OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

So, is that it children? Have you had enough? Are you left to suck your thumbs?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

We are both in the same boat.
--Bob

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Nice

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Finally some sanity. You should post more often. I agree with you and have stated the same to deaf ears in this thread a dozen times that I have a dozen film cameras and a dozen digital camers--all with their particular purpose. But who read more than selected sentences to attack on this site?----ew

therwol Loc: USA

Sorry. Hit Quote Reply out of habit. I'm not talking about you. Your sarcasm doesn't attack specific people. Now I'm out of here.

anotherview Loc: California

The film era lies behind us, yes, but some photographers continue to practice film photography for its own sake. Experienced photographers say digital photography surpassed film photography years ago. Yet, some manufacturers still cater to this niche.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

It's not a matter of which is better. Film and digital are two different mediums that use light to form an image. They both have their place in photography as much and oil paints and watercolors have theirs in that genre of art. It all comes to the point of what does one wants of their final product.
--Bob

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Exactly.

Larry76 Loc: Alabama

Easy Comparison. Late model digital camera sensors use an array of millions of tiny light cavities or "photosites" to record an image. When you press your camera's shutter button and the exposure begins, each of these is uncovered to collect photons and store those as an electrical numerical digitized signal. Once the exposure finishes, the camera closes each of these photosites, and then tries to assess how many photons fell into each cavity by measuring the strength of the electrical signal. The signals are then quantified as digital values, with a precision that is determined by the bit depth. The resulting precision may then be reduced again depending on which file format is being recorded (0 - 255 for an 8-bit JPEG file).

There is no reasonable comparison to the chemicals (photo/light sensitive) used in the older cameras (film development) for ACCURACY. I use 16 bit depth and minimum 300dpi (and often more up to 4800dpi if the banding is an issue e.g., water in sun and shade or sky) before final review at/on 4k monitor for printing on Cannon Pro 10 and Pro 1000 . But then like noses and ears, etc. everyone has an opinion, and no two eyes (people) see the SAME thing -no matter what they say.

For a perspective, check the digital "information" on your digital photos to find out how many separate/different colors are contained in your photo. It usually is in the millions. The sensitivity of chemicals versus modern sensors fails in comparison.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I will just end by saying that if you’ve ever seen an actual Ansel Adams silver print and compared it to an ink jet copy, you’d understand why some still shoot and print B&W film. (And since Cibachrome is gone, no interest in shooting/printing color film)

rkaminer Loc: New York, NY

I wonder what the UHH record of blogs is; this one has amassed 21 pages and still going strong. Such a simple subject; what's better, Ansel Adams prints or digital images? Or to be more specific and staying on the subject; trying to replicate his images with digital cameras. I would suggest that such a comparison raises Ansel Adams to a new height in photography standards, he has successfully been compared to the most advanced images produced in modern times after almost 100 years later. I must say that makes Ansel the gold standard of photography. We are all playing catch up with his images. Kudos to Ansel Adams.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

21 pages is nothing.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Paul, how do determine if someone is inactive. A while back I sent a birthday greeting to someone who had not been on in years and promptly received a thank you. And a curiousity question. I believe this group must have been formed sometime in 2011. I have seen enrollment dates as early as September 2011. Do you know the date the earliest enrollee enlisted and are they still on the rolls? thanks. I suggested to our Wisconsin friend, that his combative responses would at first irritate people and they would argue with him gaining him the attention he seems to crave, but after a period of time, he would become boring and ignored. As you can probably figure out, this went over with him like a turd in a punchbowl.

User ID

I think vitamin D ... but whatz a little bit of alphabet soup among friends.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Try going to page 3436 of the Main Section, via the <Last> button. I see July 20, 2011, as possibly the start of the site, or at least discussions in what is now the Main Photography Discussion.

About active, when you display a user's profile via their URL linked name, you can see either their topics created or a log of all their posts. If they didn't participate once in 2021, they might be inactive, especially for people that used to be active. But, since your PM should generate a personal email, that can / could bring someone back to the site. It's a judgement call.