Check out this article

[Schmave]

I'm sure some of you have seen the December 2003 issue of National Geographic. The cover story about flight was the first National Geographic article to be shot entirely in a digital format. Here is a good story about the making of the article:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6450-6561

And here is Joe McNally's website (the photographer of the article). It has a bunch of shots from the flight article as well as other shots. http://www.joemcnally.com

Check it out.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Interesting. Too bad I'm new to photography and can't really appreciate the technical hoops he jumps through.

 

[jliechty]

Very cool indeed. Though there will always be some use for film, it seems clear that "digital has arrived."

 

[Lord Chambers]

Originally posted by jliechty
Though there will always be some use for film,

Such as?

 

[agentzero9]

Many of his "issues" with digital could be easily solved with a Canon or Sigma body.



1. Raw + Jpeg (on most new digital SLRs)

2. The images looked soft on the projector - shoot with a full frame sensor (Nikon does not offer one)

 

[jliechty]

Originally posted by Lord Chambers
Such as?

Film will still be better than digital for things like extremely long exposures and ultra-high resolution imaging (think 8x10 view camera) with tilt and shift features. Some people will stick to film, purely for artistic effects. It's interesting to note that in Hollywood, sometimes parts of a film will still be shot on Super 8 for effect (and how old is that format?). I have no doubt that some people will continue to use film ad infinitum for the same reason.

Originally posted by agentzero9
Many of his "issues" with digital could be easily solved with a Canon or Sigma body.

1. Raw + Jpeg (on most new digital SLRs)

2. The images looked soft on the projector - shoot with a full frame sensor (Nikon does not offer one)

1. Even the Nikon D2H has this, but maybe it didn't have quite enough resolution for him. Perhaps he already had a good set of Nikon lenses, in which case a Canon body would not have been a viable option.

2. With very few (and very expensive) exceptions, digital projectors do not have anywhere near as much resolution as a projected slide. If one could project a digital image from his D1X at full size, the quality would certainly be right up with a slide, but most projectors top out at 1024x768, with a few going up to 1280x1024 (there is one 1600x1200 model that I saw in a catalog for over US$10,000, but even that doesn't come close to being able to project an unresized 5 or 6MP image). I'm sure projector technology will improve, and these issues will lessen with time. Still, this is clearly a case of being projector-limited, not camera-limited.

 

[agentzero9]

Originally posted by jliechty
Film will still be better than digital for things like extremely long exposures and ultra-high resolution imaging (think 8x10 view camera) with tilt and shift features. Some people will stick to film, purely for artistic effects. It's interesting to note that in Hollywood, sometimes parts of a film will still be shot on Super 8 for effect (and how old is that format?).

It's only a matter of time before we will be able to simulate that effect with software.

 

[Mordoor]

Originally posted by agentzero9
It's only a matter of time before we will be able to simulate that effect with software.

Simulate and recreate are to totally different things in my opinion.

People will use what they like to, be it film or digitial...and film isn't going *anywhere* for a very very very long time.