Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Wolfox on September 01, 2014, 07:53:58 PM
-
I've tried to explain to the forum the grain of film vs the lack thereof with digital but there's still some disbelievers. I explained how the grain of film used in the past can add to the detail of striations, muscle bellies, cuts, and overall "graininess" of a bodybuilder and that this is partly the reason why many bbers of today don't appear as grainy in images captured with modern digital cameras. This format difference can make a significant impact in how one appears especially if when compared to digital RAW where post processing is an absolute must for the most life like appearance. Then there's the issue of film having more dynamic range and thus retaining more information in highlights and dark areas which is important because its in these areas where we find "the cutts"
So Ron since you have been involved in photography since the age of film and now use digital i would like your input on this.
Now, I'm not saying the physiques of the 80s,90s aren't more aesthetic than todays or that gh and slin haven't contributed to soft looks. I'm just saying you can't accurately judge a photo from the 80s vs today and accurately gauge a bbers "graininess" or say that one is grainier than another. I also believe that there are modern day bodybuilders that are just as grainy and cutt as their predecessors.
What you think Ron?
-
I've tried to explain to the forum the grain of film vs the lack thereof with digital but there's still some disbelievers. I explained how the grain of film used in the past can add to the detail of striations, muscle bellies, cuts, and overall "graininess" of a bodybuilder and that this is partly the reason why many bbers of today don't appear as grainy in images captured with modern digital cameras. This format difference can make a significant impact in how one appears especially if when compared to digital RAW where post processing is an absolute must for the most life like appearance. Then there's the issue of film having more dynamic range and thus retaining more information in highlights and dark areas which is important because its in these areas where we find "the cutts"
So Ron since you have been involved in photography since the age of film and now use digital i would like your input on this.
Now, I'm not saying the physiques of the 80s,90s aren't more aesthetic than todays or that gh and slin haven't contributed to soft looks. I'm just saying you can't accurately judge a photo from the 80s vs today and accurately gauge a bbers "graininess" or say that one is grainier than another. I also believe that there are modern day bodybuilders that are just as grainy and cut as their predecessors.
What you think Ron?
Digital can give great photos of bodybuilders, BUT remember, what you see in the internet and web are pictures that are 600 or 900 pixels and have been made smaller vs an original more sharper pic in magazines back then. If you saw a picture of a bodybuilder with a much higher pixel ratio, the details are incredible. But, putting that image up takes way too much bandwidth and too big for the screen, etc.
Some of the pictures we take of bodybuilders are incredible with the original images (5,000 pixels, etc) - but cut that down by 80%, and you do lose quality.
It also matters on your camera and lenses. There is a reason why certain cameras cost much more than the simple $500 ones, which makes everyone think they are a photographer.