Thanks for this excellent presentation. My earliest exposure to digital photography was the NewTek DigiView for the Amiga 1000. The files have all gone missing, unlike my 35mm negatives that have survived the test of time. There's a documentary called "Warhol and the Amiga" that covers how a data extraction team came 30 years later to get images off of Andy Warhol's computer. They faced many hurdles and finally managed to get at least several pics including a digital painting of Marylyn Monroe. I use both digital and film. Since digital has changed so rapidly over the years, it's a bit of a bummer because my body of work is a conglomeration of all kinds of images from various sensor sizes, color palettes and whatnot. If I had shot it on film and stuck to one emulsion for the whole shebang such as Kodak Tri-X, I'd have a more cohesive body of work. It's like I've been experimenting around with crayons and colored pencils and pens and it's all a crying shame with 30 years down the drain. :)

@LuigiBarbano

4 ай бұрын

The great Amiga 1000! I had one in my attic and was going to trash it... then I took a look at ebay and ended up selling it with the monitor for 1200 euros... not bad for a 40 years old computer! :) I think digital is good ;cause it has a lot of advantages in terms of portability etc. But the real quality for me is still on film, sometime just a mental quality 'cause it forces us to think more.

Dead simple short answer? YES.

@LuigiBarbano

3 ай бұрын

That was the idea... but I don't know how many views I can get with a simple YES :D

I think digital for movies is "better" for producers. I mean really, think about cost of digital and film. No film, no development, no tons of people cutting and putting celuloid together. Just digital file, software license and few guys who can do everything with some click of mouse, applying LUTs and so on. Same with photography. I shot on color film, with print, development and scan is... 4$ (more or less)? Digital is free. No money involved at all unless you print, but even then it is fraction of analog. That said, I love film, have favorite stock, favorite cameras, use them, have darkroom etc. Still, after one try no one will convince me to shot airshow at film again. I am not rich enough :D

@LuigiBarbano

4 ай бұрын

Digital is very convenient. I use it. But talking of quality film for me is still the way to go. Airshow and film... sound very expensive :) When I did the Sun' n Fun for the Thunderbirds I arrived home after a week with my right hand so tired that was basically blocked until I got a good chiropractor :)

No. It's DIFFRENT than digital. Better or worse depends on your aesthetic. Shoot both, it's fun.

@LuigiBarbano

4 ай бұрын

technically I agree is just different, mentally I think is superior 'cause forces to think more... but I'm an old dinosaur :)