Why film?

Hi,

Not a word, btw, about my comment that bashing film and praising digital is like a religion to some people. Was that hitting below the belt, perhaps? Or pointing out something they'd rather not think about?

Just a simple question or two.

Regards, David

O5iris said:

If you read what I wrote carefuly you'll notice I mentioned proper
archival procedures and that obviously involves basic (to the point
of being ridiculous) things like not being silly enough to leave
negatives directly under the sun or something like that.
Of course there is no perfect medium, each and every one have its
weaknesses but don't forget you can always have good digitalizations
of a negative and save an image both ways.

Regards,
Nuno B.

Click to expand...

The implication of your post are quite clear.

Which is to say, that if you are careful, your prints and negatives will last a long time - Granted

And if you are careful, your digital files will last a long time. - True?

And if you really want to make your film digital, you can also make your digital film.

NB. I'm watching Mark trash Music Doctor because Music Doctor thinks that while film has advantages they don't outweigh (for him) the convenience of digital.

I am watching some of those who use film create a strawman target about digital freaks who HATE film. (Granted there are such people)

In the meantime, I agree with Music Doctor - Fim is better, and...? Except for the actual act of shooting, in which case they are the same, digital is much more convenient - How can anyone argue this point? It simply IS more convenient. Even if I don't enjoy processing them myself, I too can drop them off at a store and get my prints, or files or whatever.

I do not in any way, means or form disparage those who continue to use film. They have my best wishes. Good for them - Stop being such damn hard cases...

One last thing - Normally when this well troden path is followed, I'm busily out there defending film users from the digital morons - Well, Praise the lord, on this thread, the majority of fanatics are in the film camp...

Dave

Mark Smith said:

MusicDoctorDJ said:

Come on, Mark . . .

Its funny that you accuse me of the same attitude you pull off in
your posts.

Look in the mirror . . .

Click to expand...

Really? honestly guy, you're not the only person with 'experience'
but you're the only one who constantly drags it up to back up your
silly arguments.

Click to expand...

Come on Mark, you know very well that Scott Eaton does this also. Sigh.

Okay, so Scott's experience may not be "reality based"...should that weigh against him? Truth is, I'd like to see Scott and the good DJ facing each other in the ring in a "reality based" death match. Would I ever like to have the popcorn concession for that!

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

David Hughes said:

Hi,

Not a word, btw, about my comment that bashing film and praising
digital is like a religion to some people. Was that hitting below the
belt, perhaps? Or pointing out something they'd rather not think
about?

Just a simple question or two.

Regards, David

Click to expand...

This was a direct reply to your post....
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26839603

Dave

Agreed Ed. I believe I've read it here that much of Scott's experience reads like a Walter Mitty excapade....LOL.

Chato said:

I don't think your post was fair either. You got a guy like Mark
Smity bashing Music Doctor simply because Music Doctor shoot digital
for the convenience. He has and will quickly admit that film has
advantages, but are not worth it for HIM - Doesn't stop people like
Mark from bashing him...

Click to expand...

Rubbish I didn't bash him because he shoots digital for convenience, and you know that Dave.
The issue i have is that people back up their choices with stupid arguments
Like "I bought a candle powered enlarger"

For your information I'm a working digital photographer and a Photoshop user, I have no format bias, but enjoy film more.

Why is it that some people can't understand that?

I repeat I didn't bash music d1 because of his use of digital, but rather his lack of comprehension of my point.
Here is a summation:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26840747

If you can't see that maybe your judgement is questionable?

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

IMO film has unique tonal/colour qualities, its superior to digital in that respect..likely at least part down to the bayer sensors.

I like digital too, but b&w film esp is very hard to beat IMO.

Plus, as you have to use a bit more in the old brain dept upstairs (none of this 800 shots ;-), I think it can help for concentration and trying to get better results. Digital can make you a bit lazy at times.

But I enjoy both, they dont really conflict, they compliment each other.

Photography is about getting the shots, and having fun, I really dont mind what is used to get there ;-)
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

When I shoot film I know that every shot costs money and resources (in the sense that if you're someplace you're never likely to visit again you really have to think about running out). That makes me think a lot more about each shot: exposure, composition, and maybe most of all, do I really need a picture of this? With digital you get instant review and you can delete all the sub-standard ones (for whatever reason), and it's easier to justify a "spray-and-pray" technique. Despite being what some of my friends refer to as a "camera nut" I find that I'm often the last person in a group to run out of memory despite always shooting RAW and dealing with the larger file sizes. I grew up with film and I suppose that's always going to influence how I use a camera, whatever the recording media. Having said all that I haven't shot a roll of film in well over a year!

Of course this is all just my opinion... YMMV!
Scott

...the previous post should have been in reply to the OP.

Scott

Chato said:

NB. I'm watching Mark trash Music Doctor because Music Doctor thinks
that while film has advantages they don't outweigh (for him) the
convenience of digital.

Click to expand...

Can you Back that allegation up with a link?

Where in this thread did I bash Music DJ because he uses digital?
Please link me to that post.

The reason I bashed him was that he took issue with my statement that "you don't need power to develop film or make prints"
I bashed him because of his childish "candle enlarger" retort.

Please post a link to where I criticize digital, or Music DJs choice of that medium.

I think you owe me an apology
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

I guess what I really wanted to say is that film in medium format looks different because of both the qualities of the film and the look imparted by the longer focal length lenses given the same angle of view. I don't listen to the goobers who only talk about convenience. That's like saying something doesn't need to be great, as long as it's good enough. If that's your attitude you might consider working for some governmental agency. When you're really into a craft your natural desire should be to make it the best you can. No excuses. That doesn't mean we always (or ever) hit the target but we do try.

Kirk
--
http://www.kirktuck.com

Kirk
I agree I shoot medium format 90% of my film images with this:



The look it gives even at high ISO is lovely and I find the MF Rangefinder not that much bigger than my DSLRs

At the current prices these thing go for if you want to shoot film, its a no brainer.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Well maybe it's me, but look at this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/onenil/2255637597/in/pool-velvia I've just never seen any digital images that get these crazy colors with one touch PP, or any in-camera settings that achieve this easily.

There's also a new photography book out now (can't remember the name of it) as a perspective of the airline industry where everything was taken with film (don't know the specifics) but the images look beautiful and matte and even.

I dunno, my point isn't about film capturing reality better, but rather it having a more appealing and unique look that I haven't seen anyone or any camera reproduce.

Sorry but I just can't see a link to it.

Regards, David

Chato said:

David Hughes said:

Hi,

Not a word, btw, about my comment that bashing film and praising
digital is like a religion to some people. Was that hitting below the
belt, perhaps? Or pointing out something they'd rather not think
about?

Just a simple question or two.

Regards, David

Click to expand...

This was a direct reply to your post....
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26839603

Dave

Click to expand...

Chato said:

And if you are careful, your digital files will last a long time. -
True?

Click to expand...

Of course

Chato said:

And if you really want to make your film digital, you can also make
your digital film.

Click to expand...

Well... yes.. with important limitations - Normally digital negatives can only be contact-printed, which severely limits your print size.

Chato said:

In the meantime, I agree with Music Doctor - Fim is better, and...?
Except for the actual act of shooting, in which case they are the
same, digital is much more convenient - How can anyone argue this
point? It simply IS more convenient. Even if I don't enjoy processing
them myself, I too can drop them off at a store and get my prints, or
files or whatever.

Click to expand...

I agree. When control over the final print isn't that important you can reduce your workflow drastically and digital obviously takes the upper hand in convenience.

Chato said:

One last thing - Normally when this well troden path is followed, I'm
busily out there defending film users from the digital morons - Well,
Praise the lord, on this thread, the majority of fanatics are in the
film camp...

Click to expand...

And they will be around for a long time, I bet

Personally, I think film will take a long time to disappear (if it will disappear at all!)

I will certainly keep shooting film for 90% of my serious work (b&w) and keep exploring my D200 and hoping for better b&w conversions in print in the near future.

Regards,
Nuno B.

Mark Smith said:

Chato said:

NB. I'm watching Mark trash Music Doctor because Music Doctor thinks
that while film has advantages they don't outweigh (for him) the
convenience of digital.

Click to expand...

Can you Back that allegation up with a link?

Where in this thread did I bash Music DJ because he uses digital?
Please link me to that post.
The reason I bashed him was that he took issue with my statement that
"you don't need power to develop film or make prints"
I bashed him because of his childish "candle enlarger" retort.

Click to expand...

And why did he give his "childish candle retort?":

Could it be because HIS point is that digital and it's convenience is far more important than the benefits of film?

So you come up with point that you don't need electricity to develop film? Are you claiming that the ability to do this makes film MORE convenient?

I read this entire thread - And the bottom line here is that you just dislike the guy and will fasten on ANYTHING to make your point. Well, I'm not attacking or defending him forr previous threads - But on THIS thread, sarcastic as he may be, he's correct.

Assorted quotes from THIS THREAD
**************

Anyone who'd want to setup a non-electric darkroom is not interested in photography, but more interested in tinkering with doo-dads!
***********

No . . . there is a fourth . . .

4) Those who don't care which is better than the other and just choose digital for it's convieniences over film!

*************

I made my living shooting film for over 20 years . . .

I love film . . . I love the darkroom (probably spent half of my adult life in the darkroom) . . .
I LOVE TRI-X!

However, I doubt I'll ever shoot another roll or sheet of it ever again!

***************

To me, it is not about which has better dynamic range, or which looks better when printed larger than 24" x 36", FF vs. APS-C vs. 4:3 . . . or even less grain (noise) at higher ISO!

None of that matters to me anymore . . . it doesn't matter which is better and which is not!

Digital has provided me a convienience that just was never there with film . . . final product within split seconds of the moment the shutter was released!

****************

NB. What is the topic of this thread?

Dave

Mark Smith145430 said:

Please post a link to where I criticize digital, or Music DJs choice
of that medium.

I think you owe me an apology
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

O5iris said:

O5iris said:

One last thing - Normally when this well troden path is followed, I'm
busily out there defending film users from the digital morons - Well,
Praise the lord, on this thread, the majority of fanatics are in the
film camp...

Click to expand...

And they will be around for a long time, I bet
Personally, I think film will take a long time to disappear (if it
will disappear at all!)

Click to expand...

I think it's only a matter of time before digital leads film in dynamic range, but even then, there will be a look and a feel to film that some people will prefer. I don't have any problem with this.

But reading this thread I listen to those who tell me that you can't match the "pop" of color film with digtial, and direct me to a link of images with fairly poor color rendition... While no great photographer myself, I have many thousands of images with better color than these examples...

That doesn't mean that this guy was "wrong;" it means he doesn't want to see that digital has matured, and a reasonable person will shoot digital despite the benefits of film.

(BTW - You owe me a thank you, for fighting off the temptation of posting my own examples)

O5iris said:

I will certainly keep shooting film for 90% of my serious work (b&w)
and keep exploring my D200 and hoping for better b&w conversions in
print in the near future.

Click to expand...

If I shot B&W I might very well go back to film until digital has better range.

O5iris said:

Regards,
Nuno B.

Click to expand...

dave

Another county heard from film vs digital.

The next time anyone goes into a movie theater (IMAX) ask the projectionist how big is the DVD disc they are using.

I'm a film shooter as well as digital and now way can digital be compared to properly exposed transparensies right out of the camera

My experience 8mm,16mm,35mm,2-1/4sq, 2-1/4x2-3/4,and 4x5. [rocessing B&W and color. and didn't need PS3 or any other program. I learn the basics and the trade first not having to rely electronic crutches.

Asbesto suit is on.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Plus, as you have to use a bit more in the old brain dept upstairs
(none of this 800 shots ;-), I think it can help for concentration
and trying to get better results. Digital can make you a bit lazy at
times.

Click to expand...

I did a film shoot for Konica camera. No, I wasn't the photographer, I'm listed in the play bill as the "Animal trainer."

So? The guy shoots ten roles of film for every scene. He shot faster than I've EVER shot digital. Man went through film like it was made out of water.

(and don't blame my animal training skills, the dog did better than the human models)

The final brochures contained a total of forty photographs, out of a uncounted roles of 36...

Dave

Member said:

But I enjoy both, they dont really conflict, they compliment each other.

Photography is about getting the shots, and having fun, I really dont
mind what is used to get there ;-)
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

Click to expand...

Kirk Tuck said:

I guess what I really wanted to say is that film in medium format
looks different because of both the qualities of the film and the
look imparted by the longer focal length lenses given the same angle
of view. I don't listen to the goobers who only talk about
convenience. That's like saying something doesn't need to be great,
as long as it's good enough. If that's your attitude you might
consider working for some governmental agency. When you're really
into a craft your natural desire should be to make it the best you
can. No excuses. That doesn't mean we always (or ever) hit the
target but we do try.

Kirk
--
http://www.kirktuck.com

Click to expand...

What's your excuse for settling for Medium format when you could move up to the big leagues and do the job right?

Dave