Film rules..........But......................

[arinc429]

Hi all, just recently got my G2, no cracks........yet............... I have avidly read just about every site I could find dealing with digital photography, printers, for pictures, software. One theme seems to run through them all, mine is better than yours, as in if I have a G2 its better than a whatever, my printer is better than yours because mine uses 4 ink tanks, mines better because its an Epson. Does this friendly "battle" always happen? As stated earlier, I am new to digital stuff, I bought a G2 because as a pro photog I had access to every make and model to test drive at my local camera store. I printed up the results on a $25000 pro developer/printer, I felt the G2 was suprior to any camera at any price inluding multi thousand dollar Nikons and a Canon. That was MY personal subjective opinion. Someone else may have a differing opinion. I feel the G2 is very flimsy for field work, the crack problem reinforces that. The Nikon pro cameras certainly are rugged, I own several pro Nikon film cameras from an F3 to an F5, built like the proverbial brick you know what. I have used them from Asia to Antarctica and they are rugged. As a semi retired photog now I won't be going to exotic places and love the point and shoot aspect of the G2 coupled with its pro lineup of features, the all around camera I would say. That being said, back to the point of my post. The best, the absolute best digital is not even in the same league with mid line film camera. Megapixels be damned, they just can't match up. Thats why I find this debate on the forum a little silly. In no shape or form will my G2 match even my Pentax K1000 manual student camera I have had for over 25 years and still use at times when I get guilty of using my F5. So we should look at the advantages of digital as its a given that quality is a non starter, film rules by about 50 megapixels I think!!! The advantage is portability. If I had digital years ago in the field, coupled with a laptop, my images would have been at the magazine, newspaper in seconds, thats the advantage of digital. Its instant, you can manipulate the image instantly, no lost shots, no 100 shots for 1 acceptable image. Quality is not such a big big issue for magazines, excluding NG, newspapers, who cares!!! I have images taken in the field with my film cameras I can basically enlarge to, well, almost limitless size, 3 ft by 4, 4by8, you name it, but how often does Joe sixpack want to do that? Therefor give up the pixel hunt, be happy with digitals advantages and stop seeking the Holy Grail of film quality digital, it is years, if ever away from us. The actual act of a chemical reaction of light on film is just not something you can duplicate. As for printers, the low end inkjet is fine for most of us, if you want a great print get an Olympus P400, closest I have seen to developed, printed pro quality film. But I'm sure a $100 inkjet will do most of us fine. It's the image that counts, not so much the ultra fine quality. So if you want film quality, go on Ebay, buy a used K1000 and watch it blow your digital away. If you want manipulation, speed convenience, get a G2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rvision]

Good Post. Couldn't agree more. I've had a G2 since early February. I may never use my 35mm again. The compromise is more than acceptable. I am unlikely to ever enlarge beyond 8x10. Now I'm in control of the images, I determine the look from beginning to end. I'm free to experiment and learn. 'Processing" costs me nothing - I pay for that up front when I buy memory cards. To walk away from a shot and to know you have it is a great feeling. How many of us have gotten film developed after a vacation and discover that some shots just didn't work out. I could go on and on but you get the idea.

[Eric F.]

Well I do agree with most of your post. You have made a lot of points with just one paragraph, maybe to many, so I will pick two to REALLY AGREE on.

The so called "friendly battle" on equipment is a big turnoff to me. I stop frequenting forums which get caught up in this childish one-ups-manship. This forum has mostly stayed away from these posts and I generally try not to read them at all. If you feel the same about it, then you will not support them either.

I also picked the G2 because I tried several cameras and I liked the features that it offered and the quality was superior in my opinion. I recently had a shot professionally printed 8X10 and it was stunning. I am not sure that have could, or above average person, tell this result from any 35mm film shot. Most of the time I print them out on my 3 year old HP and people are just in awe of the shots and then IF it tell them that I printed them at home, they are in disbieleaf.

That was agreeing with you, wasn't it? :)

[arinc429]

Yes, Eric, stunning results on a 3 year old printer, great. I agree, this site stays away from that "mine is better than yours stuff" I will return here regularly. Inidentally, anyone catch the special on National Geo about the "afghan girl" A world famous cover on NG about 18 years ago, the girl with stunning yellow/green eyes? Well they found her again and took pics again, fascinating show. I have worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan and much of the Middle East and to be allowed to see a womans face when you are not family is to say the teast amazing. If you can watch it, do so it's brilliant.

[CJMORGAN59]

arinc429 wrote:
Therefor give up the pixel hunt, be happy with digitals advantages and stop seeking the Holy Grail of film quality digital, it is years, if ever away from us. The actual act of a chemical reaction of light on film is just not something you can duplicate.


I don't know about that. After having spend more than a quarter of century doing darkroom work, I have a bit of an eye for analyzing technical quality. And while I didn't expect my G2 to be a Holy Grail when I bought it, I find it comparable enough to 35mm film for making enlargements up to 8x10 or 11x14.

Moreover, I've also had an opportunity to get a hold of some D-60 files, blown these up to 16x24, and I myself am hard pressed to distinguish the results from 35mm film.

Finally, when one thinks back to what digital photography was like only 10 years ago (or rather what it wasn't like a decade ago), and then compare that to today, it's not at all hard to imagine that within the next few short years, any further discussion about digital vs. film quality will only be remembered as debates of the past. Most of us back around 1990 couldn't have imagined how far and how quick digital photography would start transforming things. Oh, we might have thought someday it will come, but just a decade later? And so now, it is certainly much easier to imagine that a decade from now -- perhaps less -- there will not at all be any further debates about digital vs. film quality.

Meantime, regardless of whether our cameras are using digital or film, some things about this photographic medium of our choosing remain constant, namely: a need for awareness; careful observation; a knowledge of craft; attention to artistic considerations in things like lighting, composition, and looking for the decisive moment; and finally, in the end, the making of images which communicate with clarity, directness, and impact.

CJ