Jay's Photo Gallery.

Going back to the curved glass thing... here is what I've done with it. The picture is terrible but you can get the idea. It is in front of a candle. Probably to get a good shot I'd have to use my tripod. Figure the idea comes across even with a bad shot. It is sitting in front of a candle. The colors come through better in real life. The movement of the candle flame sort of gives movement to the whole image.

 

I see a percentage connection here, I go out and take 20-30 pictures and keep 2 or 3

so I think we can say 1% of pictures are worth keeping

 

We have much more throw away shots now.
You know instantly when you have taken a great photo.
Remember the days of the box Brownie.

 

Film while a pain is actually the better medium. Digital, regardless of the megapixels, is still finite as to resolution. Film, being an analog device, is not.

 

Yes, film also had issues. As to quality though you still can't beat analog. Not saying that film is easier to work with or anything like that. I'm just saying that film will give a "truer" image. Does that mean that the normal person will see a difference? Not likely but the difference is still there.

Take another media, audio. I know a couple of total audiophiles and they both insist that digital music is convenient but if you want a true reproduction of the original it has to be vinyl. Does that mean that vinyl is better? For most people, no. It also has many issues such as scratching let alone the cost of equipment to take advantage.

Don't get me wrong! I'm not fighting against digital. I'm not about to mess with film or vinyl. I'm just saying that analog will give a truer or 'more honest' result.

 

I think the analog v digital argument has changed, yes at one time 20 years ago their was no comparison, Audio, & Visual, if digitally reproduced was easily discernible, but now with the latest HD Technology I think digital has passed the analog systems, probably helped by the fact that development and research in the analog systems was basically stopped once digital had achieved a marketable level of comparison, yes in theory blah blah blah, but at the end of the day an Analog picture is only as good as the film its taken on and the chemicals and processes used in developing the picture. an analog sound is only as good as the equipment used to record it, digital technology totally removes these factors. so I personally thnk the hard core purests need to update to todays tech. and stop trying to live in the past.

 

I don't really disagree with you and, yes, I'm talking of theory.

As an aside... One of the most important factors that is missed by a lot of users, and isn't even supported on most point and shoot cameras, is RAW. Most people will shoot and save the images as JPEG. JPEG compresses. Anytime a digital source is compressed it loses quality. Shooting in RAW has no compression hence no quality loss. Yes, you can set JPEG to lossless and avoid the compression but that causes even larger file sizes than RAW. As an example... Same image three formats, RAW == 21meg, JPEG (default settings) == 7.5meg, JPEG (lossless) == 23meg. For most people the 7.5meg JPEG is fine as they may once in a while print an 8X10. Get to larger sizes and I'd want the 21 or 23meg file. With the difference in color handling I'll take the RAW. Just as a note I have my Canon set to save in both RAW and lossless JPEG at the same time. I got a 65gig SDXC card just for this purpose.