Shutterbug Strasse

A photographer's haven for the lastest in digital or traditional film cameras.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

No, it just smells bad...

Posted by Frunobulax on August 13, 2003 at 07:31:27:
I have been really impressed with the Kodak 14N. When used correctly, it gives a "film look" to digital photos. You have to shoot it like negative film. Overexpose & pull the highlights back in software. You can do this with this camera because it has a larger than normal (for digital) exposure range. Even when you push the ISO rating on the camera, the increase in noise looks like film grain and NOT electronically generated square pixel artifacts.
The camera has taken many hits by people who really want Kodak to fail, but most have never used the camera or the software. And, many who have used the camera have not become proficient with the software and expect the same image out of the camera that they get with a 10D with no processing. Good images take some work.
I hate to say it, but the resolution of this camera approaches medium format. I hate to say it because I own about $15K in medium format equipment. Also, many, many digiholics confuse sharpness with detail. While it is true that you can take a 6 megapixel camera image and print it 24 x 30 - and it will look "sharp" - it lacks in detail. Sharp does not equal detail.
The unique thing about film is the different "looks" you can get just by shooting it. Velvia looks different than Provia, which looks different than E200, which looks different from EX, etc. Same with negative films. For those who say you can get the same look with a digital through post processing, I say, "you don't understand how film interacts with light." How do you predict random events and simulate that with software? Do you have a 4524K preset filter to apply? How about a 5001K filter, etc.
Digital (at this point) is a bit like putting in an upholstery tack with a 3 pound sledge. Nuances often get lost, and have to be created in post processing - my question - how do you remember what you photographed so you can tweak the nuances? Then is it real or is it your simulation of reality.
Lots of questions, to answer. Digiholics rarely want to get into the nitty gritty nuances and cop out by saying, "oh you just don't understand" - with, of course, no explanation.