tom43

Joined on Feb 28, 2013

Comments

Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

I´m pretty sure that the 30 year old pictures of your dad shot by 35mm and medium format on Velvia slide film look thousand times better than these oilpanting like pictures from the cell phone. Good for Facebook, but inacceptable for larger prints which one could sell as a professional.

Most likely he is not using the phone because of the results, but because photography is no longer the central focus of his visits to Nepal.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 20:42 UTC as 202nd comment | 6 replies

If you want to get most realistic colors, go for slide film. All these digital sensors have still not reached the color depth of a Provia or Velvia.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 18:12 UTC as 10th comment | 11 replies
On article Sigma sd Quattro H real world samples gallery (107 comments in total)

If you want to get most realistic colors, go for slide film. All these digital sensors have still not reached the color depth of a Provia or Velvia.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 18:12 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (162 comments in total)

Why just looking into old film stocks and not designing a complete new slide film with state of the art charactertistics? Better colors, higher resolution and less grain would be a great opportunity....

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 15:38 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies

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 35th 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 10th comment | 1 reply
On article CES 2017: Hands-on with the Kodak Super 8 (426 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 119th 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:

(unknown member): 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 (217 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 | 1 reply

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 61st 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
Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »