My Two Mirrorless Cameras (Page 8): I'm in complete agreement with that sentiment. They are different beasts. It's like raw vs JPEG... It isn't a 'versus.' It's an 'AND.' I still...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rmalarz wrote:

Bill, I've always viewed digital and film as two separate genres. It's never been a versus issue with me. Yes, they both use light. Yes, they both regulate the amount of light reaching the photosensitive media. But that's where it stops. I can do things with digital that are near impossible with film and vice versa.
--Bob

I'm in complete agreement with that sentiment.

They are different beasts. It's like raw vs JPEG... It isn't a 'versus.' It's an 'AND.'

I still remember my Dad telling me as a little kid, "Use the right tool for the job." I was trying to turn a Phillips screw with a flat blade driver...

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

You are my hero also.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

rmalarz wrote:

I don't see a weight reduction advantage at all.
--Bob

GAS496 Loc: Arizona

Burkphoto in part stated; “They are different beasts. It's like raw vs JPEG... It isn't a 'versus.' It's an 'AND.'”

I shoot almost exclusively with 8x10 sheet film but always with film. I always take an iPhone image of the scene and convert it to monochrome to make sure it is worthy of committing a sheet of film, and my time and effort. The only digital camera I own is the iPhone and sometimes it records the scene better than with film. A well executed monochrome analog print is truly something to behold and to me worth the effort. I had a digital camera and produced some nice images with it but I just didn’t feel the same way about them so I gave it to my wife.

The medium an artist chooses to produce their art is a personal decision. Not a “verses” more like an “AND.”

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Exactly on the versus/and approach.
—Bob

GAS496 wrote:

Burkphoto in part stated; “They are different beas... (show quote)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rmalarz wrote:

Exactly on the versus/and approach.
—Bob

I'm digitizing my best old film images from my youth. The control I have is amazing. Negatives I ignored as too thin or thick or slides that were underexposed or made in the wrong light without a filter can be made usable.

I'm considering the Lumix GH6 for its 100 megapixel mode. That would be great for digitizing medium format film, or for generating huge files for large prints from 35mm images.

For those who understand "giclee" printing for exhibition, film capture and digital image transfer make a lot of sense.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Bob,

I want to convert all my digital images to film? In other words, I want to “analyze” the digital pics. ;) Is there a fixture I can buy to automate that process?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JD750 wrote:

Bob,

I want to convert all my digital images to film? In other words, I want to “analyze” the digital pics. ;) Is there a fixture I can buy to automate that process?

Back in the dark ages of digital, film recorders were used to print digital images to film. They were extremely expensive. I don't think you can get them any longer, unless they are available to motion picture studios.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Wow, JD!!! I'm not sure that can be done. I'll have to do some research.

What specifically do you want to analyze?
--Bob

JD750 wrote:

Bob,

I want to convert all my digital images to film? In other words, I want to “analyze” the digital pics. ;) Is there a fixture I can buy to automate that process?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks for that reply, Bill. Interesting subject to look into.
--Bob

burkphoto wrote:

Back in the dark ages of digital, film recorders were used to print digital images to film. They were extremely expensive. I don't think you can get them any longer, unless they are available to motion picture studios.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

burkphoto wrote:

Back in the dark ages of digital, film recorders were used to print digital images to film. They were extremely expensive. I don't think you can get them any longer, unless they are available to motion picture studios.

Now that you mention it, I do recall that! Digital production was already in play but big producers were very reluctant to distribute movies digitally. They would convert back to film for distribution to theaters. Are they still doing that?

angler Loc: StHelens England

Beautiful cameras and excellent set Bob. Excellent

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thank you very much, Jim. They do work rather well.
--Bob

angler wrote:

Beautiful cameras and excellent set Bob. Excellent

petrochemist Loc: UK

rmalarz wrote:

I don't see a weight reduction advantage at all.
--Bob

I have a reflex viewer to use on my 5x4 monorails (it clips on behind the ground glass) and I can guarantee it does add to the weight, and bulk :)
A bad purchase I admit, the standard dark cloth is a better option.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

JD750 wrote:

Now that you mention it, I do recall that! Digital production was already in play but big producers were very reluctant to distribute movies digitally. They would convert back to film for distribution to theaters. Are they still doing that?

Realistically, only a few die-hards are doing it. It is super-expensive. And the latest video cameras produce better quality than film in most situations.

Heck, the Lumix GH6, a $2200 camera body, produces better results than most producers need. If you can't tell a story with that, you don't have a story to tell!

I would not require a "film" student to do anything with real film. It should be entirely elective. Film is almost certainly dead once the current users die off. Digital technology is just too irresistible and too efficient.