Damien Demolder
Tharg the Mighty
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 1055
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
This week's poll discusses the concept of formats and digital photography. We are used to 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 5x4in formats for example, but in the digital world enthusiasts are using cameras in which the differences are much less pronounced. It's not just the shape of our pictures that are changing, but the size of the recording area - which has an impact on way our images look.
Do you think the concept of format will disappear as digital photography takes hold, or will the old formats make a come-back?
Go to the Home Page to let us know what you think.
Thanks all
damien
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4248
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
This week's poll discusses the concept of formats and digital photography. We are used to 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 5x4in formats for example, but in the digital world enthusiasts are using cameras in which the differences are much less pronounced. It's not just the shape of our pictures that are changing, but the size of the recording area - which has an impact on way our images look.
Do you think the concept of format will disappear as digital photography takes hold, or will the old formats make a come-back?
Go to the Home Page to let us know what you think.
Thanks all
damien
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6374
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
I simply can't understand how anyone can say that it will never better the quality you get from film. IMVHO it will certainly exceed the quality of film, it's just a matter of time, and the only reason for it not to would be if digital itself were superceded by another technology.
It's easy to forget that we've had accessable digital technolgy for little more than ten years. Give it another ten and then see whther it will beat the 'quality' of film.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
TheFatControlleR
Moronic turd-burglar in-chief, h'apparently...
Reged: 24/04/2001
Posts: 11815
Loc: Not here, it's rubbish...
|
|
I think in terms of formats we'll see more 'free-form' cropping of images. But I suspect, in the main, that cropping will roughly equate (give or take a few pixels) to the formats we're used to in film as they have proved to be pleasing on the eye.
--------------------
TheFatControlleR
And so, my fellow Benchists: ask not what your bench can do for you - ask what you can do for your bench... Ben Chism
Live fat, die young, and leave a self-basting corpse for the burn up...
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3222
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
It's not just the shape of our pictures that are changing, but the size of the recording area - which has an impact on way our images look.
damien
What I do think is that the different sizes and aspect ratios of digital sensors need clarification. There are at least 12 sizes I've counted and the the way they are currently referred to their relative size is by no means clear. Which is the larger 1/3.6 or 1/1.8 for example?
Here is and interesting page.
--------------------
Rog
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9541
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Don't think the use of multiple formats will die that easily... After all we already have 4/3rds and 3:2 in common usage plus various MF format backs. Add to that the fact that many pictures turn out to suit one format even if the sensor/film is in a different format. After all 10x8, 20x16 and even square used to be popular with 35mm darkroom workers despite being formats significantly different to the original negative. I see no reason to assume that this will change in any way just because the film frame has gone electronic...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21356
Loc: London'ish
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Errr it's not a question about Film vs Digital.
It's a question about the different sizes of prints and formats
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
SqueamishOssifrage
veteran
Reged: 13/09/2006
Posts: 1513
Loc: Ayia Anna, Hub of the Universe
|
|
I voted NO because I think there will have to be rationalization of format sizes to rationalize lens offerings. At present a 'standard' lens is 50 mm for full frame, 33 mm for APS-C, and 25 mm for four thirds. This must impact prices.
--------------------
'You people, you think I know duck nothing; I tell you: I know duck all.'
Credited to Michael Curtiz by David Niven
|
Footloose
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/08/2005
Posts: 3188
Loc: Berkshire based.
|
|
Whilst there are a huge range of formats and aspect ratios around, paper sizes and format ratios have seen very few changes and on printing out, I'm not aware of a film/digital format that actually matches those used by paper manufacturers. For various reasons, I think we will see a more varied range of image sizes and formats.
--------------------
Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
|
jchrisc
Reged: 20/01/2003
Posts: 5625
Loc: Ampthill, Bedfordshire
|
|
Why must digital sensors have a rectangular format?
The area covered by a lens is circular and a circular image in the camera would give the greatest flexibility to the photographer when choosing how to display that image subsequently.
I assume that there are issues about the economies of chip production, but these might be less critical as chip founding costs fall.
Body camera size issues would also arise, but they might be worth the benefit?
--------------------
Chris
My memory is getting worse . . . and my conscience clearer
|
Lounge Lizard
Old Wrinkly
Reged: 17/01/2004
Posts: 17885
Loc: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
|
|
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Do you think that the Earth is flat too? 
--------------------
Lounge Lizard
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21356
Loc: London'ish
|
|
Quote:
This week's poll discusses the concept of formats and digital photography.
You know... I'm sure this was discussed in the Lounge some months ago. If I get time later I'll have a search for it.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Hotblack
Dead Horse Flogger
Reged: 07/03/2006
Posts: 7463
Loc: Upstairs in the spare room.
|
|
Quote:
Do you think the concept of format will disappear as digital photography takes hold, or will the old formats make a come-back?
No. As has already been pointed out there are a range of formats already on offer from digital. This will continue. In what forms? I'm not sure.
--------------------
Cheers
David
David J White Photography
|
Lounge Lizard
Old Wrinkly
Reged: 17/01/2004
Posts: 17885
Loc: Cambridge, Cambridgeshire
|
|
More to the point - should we be asking whether compacts and bridge cameras should have the same aspect ratio as DLRS? We had this with 35mm and it was easy to mix and match shots from different camera types but with digital we are forced to crop to produce images with a consistent format.
--------------------
Lounge Lizard
Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill
|
LargeFormat
veteran
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1213
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quote:
roughly equate (give or take a few pixels) to the formats we're used to in film as they have proved to be pleasing on the eye.
I've never thought of 35mm (3:2) as being a pleasing proportion 1:1.414 (square root of 2) seems much more appealing.
As for quality, it depends what is meant. Some may like the quality of, say, a dageurotype. But you can get al sorts of effects in PS. Others may seek a high resolution picture. Bearing in mind that you can get 416MP large format backs, (arguably equivalent to 1664MP on a Bayer as each pixel is full colour like a Foveon), I'd be hard pushed to argue that film will never be as good as digital.
Sorry Fen, that's digressing. I'd like there to be a rationalisation of proportion. It's a darn nuisance that if you take out a compact and a dSLR you end up with different proportions and have a mess in the album. I don't hold out much hope though.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38306
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
I'd like there to be a rationalisation of proportion. It's a darn nuisance that if you take out a compact and a dSLR you end up with different proportions and have a mess in the album.
I wouldn't. I love using different formats, always have. For film I've used quite a few different formats, from square to panoramic, and I wish I could do the same with digital. There's not yet enough choice for me, although there are some compacts appearing now with a vaguely panoramic format, which is a start.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4248
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I voted `NO` because, no matter how good digital gets, it will never (IMHO) better the quality you get from film.
Do you think that the Earth is flat too?
You mean it is`nt?
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558) Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 778
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
roughly equate (give or take a few pixels) to the formats we're used to in film as they have proved to be pleasing on the eye.
I've never thought of 35mm (3:2) as being a pleasing proportion 1:1.414 (square root of 2) seems much more appealing.
I beleive the ancient Greeks determined that the Golden Ratio, 1:1.6180339887498948482..., was the most appealing aspect ratio. See here.
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4406
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
Wasn't it nature that decided that?
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2154
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
Quote:
Don't think the use of multiple formats will die that easily... After all we already have 4/3rds and 3:2 in common usage plus various MF format backs. Add to that the fact that many pictures turn out to suit one format even if the sensor/film is in a different format. After all 10x8, 20x16 and even square used to be popular with 35mm darkroom workers despite being formats significantly different to the original negative. I see no reason to assume that this will change in any way just because the film frame has gone electronic...
What he said. I couldn't put it better myself.
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
