>> |
Anonymous
>>69191 I never insulted anyone like you did, I just said what I think, is that a crime? The reason I posted this is because I see a lot of people that thinks that analogic is an "already dead" technlology because it's "already surpassed" by digital. More professionals are starting to use digital, only because it's more cost effective and a easy medium to manage, you can store the photos on dvds or even retouch your photos with photoshop and it's less an hassle to distribute more copies. By the way, in addition to what you said about grains, do you really think that a printer or monitor can reproduce perfectly the image you have stored on your digital camera? It all depends on the quality of the printer/monitor and the quality of the medium you are going to print, and all those mediums I've seen this far can't really reproduce as many details as grains can. The truth is: If you buy the best equipment that's avaible in digital photography and compare it with the best equipment that's avaible in analogic photography, you can bet that analogic would win. Also with digital photos you lose a lot of that "magic" that makes analogic photos so beautiful, I can't explain that, but every time I see a digital photo I have the sensation that something is missing, it's like the sensation you get when you listen to a digital hi-fi music and compare it with vinyl.
|