Difference between revisions of "Talk:Travel photography"
Revision as of 18:56, 19 October 2006
My words: "In the U.S. even taking photographs of sculptures in the vicinity of a federal building will afford you a hassle from a Barney Fife secuirty guard, trying over protect the homeland."
TVerBeek's translation: "this can get you unwelcome attention – or worse – from anxious security personnel."
I thought this was particularlly funny, because I'm still a little upset with the Federal Reserve Bank security guard in Cincinnati, so I refer to him as Barney Fife, since he tracked me down and actually tried to harass me about taking a photo of this rotating sculpture like thing in front of a building adjacent to the FOB and Reserve Bank. TVerBeek's translation is pretty accurate, and I found it quite funny. - Sapphire 17:35, 7 May 2006 (EDT)
Digital vs film
I'm a digital fundamentalist myself, but it'll be some time until digital catches up to large-format film. An 5x7" LF image translates to a sharp 12000x17000 pixel (204 megapixel) image , which is way beyond any digital camera out there today. Jpatokal 23:18, 22 August 2006 (EDT)
Film, even 35mm, has a quality level of roughly 20 to 25 megapixels. The variable quality of mass printing done by the photofinishing lab is the one bane of print film.
Digital has its place, certainly, but there is no film/digital quality debate (except for printing), especially if you consider as well the even higher quality of medium and large format film. Digital is convenient for the masses, and the ability to control printing is nice. Film has quality and saturation qualities that will keep it around for a long time to come.
Luckily, we can use either or both.