posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by Noscitare
I love photographic film. There's something about picking up a bunch of photos and looking through them. Waiting for an image to load on a computer
or looking at thumbnails just doesn't quite have the same effect.
Pixels affect the image of a digital photo, where as a film photo has a feeling of natural colour blended into a moment of time. The digital seems to
have to take the colours and put them in the right places one bit at a time.
Regarding testing of digital photos against film u'm not to up to date on that, but from what I assume, if you want to fake a film photo you got two
1. Fake an image that is in front of the camera.
2. Etch or paint an image onto the negative.
You could try a double exposure too but getting a camera to do that these days is not normally an option when the general public go to buy a
The argument for film is that if an object is not "in" the negative then it wasn't there at the time of the photo being taken.
As far as digital is concerned.
1. fake an image in front of the camera.
2. spend hours and hours using a photo editting program to blend in an image into all the existing pixels so that it will pass scrutiny.
option 2 will take a long time and leaves a large area of error. imagine having to blend in several million pixels just to fake a ufo of almost any
given size...bigger the object, larger the amount of pixels you gotta fix.
Well, that's a brief run down of what I understand about it all..If anyone can expand on it then please do.