Yes they should be placed in that order, not alphabetically because that would make Digital superior. Of which in my opinion it is not. Long has the debate in my head be going on, probably pushing for 4-5 years now. Having only owned two compact digital cameras in my life dating about 4 years ago. They were a Canon S70 and a Sony P200 the only thing that set them apart from the others was the simple fact the incorporated a certain amount of manual control. Both of these camera's were 7.2 megapixels, at the time this was something major. Fast forward 4 years and we are looking at 12-15 megapixels as standard. So does the 'Megapixel' have any worth at all if the same camera comes out with the same size sensor yet more pixels added to re-market it as something else. Some of them claim to have different features but do any of them actually claim to be any better than the predecessors? The answer is no. Until the day I am absolutely blown away by a digital camera then film is for me.
The aesthetics of film for me are very pleasing. The unwrapping of the film, the unrolling and the loading of the film knowing that this light sensitive strip of paper hold the key to ones photograph making. The wait of anticipation as the leader card goes through the development tank, watching the electronic display of which is showing me like a version of 'Snake' on Nokia phones the journey of my film. The initial look at the film to see if they have all come out and also to see if the exposures are consistent. Nothing in digital terms can beat that. With digital you've already seen the photograph on the screen, the only thing you are doing on a computer that’s different when you upload them to a computer is that your shining an even bigger back light on the photographs from the monitor. Loosing the thrills of a film has from the developing to the printing stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment