| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2007 04:49:21 PM · #26 |
Before this devolves in to a film versus digital screed. (Too late?) I don't think there is any reason why you can't shoot both, and remember that even if you shoot in film that doesn't prevent you from scanning your negatives or slides to be able to mess around with them in PS.
For me, now that I have moved up to a DSLR there is little point to shooting color on film. I've never done medium or large format photography, don't need really big prints, and never learned or had any real desire to do wet printing. I clung to my color slides for awhile, but have decided that the DSLR gives me just as good, if not better results than the old cherised Velvia and Provia 400f. The one exception with color shots is that I still like to shoot urban night scenes with Fuji 64t (tungsten balanced film), which just gives really interesting and rich color renditions of artificial light sources and which I haven't been able to duplicate with my digital shots.
I will do black and white conversions from color digital shots, but when I know that I'm going to be shooting for black and white I choose film because I love the results that you get with film shots and I've been unable to get the same look, feel, and results with conversions. I do the developing at home and scan the negatives using an older Nikon 4000, which gives fantastic results and allows me to use Photoshop for post work and printing.
The point about there being a lot of high quality film equipment available on the cheap is also very true. For film shooting I use a handful of 1970s rangefinders (fun, inexpensive, very quiet and discreet, and with great lenses), my old Canon AE-1 kit (that has some of the most fantastic glass that I could never hope to afford if I had to buy it for my autofocus Canon setup), and a newer Canon Elan 7ne (that I can stick in my digital SLR bag and pull out for black and white film shooting with my DSLR's lenses if the right subject comes along).
I think that film will be around for a long time to come, but that it will become something that people choose for artistic reasons. I love the control that developing my own black and white negatives gives me over contrast and grain, but I have no desire to setup a full wet darkroom.
The convenience and instant feedback of digital is awesome--you can take a dozen shots, preview them on the screen for composition and exposure, and then dump them and reshoot if you didn't get what you wanted. But film shooting can operate as a great motivator to get the shot right the first time, slow you down, and make you think more about what you are shooting. I think my film work makes my digital work better, but I think that my digital work has been helping me to get my film work better too.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 05:42:12 AM · #27 |
| Perhaps buying one of her many many cameras for the lenses is one way to go for it. The other is for BW photography...something I have never done but would like to do for the simple fact that 'I've never done it' |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 12:20:41 PM · #28 |
| Film cameras come with a usable viewfinder. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 12:27:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by soup:
you sure about that? film will never completely die out - the nostalgia will live forever. because of that - some people will use film. those same people - more than likely - also own a digital camera... |
I am not talking about nostalgia. There are many areas where digital is still no competition to film. Medium and large format films easily outperform even the most expensive digital cameras. B&W negative film cannot be seriously compared to B&W shots from a digital camera in the way it handles shadows and highlights, in the way it shows textures, the grain, etc. Also, if you consider paper print as the final "product" of photography, well done wet-process analogue prints look much nicer than digitally printed photos, even those done at an expensive lab.
I don't think that the fact that many film shooters also own a digital camera is indicative of anything. Sure, digital is very convenient. |
I cant tell the difference in prints between a Noritsu Silver-Halide Printer for digital prints and whatever it is ritz uses for automated prints on my Kodak C-41 i used to shoot from my 73 Yashicha FX-3 |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 12:50:20 PM · #30 |
| Ironically enough, I just purchased a Mamiya 645 Pro camera last week. If you go on Flickr and search Mamiya 645 you will see some amazing film work. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 12:55:16 PM · #31 |
You feel better when you emerge from a darkroom than you do when you stand up from a computer. MMMMM, the smell of D76 in the mornings.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 01:10:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
I cant tell the difference in prints between a Noritsu Silver-Halide Printer for digital prints and whatever it is ritz uses for automated prints on my Kodak C-41 i used to shoot from my 73 Yashicha FX-3 |
Most likely ritz prints your c41 negs using a digital printer anyways. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 01:29:01 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
You feel better when you emerge from a darkroom than you do when you stand up from a computer. MMMMM, the smell of D76 in the mornings. |
I prefer Dektol, but, yeah... |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 01:30:44 PM · #34 |
Film doesn't make skin look like it is made from plastic, something that digital is still mainly grappling with.
Dynamic range is far, far better with film, particularly highlights. The most commonly obvious place for that in digital is the purple fringing in catchlights or the straight to white clipping that occurs.
Resolution - film is still a clear winner there at the high end.
Archival storage
Black and white print quality, digital is still a long way off in terms of tonality in B&W
The main thing digital has is convenience. Just like each 'improvement' in photography, convenience won over quality ever since we moved passed the daguerreotype.
Ease of getting good prints, simply. A cheap 35mm camera and a good lab outperforms many digital cameras and their users with photoshop. Film is still a much simpler proposition to get good final prints than digital.
But anyway, Film is Dead
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 13:36:56. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 01:47:36 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Digital cameras basically suck. |
So ... you're here ... why?
I think the important thing to remember, as in all things, is what you want to get out of it. If you can see the difference in film vs. digital B&W, AND those differences matter to you, then use film. I can't, but then, I can't hear the differences audiophiles talk about in various audio formats, either.
If you want to take action shots, look at those characteristics. If you're into bizarre colors or weird focal planes, look into that stuff. Etc.
To just say "film is dead" or "digital sucks" is to ignore every possible distinction.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 02:42:19 PM · #36 |
I didn't say you can't make a camera that sucks make great pictures. I used to shoot digital, and I'll probably get at least a point and shoot in the near future, so I'll stick around here. My point was that most digital cameras have a ways to go, and they're focusing much more on the sensors and features than the quality of the bodies, which is a shame. Cameras are not supposed to be gadgets with ridiculous features crammed in every which way, they're supposed to be tools. Face detection? What the hell? Huge, touch screen LCD's that take up the entire back of the camera? 10 million pixels crammed in to a sensor the size of a fingernail, giving you useless files at 100%? I know, those are point and shoot issues, but DSLR's are going the same way.
Now, digital photography is far from 'sucking'. I miss being able to see the photos I shoot on the same day I shoot them. If the new Sigma DP1 turns out to be as good as it sounds, I'll be buying one, simply because shooting film can be impractical for some things. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:15:31 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Dynamic range is far, far better with film, particularly highlights. The most commonly obvious place for that in digital is the purple fringing in catchlights or the straight to white clipping that occurs.
|
If you shoot chromes, not so much more range as a different approach is needed from digital, but neg film certainly has a distinct advantage in terms of dynamic range. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:17:24 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One advantage of film is that you have an archival-quality backup of the image, in a format which doesn't require any hardware or software to view it. Film combined with a good scanner would be the best combination for archiving.
I wish that more places which print would install the equipment which would print to negatives/slides (I used to have one at work), so I could make analog backups for these images ... I don't expect either the media, the equipment, or the software to last forever -- all of our archives will have to be periodically re-copied as the technology updates. Do you know where (all) your CDs are? |
Yes I do and I think that it is not to difficult for software manufacturers to incorporate old standards into the newer software. The main problem is like you said archivation.
- do you backup
- do you backup your backups
- do you update your backups (floppy -> zip disk -> CD -> DVD -> Blu Ray ->?) You said this already.
When you buy the newer one-time-use memory cards, which are claimed to last 100 years, are you sure there will be a card reader 100 years from now and if your cardreader lasts 100 years, will there be a driver for it?
How long will your external harddrive last? And when the harddrive doesn't fail how can you be sure that the drive will mount into a future computer?
Updating backups, that's the key (ironically I am moving CD's to DVD at this very moment). |
People are converting analog stuff to digital as I write this.
No offense but saying that there's a chance that your digital information won't be transferable to the next tech is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:17:42 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Dynamic range is far, far better with film, particularly highlights. The most commonly obvious place for that in digital is the purple fringing in catchlights or the straight to white clipping that occurs.
|
If you shoot chromes, not so much more range as a different approach is needed from digital, but neg film certainly has a distinct advantage in terms of dynamic range. |
It isn't even so much the range, as the curve as you approach the end of the range - abrupt cliff in digital, more exponential slope in an analog world. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:19:37 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by yann:
No offense but saying that there's a chance that your digital information won't be transferable to the next tech is ridiculous. |
Well, I'm just glad that my 8-track player, vinyl record player, tape deck, zip drive and 8" floppy drives are in working order. Also, I'm glad all the database work I did on a ZX spectrum 20 years ago is easily accessible.
Oh. Wait. It isn't. What a surprise.
At least all the new computers are coming with 3.5" floppy drives still.
Wouldn't want to not be able to access that stuff. Oh. Hmm.
Well, at least all the CD-Rs and DVDs I burned last year don't have any errors. I'm sure DVD drives will be around for ever. Like VHS players & floppy drives.
Well, most of them.
Nobody is saying you can't transfer the info to the next technology. We are just saying you (for large values of 'you') probably wont. At which point, eventually you wont be able to get access to the information, without spending a lot of money to get someone who spends their life maintaining dead technologies to do it.
There are companies that just exist to transfer VHS to DVD, or 8" floppy to CD or tape info to DVD. Because the technology to access the information is expensive to the point of being prohibitive now.
And that assumes you can even do anything with the data when you get it. There isn't much hope that you'll be able to process your great grand dad's RAW files in 100 years time. But you could probably still optically print his negatives.
Message edited by author 2007-03-19 15:26:54. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:20:55 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Dynamic range is far, far better with film, particularly highlights. The most commonly obvious place for that in digital is the purple fringing in catchlights or the straight to white clipping that occurs.
|
If you shoot chromes, not so much more range as a different approach is needed from digital, but neg film certainly has a distinct advantage in terms of dynamic range. |
It isn't even so much the range, as the curve as you approach the end of the range - abrupt cliff in digital, more exponential slope in an analog world. |
True, but with chromes, the big concern is keeping detail in the shadows, whereas with digital the concern is usually keeping detail in the highlights. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:22:14 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
True, but with chromes, the big concern is keeping detail in the shadows, whereas with digital the concern is usually keeping detail in the highlights. |
Right, but in either case - negative or positive film, the fall-off at the extremes of the range isn't a vertical drop. That's what's nasty about digital, not if it is 5 stops or 7 stops or 9 stops. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:24:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by yann:
People are converting analog stuff to digital as I write this.
No offense but saying that there's a chance that your digital information won't be transferable to the next tech is ridiculous. |
They aren't doing it for archival purposes, they're doing it to make the images more easily available for reproduction. You never hear of photographers scanning their negatives and then tossing those negs out.
Good thing I recorded all those precious memories on betamax...
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:28:39 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by heavyj:
Any reason to learn about how to take film. |
1) The pleasure of knowing how to do it.
2) Keeping tradition alive for future generations.
3) It's freakin' fun. Really. It's a lot more fun to develop photos in a darkroom than it is to play with photoshop.
4) No chimping means you'll spend more time actually thinking.
5) Film bodies don't get out-dated. A photo from a 70's model 35mm SLR is just as good as one from a 2007 model.
I'm not going to jump on the film-is-better or digital-is-better debate. Because, it's really a debate that can't be won either way.
It is good, however, to know how to work with film, if for no other reason than to say you can.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:29:00 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
True, but with chromes, the big concern is keeping detail in the shadows, whereas with digital the concern is usually keeping detail in the highlights. |
Right, but in either case - negative or positive film, the fall-off at the extremes of the range isn't a vertical drop. That's what's nasty about digital, not if it is 5 stops or 7 stops or 9 stops. |
Exactly.
Additionally, with film, (at least conventional B&W film) that range can be compressed or extended tremendously by changing the slope of that curve through altered development procedures. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:38:34 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
4) No chimping means you'll spend more time actually thinking.
5) Film bodies don't get out-dated. A photo from a 70's model 35mm SLR is just as good as one from a 2007 model. |
4 - When i load my 73 Yashica (not anymore since the light leak) the film actually sits in there so long i end up snapping off the end of the roll just to process it before it gets too old.
5 - Damn straight! |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:38:59 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Nobody is saying you can't transfer the info to the next technology. We are just saying you (for large values of 'you') probably wont. At which point, eventually you wont be able to get access to the information, without spending a lot of money to get someone who spends their life maintaining dead technologies to do it.
|
I'm gonna open a can of worms here I think, but ...
I know 35mm film is archival BUT. I'm not entirely sure that you'll be able to make prints from it for as long as you might think. You need enlargers, chemicals, paper, skill. Not much good to have a negative if it can't be reprinted.
Sure, you can scan it. How much longer will film scanners be produced? Oh, and now you're going digital anyway.
I'm not trying to argue, but film is not immune to being an out-of-date media that can't be easily reproduced.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2007 03:51:09 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'm not trying to argue, but film is not immune to being an out-of-date media that can't be easily reproduced. |
No it isn't. It just isn't the mess that digital currently is, that's all. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 04:21:53 PM · #49 |
FWIW, for those claiming that color negative film has more DR than current digital technology, I'd love to see a stouffer strip showing more than 8.5 stops of DR from color negative (8.5 stops is possible, but you better nail the exposure). Now how about one from 400 ISO color negative? or 800?
BTW, noise (including film grain, which *is* noise) has an impact on useful DR, so I'd argue that the stouffer strip is not the whole story.
I won't argue that high-quality, high-resolution B+W film stocks can resolve more line pairs per mm at the image plane than the average DSLR, but unless you're intending to do purely B+W work, you're at a distinct disadvantage. Color films, even professional color films, are equaled or surpassed in real, useful resolution by today's better DSLRs.
I do agree that digital has some behavior that is different than film, and not always better. The "purple fringing" associated with sensor blooming is one aspect. Like most CA, however, purple fringing is very easily dealt with. Film has its idiosyncrasies as well, like reciprocity failure.
Overall, the best of today's DSLRs are capable of providing higher image quality than 35mm color film. B+W is another question, and there's no doubt that resolution still lags a little bit, but only when comparing to extremely fine-grained (read S-L-O-W) film stocks. The flexibility of digital more than makes up for this.
It's also true that current technology for digital printing of B+W images has not yet equaled the beautiful tonality of "wet" prints. It will get there but it's not there yet. That said, the current state of B+W printing will please all but those looking for the best gallery-quality output. |
|
|
|
03/19/2007 04:23:13 PM · #50 |
Whoa... hard to believe we are still arguing the relative merits of film over digital imaging capabilities.
Reminds me of the old arguements about which is better...
1-Betamax vs. VHS
2-Mac vs. PC
In both those areas the inferior technology won out. Fortunately, in the area of still imaging the 'best' technology is gonna win.
Let's leave it to the brainiacs to tell us which is 'best'. LOL!!!
|
|
