Reading mode: Light Dark

Now that MF Analog prices have come down so much...

Go to last post
I understand that this is a forum on the Digital Photography Review website, but the problem (as I see it) is that there are some people who can't accept that there are photographers out here that still love and use film.

It seems to be directly related to an ongoing argument here about 'image quality'. When this term it used it almost ALWAYS relates to pixels and sharpness. No one ever talks about the CONTENT of the image. I really don't care whether film or digital resolves better or captures colour better. What I DO know that when I wander around a city with my film camera I THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT WHAT I AM DOING and my images are different--they have a different feel. Keep arguing about tech-specs as much as you like, but there are far more elements to 'image quality' than simple technical ones.

My new wood-and-brass Zero Image pinhole camera should arrive in the next day or two, and I'll be taking fuzzy images on 120 Ilford FP4 with no lens and an effective aperture of f235. I'll process them myself, scan them and print some in my wet darkroom. I'm sure they won't be as sharp as my D800. Or my Toyoview. And I won't care, because I'll be having fun.
 
Last edited:
Stuart001 said:
I understand that this is a forum on the Digital Photography Review website, but the problem (as I see it) is that there are some people who can't accept that there are photographers out here that still love and use film.

It seems to be directly related to an ongoing argument here about 'image quality'. When this term it used it almost ALWAYS relates to pixels and sharpness. No one ever talks about the CONTENT of the image. I really don't care whether film or digital resolves better or captures colour better. What I DO know that when I wander around a city with my film camera I THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT WHAT I AM DOING and my images are different--they have a different feel. Keep arguing about tech-specs as much as you like, but there are far more elements to 'image quality' than simple technical ones.

My new wood-and-brass Zero Image pinhole camera should arrive in the next day or two, and I'll be taking fuzzy images on 120 Ilford FP4 with no lens and an effective aperture of f235. I'll process them myself, scan them and print some in my wet darkroom. I'm sure they won't be as sharp as my D800. Or my Toyoview. And I won't care, because I'll be having fun.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. But the reason is simple, the photos of people who talk about sharpness and pixels have no content worth of having 2nd look. They are only good for evaluating cameras.

I'm surprised that in the set I have posted above I wasn't told there was no shadow detail in most of them.

This is not a site to discuss "photography", since most people don't get it and people only value what the spec sheet says about cameras. Not what they can produce. The comment by Reilly to my post says it all, my photos are too small to evaluate resolution. Made me laugh. :)
 
Stuart001 said:
I understand that this is a forum on the Digital Photography Review website, but the problem (as I see it) is that there are some people who can't accept that there are photographers out here that still love and use film.

It seems to be directly related to an ongoing argument here about 'image quality'. When this term it used it almost ALWAYS relates to pixels and sharpness. No one ever talks about the CONTENT of the image. I really don't care whether film or digital resolves better or captures colour better. What I DO know that when I wander around a city with my film camera I THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT WHAT I AM DOING and my images are different--they have a different feel. Keep arguing about tech-specs as much as you like, but there are far more elements to 'image quality' than simple technical ones.

My new wood-and-brass Zero Image pinhole camera should arrive in the next day or two, and I'll be taking fuzzy images on 120 Ilford FP4 with no lens and an effective aperture of f235. I'll process them myself, scan them and print some in my wet darkroom. I'm sure they won't be as sharp as my D800. Or my Toyoview. And I won't care, because I'll be having fun.
Click to expand...
I have similar thoughts,

When I look through my old negs/ wet prints, or slides/ ciba's, I look at them with a completely different mind-set to my present-day digital stuff.

When I look at my old slides/prints etc, my memory is instantly triggered back to that moment in time, by the contents....and not how sharp it compares to a modern digitally sharpened image, or how any intricate detail visible compares to my present-day dslr/ photoshop output...at 100%.

I got rid of my darkroom some years ago, and have no desire to return to wet-printing, but I am glad i retained my old Jobo E6 chemical tank...in case I ever decide to grab an old film body.

I have been tempted occasionally by the thought of re-buying my old Pentax LX, or Mamiya 645 {at bargain prices}, and shoot/ process slides occasionally... but for nostalgic purposes only though { due to my bird photography being far more suited to modern-day digital shooting }.

Just my views.
 
Last edited:
There comes a time when differences of opinion are treated as fact. This discussion has reached that point and my responses end here, especially in light of the fact you have resorted to the I know more than you argument which you initiated. When you did that it became apparent you ran out of logical arguments, became angry and frustrated you couldn't convince me you were right and in essence lost all ability to think clearly. I suggest there are more important things in the world to worry about. Film is near death and soon will go the way of the tin type regardless of how you feel about it's alleged superior quality. Calm down and have a good day.
 
Dave, I don't care about any articles, especially those with a transparent agenda.

I want to see one of your film based masterpieces that is sharper than a D810. Your fellow film fan put up some rather mushy 6MP equivalent shots and failed spectacularly to convince anyone with a sense of sight. Are you going to show us some ankle? Could it finally happen?

The GSW690 shooting Velvia 50 fails to outdo even a single frame from a D810, providing middling detail at best considering the expense and trouble involved. The color is wonky and the grain as seen here pervasive, especially the sky. The whole image looks like it is overlaid on 80 grit sandpaper. None of these aspects will be changed or improved with a bigger scan, you'll simply get a clearer view of the defects. The 36MP cameras shot with a good lens easily outclass this rig for clean sky, detail, color accuracy and microcontrast.



Grainy Sky
Grainy Sky



Of course, you won't put one up, so I have nothing to worry about, not that I would anyway, the evidence is clear.

Now mind you, I have nothing against the earnest hobbyist searching for fun with all this old stuff. Enjoy whatever nook and cranny you desire of this wonderful hobby.
 
TheChefs said:
Stuart001 said:
I understand that this is a forum on the Digital Photography Review website, but the problem (as I see it) is that there are some people who can't accept that there are photographers out here that still love and use film.

It seems to be directly related to an ongoing argument here about 'image quality'. When this term it used it almost ALWAYS relates to pixels and sharpness. No one ever talks about the CONTENT of the image. I really don't care whether film or digital resolves better or captures colour better. What I DO know that when I wander around a city with my film camera I THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT WHAT I AM DOING and my images are different--they have a different feel. Keep arguing about tech-specs as much as you like, but there are far more elements to 'image quality' than simple technical ones.

My new wood-and-brass Zero Image pinhole camera should arrive in the next day or two, and I'll be taking fuzzy images on 120 Ilford FP4 with no lens and an effective aperture of f235. I'll process them myself, scan them and print some in my wet darkroom. I'm sure they won't be as sharp as my D800. Or my Toyoview. And I won't care, because I'll be having fun.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. But the reason is simple, the photos of people who talk about sharpness and pixels have no content worth of having 2nd look.
Click to expand...
Brilliant!
TheChefs said:
They are only good for evaluating cameras.

I'm surprised that in the set I have posted above I wasn't told there was no shadow detail in most of them.

This is not a site to discuss "photography", since most people don't get it and people only value what the spec sheet says about cameras. Not what they can produce. The comment by Reilly to my post says it all, my photos are too small to evaluate resolution. Made me laugh. :)
Click to expand...
Says all what? That your little postage stamp sized download prevented jpgs are too small to help your case for superior detail?

It's an ongoing source of irritation that so many photographers downsize their pics on Flickr to prevent theft of their masterpieces. As if anyone would want them.
 
Odd. You claim not to be interested in articles...yet you keep referring to the Lloyd article with blurry photos. It appears you like to think that any evidence that disagrees with a bias you have must have a "transparent agenda." The only agenda Tim Parkin has was to show the quality if film in different formats compared to the same for digital. You appear to take issue with the fact that the results show you are mistaken. Maybe instead of claiming hidden agendas, ask yourself why his results are different than what you think. The answer should both surprise and educate you. Any scan samples I post, something I've done many times here, will just be dismissed by you anyway....and really, that is nothing more than a weak attempt to shift the topic away anyway.
 
The Davinator said:
Odd. You claim not to be interested in articles...yet you keep referring to the Lloyd article with blurry photos. It appears you like to think that any evidence that disagrees with a bias you have must have a "transparent agenda." The only agenda Tim Parkin has was to show the quality if film in different formats compared to the same for digital. You appear to take issue with the fact that the results show you are mistaken. Maybe instead of claiming hidden agendas, ask yourself why his results are different than what you think. The answer should both surprise and educate you.
Click to expand...
After 50 plus years of doing this stuff and shooting everything from a Brownie to a 4X5 and all stops in between plus about eight digital cameras, neither you nor anyone else with an obvious agenda can prove a damn thing to me. I don't need schooling, I'm there and I know what I see. You as always are going to keep bleating about how great film is. You're in here every single thread even remotely relating to celluloid like an old warhorse hearing the bugle one more time. It's obviously a hugely emotional issue for you. I truly don't give a hoot either way. I'll shoot whatever gets the job done best, and that certainly isn't film in any way shape or form. Way too grainy even at ISO 50 (as clearly demonstrated all over the lot ,) not detailed enough, blah to bad color, inflexible and expensive. No thanks!
The Davinator said:
Any scan samples I post, something I've done many times here,
Click to expand...
Not to my recollection. Since you're so passionate about the subject, maybe you'd care to put your money where your mouth is. Go for it. Show us how wonderful your scans are.
The Davinator said:
will just be dismissed by you anyway....and really, that is nothing more than a weak attempt to shift the topic away anyway.
Click to expand...
I thought the topic per you was how incredibly much higher quality film was than DSLR. If anything is weak, it's your reliance on some old web article as opposed to putting up some your allegedly mindblowingly detailed scans.

I don't mind entertaining the forum members with a bit of back and forth, but really, I see no reason to respond to any of your stuff if you cannot back up what you say with anything but words.

And once again for the record, I have no issue (it would be silly) with Roel or anyone else using any photographic device if that's what floats the boat.
 
Last edited:
tbcass said:
There comes a time when differences of opinion are treated as fact.
Click to expand...
I haven't done that, you have stated that the colours from film are poor, not that you couldn't get good colour but that the fault was with the medium.
tbcass said:
This discussion has reached that point and my responses end here, especially in light of the fact you have resorted to the I know more than you argument which you initiated.
Click to expand...
No you seem to think 40 years of amateur use trumps deeper knowledge it was you who brought up your 40 years 'experience' which at the low level you practiced doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Come back to me when you have printed thousands of film images to a pro standard and I'll listen to how poor film colours are.
tbcass said:
When you did that it became apparent you ran out of logical arguments, became angry and frustrated you couldn't convince me you were right and in essence lost all ability to think clearly.
Click to expand...
About the same time you started the big 'I know because I have 40 years' idiocy.
tbcass said:
I suggest there are more important things in the world to worry about. Film is near death and soon will go the way of the tin type regardless of how you feel about it's alleged superior
Click to expand...
Film may or may not 'go away' we are all near death and film will outlive us both, I make tin types too BTW
 
Last edited:
Reilly Diefenbach said:
The GSW690 shooting Velvia 50 fails to outdo even a single frame from a D810, providing middling detail at best considering the expense and trouble involved.
Click to expand...
It seems clearly out resolving the D810 to me.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
The color is wonky and the grain as seen here pervasive, especially the sky.
Click to expand...
The colour of Velvia is not to everyones taste, but it is what it is and not 'wonky' the noise you see isn't grain its an effect from the scanner called alaising

Scanner 'false grain'
Reilly Diefenbach said:
The whole image looks like it is overlaid on 80 grit sandpaper. None of these aspects will be changed or improved with a bigger scan, you'll simply get a clearer view of the defects.
Click to expand...
You don't need those defects, they can be eliminated by using the correct scanner aperture.
Reilly Diefenbach said:
The 36MP cameras shot with a good lens easily outclass this rig for clean sky, detail, color accuracy and microcontrast.

The grainy sky is in reality scanner noise and not in the film at all
The grainy sky is in reality scanner noise and not in the film at all

Of course, you won't put one up, so I have nothing to worry about, not that I would anyway, the evidence is clear.
Click to expand...
It's interesting you focus on the clean sky and not the mushy detail, to my eye I'd rather have a hint of grain (I add this to all my digital images) that mimics the noise in the eye we see all the time.

Take a look at the sky with the naked eye...
 
Mark Smith145430 said:
Mark Smith145430 said:
When you did that it became apparent you ran out of logical arguments, became angry and frustrated you couldn't convince me you were right and in essence lost all ability to think clearly.
Click to expand...
About the same time you started the big 'I know because I have 40 years' idiocy.
Click to expand...
Which was initiated by the following statement from you;

"My experience of film is as a pro and lab owner for over 17 years, I was also a tester for both Fuji and Agfa–yours? (don't tell me it was just 35mm dev'd at wallmart)"
 
tbcass said:
... Film is near death and soon will go the way of the tin type regardless of how you feel about it's alleged superior quality. Calm down and have a good day.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.
Click to expand...
Is this the tintype that's gone away? It's available from many sources, and there are a lot of others. 'Alternative' photographic practices are probably used by more people today than they were when they were 'new'. If I had one in my possession, I could still use a half plate camera made a hundred and fifty years ago--don't know that it will be the case with my digitals.

As for film disappearing, sorry--it's going through a resurgence at the moment. Google 'Film Ferrania'.

e50b5c4173014508b270b6b05178f45d.jpg
 
Last edited:
I never said film was going away. It's going to become a niche product used by a few hobbyists just as tintype is now. There are always people willing to carry on obsolete crafts and tech and that is a good thing.
 
tbcass said:
I never said film was going away. It's going to become a niche product used by a few hobbyists just as tintype is now. There are always people willing to carry on obsolete crafts and tech and that is a good thing.
Click to expand...
 
The Davinator said:
Time for a couple of my tintypes.....

28bacbca03874496b7d213b300bc876a.jpg

b967d657b1a84a76b56f1cb180c26d09.jpg
Click to expand...
Fantastic images! I find these quite beautiful. The imperfections that are an inherent part of the process adds to their visual interest.
 
tbcass said:
Mark Smith said:
tbcass said:
When you did that it became apparent you ran out of logical arguments, became angry and frustrated you couldn't convince me you were right and in essence lost all ability to think clearly.
Click to expand...
About the same time you started the big 'I know because I have 40 years' idiocy.
Click to expand...
Which was initiated by the following statement from you;

"My experience of film is as a pro and lab owner for over 17 years, I was also a tester for both Fuji and Agfa–yours? (don't tell me it was just 35mm dev'd at wallmart)"
Click to expand...
Which was a reply to this post (your first in this thread)

Personally I wouldn't go back to film if it cost me nothing. I shot film for 40 years. Never again.

I suppose if you drive your hatchback for 40 years your opinon on driving counts more than a racing driver who did it for 17 years?

You have a lot to learn, and if you couldn't get good colour from film–it was an issue with you not the film.

The question for you is what experience of 120 film (the topic in hand) do you have that would make you sate the bolded sentence above?

Or is it to you film = 35mm? and that is the extent of your experience?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The RF Situation
2 3
Replies
54
Views
4K
JimKasson
JimKasson
JimKasson
GFX 100RF review draft
5 6 7
Replies
139
Views
215K
ZilverHaylide
Z
ProfHankD
  • Question Question
Interest in modern 4x5 film cameras like Smartflex?
Replies
6
Views
4K
ProfHankD
ProfHankD
S
Nikkor Ai-s MF lenses on α7RV
Replies
5
Views
4K
UncleVanya
UncleVanya
T
Back to MF?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Noddemix
N

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top