Film vs. Digital - kicking a dead horse...

[Capital Man]

The expensiveness of medium format, and the rarity of such
cameras, shows that only a tiny number of photographers are willing
to pay for resolution that exceeds 35mm.

I agree on that point. It's possible that the demand for a
35mm-size camera with a sensor beyond 11MP may drop off. But like
everything else with personal computers, we're always proven wrong
and the demand does seem to magically re-appear.

The reason why we need faster computers is because Microsoft Outlook runs so slow! And every time Intel comes out with a faster microprocessor, Microsoft just adds a few million more lines of code to Microsoft Outlook and to Visual Basic and then everything runs slow again.

With imaging, the need for resolution isn't increasing. Are magazines getting bigger? Are newspapers getting bigger? Are advertising materials getting bigger? No. No. No. Once digital has enough resolution to satisfy the biggest commercial markets for photography, the only need for more resolution is fine art, a very tiny market.

 

[Capital Man]

It depends on the quality of the scanner and the setting you use,

A Nikon Coolscan IV?

but short answer, YES. I love my Contax lenses!!!!!!!!! ALL of
them. As far as I know, I have never seen a lens rated (in
tests) as high as the 45mm for the Contax series G cameras. Roger

I know about the tests and reviews, but I want to know if a real life user gets better looking prints using the Contax G1 and an affordable scanner like the Coolscan IV, as compared to a Canon D60.

A Coolscan IV + Contax G1 + one extra G lens = price of D60.

No one has ever answered that question to my satisfaction.

Thanks.

 

[Larry H. Smith]

...lay-person here, but I have an observation:

Andy Frazer wrote:
The expensiveness of medium format, and the rarity of such
cameras, shows that only a tiny number of photographers are willing
to pay for resolution that exceeds 35mm.

I agree on that point. It's possible that the demand for a
35mm-size camera with a sensor beyond 11MP may drop off. But like
everything else with personal computers, we're always proven wrong
and the demand does seem to magically re-appear.

I DON'T agree on "that point".
(Possible) correction:

Only a tiny number of photographers are willing to pay for resolution that exceeds 35mm [{when they have to buy/use a MF system to get it!}]

If/when sensor-lens combos ever improve to the point that anything like a 35mm size SYSTEM will give MFor LF-like resolution, I'm betting that PLENTY of people (at least among those with the paying-power,) WILL be willing to pay for it.

No magic about it ;-)

Just because we don't buy-into the greater-size, (relatively) limited lens/accessory selection, big dollar (extra big!) expense, etc., etc., of MF systems, ...that doesn't mean we don't value RESOLUTION. The issue becomes "AT what cost?", ...and I'm not talking dollars!

If you really want to talk about what we will pay for an apple, ...you'll have to take it out from that pile of oranges it's in. I don't want to buy the whole shebang (or hebang either).

Only a blind photographer would deny the appeal(for many types of shots/enlargements) of a crispMF/LF print. Offer us THAT resolution in a smaller digital pkg, and see what we're really willing to pay for it.

The "demand" is right here, ...just waiting ;-)

Larry

 

[danks]

Shooting RAW with the D60 readily allows a plus/minus 2 stop exposure correction to be made in Yarcplus. This is far better than I was able to pull off with Velvia scanned on a Polaroid SS4000 when I experienced meter failure on my Nikon F2 a few years ago.

I don't know about B&W though . . .but with colour, exposure latitude on the D60 seems far better than with tranny film.

Very true - indeed I estimate that digital (at least the D30) has
slightly less latitude than slide film as well.

 

[aaron53665]

More 35mm film was sold this year than in the history of mankind.
It's funny to pronounce something dead that's at its peak of
popularity.

--

That's true, but very misleading.

If you carefully read Kodak's annual report, you'll see that the
increase in film sales came from penetration into new markets. In
other words, they are no selling lots of film into developing
countries that previously had very few cameras, particularly China
and India! The problem for film producers is that film sales will
soon start dropping in developed countries because everyone is
switching to digital.

riiiiight, 90% of US households have a film camera and 5% have digital cameras.... what a funny definition of "everyone" !

as herbert keppler points out in this months pop photo, one reason for all the sales hype for digital cameras is because there's so much room for expanding sales since so few people have them. as opposed to film cameras which practically everyone already has.

and as long as those hundreds of millions of perfectly functioning film cameras still exist the world over, kodak and fuji will continue to make piles of money as high as mt. fuji by selling film for those cameras to all the people who simply want to take snapshots and drop them off at the lab to get sharp colorful 4x6 prints with no hassle, no learning, no computer, no flash cards, no digital wallet, no printer, no ink, no paper, no photoshop, no nuttin honey

But in developing countries, most people

can't afford digital cameras nor computers, so the market for film
sales in those countries will be like the market for film sales was
in the US and Europe during the 1960's-1980's.

 

[Tom O'Neil]

Of course a 1v has a lot of features and capabilities lacking in the D60. The 1D is a direct descendent of the 1v but only has a 4 mp sensor. The 1D is almost perfect for what I shoot, and I have no need for an 11-megapixel 1Ds. In my opinion (and based on my needs) a 6-megapixel 1D with a full-sized sensor would be perfect.

Have been using the D60 for a couple weeks... six years ago I read
that a 6 megapixel camera would replace 35mm. Is it time to shelve
my 1V?

 

[Tom O'Neil]

If you have any 8 inch floppies you probably know what I mean. If
you have any 3.5" ones you may be there also. I have a bunch of VAX
11/780 tapes which are probably toast anyhow, but even if there's
something still on them I'd need a room full of gear to extract it.
I bet "biggles" has that room full... ;-)

He cleaned out that room to store his Apollo moon lander in there. The lander comes complete with a couple of really cool Hasselblads!

 

[Tom O'Neil]

How can you say there will never be a 6x7? You can get a near-645 now. They are tremendously expensive for your average shooter, but they do exist.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091102kodakprobackplus.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp

Andy Frazer wrote:

I doubt there will ever be a CCD that's 6 x 7 cm, so medium format
will always have a resolution advantage.

--
I'm afraid I don't agree with that. Regardless of the physical
size of the sensor, the resolution will always improve (at a rate
close to Moore's Law). Today the resolution is almost as good as
35mm film. In 2003 it will equal to 35mm film, and by about 2005-6
it should be on par with 6x7cm film.

Andy Frazer
My website -> http://www.gorillasites.com
Please comment on this one ->
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=229781

 

[Capital Man]

riiiiight, 90% of US households have a film camera and 5% have
digital cameras.... what a funny definition of "everyone" !

Because the typical digital camera costs a lot more than a typical film camera, when you look at sales figures it looks like digital cameras have made really big inroads. But when you look at unit sales, then digital cameras haven't made such big inroads.

I have no doubt that there will be more future sales for digital. Many people would benefit from digital if they realized how great it was. But I am still very leary of predictions like "there will be no more film in 10 years", because this is anticipating a future product that doesn't exist yet that will be competitive with cheap film cameras.

 

[Capital Man]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091102kodakprobackplus.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp

Andy Frazer wrote:

I doubt there will ever be a CCD that's 6 x 7 cm, so medium format
will always have a resolution advantage.

--
I'm afraid I don't agree with that. Regardless of the physical
size of the sensor, the resolution will always improve (at a rate
close to Moore's Law). Today the resolution is almost as good as
35mm film. In 2003 it will equal to 35mm film, and by about 2005-6
it should be on par with 6x7cm film.

Andy Frazer
My website -> http://www.gorillasites.com
Please comment on this one ->
http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=229781

 

[Tom O'Neil]

and as long as those hundreds of millions of perfectly functioning
film cameras still exist the world over, kodak and fuji will
continue to make piles of money as high as mt. fuji by selling film
for those cameras to all the people who simply want to take
snapshots and drop them off at the lab to get sharp colorful 4x6
prints with no hassle, no learning, no computer, no flash cards, no
digital wallet, no printer, no ink, no paper, no photoshop, no
nuttin honey

Most people are not like the people on these boards. After I left the newspaper business and before I took up photography as a hobby, there were 13 years where I ran about five rolls of film (total) through my SLR. If you shoot no more than the equivalent of a few rolls of film a year, it makes no sense to get a digital camera. There's the dilemna though -- the film market might be a large number of people but they aren't big consumers of the product. I think film will continue to be available for quite a while, but choices will continue to dwindle at the retail outlet. 36-exposure rolls and slide film have disappeared from most stores, will ISO 100 film be far behind?

 

[Capital Man]

How can you say there will never be a 6x7? You can get a near-645
now. They are tremendously expensive for your average shooter, but
they do exist.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091102kodakprobackplus.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02090601sinar22mp.asp

Sorry for the last reply where I didn't write anything. Accidental mouse click.

I believe the digital backs for medium format cameras are not full frame. They are a 24 x 36mm frame, the size of 35mm film now.

At the moment they only provide a specialized solution suitable for studio work but not for use out in the field.

 

[Capital Man]

36-exposure
rolls and slide film have disappeared from most stores, will ISO
100 film be far behind?

Kodak stopped making Kodak Gold 100.

ISO 100 film is now considered advanced film for the serious photographer, and not typical consumer film.

 

[Robert P Miller]

Will it ever come? Is there a demand? Are their other digital work-arounds for the result I'm postulating?

