what will it take to get rid of the last film holdouts?

A friend of mine has a record player looking like an UFO, i think its called Transrotor or so, weight about 30 Kg, price was about 13.000 euros.

records are dead ? , no i think they become a collectors item. I sold him a Rolling Stones record from the early 70s some times ago, for good money. I wish i had more of this old records :-(

Barnett said:

charlesh said:

as no amount of megapixels can produce the 'look' that film
provides and a look that many people prefer.

Click to expand...

That kind of reminds me of what the audiophiles used to say about
the 'sound' of records when everyone was changing to CDs.

Barnett

Click to expand...

--
***********************************************
a bad day fishing is better than a good day at work

Typical uk prices

Canon 1DS + 28-70f2.8l+2gb card+550ex flashgun £6000

Most folk have a pc now but lets add photoshop cs2 £400

And if you actually want actual photographs well believe it
Or not you have to pay to get them printed

God knows how many valuable pub/family/loved ones time wasted
Sitting in front of pc.

Again typical uk prices

Canon 1V+28-70F2.8L+ 550ex flashgun £2450

Don’t need photoshop

Photo processing though we only count buying film and getting it developed As we still have to pay for prints from digital {see above lol}

So lets balance the books out with buying some film , my particular favorites are Fuji velvia or Kodachrome 64 which typical costs including dev and mounting aprox £8.00 per roll which given the £4000 difference = 500 rolls or 18000 images with a camera that is in the price band of keen amateurs maybe using 4 films a week for 2 and one third years and by that time digital will again have moved on and you will be back buying the latest best camera though off course the 1ds will still be an excellent camera its is just the nature of the ever evolving digital technology

And I have a positive image to view as desired or print and with a long and reliable lifespan even photos of me as a baby taken in the 1960s with ancient kodachrome still look pretty good , how good do your digital images from 10 year ago look

I use digital for some of my work but film just feels better to me , for fun I walk in the hills with an old film camera , I have many £1000,s worth of equipment for pro use but I get as much fun and maybe even quality within the constraints of the camera {a yashicamat 124g that cost me £85} used

jim

--
jimstirling

what, that digital image quality is better than film? If so, that sounds like someone more into technology than photography and trying to convince themselves that film is no longer capable, just like the people here looking for the next latest-greatest while the newest gizmo isn't even out of the box. Film won't die, and it may well become simply a niche market, but that still doesn't mean that digital is 'better'. Easier, yes, better, no.
--
charlesh
http://www.pbase.com/charles_hess

Ken Phillips said:

... means that a 16mm lens will be VERY close to the sensor,
precluding an SLR design.
ken

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's always been the case, one of the advantages of rangefinders vs. SLRs.

Well, I saw an add recently for "High definition audio" promoting a new system that would sound like analog recording! The idea behind photography, and music incidentally, is to transmit emotions, not mathematical curves or other type of b.s. If film suits you better to transmit emotions, it is beautiful and people like it, there you go. The same with digital. We went through that almost two years ago, if I remember correctly, when photography was invented. It pushed painters who were working like mad at trying to paint as many details as their brushes could permit, to switch to depict impressions, because they could not beat photography at expressing reality.
--
J.B.

Charlesh,

I do realize that you will not agree with me but yes, I believe digital is better than film and the gap will only get bigger. Progress is still being made on digital technology while there has been very little or no improvement on film.

My analogy with the Records vs CDs is even more relevant than I first thought. Originally the audiophiles rejected CDs because it did not sound as 'good' as their records. What they did not realize is that the records had subtle distortion and other defects that they simply got so used to that the clean sounding CD just sounded wrong. I believe the same is now true for film. Those with significant experience with film had got so used to the non-linearities and noise of film that the clean look of digital seems wrong. The difference however in this case is that it is reasonably easy to reproduce the film-like look by adjusting the curves and adding noise.

So, yes, I do believe that digital is better and in my view film will disappear totally in the next 5 or 10 years.

Regards
Barnett

First, film already is a dead man walking. They just haven't put it in the chair and hit the switch.

What will REALLy kill film is a Foveon sensor with 12 MP x 3 sensors, that will be equivalent to, say, a 30 MP Bayer sensor in the ability to resolve fine details. The only film that is used is used for artistic purposes... and if a dSLR can be created with the resolution that meets or exceeds MF film, then why bother? Better sell those Hasselblads while you can (or get digital backs).

Bayer sensors are getting close to the 'wall' where reduced pixel size (in order to increase resolution on the same-sized sensor) is starting to cause a lot of noise and affect high ISO performance. I don't think we'll be able to get much more than 12 megapixels in a APS-sized sensor without running into this wall. IMO the limit with full-frame 35mm-sized sensors is probably around 18 to 20 megapixels. And, is there really much of a difference resolution-wise between a 12 MP image and an 18 MP image to make a difference (given the same sensor technology)?

That's why I feel Foveon has a real opportunity to do something here; to make a sensor using today's technology that simply cannot be beat by a Bayer sensor.

That would be a win for Foveon and for photographers.

Re the joy of looking at slides on a lightbox... you can get the same joy looking at digital images on an LCD display.

I bet film outlives Foveon.

Foveon's deader than film. (nt)

An interesting comparrison seeing that the dynamic range of a vinyl record is greater than a CD. Yes you heard right. We are too eager to believe the marketing hype for digital products.

Personally i don't think more megapixals will be the end of film as much as better dynamic range which is only a matter of time i suppose.

Even the scans of my slides and negatives - projected on my CRT - still have a different feel to them.

I recently visited a college where the photgraphy students presented the administration with a petition demanding that the darkroom be reopened and film printing be added to the curriculum again.

Shoot your fall colors with pride and with film!

Kerkula

kerkula said:

An interesting comparrison seeing that the dynamic range of a vinyl
record is greater than a CD. Yes you heard right. We are too eager
to believe the marketing hype for digital products.

Click to expand...

We all know marketing hype can safely be ignored. For me scientific facts are all that matters. I have no idea what the dynamic range of vinyl is but I do know that the dynamic range of a CD exceeds that of the human ear for all practical purposes. The noise level in a quiet room is typically 20 to 30 dBA. The sound level where you start experiencing ear pain is about 120 dBA. That gives you a practical dynamic range of 90 to 100 dB. So unless your aim is to destroy your hearing you will never need more dynamic range than that of a CD.

Now if you want to listen to some real marketing hype go read what the marketing people have to say about SACD and DVD-Audio being better than CD.

Regards
Barnett

... note that there are exactly zero 16mm prime (or zoom!) non-retro lenses! It could be done, but they'd be sunken into the lens mount. Not the holy grail ...
Ken
--



http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
Voted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati Magazine
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!

It's not about destroying your hearing (that is typically done with highly compressed music played at high volume). It's about having enough headroom to get the job done. In the case of photogarpy, it's the ability to capture an image without blowing out the highlights or loosing the shadows. Film still holds the edge. And as I say the digital world will eventually catch up. But not while the megapixal marketing holds sway.

kerkula

I am not so sure that film has more dynamic range than current digital. Do you know of any tests that was done to determine this? My digital camera seems to produce cleaner shadows than any film I have used when I compare them at the same ISO. Not that this should be construed as a scientific test.

About the megapixel race. In theory a high megapixel sensor should have the same noise as a low megapixel sensor when the high megapixel image is down sampled to the same resolution as that of the low megapixel image. If you count photons in separate bins and then add the total together you will get the same number as you would have got from counting the photons in one large bin. So in theory and assuming no other losses, more pixels is better. You can then have high resolution when you need it or low noise if that is what you need.

Barnett

Ken Phillips said:

... note that there are exactly zero 16mm prime (or zoom!)
non-retro lenses! It could be done, but they'd be sunken into the
lens mount. Not the holy grail ...

Click to expand...

I agree it's not the holy grail of wide-angle photography, but something like that does actually exist:



The lens pictured is the 12mm heliar (on Nikon F) and similar 15mm heliar. (on the F2)

;-)
Lourens

Barnett said:

I am not so sure that film has more dynamic range than current
digital. Do you know of any tests that was done to determine this?
My digital camera seems to produce cleaner shadows than any film I
have used when I compare them at the same ISO. Not that this
should be construed as a scientific test.

Click to expand...

