tom43

Joined on Feb 28, 2013

Comments

Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Right now it looks interesting but the situation might be different once Nikon presents the new D820 (D900?). I expect to see 60-70MP full frame with base ISO 50. Together with the large set of high-quality lenses and the new MultiCAM 20k autofocus most likely the better system for most photographers....

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 21:10 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies

Wow! Kodak is also thinking about bringing back the iconic Kodakchrome slide film! :- 0

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/09/kodak-investigating-take-bring-back-kodachrome/

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:13 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (417 comments in total)

For the future they shouldn´t only bring back old film emulsions, but innovate and introduce next-gen negative and slide film. Nevertheless I´m impressed by the passion and professionality of the "new Kodak".

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2017 at 21:04 UTC as 117th comment
In reply to:

The Davinator: Hilarious all the film haters spouting off about how their digital gear is "better." They seem to miss the point of why we use film....the different look. The comments are as nonsensical as someone talking about higher resolution of better noise from watercolor vs oils.

I certainly can see the difference between a slide on my light table and a digital file on my screen. You are talking about the comparison between originally digital files and digitized (negative) film. Of course you will not see that much a difference...mainly the scanner limitations for 35mm film and postprocessing. The advantage of slide film over negative film is, that you don´t rely on any digital conversion to see the result in its full glory. Even more so, using larger formats (120, 4x5 or 8x10) you can achieve results far beyond anything you will obtain with todays digital sensors. Ever seen a 4x5 or 8x10 Velvia slide? Beyond words...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 23:34 UTC
In reply to:

Doug Pardee: I don't understand the "ooh, now I need to get my film camera going again" thing. We already have film we can shoot, and we already have E-6 slide film we can shoot -- albeit not from Kodak. I don't see how Ektachrome brings anything special to the table that would tip a person toward shooting film again. It wasn't an iconic film stock -- it was something that schlubs like me shot while on vacation.

True. Technically Provia and Velvia (and Astia) are the better slide films. Nevertheless it potentially indicates for a growing demand, and could give a sign to some labs out there to re-invest in the E6 process. Maybe it also brings Fuji under some price pressure...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 23:28 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

Please define "better"? And yes: For professionals it might be cheaper, but not neccesarily for amateurs. In my country I can buy a roll of slide film for around 6€, pay 1€ for the E6 development per roll and get results with my 20€ camera which are qualitively in the range of state-of-the-art DSLR cameras. On the other side it seems that professional wedding photographers could achieve higher prices for analog material. Definitely film will not compete with digital in the future. The market will be dominated by millions of smartphone shooters. High-end DSLRs will be a niche, same for film photography. Could´nt be a co-existence of both techniques?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

Toselli: Great news! It would be even greater if someone would make some "mid-range" full manual cameras. I mean something in the middle of a new film leica and plastic cameras with 1 shutter speed and 2 apertures... I know there is the used market, but fully manual cameras were made up to the early '80s, they are starting to get quite old! I wouldn't want something more modern like a film eos, as their user experience is too close to digital cameras. A needle light meter is the most modern thing I'd like!

Take a FM3A. It was presented in 2003 and still available in like-new conditions. A camera constructed for the south pole expedition, K2 climb and Carstensz-Pyramide.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: Fine, IF you develop and print in a proper darkroom. For those who scan, a warning. I used to scan. I stopped. Why? I stopped because scanning records the emulsion in 3D: it records and registers as image the chemical lumps. The higher the scan resolution, the more clearly they are revealed, such that you get almost a contour map of the image, and, le pire!, is that as the scan moves across the image the light creates a record of the shadows cast by the chemicals in the emulsion. You might like this, but I much prefer to do it as the process intends: in a darkroom with chemical baths etc.

Effect depends on scanners and is most prominent with LED scanners. Use a high-end drum scanner and this is not a problem at all.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: Hint hint now DP REVIEW all we need now is a film forum....................

+1 Great idea!!!

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 19:50 UTC
In reply to:

CortoPA: Hope they make some money from this so that they might re-release some other Films too.

Not from me tho, I shoot roughly one roll a year these days. With a Olympus Infinity Stylus. And in B&W.

The monthly payment for Lightroom and Photoshop is less than having one roll of film developed and scanned.

And the Film Art Snobs......Remind me of Squidward from Spongebob....

Film needs no Lightroom. So it is cheaper.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

Matsu: It would be interesting to see the results for 35mm shot on modern lenses, but an F6 costs way too much for what it is. In all likelihood digital SLRs will probably still completely outclass it in most usages, but it still be interesting to deconstruct the look the other way around: we've seen plenty of vintage lens on digital media, not a lot of modern lens on analogue media.

I´m regularily shooting 35mm slide film with modern lenses like Nikon G models, Zeiss Apo Sonnar, Otus and Sigma Art. Results are outstanding and you can achieve resolutions equivalent to ca. 25-30 megapixel (and for film color resolution equals overall resolution; different from Bayer sensors). Other point: You can easily bring the "power on the road" , because light table and projection give you the full resolution and color. Which screen/projector has these resolutions? In the digital world shooting with 36MP+ is only needed for large prints. How many large prints do you have? How many free wall space to you have?

