"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 24/09/2015 11:45, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 September 2015 23:39:32 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/09/2015 14:36, whisky-dave wrote:

8

-100 for avioding the fact that we're talking about getting a
good picture which is more than just getting teh correct
exposure.


And to which using film adds nothing other than being harder and
more expensive.

adds plenty, if you employ a photographer you expect them to know
what they are doing and how to get the best ressu8lts quickly and
effecintly. Which is why people pay for photographers.

Whisky Dave, you talk as if to be "a photographer" you need to use film
rather than digital. If that's what you believe, can you explain why. You
say that [using film] "adds plenty", though do don't elaborate.

Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos. Whether you
use film or digital doesn't really affect that - to be a good photographer
you need to know how to get the results that you want, which involves
knowing a bit about how to get the best out of your medium (film/digital)
and its technical limitations (eg exposure latitude, the need to get
exposure right, how to focus). And then you need how to take a good picture
which is a matter of composition and what to leave out as well as what to
leave in.

When digital cameras first came out, they had such a narrow exposure
latitude and such low-resolution sensors that they were only really suitable
for quick record shots. But things have moved on a lot since then, to the
extent that *if you know what you are doing* you can take just as good
pictures with digital as with film. For specialised purposes, you may need
the very high resolution of large-format film, but then there are
specialised digital cameras which match this with ultra high res sensors.
Likewise, specialised digital cameras can "see" infra-red (*) or
ultra-violet - just like specialised film can.

(*) To some extent, *all* digital cameras can see IR: the sensor, as
manufactured, is sensitive to IR but this is blocked by a filter in camera -
which can be removed (at the expense of voiding the warranty!) by
astronomers who want to take IR pictures - it's a well-known modification,
especially on a camera that would otherwise be thrown away.


My company paid for a professional photographer to do some pictures,
after he had done it I took some pictures of my own. Guess which ones
worked and which were taken with a digital SLR.

any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but professonal
photographers are still employed.


And most of them don't use film for a good reason, digital is now better
than film in just about everything.

People who insist that it needs film to be a photographer are living in
the past. Photography is a wide subject and photography with film is a
very narrow bit of it.

Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

I fully agree.

Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar with both
media can do with film that can't be done with digital? Or are you claiming
that someone who uses digital, no matter how proficiently, isn't "a
photographer" but just someone who takes photos?