Back to the Full Frame Future with FILM

Doug MacMillan said:

flbrit said:

For me it not about what is better or worse; it is about rediscovering making pictures in another way and having fun with that journey.

Plus if I can lighten my carry load, see some interesting stuff and make some great shots and use some great gear then thats me happy.

Click to expand...

I hope you have a blast with your new film camera. Try the scanning option when you get your film developed. Almost all printers nowadays print from a digital scan anyway. My only concern would be the scanning resolution, it may be fine for 8x10 or smaller. I'm sure if there are some you'd like printed larger, a photo lab will be up to the task.

While I shoot digital almost exclusively now, I just can't bring myself to sell my film cameras. The Ken Burns special on national parks shows a gentleman who has photographed in every park. He uses a 5x7 field view camera. That's made me want to drag out my 4x5 Sinar. I think I'll do some shooting with it as soon as the leaves turn.

Click to expand...

Stregone said:

The idea is that you need some very sophisticated technology to even look at a digital photo. Plus magnetic and optical media are pretty delicate and are constantly being upgraded and going obsolete. All you need is very basic (in comparison) technology to view (Just look at it) and print film. A few hundred years from now, after you are dead, who will bother moving your digital photos to the new mediums of the day?

Click to expand...

Stregone said:

No one is going to dig a hard drive out of the ruins of your house and get anything off of it, its just too fragile. If however they dug up a strongbox full of film it would still be there for the world to see with their own eyes.

Sure its an extreme example, but its true. When the today is ancient history, it is very likely there will not be many if any digital photos left of our time.

Click to expand...

Stregone said:

The idea is that you need some very sophisticated technology to even look at a digital photo. Plus magnetic and optical media are pretty delicate and are constantly being upgraded and going obsolete. All you need is very basic (in comparison) technology to view (Just look at it) and print film. A few hundred years from now, after you are dead, who will bother moving your digital photos to the new mediums of the day?

No one is going to dig a hard drive out of the ruins of your house and get anything off of it, its just too fragile. If however they dug up a strongbox full of film it would still be there for the world to see with their own eyes.

Sure its an extreme example, but its true. When the today is ancient history, it is very likely there will not be many if any digital photos left of our time.

Click to expand...

Dave Luttmann said:

Stregone said:

The idea is that you need some very sophisticated technology to even look at a digital photo. Plus magnetic and optical media are pretty delicate and are constantly being upgraded and going obsolete. All you need is very basic (in comparison) technology to view (Just look at it) and print film. A few hundred years from now, after you are dead, who will bother moving your digital photos to the new mediums of the day?

No one is going to dig a hard drive out of the ruins of your house and get anything off of it, its just too fragile. If however they dug up a strongbox full of film it would still be there for the world to see with their own eyes.

Sure its an extreme example, but its true. When the today is ancient history, it is very likely there will not be many if any digital photos left of our time.

Click to expand...

I take the dual approach. When I'm using film, the original negs are stored in a fireproof case. The film itself is scanned and backed up in multiple locations. That way, I have the benefit of the original film....and a digital file. Best of both worlds! It's nice having that option!

Click to expand...

Doug MacMillan said:

I went out to QT Luong's site. You're right, there's some inspiring stuff there!

This is sort of on topic. I was a little disappointed in the picture quality of the Ken Burns series, even though I kind of agree with his philosophy of shooting film instead of HD video. I've seen better transfers from 16mm, especially Super 16 which I presume they shot. There's a fair amount of 16mm in "Planet Earth" and it sure looks better than the national parks. I'm viewing front projection on an 8 foot screen. The rostrum camera work looks sharp, but the field work looks a little fuzzy and often very contrasty.

I'm on the fence about shooting film or HD video. Watch Art Wolfe's "Travels to the Edge" in HD. They shoot with Canon HD video and the IQ is stunning! They often hang EOS lenses on their Canon HD cameras for long shots.

Click to expand...

Stregone said:

Sure YOU can duplicate them. But like I said who is going to bother duplicating your digital photos on to new mediums as old ones go obsolete after you are dead? Digital is great in the short term. House burned down? Offsite backup! But it requires alot of physical work in the long term.

Anyways, I wasn't making an argument, just explaining the point of view. Troll someone else.

Click to expand...