Well, it's actually different, better or worse depending on personal opinions, but it's different.
James Bond: Skyfall (2012) was shot digitally for first time in the franchise, with an inferior result, James Bond: Spectre (2015) was shot on film again. I bet that James Bond: No Time to Die (2020) will be shot on film again, we'll see...
Nobody (except me
, I guess) buys a theater ticket because the movie was shot on film. If Star Wars 9 has been shot on film this is because technique and aesthetics. It's different.
99.99% of the wedding portraiture is done today digital, for good reasons. But there is no doubt that in the top ranked Wedding Pros film has an extraordinary presence. In part this is because of California: it is populated with excellent imaging technicians (Hollywood industry) and because some popular photographers made a sound work, remarkably José Villa.
There are many creative factors in wedding photography, but there is no doubt that those works crafted on film are technically superior, not speaking about sharpness, it's about tonal nuances, selective saturation and organic look. Also in the DSLR range we only have sharp lenses, for MF and up we have many optic resources.
Bob, this was a funny story !! Thanks for sharing it! that lacker...
I concede that a double SD is safer than film, but SDs can be lost or they can be also incinerated.
We have the Risk Compensation Theory, which is quite interesting :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Bookmarks