Some expensive MF digital back have moore DR than film, abot 12 stops

Barnett236842 said:

About the megapixel race. In theory a high megapixel sensor should
have the same noise as a low megapixel sensor when the high
megapixel image is down sampled to the same resolution as that of
the low megapixel image. If you count photons in separate bins and
then add the total together you will get the same number as you
would have got from counting the photons in one large bin. So in
theory and assuming no other losses, more pixels is better.
you can then have high resolution when you need it or low noise if that
is what you need.

Click to expand...

Noise is a comlexe thing, mostly caused by heat, sensors with high pixel density or large sensors suffers more from noise. I cant get better noise performance donsampling a 400 ISO file from my Kokak, i wish i could.

Barnett236842 said:

Barnett

Click to expand...

BTW i dont say digital or film is better, its just differnt, i like both and use it both.

--
***********************************************
a bad day fishing is better than a good day at work

JohnClif said:

First, film already is a dead man walking. They just haven't put it
in the chair and hit the switch.

What will REALLy kill film is a Foveon sensor with 12 MP x 3
sensors, that will be equivalent to, say, a 30 MP Bayer sensor in
the ability to resolve fine details. The only film that is used is
used for artistic purposes... and if a dSLR can be created with the
resolution that meets or exceeds MF film, then why bother? Better
sell those Hasselblads while you can (or get digital backs).

Bayer sensors are getting close to the 'wall' where reduced pixel
size (in order to increase resolution on the same-sized sensor) is
starting to cause a lot of noise and affect high ISO performance. I
don't think we'll be able to get much more than 12 megapixels in a
APS-sized sensor without running into this wall. IMO the limit with
full-frame 35mm-sized sensors is probably around 18 to 20
megapixels. And, is there really much of a difference
resolution-wise between a 12 MP image and an 18 MP image to make a
difference (given the same sensor technology)?

That's why I feel Foveon has a real opportunity to do something
here; to make a sensor using today's technology that simply cannot
be beat by a Bayer sensor.

Click to expand...

But aren't Faveon sensors limited in dynamic range/noise because they stack three photosites on top of each other? As compared to Bayer sensors, where each photosite has the entire depth of the chip. Each Faveon photosite only gets 1/3 of the depth of the chip.

And don't the photons passing through one or two photosites above them in a Faveon sensor have an effect on noise and dynamic range? Compared to a Beyer sensor where each photosite gets all the photons that pass through the microlens.

Not to mention the non-theoretical comparison of how many real world R&D dollars are devoted to Faveon sensor development, vs. how many are devoted to Bayer sensor development.

Wayne Larmon

There is nothing that will work.. I will NEVER give up film I spent 2 years developing an Action Set for Adobe PS to convert to B&W and toned B&W and many have made comments how it is the best they have used and it is closer to film than any they have used... but that is the problem.. only "so close".. that is not close enough. B&W and toned B&W with film grain is just something digital can NOT yet reproduce and I am convinced it will never be able to be reproduced. You can get close enough to fool people online but in print nothing seems to match a B&W film or toned B&W film print on a nice ISO400 film pushed or pulled on the right paper with the right developer. Not too mention playing in the darkroom and developing your own images is plain fun Don't get me wrong we shoot with 3 digitals but we also still shoot with 4 films Nothing quite beats the experience of shooting film in an Argus Brick or a Yashica or a Lecia (for those Leica fans).
--
We are all just Plagiarists of a real Artist, and her name is Mother Nature.

Digital Leica M perhaps? I don't know - I'm still buying film at a substantial rate and even if most film is discontinued there will always be holdouts for those who still want this medium. I agree with many of the others on this forum who have weighed in on this subject, I prefer the tonality and "look" of film. However, I have many customers who want color and I have pretty much ditched my color film for digital. For fine art prints though I still feel film is the way to go.

I've printed some really nice digital prints, your remark about the onscreen vs the real life digital output is timely. I have printed better silver prints, and I mean much much better.

Most of what I do (85%) is digital; however, I have some 16x20's shot with a Hasselblad which visually slap me up side the head whenever I look at them. Their sharpness and tonal depth (not just dynamic range pulls you into the picture.

These selenium as well as untoned black and white prints have a richness of deep tones such that they are believeable, not merely artistic looking because they are real double-weight paper and the image is inside the paper emulsion not "giclee'd" on.

Look forward to techniques that can match silver emulsion double-weight portrait or glossy paper, it will come about, the standards are already there its a matter of time.

Ed