrome lab
> ceases to process it?

I've used ektachrome to shoot stereoscopic images, on 6x6cm film. The
results can be excellent, but 3D photography has never been that popular or
everyone would have been doing it decades ago.

>> And 3-D is 3-D no
>> matter what technology you use to achieve it.
> nope
>> There are 3 spatial
>> dimensions and the stereo realist recorded them all. That it used a
>> different technology does not impact the end result, a 3-D picture.
> some 3d systems do not need special viewers or glasses, so yes, it does
> matter.

It's not clear exactly how this new system works; it talks about bouncing UV
light off objects in the scene.

But it's unlikely to be true 3D (you would need a hologram to get close, or
a complicated setup with dozens of cameras). And to see a stereoscopic view
of a still image, anything involving a TV screen (with it's 2M pixels) is
not going to be as good as medium format transparencies viewed widefield
with optics.