Are you willing to let film die off? How do you really feel?

Started Aug 14, 2012 | Discussions
edu T Senior Member • Posts: 1,174
Re: Are digital copies easy?

RedFox88 wrote:

edu T wrote:

dherzstein wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

If you find photos on digital storage from 10-15 years ago, good luck trying to get those files back.

My oldest digital image files are just over 10 years old - back to my very first digital image. Somehow they made their way onto redundant 2TB HDDs! I have some DOC and TXT files dating back to 1986 (still readable) and they somehow found their way onto my windows 7 laptop!

That's because you've been constantly very diligent with your files for 26 years. But let's just suppose tonight you discover, inside a shoebox in the basement, a nice bunch of letters and poetry from 1986 that your late and beloved grandfather left recorded, unbeknownst to the family, on the removable media of choice back then… 5.25" floppy disks. THEN you'd need luck!

And that's only about the physical survival of the (already then) precarious magnetic medium and the present availability/connectivity of reading devices. You'd still need to worry about information encoding/formatting: hopefully your grandfather was writing using at least Word for DOS, not WordStar for CP/M or WordPerfect for Atari TOS.

This has been my viewpoint with those that think digital photo files are perfect archival elements. We aren't going to maintain and monitor our photo files throughout our whole live, most of us won't. There'll come a time after kids move out, fewer and fewer photos are taken, and retirement happens. You may even put computers out of use for just a phone. What will happen to a box of hard drives when your kids find them in the attic after you pass away? This is 20 years after you put them in the box. Will the data be in tact? Will any computers of the day be able to interface with the drives? Will there be software that can open the files?

I see the pace of technology accelerating. I can see the optical disc (CD, DVD, Blue-ray DVD) being ended soon in favor of a different medium. If that happens, your optical discs may not be readable by anything in 20 years. Same goes for hard drives. Interface cables/ports advance and most likely will be all wireless here soon. In 20 years you might not have computers with any ports to plug anything in except for the power cord!

Except that I heard that electromagnetic induction links have already been replacing power cords in appliances.

Where prints or slides in a box will still be prints and slides in 20 years that can be viewed within seconds of opening the box. Can't say the same about a box of hard drives and optical discs!

On a more serious but nevertheless ironic note, I just recalled a far-reaching and totally fascinating "Dead Media" cataloging/discussing project (whose curator was no one less than cyberpunk founding writer Bruce Sterling) only to find it updated January 4th... 2001!
( http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/index-cat.html )

 edu T's gear list:edu T's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F550 EXR
Faintandfuzzy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,328
Sure

Jhoe Lavee likes posting some shots from a friends wedding with a disposable camera claiming they're my professional work. Here's my blog if you're really inbterested.

http://www.luttmannphotography.blogspot.ca/

Maybe jhoe can post some of his passport examples for us seeing I've made ghim a bit irritated aleady.

 Faintandfuzzy's gear list:Faintandfuzzy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Olympus E-10 Nikon Coolpix 950 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 7D +10 more
Faintandfuzzy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,328
Re: commonality

Mako2011 wrote:

Faintandfuzzy wrote:

dannybgoode wrote:

I love digital. I think it is convenient, accessible and versatile. However, due to cost constraints I own an APS-C DSLR and to be fair for 99% of what I do its more than adequate.

However, I would like to dabble in FF and even medium format but to buy into such a digital system(s) is way, way beyond my budget and this is where film really comes in. A nice cheap Canon AE-1 and some Ilford film and I'm in FF heaven for just a few £. It would take an awful lot of shooting before I've spent as much on film and processing than I would on a nice FF digital camera - given how infrequently I would be using it.

Same goes for medium format - £20 for a nice condition Lubitel - plenty to get me started. Haven't seen a Phase 1 back for £20, not even on ebay.

I grabbed a Minolta X700 with 35, 50, 85 and 13d lens for approx $200. Slapped in some Ilford FP4 and voila...who says FF need be expensive. And it's nice pulling out a view camera that takes a photograph that puts a lot of digital gear 15 to 20 times the cost to shame.

And your exercise was very limiting. I took 1000 + pics last weekend and viewed them all in no time. What would that cost you.

Probably would have used a fews rolls or maybe a half dozen sheets of film instead...and thought about what I was doing as opposed to spraying everywhere on full burst.

The part that confuses me is why some people seem to get almost angry that film is still around.

Not as angry or verbally abusive as the few here seeing it the other way.

I think we've explained oyrselves well. It looks pretty childish to say things like "it can't die quick enough"...when he doesn't even use film anynmore. It's as though the fact that some people use it bothers him. So, it would be a pretty odd position to support his reasoning over someone that says more choice is better.

Comments like 'it can't die soon enough" are simply ridiculous.

Not as mean as the trolling comments or the "simple minded" remarks in an attempt to character assassinate.

It is simplke minded. Step back and read his comment..."Can't die quick enbough.". That comment cannot be backed by any logic.

Why do they care what some people use? Are they insecure? Do they think being at the forefront of tech makes them more important?

You should be able to easily answer that. Not being disrespectful but the irony in your question is hard not to notice.

I know why...he is insecure and narrowminded about what goes in to creating art.

I was just enjoying an article in this months Popular Photography called "Film Lives.". Goes into how many people are discovering film for the first time, and use it for it's unique characteristics, and how it differentiates them. Of course, it makes perfect sense that some in this forum wish film dead so that these people who enjoy it are dprived of that enjoyment. Feel free to explain that logic to me.

I'll tell ya this...when I'm out in public with a huge DSLR, no one cares. Take out my Mamiya RB67 or 4x5 gear and a lot of eople come up and ask questions, tell me it's cool, etc.

Same when I see someone driving a model-T. It's nostalgic and interesting. Don't want to drive on far though...to inconvenient. It's still a beutiful thing and enjoyable conversation piece....the vast majority have rusted away though.

Bad analogy...as I can produce resullts with my RB67 that will match the best from Canon for 1/10 the price.

Let the odd narrowminded person here worship their Nikon D3...nobody real takes notice of them anyway.

There you go again with the anomisity. At least no one said....

" Let the odd narrowminded person here worship their Mamiya RB67...nobody real takes notice of them anyway other than to as an anomaly"

I don't actually think that but your tone is always so adversarial and neagtive that I wonder the cause. Good luck though....Not really possible to see your film examples here but I'm sure they might be nice.

 Faintandfuzzy's gear list:Faintandfuzzy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Olympus E-10 Nikon Coolpix 950 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS 7D +10 more
Glen Barrington
Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 19,679
Film, yer dead, lay down, already. . .

Personally, I don't much care one way or the the other. I'm sticking with digital. It has made me a better photographer, but I don't resent film's continued existence, or people's struggle to keep it alive. Everyone needs a cause I guess.

-- hide signature --

I'm so bright, my father calls me son.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +12 more
BruinBlue Regular Member • Posts: 107
Cloud storage is my future

RedFox88 wrote:

This has been my viewpoint with those that think digital photo files are perfect archival elements. We aren't going to maintain and monitor our photo files throughout our whole live, most of us won't. There'll come a time after kids move out, fewer and fewer photos are taken, and retirement happens. You may even put computers out of use for just a phone. What will happen to a box of hard drives when your kids find them in the attic after you pass away? This is 20 years after you put them in the box. Will the data be in tact? Will any computers of the day be able to interface with the drives? Will there be software that can open the files?

Where prints or slides in a box will still be prints and slides in 20 years that can be viewed within seconds of opening the box. Can't say the same about a box of hard drives and optical discs!

I'm not a pro like many of you guys. My RAW folder is only 200GB with 2 external HDD backup copies. The most precious data I have is stored on Amazon S3, about 70GB worth. That makes media migration, monitoring, and refresh Amazon's problem.

I don't worry that SATA will change to something else, that optical drives become unavailable, or my new computer only comes with an OMGBBQ 5.0 port. As long as I can access my Amazon service or something comparable, and my device reads JPG/RAW, I should be ok.

 BruinBlue's gear list:BruinBlue's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Sony a6500 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +4 more
trueview Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Glad it's going

In the event that this addressed to me, rattymouse, let me say this : from my profession, I know all about double checking facts, sources, submission to peer review, etc. I am stating facts, from reliable sources. Google the topic, sort out the sources, and you will see I'm not repeating drooling moron babble.

