Skip to main content

View Diary: Voter fraud and disenfranchisement (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's preposterous (none)
    Hasn't anyone heard of scanners?  You can scan a film photo, Photoshop it, and print it out on photo paper anyway.  A "real film" camera doesn't guarantee anything, unless they're going to inspect the negatives.
    •  Think about it.. (none)
      You can provide the uncorrupted negatives as proof.  Basically, get away from digital.
      •  Not these days... (none)
        You can send in discs or actual photos to have negatives made... So negatives prove nothing.
        •  This shows you know little (none)
          about the differences in fundamental qualities of film and digital.

          Basically, to get a digital image with "equal quality" to a film image, you have to shoot at 18 megapixels. I don't think there's a commercially available handheld digital camera available to consumers that goes higher than 10--I could be wrong.

          ANYONE with a decent knowledge of film vs. digital photography can tell you immediately with only slight magnification if a photo is digitally printed or film developed. It's even easier with negatives.

          It's a fundmental difference in how the images are recorded and produced.

          With an 18 meg shot, yes, you could produce digital negatives indistiguishable from film negatives. But getting the 18 meg shot ain't gonna happen with what most of us are taking to polls. It's cake to tell any 35 mm film shot from a 6 meg digital shot--the digital shot will print looking cleaner, but can't be blown up smoothly as far, and when it's blown up, it looks different. You'd have to spend a while playing with print and digital photos and scanners and loupes, etc....but once you know, you know.

          When I was doing graphic design, I wouldn't ever try to use a digital photo someone printed and sent to me as a "hard copy photo". The quality just wasn't there. BUt if they sent me the file, it was better quality than a similar shot scanned in from film prints. Once you go from digital to print, going back causes all sorts of problems, which is one reason it's so darned easy to spot a digital print vs. a film print.

          George Bush is Nehemiah Scudder

          by jenrose on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:48:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  D'oh (none)
            "The quality just wasn't there. BUt if they sent me the file, it was better quality than a similar shot scanned in from film prints. "

            Qualification: In the sizes I was using most of the time, which was small images in a print magazine. But I could do things with film shots (like blowups to 2 foot by 3 foot posters) that I could not do with even a high quality digital shot. For most of my purposes, the digital images were cleaner, because the only "interference" point from dust was the lens, but from a film camera, dust could be on the lens, the film, the paper, the projector, the scanner.... so a scanned film shot was usually less "clean" than a similar sized digitla shot, in anything less than 8 x 10. But blow it up bigger, and the film would at worst, get a little grainy, while the digital would get pixelated and jaggy. It's just not subtle. And prints are even more clear. A printed digital photo is made up of tiny dots. A film print is "continuous tone"... the resolution is fantastically tiny before you get anything resembling "pixelation" on a good film shot.

            George Bush is Nehemiah Scudder

            by jenrose on Sun Oct 31, 2004 at 10:54:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site