> Film is okay, but it is very limiting. Digital allows the photographer >to shoot under a much wider variety of lighting conditions, and there's >a lot more that can be done with the color balance and contrast, not to >mention retouching after the damage is done.
Digital camera CCDs are themselves quite limiting (and in other aspects just different than film), though not as bad as older camcorder CCDs. I am not sure of all the interesting effects that CCDs can introduce into a picture's colour/clarity/etc mix, but there are a few. Colour bleeding is quite a problem with many CCDs, as is even saturation between all colours.
Digital video (or probably video compression), as well, results in a different motion-picture experience than film does...watch panned shots especially. Not a bad thing, but different.
Digital technology is not bad, neither is film. In the artistic sense, their differences are quite useful.
Re:I've been waiting 12 years... (Score:1)
>to shoot under a much wider variety of lighting conditions, and there's
>a lot more that can be done with the color balance and contrast, not to
>mention retouching after the damage is done.
Digital camera CCDs are themselves quite limiting (and in other aspects just different than film), though not as bad as older camcorder CCDs. I am not sure of all the interesting effects that CCDs can introduce into a picture's colour/clarity/etc mix, but there are a few. Colour bleeding is quite a problem with many CCDs, as is even saturation between all colours.
Digital video (or probably video compression), as well, results in a different motion-picture experience than film does...watch panned shots especially. Not a bad thing, but different.
Digital technology is not bad, neither is film. In the artistic sense, their differences are quite useful.