Here's one link, from the Basel Convention, hardly Greene revolutionaries :

http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/EWaste/EwasteAfricaProject/tabid/2546/Default.aspx

Of course photographic equipment is just one part of it : a good chunk of the volume is made up of discarded cell phones, computers, etc.

rattymouse wrote:
Please try not to confuse drooling morons with facts.

trueview wrote:

This is to say the least an uninformed statement. 1. The manufacturing of silicon chips uses up a lot of clean water. 2. Discarded cameras, especially lower range p&s populate by the millions waste fields in Africa. These devices are full of harmful products. Children roam the waste fields to pick up the elements in those objects which can be recycled, at their health expense, in order to make minute amounts of money. Film was not particularly environmental friendly (color a much bigger offender than B&W) but at least those who used it had to live with the environmental cost. In the digital age, we inflict the environmental cost of our hobby on those who couldn't even dream of indulging in such enjoyment. Hardly an improvement in my opinion.

InterestedParty wrote:

Digital photography certainly seems much more environmentally friendly. With ever increasing RoHS compliance and recycling it's hard to argue that digital cameras are an equal problem.

PerL Forum Pro • Posts: 13,980
Let me rephrase that

jack69 wrote:

PerL wrote:

PHOTOJOE55 wrote:

Keh, and other Camera Brokers are just about begging for our film cameras and other gear, but they are paying peanuts! For me, there is no question. I'm using the gear. Many people are demanding film. We've got people that have come in every year, to Document in Portraits, the growth and changes in their families and they want it done with film. They even ask to see the negatives on the light table!

But even if there was no demand for it, I would still shoot Film, even if it's a small percentage of our work. I think, if we all just forget about it, it will continue to fade away. I don't know who keeps those kind of records, but I want to keep Film alive.

If we don't shoot film, they will soon slow or halt production, and I'm sure the prices will quickly rise. I often wonder what Keh and the others are doing with the gear. Are they sending it to Japan? Any ideas?

I'd like to find out how many people are still shooting film. If not, will it bother you if film fades away completely? If you have a minute to spare, maybe you could voice your opinion. I know of a few that agree with me, but I'd like to hear from people actively shooting every day or at least every week. When Fuji took the full name Fujifilm, I thought that meant their commitment to the medium.

It would be tragic if film disappeared.

Tragic? Don't you think that you use a too strong term? Tragic to whom? to you? The photographic community moved on and embraced digital.

OK - tragic is to strong, it should be reserved for more serious matters. Lets say sad.

In answer to your other statement - At least the artistic community has not moved on entirely. If you go to a exhibition of photographic art you will probably still see more prints from film than digital. And the film shots often looks more pleasing to many viewers

To be more specifik about pros and cons about film/digital:
Lets leave convinience aside because it does not matter to the viewers.
Then IMO:
Sports, wildlife, long tele shots: Digital wins
Portraits, skin tone. Film wins usually
Low light color: Digital wins
Good light color: Film wins usually
Good light B&W: Film wins

Low light B&W: Film wins up to ISO 1600-2000 - not technically, but more appealing, above that digital wins

The look of colors out of camera: A well exposed slide beats any digital OOC. You can improve digital with PP of course, but have to walk on a thin line between good punch and tacky overdoing.
Amount of necessary PP work: Film wins
Tonality, natural looking DR: film wins

In the future I can see film as a way for professionals to separate them from the mass of digital photos that tends to look the same. At least in some niches.

I have a full DSLR set and a few digicams, but also bought a Nikon F100 and a FE some months ago to shot film again.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

trueview Regular Member • Posts: 188
Re: Glad it's going

From reading your other posts in this thread, I suppose I misunderstood the irony in your previous reply. My apologies.

trueview wrote:

In the event that this addressed to me, rattymouse, let me say this : from my profession, I know all about double checking facts, sources, submission to peer review, etc. I am stating facts, from reliable sources. Google the topic, sort out the sources, and you will see I'm not repeating drooling moron babble.

Here's one link, from the Basel Convention, hardly Greene revolutionaries :

http://www.basel.int/Implementation/TechnicalAssistance/EWaste/EwasteAfricaProject/tabid/2546/Default.aspx

Of course photographic equipment is just one part of it : a good chunk of the volume is made up of discarded cell phones, computers, etc.

rattymouse wrote:
Please try not to confuse drooling morons with facts.

trueview wrote:

This is to say the least an uninformed statement. 1. The manufacturing of silicon chips uses up a lot of clean water. 2. Discarded cameras, especially lower range p&s populate by the millions waste fields in Africa. These devices are full of harmful products. Children roam the waste fields to pick up the elements in those objects which can be recycled, at their health expense, in order to make minute amounts of money. Film was not particularly environmental friendly (color a much bigger offender than B&W) but at least those who used it had to live with the environmental cost. In the digital age, we inflict the environmental cost of our hobby on those who couldn't even dream of indulging in such enjoyment. Hardly an improvement in my opinion.

InterestedParty wrote:

Digital photography certainly seems much more environmentally friendly. With ever increasing RoHS compliance and recycling it's hard to argue that digital cameras are an equal problem.

GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,527
Re: Let film die off?

jeffcpix wrote:

In the end, the best solution was a sheet of 8x10 film using conventional
flash illumination.

A highly specialized use. Not quite what we were talking about... which is really, is film dead among the average consumer? The answer to that question is a definate Y.E.S.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,527
Re: Let film die off?

Alanis wrote:

Though completely untrue. While you can continue to buy film, chemicals, film cameras, paper, all that good old stuff, film is decidedly not dead, regardless of what our good non-omniscient lord thinks.

Ok, so film is not 100.00% dead. But it's pretty close. For the average consumer, film is indeed dead. For a few stalward diehards, ok, they are clinging on.

Back in pre-digital area, you know, ancient times before digital, I worked in the photo industry. I even had my own color darkroom. At the time, it was the way to go, and quite enjoyable.

But those days are gone, and I really have zero desire to go back to that darkroom, or film in general.

But that's me. Your mileage may differ.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,527
Re: Let film die off?

Faintandfuzzy wrote:

Alanis wrote:

jack69 wrote:

GodSpeaks wrote:

Film is dead.

Well said.

Alanis, don't bother with this fellow. He is just a troll that stalks my posts to start fights and pursue his anti film agenda. He's been banned previously under jhoe Lavee, Ludwig100, Northlight2000, Digserv, Yuzooskar....and now he switches between Jack69 and Jhohn Smith 2011.

Phew, for a moment there I thought you were refering to me.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 13,527
Re: Let film die off? Film Lives!

PHOTOJOE55 wrote:

They are still teaching Photography in the Colleges and in High School. They are using Film, and Processing it B&W right in the class. Their homework consists of shooting certain themes, and always in B&W Film.

Colour Film & slides comes in a later semester.

Schools are often late to adopt new technology.

Fujifilm has just cut production on two previously in demand speeds. There are still 60 & 30 Minute Labs all over New York. Most film is readily available in every corner store, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens and the list goes on. They take in Digital work too, they even have Kiosks for printing your own Digital film along with their Film & Print processors. They take in plenty of film work every day!

The real question is, how many rolls of film do they sell or process each day/week/month/year?

How come ever time I say SLR, I get corrected, it's DSLR?

Does anybody still make new film cameras?

I still shoot both, Full frame Digital, but in Medium format, I could have leased a Digital Camera & all that goes with it, but 1)Some people ask for film and 2)The others don't know the difference. But yet MAMIYA won't even service my 4 Bodies & finders, 8 backs & 12 Lenses. They want no part of film! A Hassy set up is close to 70k, Mamiya 645 is over 50k

Well, no one ever said digital is cheap. Back in film days, how many $3000 35mm SLR's were there?

I originally asked this because I would like to get Digital Medium Format, but Mamiya has cut all ties, and merged with their former competition. All I could use is my manual focus lenses (that are of excellent quality).

I just sold off my Mamiya 645 digital system. With the advent of the D800, the Mamiya just didn't cut it anymore. Too big, too heavy, too slow, and way way too expensive for what it was.

I can understand if people don't want to shoot film, but where is all this hatred coming from. Most of those comments say, they can't wait for film to disappear.

No hatred here. I grew up on film and, at the time, loved it. But film's day is now past. Time to move on.

Where would we be without Film? Do you even know where film came from?

Yes. Might also want to ask, where is Kodak today?

I remember someone picking up 35MM Film off the cutting room floor while shooting movies. What a waste, they said, there's got to be some use for this.

How old are you? You remember this?

I guess I DISAGREE with most of you. I'm going to keep shooting Digital and Film, at least until Medium Format prices come down to earth. It may never come to Large Format View Cameras, but the companies that make them are doing fine.

Medium format prices will never come 'down to earth' . As FF 35mm cameras continue to improve, the role of medium format digital will continue to be a smaller and smaller niche market, thereby ensuring MFD prices remain lofty.

Why do you think I just sold off all my MFD gear? Because I see no future in it, especially when cameras like the Nikon D800 have both feet firmly planted in MFD territory.

Let me ask you this: Someone hands you a Classic Rangefinder, a Leica, Canon or Nikon, or other film camera from the 50's. Tell me you have no urge to shoot with it, I know I would

I still have my lovely Nikon F2As. Occasionally I take it out and give it a fondle. Yes, it brings back fond memories. But I have zero desire to put film in and shoot with it.

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

  • Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +49 more
Dave Lively Senior Member • Posts: 1,905
Re: Are digital copies easy?

Unless there are some dramatic improvements in Lasik surgery there is no way I am going to be relying completely on a phone or some other small screen device. Transferring all my digital images to a new computer is part of the purchase process and I do not see that changing. You make it sound like copying digital files from one medium to another is such a tedious task nobody can keep doing for long but it really is not that hard. I can see how not backing them up is something that is easy to let slide but transferring them to different devices is not. It happens every time you buy a new computer

In fact the biggest problem with relying on digital photos is it is too easy to create and safely store huge numbers of photos. If you die and leave a shoebox of photos your relatives will have an enjoyable few hours of reminiscing as they go through them. If you have a 10TB drive with 1,000,000+ images, no tags and/or no rating system you might as well have no photos. Nobody is ever going to go through them.

I try to pick out the most memorable 10-20 photos every year and put them in a special and easy to find directory but have been slipping recently. At some point I may even have prints made of these photos. These are usually shots with special people in them, not the shots of scenery or other subjects I spend so much time with. In 30 years all the artistic shots you value so much now are going to be much less important than pictures of people.

Digital is much, much better for preserving all your photos for your own use which is my biggest concern. But if you are worried about something for people to have at your funeral you cannot beat a small of prints.

RedFox88 wrote:

This has been my viewpoint with those that think digital photo files are perfect archival elements. We aren't going to maintain and monitor our photo files throughout our whole live, most of us won't. There'll come a time after kids move out, fewer and fewer photos are taken, and retirement happens. You may even put computers out of use for just a phone. What will happen to a box of hard drives when your kids find them in the attic after you pass away? This is 20 years after you put them in the box. Will the data be in tact? Will any computers of the day be able to interface with the drives? Will there be software that can open the files?

I see the pace of technology accelerating. I can see the optical disc (CD, DVD, Blue-ray DVD) being ended soon in favor of a different medium. If that happens, your optical discs may not be readable by anything in 20 years. Same goes for hard drives. Interface cables/ports advance and most likely will be all wireless here soon. In 20 years you might not have computers with any ports to plug anything in except for the power cord!

Where prints or slides in a box will still be prints and slides in 20 years that can be viewed within seconds of opening the box. Can't say the same about a box of hard drives and optical discs!

Glen Barrington
Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 19,679
Partidcularly agree with MF Comments. . .

FF is the digital equivalent of Medium Format. Which to my mind, indicates that FF will never be priced at consumer level prices. There will always be a premium for that niche of the photo gear market.
--
I'm so bright, my father calls me son.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos

 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +12 more
edu T Senior Member • Posts: 1,174
Re: Turn the tables

caterpillar wrote:

edu T wrote:

Now, would this situation be worse than how your own posterity may yet have to cope with the current (2012) infestation of proprietary/partially encrypted (and sometimes sensor/model-specific) RAW formats?

I don't it a real issue as the standards have evolved and archive standards are for more usable now. Best way to preserve film...lock it away where few can see it.

I lost all my old photos in a flood....My digital work won't suffer from that...it's even fire proof.

That would be a leap of faith compared to "Please be aware that your floppy discs are very old now and that we therefore cannot guarantee that your old disks will be technically readable at all." ( http://www.datarecoverymasters.com/floppydiskcopy.php , a transcribing service.)

Anyway, you can see what I was talking about above was data preservation across biological --not technological-- generations.

What makes you think it would be easier with film. With digital, there is chance for us to find old floppy diskette drives, or even controller cards or whatever in junk shops, etc. At least I can find them here in our country. 20 or so years from now, where in the world will you go when the labs that print film no longer exist? Now you are holding a negative with nowhere to go. You will now have to digitize them, ergo go to the process of now keeping the digital files, which you have shunned in the first place . . .

Have I "shunned digital files in the first place"? Please re-read my few entries and take your time to try to find and quote something that you could have (mis) understood as that.

This is much easier to cite back: I just pointed out that digital storage as archivial media also (that is, as well as film) has serious shortcomings of its own which need to be addressed... before we start relying upon RAW files on flash drives in a cigar box to bequeath our imagery to posterity.
Edit: Apologies accepted in advance.

 edu T's gear list:edu T's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F550 EXR
Mako2011
Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,903
Not so sure

Glen Barrington wrote:

FF is the digital equivalent of Medium Format. Which to my mind, indicates that FF will never be priced at consumer level prices. There will always be a premium for that niche of the photo gear market.

The D600 looks poised to put FF right into the hands of consumers at near the same point as consumer level DX. It looks like another change is coming.

Mako2011
Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,903
Re: Let me rephrase that

PerL wrote:

jack69 wrote:

PerL wrote:

PHOTOJOE55 wrote:

Keh, and other Camera Brokers are just about begging for our film cameras and other gear, but they are paying peanuts! For me, there is no question. I'm using the gear. Many people are demanding film. We've got people that have come in every year, to Document in Portraits, the growth and changes in their families and they want it done with film. They even ask to see the negatives on the light table!

But even if there was no demand for it, I would still shoot Film, even if it's a small percentage of our work. I think, if we all just forget about it, it will continue to fade away. I don't know who keeps those kind of records, but I want to keep Film alive.

If we don't shoot film, they will soon slow or halt production, and I'm sure the prices will quickly rise. I often wonder what Keh and the others are doing with the gear. Are they sending it to Japan? Any ideas?

I'd like to find out how many people are still shooting film. If not, will it bother you if film fades away completely? If you have a minute to spare, maybe you could voice your opinion. I know of a few that agree with me, but I'd like to hear from people actively shooting every day or at least every week. When Fuji took the full name Fujifilm, I thought that meant their commitment to the medium.

It would be tragic if film disappeared.

Tragic? Don't you think that you use a too strong term? Tragic to whom? to you? The photographic community moved on and embraced digital.

OK - tragic is to strong, it should be reserved for more serious matters. Lets say sad.

In answer to your other statement - At least the artistic community has not moved on entirely. If you go to a exhibition of photographic art you will probably still see more prints from film than digital. And the film shots often looks more pleasing to many viewers

I have been to 3 recent exhibitions of photographic art. In all three, no film was represented. I suspect in NYC that may not be the case.

To be more specifik about pros and cons about film/digital:
Lets leave convinience aside because it does not matter to the viewers.

Why? As a viewer here (computer screen as replaced the wall as the most common medium for viewing) ...I can only see digital so it matters greatly.

Then IMO:
Sports, wildlife, long tele shots: Digital wins
Portraits, skin tone. Film wins usually

Usually? That is subjective. The very best I've seen of late have all been digital.

Low light color: Digital wins
Good light color: Film wins usually

Usually? Again, subjective.

Good light B&W: Film wins

Again, subjective as things Silver Efex Pro 2 have greatly changed the "look" in my opinion and perhaps given the advantage to digital when using FF like a D4

Low light B&W: Film wins up to ISO 1600-2000 - not technically, but more appealing, above that digital wins

Still subjective I think

The look of colors out of camera: A well exposed slide beats any digital OOC. You can improve digital with PP of course, but have to walk on a thin line between good punch and tacky overdoing.

Again not everyone prefers the look of slide, but that aside...limiting digital to only OOC is a bit silly. Might as well limit film to OOW (out of Walgreen's)

Amount of necessary PP work: Film wins

NO way, sorry....because you limited in what PP can accomplish in film does not equate to necessary, IMO. One of the users here could certainly benefit from more PP in his/her film work. It's just not an absolute I think. I see what your are saying though.

Tonality, natural looking DR: film wins

Subjective and I really think the D4 and like cameras are taking the advantage away.

In the future I can see film as a way for professionals to separate them from the mass of digital photos that tends to look the same. At least in some niches.

Possibly.

Mako2011
Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 24,903
Re: commonality

Faintandfuzzy wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

Faintandfuzzy wrote:

dannybgoode wrote:

I love digital. I think it is convenient, accessible and versatile. However, due to cost constraints I own an APS-C DSLR and to be fair for 99% of what I do its more than adequate.

However, I would like to dabble in FF and even medium format but to buy into such a digital system(s) is way, way beyond my budget and this is where film really comes in. A nice cheap Canon AE-1 and some Ilford film and I'm in FF heaven for just a few £. It would take an awful lot of shooting before I've spent as much on film and processing than I would on a nice FF digital camera - given how infrequently I would be using it.

Same goes for medium format - £20 for a nice condition Lubitel - plenty to get me started. Haven't seen a Phase 1 back for £20, not even on ebay.

I grabbed a Minolta X700 with 35, 50, 85 and 13d lens for approx $200. Slapped in some Ilford FP4 and voila...who says FF need be expensive. And it's nice pulling out a view camera that takes a photograph that puts a lot of digital gear 15 to 20 times the cost to shame.

And your exercise was very limiting. I took 1000 + pics last weekend and viewed them all in no time. What would that cost you.

Probably would have used a fews rolls or maybe a half dozen sheets of film instead...and thought about what I was doing as opposed to spraying everywhere on full burst.

So you are simply limited on what you can do....I see that, it's an accepted limitation your willing to work with and adjust for.

The part that confuses me is why some people seem to get almost angry that film is still around.

Not as angry or verbally abusive as the few here seeing it the other way.

I think we've explained oyrselves well.

The use of derogatory comments to explain makes me think "well" might be less than genuine

I'll tell ya this...when I'm out in public with a huge DSLR, no one cares. Take out my Mamiya RB67 or 4x5 gear and a lot of eople come up and ask questions, tell me it's cool, etc.

Same when I see someone driving a model-T. It's nostalgic and interesting. Don't want to drive one far though...to inconvenient. It's still a beautiful thing and enjoyable conversation piece....the vast majority have rusted away though.

Bad analogy...as I can produce resullts with my RB67 that will match the best from Canon for 1/10 the price.

You have also produced results that do not. In that regard the medium has little bearing on the subject.

InterestedParty
InterestedParty Contributing Member • Posts: 742
Re: Glad it's going

You will note that I said seems. I wasn't suggesting that there was no environmental cost associated with Digital vs film. I have searched for comparative studies but have found none. Possibly I could be confused by such studies but I would like to have the chance to see some actual facts before coming to that conclusion. I do very much agree that shifting our waste to third world countries is egregiously unethical but that is a consideration distinct from degree of environmental impact.

Again I want to see comparative studies sir. I am not saying you are wrong only I do want evidence before accepting any argument that goes beyond "seems". Otherwise how will I know that my moronic intuition is inferior to your moronic intuition?

Than you for your patience and help in understanding this complex issue.

 InterestedParty's gear list:InterestedParty's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Nikon D7200 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 +1 more
berleconi Contributing Member • Posts: 720
digital film usage in USA

digital 80 billion pictures taken a year in USA
http://hyperallergic.com/48765/how-many-photos-do-americans-take-a-year/
Film ? maybe someone here knows?
Berl.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads