Film is not Dead

MusicDoctorDJ · Jan 11, 2008

RedFox88 said:
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.

I think you've just answered your own question . . .

Perhaps you are trying too hard to correct your (digital image) colors on your computer when, if you had shot them in jpeg, the colors would have been correct!

The biggest problem today is that so many people view jpegs as being bad when in fact, it is much closer in color than shooting RAW files, then trying to make them look good on a computer monitor that most likely is not calibrated to anything.

And, even if your monitor is calibrated . . . still, what is it calibrated to?

Some online color chart?

Your digital camera is already calibrated from the factory . . . in jpeg!

Unfortunately, far too many people get caught up in the 'JPEGS suck, RAW files are the only way to shoot if you want to be cool' crowd!

It's easy to get caught up in that . . . especially here at DPReview!

I print every single one of my images directly from out of camera jpegs . . . and I never have color problems!

And guess what . . . they blow up just as big, too!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Directly from out of camera jpeg:

Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Dan Nikon · Jan 11, 2008

Tom C said:
At least once a week we get a thread that film is not dead. Sorry to
disappoint the Posters, but film is dead.

I have been shooting a ton of new stock and fine art of this phenomenal Winter we have had up here in the Rockies. I have shot with my Leica M8, MP, M6 Nikon D3, D300, FM3A, Hasselblad Xpan and Fuji GSW 690-III.

I shoot digital, Provia, Velvia, Agfa APX 25, Kodak TechPan, Ilford PanF, I shoot it all and it LIVES BUDDY!

My satisfied clients and my secure financial portfolio reflect that.

D P O'neil · Jan 11, 2008

vinkeatkel said:
right, hack.

love all the sample images you post (none to be found...just
combative words).

As I have been honoured by The Photographic Society of New Zealand and have gained the distinction APSNZ (Associate of the Photographic Society of New Zealand)
I really didn't think it necessary to post images of my work.
What honours do you have?

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

D P O'neil · Jan 11, 2008

Ed Leys said:
Ed Leys said:

D P O'neil said:

Do digital enthusiasts frequent Film forums pronouncing that film is
dead,

Click to expand...

Yes.

Ed Leys20479 said:

no we don't.

Click to expand...

Absolute B.S. You need to get out more. (Or perhaps you already
do...grin)

Ed Leys20479 said:

Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ

Click to expand...

Ed

Click to expand...

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.

Certainly not Ed, saying something clever or witty about YOU................ no contest.

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

The Customer · Jan 11, 2008

vinkeatkel said:
vinkeatkel wrote:
fine, but again, how do you explain "the look" of the images i posted
at the top? i've not seen digital images that have "it".

I'm no expert, but of the ones I looked at, I would suggest that parts of "the look" could be attributed to such things as a shallow depth of field, highly selective focusing, a hint of gauziness due to lens flare (partially a function of the wide aperture), and the combination of film stock and scanner used, as well as the scanner operator's technique.

Also, tonal transitions tend to be handled differently with film, especially in regards to highlights, which tend to go out a bit more elegantly. On some of the images, especially my personal favourites in Album No. 100 (Beach Series), much of the look may be due to the tonal characteristics of such a large piece of film.

I seem to recall seeing somewhere on that guy's site that he was using a Canon flatbed scanner for the film pix, which means that if the images in No. 100 were scanned on higher-end (and pricier) equipment, then they might well blow your mind. As it is, they are still very nice, especially in terms of subjects and moments captured.

You likely haven't seen any digital images that have "it" because of the fundamental difference in how the images are captured. Exposed chemical film that is later scanned, versus direct capture to an electronic sensor. Unlike some around these parts, I'm not going to suggest that one is inherently "better" or "worse" than the other, but I will say that each has its place depending on what the user wishes to achieve.

Oh, another factor is the certainly the lens -- perhaps a digital image from a sensor exposed through the same lens would have some of the non-film dependent aspects of "the look."

Ye Customer
(Alex)

D P O'neil · Jan 11, 2008

Tom_N said:
D P O'neil said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

No Tom, what you see on this Digital Forum is a few silly film users whining and whinging (look it up) that film is still a viable option to digital. We the enlightened one's, know this to be nonsense. Good luck finding that elusive film forum you appear to crave.

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

vinkeatkel · Jan 11, 2008

D P O'neil said:
As I have been honoured by The Photographic Society of New Zealand
and have gained the distinction APSNZ (Associate of the Photographic
Society of New Zealand)

what an honor, indeed. how many hits does this site ( http://www.photography.org.nz/index.htm ) get per day?

D P O'neil said:
I really didn't think it necessary to post images of my work.

of-course not...i'm sure that your "work" would simply blow our minds.

D P O'neil said:
What honours do you have?

a week ago or so my aunt complemented me on the beautiful dvd slide show i made her for christmas.

Mark Smith145430 · Jan 11, 2008

JRP64 said:
Film is dead it just doesn't know it yet, now where did I put my
vinyl record player at?

Well 24 years after CDs introduction Vinyl is still available and whats more is driven now by youth culture. DJ's and hip youth still buy them, jut go to any club and you'll see -Turntables.

http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/09/22/analog-isnt-dead-vinyl-record-sales-recover-a-bit/
There is a Vinyl shop for for the latest music just a mile from my house:
http://soundclash-records.co.uk/index.html
Just scroll down to see all those 12" records
Film isn't dead-People still use it
Vinyl isn't dead- people still use it
Horses aren't dead-people still ride
etc
etc

No stop being blinded, just because you personally don't use something doesn't mean its dead just means you are out of that 'loop'.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Mark Smith145430 · Jan 12, 2008

D P O'neil said:
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

No I think you need a life, if you can't appreciate someone else's work doesn't mean it's invalid - just that you are egocentric.

D P O'neil said:
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.

Actually sometimes they do, but the correct argument would be someone going to the forum here and stating "digital is dead'

D P O'neil said:
I would suggest you would be happier on a film only forum, that's
presuming there is such a beast.

You see there is always room for both, a lot of people here use both, the very fact that they are posted on a website mean they are digital just from an analogue source.

You can use both one is not exclusive, and yes there are analogue only forums this one has about 25,000 active members.
http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php

Not only that if you browse the gallery you'll find that there are some very talented individuals.

D P O'neil said:
By the way, the photos you find so amazing are for the most part
fairly mundane images lacking any artistic merit.

That Dennis, is the thing about photography, what floats one persons boat can be dull to another. Artistic merit is a personal judgement. I too found some of the images visually pleasing especially the 'Misaki Girls' gallery the shot of the shadow on the beach was beautiful.

So the secret is to be open to others views, their images and modus are to be celebrated rather than denigrated.

To pronounce their art mundane or their modus 'dead' reflects more upon your own insecurity and egocentricity than their lack of artistic merit.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

D P O'neil · Jan 12, 2008

vinkeatkel said:
D P O'neil said:

As I have been honoured by The Photographic Society of New Zealand
and have gained the distinction APSNZ (Associate of the Photographic
Society of New Zealand)

Click to expand...

what an honor, indeed. how many hits does this site
( http://www.photography.org.nz/index.htm ) get per day?

vinkeatkel said:

I really didn't think it necessary to post images of my work.

Click to expand...

of-course not...i'm sure that your "work" would simply blow our minds.

vinkeatkel said:

What honours do you have?

Click to expand...

a week ago or so my aunt complemented me on the beautiful dvd slide
show i made her for christmas.

For a brief moment I thought I was conversing with someone with a modicum of intelligence. Clearly I was wrong.

Oh and your "work" is where?

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

D P O'neil · Jan 12, 2008

Mark Smith said:
D P O'neil said:

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

Click to expand...

No I think you need a life, if you can't appreciate someone else's
work doesn't mean it's invalid - just that you are egocentric.

I never said the work was invalid, just not particularly good.

Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually sometimes they do, but the correct argument would be someone
going to the forum here and stating "digital is dead'

Which would clearly be ludicrous. As you and I both know Mark, digital is the future.

Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:

I would suggest you would be happier on a film only forum, that's
presuming there is such a beast.

Click to expand...

You see there is always room for both, a lot of people here use both,
the very fact that they are posted on a website mean they are digital
just from an analogue source.
You can use both one is not exclusive, and yes there are analogue
only forums this one has about 25,000 active members.
http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php
Not only that if you browse the gallery you'll find that there are
some very talented individuals.

Mark Smith145430 said:

By the way, the photos you find so amazing are for the most part
fairly mundane images lacking any artistic merit.

Click to expand...

That Dennis, is the thing about photography, what floats one persons
boat can be dull to another. Artistic merit is a personal judgement.
I too found some of the images visually pleasing especially the
'Misaki Girls' gallery the shot of the shadow on the beach was
beautiful.

So the secret is to be open to others views, their images and modus
are to be celebrated rather than denigrated.

But only if there is something worth celebrating. Bad photographs are simply bad photographs.

Mark Smith145430 said:
To pronounce their art mundane or their modus 'dead' reflects more
upon your own insecurity and egocentricity than their lack of
artistic merit.
Mark

Fairly certain I didn't use the word "Dead", certainly the majority of work I looked at was to me at least, mundane.

You mustn't get hung up on the fact that the photographers used film Mark. Poor quality work is poor quality work, whatever medium was used to capture it.

Mark Smith145430 said:
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

--
Kind Regards
Dennis P O'Neil APSNZ
'War does not determine who is right, only who is left'

Mark Smith145430 · Jan 12, 2008

D P O'neil said:
I never said the work was invalid, just not particularly good.

Which is your personal judgement, just because you say it's no good doesn't make it so– another mans meat...

D P O'neil said:
D P O'neil said:

Actually sometimes they do, but the correct argument would be someone
going to the forum here and stating "digital is dead'

Click to expand...

Which would clearly be ludicrous. As you and I both know Mark,
digital is the future.

Of course it was meant to show you the error of your argument

D P O'neil said:
But only if there is something worth celebrating. Bad photographs are
simply bad photographs.

In your opinion, bad is a judgement you have made I found some of them beautiful.

D P O'neil said:
Fairly certain I didn't use the word "Dead", certainly the majority
of work I looked at was to me at least, mundane.

Yes you used the word dead in the past, several times,even in this thread you have shown a remarkably poor attitude.

D P O'neil said:
It's over and time they realized it and moved on and up into the light.

To YOU they are mundane but you are not the judge of the world of art.

D P O'neil said:
You mustn't get hung up on the fact that the photographers used film
Mark. Poor quality work is poor quality work, whatever medium was
used to capture it.

You mustn't get hung up by the fact you found their 'art' less valid or more mundane than your own, truth is its not your personal taste but that doesn't make it poor.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Charlie Self · Jan 12, 2008

Ed Leys said:
D P O'neil said:

Do digital enthusiasts frequent Film forums pronouncing that film is
dead,

Click to expand...

Yes.

Ed Leys20479 said:

no we don't.

Click to expand...

Absolute B.S. You need to get out more. (Or perhaps you already
do...grin)

Wow! I didn't even know there WERE film forums. Too bad they weren't around when I was still shooting film.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

spt_gb · Jan 12, 2008

RedFox88 said:
spt_gb said:

what did a decent 35mm film compact cost? My guess is that $3-400
wouldn't be far short of the mark.

Click to expand...

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.

I'm not sure what planet you are on, but 11 years back when Canon launched the Sure Shot Z135 (35mm compact with 38-135 zoom, flash and some picture modes) it had an RRP of about $500 (converting from Yen), that's $660 in today's money. An EOS 50 cost about $730, $960 in today's money. $350 today was worth $260 back then. The amount that people were and are prepared to pay for a camera hasn't really changed. What they get for their money has improved rather though.

...

RedFox88 said:
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.

Which is unrelated to whether the camera was film or digital. If they'd bought a Canon digital then the same applies.

RedFox88 said:
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!

And they got to decide if they wanted auto-focus, a flash, APS format with panoramic mode, scene modes, black or aluminum finish etc. Sounds a lot like today, doesn't it?

...

RedFox88 said:
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?

That's more down to the fact that cameras are now more affordable and users can pick specific cameras for specific tasks. Those film users that could afford it often DID have more than one camera, based on factors like how compact they were, did they have a fast fixed lens or a zoom etc.

JRP64 · Jan 12, 2008

Mark Smith said:
JRP64 said:

Film is dead it just doesn't know it yet, now where did I put my
vinyl record player at?

Click to expand...

Well 24 years after CDs introduction Vinyl is still available and
whats more is driven now by youth culture. DJ's and hip youth still
buy them, jut go to any club and you'll see -Turntables.

http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/2006/09/22/analog-isnt-dead-vinyl-record-sales-recover-a-bit/
There is a Vinyl shop for for the latest music just a mile from my
house:
http://soundclash-records.co.uk/index.html
Just scroll down to see all those 12" records
Film isn't dead-People still use it
Vinyl isn't dead- people still use it
Horses aren't dead-people still ride
etc
etc
No stop being blinded, just because you personally don't use
something doesn't mean its dead just means you are out of that 'loop'.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

F.Y.I. - I was just trying to put some humor in this thread....I was taking a quote from Douglas MacArthur "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away" and changing it. I was just trying to be funny, nothing more than that.

LeRentier · Jan 12, 2008

Why would it be necessary to try and replicate the look grainy film and all that ?

Digital photography has its own advantages and specifics.

Creativity is getting the most out of the tools you use and digital photography, with its array of editing software, has opened up a whole new world in much less time than it took to go from daguerreotypes to glass plates.

We also have fairly advanced scanners which allow us to transfer slides and negatives to hard drives and be able to edit tons of images we could have shot just that bit better 20 years ago or more.

morninglight · Jan 12, 2008

JRP64 wrote:
F.Y.I. - I was just trying to put some humor in this thread....

And thanks for trying to inject some, though actually, the whole thread is humor, as this type of thread always is. That is why I clicked on it this a.m., wanting a bit of a chuckle.

But, a point of order, so to speak.

It seems that in this type of thread ( i.e. Film is Alive! vs Film is Dead! ) the participants usually seem to confuse the word "film" with one particular film format, specifically 35mm format. Also, they seem to be only concerned with market share.

It certainly is not about aesthetics, since that is so subjective that no one could get this heated up about it.

35mm format film is obviously severely challenged by digital capture, market-wise, (with no comment either way re the aesthetic aspects).

Larger film formats are being nibbled at, and in some applications, heavily pressured, (market-wise).
--
Film & Digital
http://www.jaymoynihan.com

MusicDoctorDJ · Jan 12, 2008

I took this photo yesterday morning . . .

I had it resized and posted on the internet within 20 minutes of taking it!

Part of the reason I've switched completely to digital . . .

Even if I had my own color darkroom (I do have enough EQ to set up three B&W darkrooms), it would have been at least four hours before I would have had a print ready . . . let alone scanning it in.

By the way . . . I really do miss the B&W darkroom being setup and in use . . .

Oly E-510 with 40-150mm kit lens:

(handheld at full zoom, IS on, f:5.6 at 1/320 sec, 100 ISO at 7:12 a.m., no PP other than resizing)

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado

Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

vinkeatkel · Jan 12, 2008

D P O'neil said:
modicum of intelligence.

"do not be tempted by a twenty-dollar word when there is a ten-center handy, ready and able."
e.b. white

hemingway would have shot you on a hunting trip.

seems you're a hack in more than one discipline.

Glen Barrington · Jan 12, 2008

I wonder, when people see qualities in photos taken with film that they don't believe could be taken with digital, if it isn't so much the quality inherent in film as it is an artist who really understands and knows his medium?

I mean often the photos used as examples of this are by photographers who have spent the last 20 or 30 years (or more) learning how to shoot, process, print and display film based photographs. Of course people with that kind of experience will get the best out of their medium. Perhaps film shooters with less experience just got lucky.

Digital, as a serious artistic photo medium, has been around, what, 5 to 7 years? If digital is 'lacking', maybe it's us and our experience with it that is lacking. Maybe in another 20 years or so these threads will no longer exist.
--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

Film is not Dead

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts