How many old farts are on here waxing lyrical about a dead technology because they don't really understand the new one?
Probably a few.
I am a middle aged pro who makes a great income off of shooting both digital and film and intend to keep it that way bud. What is sad is that unlike other crafts, passions and vocations, the bashing of film based photography has become as much a hobby or pastime for folks on here as photography it self.
There is nothing dead about a technology or method of working that continues to be well expressed in the hands of talented users, but ignorance and narrow minded thinking would surely prevent you from seeing that now wouldn't it...
Been using digital full time for nearly 20 years by the way, it is not new to me Mr. JakeB...
Marty4650: If film was so great then we'd all be shooting it today, and Kodak would be thriving. I find it ironic that the nostalgia buffs have to come onto a site named "Digital Photography Review" in order to whine about the fact that most people prefer to use digital cameras.
This makes about as much sense as going onto a sports car website and whining about "how horses were better than cars."
Neither format is better. Each has advantages and disadvantages. (In the case of film.... considerable disadvantages). I respect those who still like using the more costly and inconvenient format, but that will not change the fact that the market for film and paper has almost disappeared.
Enough with the nostalgia crap.
The market has spoken. Get over it.
Hi T3, people started to accept that film was to become niche over 10 years ago, this is nothing new. And you are mistaken about something, I did not say famous shooters used it, I said they USE it. Did you ever use digital for work in the early to mid 90's T3? I sure did and boy did it suck, my D800/D4 just blow that stuff away, really fun to shoot aerials in moonlight, can't even do that with film.
But if someone said I had to choose either digital or film and not both, I would kick those computer cameras to the curb in a blink friend. People see me shooting film these days and they ask me why I do it. I simply reply, "Because I Can".
I don't really care what the enthusiast market or what the mainstream does, never did. I care about top tier, top notch, upper 1% of the pro talent pool, MOMA, Magnum, insanely good photography. So I guess the whole Flickr, dpreview gallery stuff is lost on me, I never go there, life is to short for that stuff, especially with all the garbage in it.
maniax: And I bought the last roll of b&w kodak 400 Tmax film last weekend in a store... Got even a discount since he seemed to be happy that he could sell his last stock of film.
You will be missed kodak.
Miss Kodak, why do that when there is time left, a potential buyer who will actually market it better? It will take the good portion of a year for the sale to even go through. Also, there is plenty of that wonderful long scale TMY at B&H, so enjoy it for Pete's sake:
Hi T3, I have great news for you. Many of us pros have direct contact with hard working people at Kodak like Colleen Krenzer, Audrey Jonckheer, in fact I just talked to them over the weekend. Basically we all agree that there are potential buyers out there that would love to pull in a few million a year in profit on selling Kodak brand still film as long as it remains profitable. We also have great ideas in going forward in how to help the new owners market it. Ilford post profits every single year, they have adapted to scale....I know I would like to pull in a few million in profit even if only for 5 years off of a business if I were an investor. Other good news, Henry Prosner of B&H will tell you directly that Kodak films are in stock at B&H and sell very well.
So don't despair, Kodak film might be fine after all. There is tons of it in stock and it is fantastic stuff, trust me, really famous shooters use it like John Sexton...do you know who that is Mr. T3?
I am not sure why you write this stuff. If you have a problem with people talking about film on dpreview, then simply create your own forum or ask the mods to not post such news on the home page.
And for a lot of us, it has nothing to do with nostalgia, it is simply using a different tool, oil paint instead of oil paint pro on a computer, guitar instead of guitar hero, get the picture?
The market for film is niche and that niche is alive and well....and will surely outlive your or I. Ilford is doing really well, many artists, especially talented pros using Ilford Marty. You have to get passed this bitterness Marty, I bet it is something personal for you and that is sad, but it is eating you alive sir, that much is clear.
Talented and passionate people use film Marty, some make a great living off of it too....I take it none of the above was ever you.
Superka: More and more people on the street walking with film cameras, today. Most of my friends switched to film. I use digital for videography only. Film is dead? Ha-ha. Just a poor management. There are lots of great film made by Fuji, if Kodak won't. There is no digital to compare with my Fuji TX-1 and Gaoersi 617, which is 160Mpx. http://www.flickr.com/photos/superka_01/6199219442/sizes/o/http://www.flickr.com/photos/superka_01/6812897003/sizes/o/ (ISO 1600!)I wish Nikon resume its film scanners production.
You are talking mainstream T3, weddings, stuff like that. I don't shoot that. When time is the factor, I shoot digital. But if it is not, I can make the choice and that is all I am onto here, we still have a choice and for those of us who are in good paying niches like I am or are like Superka, we make our choices and are happy with them. Choice is good, don't you think?
T3, I shot "Photo-Moto" of a 130 mile stage of a bike race this year that went over three burly mountain passes. Each time we went over one, I was amazed at how many Mamiya's 6, Leicas, Xpans and other film cameras I saw. Mostly by pros with credential bibs. I had a F100 loaded with Tri-X as a third body, got great stuff. There are a noticeable amount of amateurs and pros who are adding film back into the mix because it is fun and it is not digital. I have personally invested tens of thousands in the past few years in black and white film, paper and chemistry because I am getting good money for hand made prints. As for scanning, it is no harder to scan one image of nicely exposed film than it is to deal with a badly placed piece of dust on 300+ D800 raw files. I prefer the former. Film is now a great niche and we all get to benefit from that. You either want to use it or you don't, your choice. But you have to give respect to those of us who use film or both, it's about talent, period.
snegron: Looks like big corporations won at last; film is dead. Now we have no choice but to use digital 100% of the time. I'm sure the higher ups at Kodak knew this way in advance and more than likely had some back door deals with other investors. Thanks a lot Kodak.
Nah, Ilford is fine Snegron, many of us pros who use both are fine. I am sure that annoys the daylights out of you but that is the way it is and will be for a long time, talented shooters who want a choice making that choice. If I were a guitarist, I would want to know I could get strings for my Martin acoustic instead of needing to play "Garage Band" software on my computer....the computer dude, it's that thing that everybody uses for everything that is not anything else but a computer. I have been shooting digital for nearly 20 years as a pro and I have never seen a craft, vocation or art form take the beating that film photography has, by a bunch of talentless technology loving hacks no less. Check back in 10 years, people are going to blow your mind in what they are doing on film, that is a FACT bud!
Both still and motion stocks are made in Building 38 so how can they separate them? Well, who is to say that Kodak is not selling both lines to the still film buyer only to lease the line back when needing to make motion stock? And who is to say that a big, big player in the motion picture industry is not going to buy the stills division and then make, sell and distribute both motion and still stock, even if for a few more years until MP film is no longer viable.
There is still good profit to be made on Kodak film, even the still version. A lot of pros like my self have re-employed the use of it in niche projects and especially fine art where the price of a real silver gelatin print from real talent just keeps going up and up. I have personally invested over 30K in film, paper and chemistry in the past few years because after using digital for 20 years, I can not live in a world where that is the only choice of medium I have to use.
This is not over yet, lets see what happens..
farrukh: Good to see someone somewhere is making money out of Getty images, despite numerous sales my Getty income stream is a mere trickle.
I still make tens of thousands a year off of stock because I did NOT go with Getty and instead, took my highly specialized niche images totally underground. That way not even their art directors can find my work and assign some hack to copy it. Best move I ever made in my career was not going with garbage-flickertastic Getty.
The touchscreen feature is pretty cool, I would like to see that in DSLR's as well. But no viewfinder, not the least bit interested. Makes me love my X100 even more, a real camera for real photographers.
absentaneous: actually, I think instagram and similar effects are most welcome because they make it obvious what to every photographer or every person dealing with photography should be already obvious: photography has nothing to do with reality and the more we actually distort it the more photography it becomes. photography is just an idea as an image is in general. an image doesn't exist until one is able to "see it" not in the physical sense but in the sense of the codification that every image is based on. take for example the image that is used as an example in this article. if we didn't have an idea of "human beings", "adults", "children", "parenthood", "home", "glasses", "human emotion" and so on we'd not be able to see this image at all. these are all codes that a human mind can read. these codes create an image and they create photography. so, photographs are not depiction of reality but interpretations of our mind. there is nothing real about photography.
Eh, yes and no. I use it to share photos, but they are not what I usually will sell. For example, I have largely ditched digital because I want people to see a real moment and know it was what I saw, not what was invented in Photoshop. So I shoot medium format and large format film and hand print it with a journalistic ethic. Photography was once something that you could count on telling the truth, my aim in my work is to bring that back as much as possible.
If you don't think that iPhone photos, Lomo film photos and now Instagram are photography, then you are truly caught up in the gear, not the image. It's just another tool, like Infrared film, a fisheye lens and at least it is done right away, you don't have to sit in front of a computer inventing talent you will never have in real life. A lot of well known pros use Instagram, David Kennerly, David Alan Harvey, etc. Their eye is what carries the image, not the tool. I did a show last year from my iPhone-4 in Hipstamatic. Most images were printed at 10" x 10" and two went as large as 30" x 30". We did very well opening night and sold out in three months, there were only editions of one each, a net profit of 3K. I shoot everything from 35mm / iPhone4 for editorial and fine art use to 4x5 for the same and advertising. I let the photos do the talking, not a list of gear that is supposed to impress someone.
Jim Dougherty: I've been using the Mountainsmith Borealis AT for over a month now. I love it.It holds my d800E and four lenses (including a 70-200) -- in the bottom half. Elsewhere it has a laptop/Camelbak compartment, plenty of space for camera accessories and outdoor gear - jacket, lunch, water, first aid kit, etc. etc.
My Gitzo lashes on in several places.
Its made of stout (recycled) material with heavy-duty, water-shedding zippers.And it has a removal rainjacket.
Perhaps best of all, it has a sturdy waistbelt that transfers much of the weight to your hips.
It has no side/sling entry. But my d800E landscapes all require a tripod anyway. I carry a shirtpocket Canon S100 for wildlife and other snaps.
Not to mention it weighs 5 pounds and has a totally usless 17" laptop compartment, yet another one trick pony pack....
Nice pack, a better option to using a LowePro? Maybe...
Personally, I only use these kinds of packs for hauling gear to a shoot on location, like for an ad shoot. I never use this stuff for my landscape images, while doing back country excursions which are often multi-day, several thousand feet of vertical loss or gain and yield by *far* the best images I make.
I have long since made my own system for carrying pro gear, D800, light weight 4x5 field camera, etc, with me on trips that yield truly exceptional and professional results. The system is simple, no one trick ponies, make as many things as you can do more than one thing. Use a beanie instead of a lens case...I can not wear a lens case if it starts snowing... So we have yet another pack with no room for the most important equipment a good outdoor photographer needs, food, water, spare clothing, etc. Thanks, but no thanks...
Jim Dougherty: Like Galen Rowell, many of us like to create images in the backcountry. Next month I, along with my d800E/tripod/70-200/16-35/etc., my 52-yo wife, and several friends, will climb a number of 14,000-foot peaks in the "Chicago Basin" in the southern Rockies. We are okay with carrying 45-60 lbs several miles up mountainous slopes. We don't get cramps. Our backs don't ache. And some of the photos ain't bad.
Just sayin' -- one man's absurdity is another's bliss. Who's to judge?
p.s. For the Facebook pix I'll bring the S100, too -- the S95 died without warning in Durban last December due to "lens error."
Yeah, but you are doing the approach with that, not standing on Sunlight Spire with it. Ultimately, this kind of pack is for hauling gear to a location and spending maybe a couple hours there, it is not for true back country excursions.
Have fun in Chicago Basin, beware of the goats getting at your food and climb safe. Those peaks are some of my favorite 14'rs, and I have done them all...
maxnoy: It's good money but if you want the best 50 out there, this is it. Nobody is forcing you to buy it :).
I used to own the 50mm 1.4 Asph and used it on the M9 that I rented for over a month to shoot several thousand images on paid jobs, sorry to tell you, but the M9 IS a JOKE!
I had such a great time shooting some 35,000 Kodachrome images in just 4 years using Leica cameras and glass, but now that that film is gone, there is NO reason to use the overpriced stuff. You can take a D800 and 35mm 1.4G and match the Leica look in post in a matter of minutes if not seconds.
I'm sorry, but in the digital age, there is no reason whatsoever to use Leica with the way they have priced this stuff. 7 grand for a 50/2 that in the hands of the talentless hacks in the Leica forum on this site? You have seriously lost it Leica. getting rid of that stuff was the best thing I ever did.
I'm about 7,000 clicks into my D800 now, just finished processing some raw files at ISO 800-12,800, night aerial shots done during the "Super-Moon" of oil and gas fields for a a conservation group that will print the images up to 10 feet wide. In short order, they are utterly spectacular, shot with the camera on a KS-6 gyro. In my 20 years of using digital cameras as a full time pro, I feel the D800 represents by far the biggest leap forward by any camera maker in the digital realm.
Read it...and weep.
ojosodo: For Barney Britton and the rest of the crew at Dpreview:
Those sample images are very reasonable. It bothers me that so many readers demand that a set of samples be a set of masterpiece photographs. They're samples, people. and intended to demonstrate purely the imaging capabilities of the camera in the hands of a real person.
How many of us can go out with a new camera and shoot 30 amazing photographs in a day or two with a brand new camera? Not one of us. I know my hit rate with frameable shots is probably 2-3 per month at best and I'm not working on a deadline.
If any of us does have that level of talent, it's a shame that it would be squandered in front of a computer rather than out on the streets producing images to change the world!
I'm very happy to have Dpreview here in Seattle. Keep us advised, dear writers.
Well, I have to get at least 30 masterpiece shots tomorrow once I get the camera, I have a lifestyle shoot to do..:-). Seriously, what most digital photographers suffer from is not finding the right kind of light to make the image reach maximum saturation threshold in their shots. They are almost all and always overexposed by at least half to a full stop. You have to reeeeally understand light to know what this threshold looks like, it is rarely seen on this site. That said, the samples look good, the camera will be stunning in the right hands, just another camera in the hands of most...