Probably an X-Pan type of solution as the imager would be smaller and more affordable than anything as large as an actual 6x17.
Just dreaming and tired of film processor scratches.
Meanwhile, stitching can be fun, but I do not like the curvature.
Best,
Robert

 

[Peter (B)]

Correct, but as you may or may not know, the recyclable cameras (let's be enviromentally correct LOL) actually acount for all the growth there is in the film industry. All other products are in decline (eventhough eastern europe is a booming growth market).

Projections are that within 5 years the connectivity to internet in the US, Japan and western Europe will be high enough that massive change over from film to digital will take place for consumers. Imagine the ease, you come back from vacation, just connect your camera to your pc, and press send, the NEXT day your pictures are in the mail. This is of course how easy it has to be before the change will be massive. And this is the advantage, you don't have to run to the shop. You can do it all from the comfort of your own home.

The popularity of the disposable camera is testament to the fact
that many people will sacrifice picture quality to get total and
complete simplicity of use. The disposable has no on-off switch
(except for those with built in flash), no focusing to worry about,
no light metering to worry about. No film loading to worry about.
It's the total easy to use solution for the dummy photographer.
What advantage does digital photography offer that the disposable
film camera doesn't?

--
In the beginning there was nothing, and then even that exploded.

 

[WH Yi]

Spence: What d'ya use - weapons-wise?
Sam: Hm?

Spence: Weapons - I'm a... I'm a weapons man.
Sam: Weaponsman?

Spence: Yeah, hmph...
Sam: OK.

Spence: ... So, what do you favour?

Sam: Oh you know: it's a toolbox. I don't care - you put the tools in for the job - that's all.

Spence: What?

---'Ronin' (1998)

Have been using the D60 for a couple weeks... six years ago I read
that a 6 megapixel camera would replace 35mm. Is it time to shelve
my 1V?

--

'We must make a film that reflects our time. Otherwise no one will know we existed.' ---'Ah Ying' (1983)

 

[Peter (B)]

I disagree, or perhaps I'm hoping this is NOT the case. With
digital I think photography has become disposable and lost more of
it's sense of fine art. Can I match a B&W print with my Epson 1520
and custom black ink tanks? Well perhaps, is it as archival as a
carefully produced print using the wet photographic process??? Well
I don't know, I would say the technology is certainly caught up
very quickly but.

Your inkjet print is nowhere near as good as photographic paper, especially when it comes to how long you can store it. The colors fade (relatively) quick.

Another arguement may be in how much 'data' film can contain vs
megapixels. Eg a frame of 100 asa print film vs a 6 or 11 mp

I posted a message about this some time ago, see the link:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3374941

digital file. This was one of the arguements for film at work vs
going totally digital as we did not have an archive system in place
and still don't really which can hold the volume of images we
produce. Personally I don't buy it as there are now storage
technologies out there that hold vast amounts of data but then I
guess the arguement is, what if they crash, fail or become
corrupt???? Then film might be argued to be more secure, well that
is as long as it has been processed properly and stored
correctly....

Well, I know nothing of failure rates of storage devices, but the problem with really long term storage of film is that it actually does fade (even in the dark).

Kevin

--
In the beginning there was nothing, and then even that exploded.

 

[Davidlw]

I think that with the introduction of the 1ds, 35mm film and medium format will for the most part history. I was thinking of possibly buying a medium format camera but realized that was stupid with the advent of the 1Ds.

Have been using the D60 for a couple weeks... six years ago I read
that a 6 megapixel camera would replace 35mm. Is it time to shelve
my 1V?

 

[Capital Man]

Projections are that within 5 years the connectivity to internet in
the US, Japan and western Europe will be high enough that massive
change over from film to digital will take place for consumers.
Imagine the ease, you come back from vacation, just connect your
camera to your pc, and press send, the NEXT day your pictures are
in the mail. This is of course how easy it has to be before the
change will be massive. And this is the advantage, you don't have
to run to the shop. You can do it all from the comfort of your own
home.

If people need the internet and a computer to use a digital camera, then I predict that they will NEVER replace film.

 

[Michael Fusco]

Film bit the dust for me when the 2nd of the 2 botanical gardens in NY that I submit images to said they would take digital images. I have been using a 5mp Minolta Dimage 7. As soon as my D60 gets here, I'm off to trade in my 35mm equipment! And a few boxes of Kodak Ektachrome E100VS in my refrigerator will soon be off to a co-worker via interoffice mail!

I have had my D60 a couple of months now . . . and I "don't need no
steenkin' film no more."

Of course I always thought CDs were a big improvement over vinyl
too . . . shows what I know.

My EOS3 gets closer to being an ebay item every day.

Film is doornail dead in my world. Still have a brick or two of
Provia and Velvia littering the place though . . . don't quite know
what to do with it.

Have been using the D60 for a couple weeks... six years ago I read
that a 6 megapixel camera would replace 35mm. Is it time to shelve
my 1V?