Finally: Shooting the newest lenses will not need a F6. Also possible with the F100, F80, F75 and F65. Some of those cameras you can buy for $20. Remaining money you can invest in film. ;- )

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 13:51 UTC
In reply to:

beckmarc: Some wedding photographers have are now using film. They say it is quicker as there is much less post processing. I suspect it is also a marketing move to say the use film but some don't push the issue of film in their promotional material but just use film as over all it is much quicker for them. Of course this presupposes getting it right in camera which can be done with digital as well. They appear to use portra 400 mainly.

Yes, it seems that some wedding photographers are going back to Portra 400 but also Fuji Pro 400H. Also some landscape photographers are going back to medium and large format slide film, mostly velvia. Results are stunning:

http://www.alexburkephoto.com/
http://andreasresch.at/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/88626385@N03/

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 13:43 UTC
On article Dell's 8K monitor goes on sale in March for $5000 (235 comments in total)

I can´t follow the argumentation regarding maximum intensity. 400 nits is quite good. Even more so: This is not intended to be a TV screen. Most professional monitors are used between 80 to 100 cd/m2 to achieve consistency between display and print. OLEDs might have better contrast, true, but here are colors and long-term stability still a huge problem. Also LG, which is definitely leading the OLED market, has recently announced the first PC HDR display, which is based on a IPS panel. Not on OLEDs.

PS: If you want a cheap 8K "display" today, just use 35mm slide film and a projector. Using medium format film will bring you into 16k+ territory. For only a few bucks....

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 10:14 UTC as 38th comment

Very good news. Now it is time for the market to follow: Nikon, what about bringing back a FM4A or F7 camera for the 100th birthday this year? Even more needed is a high quality scanner for 35mm and 120 film. Leica, what about a new projector based on LED technology? Look at all the success Fuji has with the analog strategy. Photography is not only about the latest digital gear, it is about emotion, dedication, craftmanship and enthusiasm.

PS: With all these positive responses here I would suggest to rename the side. What about "APREVIEW" ??? :- )

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:24 UTC as 60th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

maxnimo: I still have dozens of boxes of slides, but most of the images have faded terribly. I'm glad I digitized them many years ago even though the image quality is far below anything from a modern digicam.

Depends on the material. E6 processed Fuji slides are extremely stable.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
In reply to:

Dennis: Wow. Next thing you know, DSLRs might start making a comeback, too ;)

Maybe SLRs without a "D" ? :- )

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:14 UTC
In reply to:

Hanoise: Digital has its advantages. BUT, there will always be a difference to the truth of raw art and talent. Photography has progressed to a photoshop standard. The talent in most part of photography lies (didn't spell it wrong) in how well an image can be manipulated on a computer screen....
Analog has always and will always spearate the pros from the pro wana-be's.
People complain about the cost of developing etc, but the reality is, in life, if you want the best PAY FOR IT! or keep quite, and keep manipulating that wrongly exposed, poorly composed, semi-blurred, noisy and pixelated, sorry excuse as 'pic' on your pc.....

Pros for digital (both audio and visual):
- cheap
- easy
- widely available to the consumer unartistic masses
- guilt free shutter clicks/replay presses
- got lucky pics all over the web??

Cons:
- severely compressed
- lacks artistic initiative
- easily manipulated
- reproduced too easily
- gear becomes rapidly obsolete

Film/records pros:
- truely raw uncompressed quality both sound and visual
- truthful honest talent required only (consumers would see this as a con)
- light sensitive molecules have far for resolution and depth then the Much dopier square less intelligent pixel
- artist is able to much more to the image BEFORE, during and after the click of shutter/ record button.
- multiple film types available, only one Sony sensor type available.
- requires photographer to stop and think and actually appreciate the moment.

Cons:
- requires funding, so cuts out the smart phone happy ppl
- ppl start realising that selfies aren't worth the money.
- requires more effort and more time and more energy and more artistic creativity. Something the masses don't have generally.
- not many ppl are willing to learn the true art of photography.
- impatience with not being able to see your image in less than 0.025 of a second.

I welcome the analog not because I disregard the digital, but because I use both equally as much and I can see the difference....

I will always love my 5DSR and xt-2, but I love my Xpan and 1Dv and Fuji medium formats much more :)

Your smartphone produces better pictures than 120 medium format slide, which is equivalent to ca. 100 megapixel high quality data? Which phone do you use - I´m interested?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:09 UTC
In reply to:

Ahmet Aydogan: This really must be a "hipster" thing. Crap colors that fade. Wow . . . what a great product - not!

Crap colors? Maybe your vision has been adapted to all these smartphone JPEG junk out there? Color fading for new E6 processed is extremely slow. I would much more worry about digital data storage for the next decades....not to speek about negative B/W slide film, which can be stored 300-500 years. The first picture ever from 1826 is still available. Will this be the case for any files taken today?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:03 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I think that I still have to see multilayer sensors a standard to believe digital has really surpassed analog. At low ISO, pictures taken with Sigma's Foveon sensor are unbeatable. Nothing compares to the depth produced by a multilayer sensor.

Absolutely true. I´m a D810 shooter, not the badest camera out there. Nevertheless colors are still behind slide film with all these Bayer sensor cameras.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:02 UTC
In reply to:

DVT80111: NIK plug-in has all kind of film simulation. Why bother

?

Simulating a slide on light table by software? Simulating a medium or large format slide equivalent to 100-300 megapixel by software coming from a smartphone JPEG?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 09:00 UTC
Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »