FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
General Chat General discussion. Want to chat about anything not covered in another forum - This is the place! |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
26-04-2020, 08:49 PM | #1 | ||
|
|||
Senior Member
|
I ask this because nearly every press picture from the 1990s I have seen seems to have been done on film even though digital cameras did exist back then despite not taking off with the public by the early 2000s, as the press are ahead of the public with technology surely digital cameras would have been cheap enough for them by the period in question.
Last edited by zenon; 26-04-2020 at 08:50 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
26-04-2020, 09:52 PM | #2 | |||
|
||||
POW! BLAM!
|
In Ugly Betty, the magazine was using film cameras even in the mid 2000s.
Obviously UB is fictitious, but when portraying a high end magazine the producers would want to make it look as "up to date" as possible, so I imagine it's an accurate if not implausible way they used cameras up ti then. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
26-04-2020, 10:48 PM | #3 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Digital camera image quality was (relatively) crap until the mid 00's. Fine for snaps but not professional pictures.
|
||
Reply With Quote |
27-04-2020, 10:36 AM | #4 | |||
|
||||
שטח זה להשכרה
|
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|