My big cardboard Londo...

[A_M_Swallow]

High resolution film is made using different chemicals. These do not form the crystals that causes ordinary film to have a grain effect.

 

[hypatia]

Interesting. It is hard to think of how you can make pictures without an eventual "grain" effect.

Just what is this high resolution used for? It sounds expensive!

 

[A_M_Swallow]

The grain effect would appear at the molecular level - way, way, way down.

Astronomers use the film when they take pictures of stars. So does the Hollywood PR department. Not necessary the same sort of stars. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

[hypatia]

That's funny, AM. I have some of the Hubble telescope pictures as my rotating wallpaper/screen saver. I just can't comprehend how they can get such clear pictures of objects so far away!

And of course, far away = far back in time. That has always intrigued me. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif We are looking back in time as we look out there. These stars might all be burnt out, and we would not know it for (? millions? ?billions?) of years.

Anyhow, those Hubble shots make killer wallpaper! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

 

[snodman]

The two things that make for a good high resolution photo are a good lens and a large negative. Ever wonder how those old Ansel Adams photos have such incredible detail? Good lenses and big negatives (really big negatives - almost 8"x10"). In digital photography you want good lenses and lots of megapixels. Many digital cameras also take much better pictures in bright light than in low light (at least with the default settings).

 

[hypatia]

Yes, I remember we went outside to take that digital photo I was asked to take.

But how can a regular camera have an 8 by 10 negative? Cameras aren't that big. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

 

[Kribu]

But in professional photography, we aren't talking about regular cameras, are we?

Ever had your photo taken by a professional photographer? I don't know about America, but here some of them use those quite big cameras (on tripods, black cloth hanging all around it) that look rather old-fashioned but take photos with excellent quality. It's not your average portable tourist camera we're talking about here. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

I suppose that when you're dealing with situations that require large negatives, the photographer has the technology for it.

 

[hypatia]

I have to admit that it has been so long since I've had a professional photo of myself taken (and that was in highschool when I probably wasn't looking at what the camera looked like) that I just don't remember.

Their cameras are mounted, though, and probably were much bigger.

I wonder how it would feel to be an actor and to have to see these giant pictures of yourself. /forums/images/icons/rolleyes.gif Kind of creepy, I'd think! /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

 

[GShans]

i'd like it

 

[hypatia]

/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif Well, maybe someone will have reason to make a a giant cardboard GShans someday. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif
Just star in a hit movie, I guess. Or a show that will have a lot of conventions.

 

[GShans]

I want to, I really want to, and i'm being completely honest and serious.

 

[hypatia]

Then it is a good thing that you don't mind looking at pictures of yourself. You probably also don't mind hearing your voice on a tape recorder. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

About all I'd say is good luck. It's a tough profession to make a living in, but I wish you all the luck in the world.
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Snodman, you're correct that Ansel Adams used 8" x 10" negative cameras, but those are rarely used today. 4" x 5" negative, large format cameras, as I mentioned in an earlier post, are common among pro photogs, especially in studios. These negatives have about 13 times as much surface area as a 35mm camera neg. And, today's films are much finer grained, too. Ansel's other big trick was tiny apertures with very long exposures, to get maximum depth of field in focus.