"jimkramer" <Newsreader1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:2fpiu31rpjgp0kvnnc0gu5leb0ij46ofhg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Leatherman <scooter_trsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >> I am new here so this may not be welcome.
> >>
> >> I shoot digital and film..
> >>
> >> I believe that the skill of getting a great shot has be sacraficed in
> >> favor of manipulation. If you take a great shot to begin with, film
> >> is much better. If you have a shot that needs manipulation then the
> >> digital shot is better... I print only 8 x 10 and the human eye
> >> cannot tell the difference in my digital and film prints, without a
> >> magnifier.
> >>
> >> I say... to each his own
> >
> > May be you guy are talking about some special film and film camera or
> > whatever, but my 2/3 blind eyes still can be able to see the
difference
> > between regular 35mm film and digital.
> >
> > Also, I don't pay attention to the name but I believe I saw someone
here
> > just lower the film quality from 30MP down to around 12MP which is a
big
> > drop <bg>
>
> Hi Joel,
>
> The only real problem is you keep saying "film" when you should be
saying
> "films" you know the plural of film. There are a number of different
types
> and they all respond differently; oddly enough, that is what some people
> like about film. :-)
>
> Jim
So what is the difference between FILMS and digital? <bg>
|
