Dislike of High Quality and Digital Images - Page 2 - the Fashion Spot
How to Join
nickzantop's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Miami
Gender: homme
Posts: 4
I hardly think that this is a bad thing; if anything it is a good thing. Fashion photography is and has always been in a constant state of evolution. Done well, it can serve as a social commentary. Fashion editorial photography can be so much more than simply "pretty" and if the trend is currently showing the way people really look; which is to say NOT perfect - I see this as a good thing. Celebrities do not have flawless skin, supermodels do have a wrinkle or two here and there...and if showing them as they really look is what is "in"...that's a great thing.

The medium choice between film or digital has little to nothing to do with the details shown - a film image, even shot with 35mm can easily show as much detail as a digital image. For those who are paranoid to be photographed with a digital camera, well that is unfortunate that they are not comfortable with their own appearance. Digital cameras do not add wrinkles, pimples, or pounds to people. So much more goes into the photography process that determines how much detail is visible than a simple choice between film and digital. Everything from the white balance used (warmer color tones make for tanner, healthier looking people and show less flaws), flash (strobe lighting puts out a huge amount of light that produces a very sharp image that will show lots of detail), filters (both on camera and in post production can make a subject's skin look much smoother or tanner), lens choice, and many other factors all help determine how sharp an image is and how well the subject's flaws will show up. Digital capture is just as capable of making a subject look flawless, tan, and friendly as film is.

In regards to film photography many factors determine the sharpness of an image as well - lens choice & optical quality, lighting again, and of course the film choice - not all films produce identical images - there are hundreds of varieties of film, each with their own unique attributes. Some produce images that are warm, some cool, some grainy, etc.

What many people fail to realize about digital capture when talking about digital slr cameras, with both 35mm and medium format sensors is that once the sensor records the image - the process is only half done. Most professional images are being shot in RAW format...this gives the photographer or retoucher a great deal of flexibility in post processing. Everything about the image can be adjusted, from the saturation to the sharpness to the tones. If magazines either fail to realize the customization that can be done to images captured digitally (which many do thanks to hiring staff with only a business background) or choose to leave images looking as real as possible, this can hardly be blamed simply on the choice of digital over film.

In regards to that article posted that said " Digital photography is unquestionably faster and cheaper than film", that is not really true either. While it may typically be faster than film, professional post production of digitally captured images is very time consuming (and costly). As far as being cheaper than film, that may be true for the average consumer simply taking snapshots at their child's graduation with a $50 digital camera...but when talking about professional level photography...digital is not really cheaper - the main advantage to digital over film capture is immediate results. Professional level 35mm digital cameras like the Canon 1ds III, start at $8000 for the body alone. Medium format digital cameras can easily run in cost into the tens of thousands of dollars - the Hasselblad h3d medium format digital camera sells for $39,999.00

So, like with anything, generalizations are best avoided.

  Reply With Quote
Join Date: Jun 2008
Gender: homme
Posts: 29
Phase One P65+ a just announced 60MPixels (real) FULL frame medium format back costs only $39,990 or $41,990 with the camera (a great deal) at this price to get the same results with film you have to spend a lot more for 1000 captures (and you have to add professional film camera with glass that is not inexpensive anyway and lights - you willl need more lights with film) ... but with digital you can (virtually) make millions shoots ... digital is cheap ..not it's quality if it's in the right hands

(H3DII-50 the new 50MP blad still will cost $39,995)

you will see more "inexpensive" pores as technologies advances

  Reply With Quote
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

digital, dislike, high, images, quality
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. 2018 All rights reserved.