John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

A fundamental fact is that the first image is the source from which all else flows. So the care taken in-camera of all aspects defines all future image adjusting. Some shots are just snaps, so why waste image-storage digital storage bytes; but if the image is intended to be manipulated for any purpose, then RAW is mandatory. It all depends on intents and purposes.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

What's a real photographer? Ansel Adams took 5 years to perfect, "Moonrise Hernandez". He did more than dodge and burn but actually removed clouds from the original image. My point is, it does not matter. The final output justifies the means. It does not matter how much work you did with it but what you achieved. If you don't get it right in camera, it is going to be harder to get good results, but that does not mean good results can not be rendered.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Speaking of silly statements …

Kodak is out of business because of the craze of the prosumer DSLR.

And the quality of cell phones and tablets compared to DSLR's ?? Really ??

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

:thumbup: :thumbup:


Well said by both you and Ron.

As you can see by my posts I agree with both: What is it they say, you can tell the degree of a man's intelligence by the degree to which he agrees with you? Ron and I disagree occasionally but it is usually on 2 or more ways to get to the same point. We almost always agree on the major parts of photography and may have differing views of some of the minor steps along the way. And I always value his, yours and others input on here even though at times we agree to disagree.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Absolutely. I made the changeover th digital only about 1 year ago. I like to think that I am at least a competent photographer (many will disagree). My decades of film experience gave me a firm background. As I already knew the fundementals. The switch to digital with the 7d was relatively easy as a result. I am still learning the intracies of the camera, and hope my skills are improving.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

What's the point of learning film first that of that which can not be done digitally? The number of graduates is meaningless. I know of colleges that teach digital only and they too have many graduates, BFA and MFA's. You can teach photography from the ground up with digital. Film is not necessary. And film will eventually be replaced entirely and be remembered in museums. Again, why teach film?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I guess with computers, people got lazy.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

What is the point of teaching history in school? It gives us a background of how we got here. Digital has its roots in film and as such, film is its history. Also, why is almost all archival and large image photography still done on film? Hasselblad and others have large array digital, but most is done on film. Hasselblad is used for portrait and fashion photography and many other things but even its large format array isn't used for archival photography.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

RTFM seems to be a universal limitation of humankind. :(

chaprick

"Incompetent ignoramus post"..... Correct!

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

And UHH even provides a spell check utility that underlines incorrect spellings. It tells me that laziness rules.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

While you may be correct, I do believe that art conservators are now using the H5D-200MS (200 megapixel images) to record art collections. I do not know the extent of its' use however.

I know at least one archeologist that uses his H4D-200MS to photograph archeological excavations.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I don't have a dog in this fight so I am confident the test was fair. Anyone who is biased in either direction may not be satisfied with what I observed but the results speak for themselves.

If you would like to judge for yourself, send me a PM with your email address and I will send you the full size images from one of the scenes I shot for this test. If there is enough interest from others I will publish the results in the photo gallery.

I would have been satisfied any way the test turned out. If the D610 had come out on top it would have justified my purchase, if not I would have figured that a D810 could have made up the difference.

I am certainly not condemning an entire industry and I don't think my observations and comments are in any way ludicrous. I am just not that partisan nor committed to either medium. I am not saying that 35mm film is better than full frame digital, just that it is still a lot closer than the rabid digital hyperbole that is going around.

There is no question that fine grained medium format film, properly scanned, in older top quality equipment can produce images that are as good or better than the most expensive full-frame digital available at this time. In the proper hands, a 4x5 or 8x10 negative is untouchable.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Get it right in camera? I thought so too, until I read the required reading in the "exposure" thread, earlier this week. ETTR is the way to go, IMHO, then improve it with PP.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

This is true and many use digital on digs and sites.. What I was referring to was museums and document / art archival. Hollywood has just in the past few years started shooting some movies in digital but, most are still shot on film then converted to digital after editing/cutting etc. Most (not all) of the digital films have a lot of digital imagery and special effects like Avatar, and especially the Disney cartoon movies.