vinkeatkel
Leading Member
straight from a hack's keyboard...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Film is not Dead
- Thread starter vinkeatkel
- Start date
spt_gb
Senior Member
This is one of your more perplexing statements. It is MUCH easier to get accurate colours from digital. Film has a fixed colour temperature and needs to be colour corrected by your lab, so it is being white balanced just like digital. Digital has a much more predictable colour response and can be accurately colour calibrated. Film is much less consistant and can vary depending on the time of day it was fed through the lab (things change depending on the number of films that have been processed previously with the same chemicals, and with the initial strength of those chemicals).
...
That's what you get for using cheap software. Lightroom or Capture One for example have much better workflows than this.
You can chose to batch process everything, or to fine tune particular shots, or a combination of the two. It's the difference between dropping your film off at the lab or doing the job yourself in the darkroom, but with Digital you can do this on a frame-by-frame basis, not roll-by-roll.
sherwoodpete
Veteran Member
Even with digital, this raises a question which may be more philosophical than technical.
When I use colour negative film, the results I get vary, at the whim of the processing lab. Sometimes this is due to variations in the chemicals, but far more due to decisions made, either manually or automatically, during the printing process.
But colour slide (transparency) film is processed according to a fixed procedure. There are still variations due to chemistry, but I no longer have another human being or machine intervening and re-interpreting what I saw.
So, in digital photography, it is sometimes debatable as to whether the white balance should be adjusted for every lighting situation, or alternatively, set the camera to a fixed white balance for every shot. I am here referring in particular to landscape photography. Indoor work, and images primarily of people have different priorities.
Still, I don't see any reason why digital makes life more difficult, it simply offers more choices: the possibility to adjust the white balance (and ISO) for every shot, if you so wish. And equally to use a fixed WB if that is what is wanted.
Regards,
Peter
Tom C11968
Veteran Member
At least once a week we get a thread that film is not dead. Sorry to disappoint the Posters, but film is dead.
People said the car would not replace the horse, CD’s would not replace vinyl records, DVD’s would not replace VHS tapes and the list goes on. Lets face the facts, when the first Consumer digital camera went to market the handwriting was on the wall.
Digital is way more convenient then film and cost less in the long run.
You can still take your memory card/roll of film/ to you local camera store and have your prints made at a lower cost then film. You can also have just the photos printed you want, with film it’s all or nothing, so you don‘t pay for prints of your floor, back of someone’s head, underexposed, out of focus and so on that everyone has taken at some time, Or with a laptop and some software you can have you own darkroom right on your kitchen table, watch TV and have something to eat all at the same time.
)
If film is not dead then why did Canon, Nikon, Leica, Kodak, Olympus, etc etc go digital and have or will drop their film line? Why is Kodak having finical problems if film is not dead?
As the new generation gets old enough to buy a camera, what kind do you think they will get? Hell, my Grandkids don’t even know what a vinyl record is, or a tape player for all that goes
It‘s time to wake up a smell the roses, film had it‘s day, but it‘s going and going fast to the history books and museums. Phil saw this nine years ago when he started dpreview, now he has the most viewed camera site of any kind in the world.
--
Tom
People said the car would not replace the horse, CD’s would not replace vinyl records, DVD’s would not replace VHS tapes and the list goes on. Lets face the facts, when the first Consumer digital camera went to market the handwriting was on the wall.
Digital is way more convenient then film and cost less in the long run.
You can still take your memory card/roll of film/ to you local camera store and have your prints made at a lower cost then film. You can also have just the photos printed you want, with film it’s all or nothing, so you don‘t pay for prints of your floor, back of someone’s head, underexposed, out of focus and so on that everyone has taken at some time, Or with a laptop and some software you can have you own darkroom right on your kitchen table, watch TV and have something to eat all at the same time.
)If film is not dead then why did Canon, Nikon, Leica, Kodak, Olympus, etc etc go digital and have or will drop their film line? Why is Kodak having finical problems if film is not dead?
As the new generation gets old enough to buy a camera, what kind do you think they will get? Hell, my Grandkids don’t even know what a vinyl record is, or a tape player for all that goes
It‘s time to wake up a smell the roses, film had it‘s day, but it‘s going and going fast to the history books and museums. Phil saw this nine years ago when he started dpreview, now he has the most viewed camera site of any kind in the world.
--
Tom
pixseal
Senior Member
The main advantage of digital over film for me was that I no longer have a lab "making adjustments". I expose my mages to my liking at the time of capture (much easier with digital, btw). I don't want a lab second-guessing me.
BTW, I spend zero wasted time waiting for my RAW files to be converted. I simply start a batch conversion process ("neutral" settings) and "do other things" while all of my RAW files are converting. Only those images that I really like might be re-converted (a 15 second process, btw).
With digital, I've never had a scratched or lost negative. I get superior quality prints and I get really quick access to web and email posting.
--
-Dave
http://pixseal.com
D P O'neil
Senior Member
Well said Tom, unfortunately the few filmaholics that frequent this site will continue to bury their heads in the sand as far as their fast dwindling supply of cellulose is concerned. It's over and time they realized it and moved on and up into the light.At least once a week we get a thread that film is not dead. Sorry to
disappoint the Posters, but film is dead.
People said the car would not replace the horse, CD’s would not
replace vinyl records, DVD’s would not replace VHS tapes and the list
goes on. Lets face the facts, when the first Consumer digital camera
went to market the handwriting was on the wall.
Digital is way more convenient then film and cost less in the long run.
You can still take your memory card/roll of film/ to you local camera
store and have your prints made at a lower cost then film. You can
also have just the photos printed you want, with film it’s all or
nothing, so you don‘t pay for prints of your floor, back of someone’s
head, underexposed, out of focus and so on that everyone has taken at
some time, Or with a laptop and some software you can have you own
darkroom right on your kitchen table, watch TV and have something to
eat all at the same time.
If film is not dead then why did Canon, Nikon, Leica, Kodak, Olympus,
etc etc go digital and have or will drop their film line? Why is
Kodak having finical problems if film is not dead?
As the new generation gets old enough to buy a camera, what kind do
you think they will get? Hell, my Grandkids don’t even know what a
vinyl record is, or a tape player for all that goes
It‘s time to wake up a smell the roses, film had it‘s day, but it‘s
going and going fast to the history books and museums. Phil saw this
nine years ago when he started dpreview, now he has the most viewed
camera site of any kind in the world.
--
Tom
--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'
I have a sister who's Kodak digital camera stopped working after 13 months and Kodak would not fix it under warranty. That was probably 3 years ago so I'm guessing they paid about $400 for it.
They bought an olympus for guessing $300 and this past summer it was stolen.
They just bought a nikon I'm guessing for around $250. So in 4 years that's about $950 in digital cameras. She basically takes pictures of family: birthdays, christmas, if they go somewhere. All in all not a high volume of pictures.
I think my sister if shooting film with a $50 P&S film camera would have racked up far less than $900 in buying and developing film in 4 years.
Plus the digital camera becomes an electronic gadget that people have to have new ones of. You didn't have that with a film camera. You see so many people on here that have bought 7 P&S cameras and 4 or 5 dSLRs in just the past 4 years.
I read a post today of someone who has over $3000 in good camera gear but is considering switching brands and his reason: he's a gadget junkie and is looking for something new.
vinkeatkel
Leading Member
i happen to really dig the photographs on this site:
so lighten up digital proponents.
that's all.
so lighten up digital proponents.
JRP64
Senior Member
Film is dead it just doesn't know it yet, now where did I put my vinyl record player at?
spt_gb
Senior Member
what did a decent 35mm film compact cost? My guess is that $3-400 wouldn't be far short of the mark.
Would Kodak or whoever have repaired under warranty a 13 month old film camera? No they wouldn't. Would thieves avoid film cameras? No they wouldn't. Can you buy $50 P&S digitals? Sure you can. Were film cameras gadgets/fashion items? Sure they were. Manufacturers kept coming out with upgraded models and extra features for film too.
Your arguments are without merit.
Would Kodak or whoever have repaired under warranty a 13 month old film camera? No they wouldn't. Would thieves avoid film cameras? No they wouldn't. Can you buy $50 P&S digitals? Sure you can. Were film cameras gadgets/fashion items? Sure they were. Manufacturers kept coming out with upgraded models and extra features for film too.
Your arguments are without merit.
D P O'neil
Senior Member
So all this film is not dead nonsense is so that we can all appreciate some obscure photographs taken by some Japanese film buffs?. You need to go out and get yourself some sort of life
Do digital enthusiasts frequent Film forums pronouncing that film is dead, no we don't. So why is you film people think you have some sort of God given right to perpetuate this film isn't dead cr#p on a digital camera site.
I would suggest you would be happier on a film only forum, that's presuming there is such a beast.
By the way, the photos you find so amazing are for the most part fairly mundane images lacking any artistic merit.
--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'
vinkeatkel
Leading Member
right, hack.
love all the sample images you post (none to be found...just combative words).
love all the sample images you post (none to be found...just combative words).
Tom_N
Forum Pro
Non-sequitur. The equivalent of "digital enthusiasts frequent(ing) film forums pronouncing that film is dead" would be "film enthusiasts frequenting digital forums pronouncing that digital is dead".
Do you see any film enthusiasts here saying that digital is dead? I don't.
michaeljberman
Senior Member
The 2,500 was first pass, I cut that in half after the first cut, then kill more,
I found a lot of times (a boat moving at high speed on the river in Laos) that I had to shoot 10 to 20 to get a sharp photo, yes, the boat was that fast and jumpy.
The point is if you are going to shoot a lot, then dig is a lot easyer than film (and cheaper). I also did a lot of learning, one night there was a singer at a bar, I shoot maybe 1,000 photos to lean want I liked and want worked out.
Mike
If you have low standards, you can take a look:
http://michaeljberman.zenfolio.com
I found a lot of times (a boat moving at high speed on the river in Laos) that I had to shoot 10 to 20 to get a sharp photo, yes, the boat was that fast and jumpy.
The point is if you are going to shoot a lot, then dig is a lot easyer than film (and cheaper). I also did a lot of learning, one night there was a singer at a bar, I shoot maybe 1,000 photos to lean want I liked and want worked out.
Mike
--
If you have low standards, you can take a look:
http://michaeljberman.zenfolio.com
Ed Leys20479
Senior Member
Yes.
Absolute B.S. You need to get out more. (Or perhaps you already do...grin)
Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
For a compact? Hell no. $50 to $75. I'm talking about a P&S film camera that has a zoom, date option, and probably red-eye. Nothing fancy. $300-400 would be for a 35mm SLR film camera, not a P&S one.
Canon regularly does free warranty repair on cameras that are just out of warranty by a month or two. It's called taking care of customers. Think of it this way: if they don't repair it for free, that customer is more than likely to buy a camera of a different brand because what they had didn't last long enough. It's better to do a small repair to keep customers thinking good about your brand instead of lose them to a competitor.
My arguments are not without merit! Film cameras for the average person were not fancy electronic gadgets. They had a zoom if you were lucky, a flash, date function, and most importantly they took pictures! Now they're making P&S cameras with YouTube Mode - more gadgety and a gimmick for younger people, adding face and smile detection to make buyers think it'll take better pictures, etc.
You often see users on here that own 3 or 4 P&S cameras. There wouldn't be much point in having 3 or 4 compact P&S film cameras, aside from having different speed films in them, would there?
P&S cameras now sell like the electronic gadgets they are.. like iPods, iPhones - a consumable gadget that someone wants a new one of every couple of years - like a new cell phone.
The Customer
Leading Member
To be honest, there seem to be plenty of "digital enthusiasts" who go around proclaiming film to be dead and for what reason, I don't know. This site alone seems rife with people who appear to delight in maligning film and film users, in ways that make it seem like they have some kind of genuine animosity towards film photography.
If the original poster has any sort of right to post his link, it could well be that this being a "digital" photography site, it can be more than inclusive of film images that have been made digital via the scanning process. This site is called Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review, and as the images are now digital and certainly constitute photography, there is no problem with their being mentioned here. This is especially true when one considers that many posters and readers here still shoot in both media.
Now, I have asked before, but have yet to get an answer to my question of why some here seem to actually hate film and the idea of its continued use. Perhaps some feel that as long as film exists, their digital gear is under some sort of threat. Yes, I suppose that's valid: As long as there is film, it's possible Nikon might suddenly stop making digital cameras because, well, people can always use film...
Also: Yes there are film-only forums, places like the Analog Photography Users Group and Photo.net's Film and Processing forum, and they are fine places. Still, one can never be sure what brings true happiness to another person. Perhaps the original poster thrives on the dynamism of a crowded, busy forum, in which case, this is the place to go -- there are allot of folks who post here and the way recent posts are displayed makes it very easy and fun to read and communicate with others.
Appreciation of any art form is generally subjective. I personally found many of the images the OP linked to to be very nice. The beach pictures in album "No. 100" were especially engaging and showed a real feel for the moments and places captured, as well as a strong connection with the subjects. The compositions were also very strong and, overall, am glad to have seen them.
Ye Customer
(Alex)
Ed Leys20479
Senior Member
p.s.
Large format forum:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0037WQ
Leica and Rangefinder forum:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Wuc
Kodak C533:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5555602-lg.jpg
Leica and Rangefinder forum again:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FNON
Nikon Forum (P. H.) response:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I4LL
We'll leave it at that, Okay?
No doubt you will try to say something clever/witty about each, or about me as a person, in an attempt to show... Well, beats me what.
Best,
Ed
http://www.blackmallard.com/in_cam/inc06.html
Ektachrome False Color Infrared
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
Arun Sasidharan
Well-known member
you say film is not dead... but u had to post it as digital
Regards,
Arun Sasidharan
Home Page: http://www.asasidh.com
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/arunsasi/
Blog: http://www.zenslr.com/
--
Regards,
Arun Sasidharan
Home Page: http://www.asasidh.com
Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/arunsasi/
Blog: http://www.zenslr.com/
I disagree. Even with consumer films I get more accurate better looking colors from film prints than trying to eye a correct color balance on my monitor at home. Digital does ok when you have many colors in your image; however, my experience is when there are fewer colors, e.g. lake/ocean AWB from a dSLR needs a lot of work.
My best example were elephant shots at my local zoo last summer. I was shooting 400 speed Fuji Pro film and ended a roll. I switch over to my 5D and took a couple shots. The film prints came back spot-on accurate for colors (also had them on a CD and they looked marvelous), yet the digital shots had such different colors. I spent a good amount of time trying to get my digital shots to resemble the film shots since they were under the same lighting conditions taken just minutes apart to no avail.
I've said it before, film just gets colors right.
Film just comes back looking great, it's that simple. And it has a great natural photographic look. If you aren't careful, you can make digital images look too digital, e.g. too lightened shadows. There's no point in batch processing RAWs without making adjustments to each image unless you want to start with an uncompressed image - otherwise it's the same as shooting JPG.
RAW files too often need to have level curves adjusted to be made presentable. Nothing I could do better at the point of capture because I don't want to over expose or under expose the image - yet the image need color curves to improve the contrast without sacrificing highlights or shadows.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum