Film is not dead................yet.
Aug 27, 2011 15:37:00 #
I feel that old film cameras have longer age in spite of having many mechanical (moving) parts and gears because even new sensors BSI CIMOS and CCD have limited age ( I think not more than 8 years).
Also film images could be considered much honest when compared with the ability of digital image editing by photoshop.
Another benefit is a film which could be considered as an old age document rather than the disc or SDHC or flashes.
Also film images could be considered much honest when compared with the ability of digital image editing by photoshop.
Another benefit is a film which could be considered as an old age document rather than the disc or SDHC or flashes.
Aug 27, 2011 16:14:43 #
I feel that old film cameras have longer age in spite of having many mechanical (moving) parts and gears because even new sensors BSI CIMOS and CCD have limited age ( I think not more than 8 years).
Also film images could be considered much honest when compared with the ability of digital image editing by photoshop.
Another benefit is a film which could be considered as an old age document rather than the disc or SDHC or flashes.
Also film images could be considered much honest when compared with the ability of digital image editing by photoshop.
Another benefit is a film which could be considered as an old age document rather than the disc or SDHC or flashes.
Aug 27, 2011 16:19:58 #
Leopold, well said in your first post. Todays digital cameras may have 24 MP, but a simple 35mm image on asa 100 film is the equivelent of 60MP, 120Mp with a medium format camera. Try to match that with Digital. I know digital has made it easier, but I agree there is a romantic attraction to film photography. The lenses are smarter today, but I don't think the glass is better. Lots of crappy lenses out there due to poor mass production standards today.
BTW, Ironically I was just shooting pictures with a Nikon F4S film camera today trying out some new fast lenses. You can develop the film for about $5 and have a digital image disc made for a couple more. Now you have negatives and digital prints. There are several atricles out there about scanning images to digital for high quality digital images. That being said, with film, I never would have taken over 5,000 pictures so far this year. Can't beat digital for convenience and the fun factor. I learned the basics on film, learned lots more with digital because the images are cheap!
BTW, Ironically I was just shooting pictures with a Nikon F4S film camera today trying out some new fast lenses. You can develop the film for about $5 and have a digital image disc made for a couple more. Now you have negatives and digital prints. There are several atricles out there about scanning images to digital for high quality digital images. That being said, with film, I never would have taken over 5,000 pictures so far this year. Can't beat digital for convenience and the fun factor. I learned the basics on film, learned lots more with digital because the images are cheap!
Aug 27, 2011 16:23:01 #
Thanks for that lift llfost,
You all might have guest that I find vinyl to be the truest reproduction of music as I find the analog film world to create some of our finest images. Please try to understand that this is never a bad knock on digital. There no question that digital is fabulous. It is not about old technology or whatever goes through minds of the I was the first to have it group. It is simply something that film is still here and while it may have taken a back seat to new technology, it still remains a great source in excellence for very fine photography. There so many that will agree with this as there are even more that know their music who think vinyl (or analog) sounds more realistic than digital. As a serious music lover and an amateur photographer (hobbyist) I along with enough people enjoy what we consider hearing real and viewing real. It is that well founded thing called choice that keeps these interests alive and well.
You all might have guest that I find vinyl to be the truest reproduction of music as I find the analog film world to create some of our finest images. Please try to understand that this is never a bad knock on digital. There no question that digital is fabulous. It is not about old technology or whatever goes through minds of the I was the first to have it group. It is simply something that film is still here and while it may have taken a back seat to new technology, it still remains a great source in excellence for very fine photography. There so many that will agree with this as there are even more that know their music who think vinyl (or analog) sounds more realistic than digital. As a serious music lover and an amateur photographer (hobbyist) I along with enough people enjoy what we consider hearing real and viewing real. It is that well founded thing called choice that keeps these interests alive and well.
Aug 27, 2011 16:49:39 #
Hello Freddie and a great response to film. Your points are very well taken and factual. Most people have no idea, so that's why this discussion.
I shoot mostly with Fuji 50 slidefilm and have that same $5 developing and a few bucks to scan onto a dvd or cd. The results on screen are incredible (with no photoshop corrections. Just pure translation from a fine lens). (the lens is the heart of any camera. A camera body may get redesigned every few months but a lens remains pretty much the same for years on end). I really appreciate the merger of older technology and new digital scanning that gives us the best of both worlds.
True also is the MP values of cameras. A 35MP camera (Leica makes one) costs about 27K for the body only. An older R8 Leica SLR (with all the bells and whistles can be had for around 5 to 6 hundred dollars. It will have multiple metering systems and shoot up to 8000 of a second just for starters. 600$ against 27 thousand is big. Results may be un noticable or film may edge it out if done well.
Great points Freddie.
I shoot mostly with Fuji 50 slidefilm and have that same $5 developing and a few bucks to scan onto a dvd or cd. The results on screen are incredible (with no photoshop corrections. Just pure translation from a fine lens). (the lens is the heart of any camera. A camera body may get redesigned every few months but a lens remains pretty much the same for years on end). I really appreciate the merger of older technology and new digital scanning that gives us the best of both worlds.
True also is the MP values of cameras. A 35MP camera (Leica makes one) costs about 27K for the body only. An older R8 Leica SLR (with all the bells and whistles can be had for around 5 to 6 hundred dollars. It will have multiple metering systems and shoot up to 8000 of a second just for starters. 600$ against 27 thousand is big. Results may be un noticable or film may edge it out if done well.
Great points Freddie.
Aug 27, 2011 18:50:44 #
First off let me restate the plain fact that the number of places you can get film processed is dropping dramatically. Where iI live in a county over 100,000 people the only place you can go to get film developed is walgreens and cvs pharmacies. I still like to shoot black and white film. What i dont lie is to pay double the price of the film to get it developed by people who dont really want to do it anymore. Since they process not nearly the ammount of film that theu used to you know the chemicals used in development arent getting changed as often as they used to. I have looked at prints made by film and prints made by digital and can not see a difference. What I get a sense of listening not just on this post but elsewhere is thedesperate hope of some people to find a difference to justify sticking with OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY. Sort of like in the early 1900's when those who liked horse and buggies despised that young wippersnapper henry ford with his newfangled model t. What will eventually kill film off is the lack of places left to get it developed just like kodachrome. Things change over time technology changes over time. I like manual transmissions in cars. Other than sports cars and trucks try finding a stick today. What I like about digital the most is that it is the great equalizer. I am living on 400 a month in unemolyment. If I had to pay for film and development I couldn't afford photography. By selling off one of my FE's and some manual lenses I was able to buy a nikon p+s digital. I am using my digital to ttake daily photos in my ongoing battle with severe chronic depression. If it wasn't for digital I would be in worse shape. In fact I was asked to develop a class for 5 to 6 patients of my shrink too use photography to express moods they are having trouble with expressing anyother way. I call it photographic expression therapy and it might just lead me to a job. I couldnt do this class if we had to shoot film. One last point, even used leicas are still expensive. if you found one under $1500.00 you got a steel
Aug 27, 2011 19:08:09 #
Sinatraman, all great points. I don't like that film is inconvenient and costly either. As far as sticking with obsolete technology, ranchers and farmers out west have all the newest technology and equipment, but still ride horses on the range, there's nothing that works better than horses. Old technology with new. Digital is so nice, i don't know where we would be without it, but even with all the technology, it has not caught up to film imaging quality. The pixels are still larger than the particles on film. If only it was cheaper.....
Aug 27, 2011 19:08:57 #
Sinatraman, I admire your spunk. You have a winning attitude and we should all follow your example of how to fight back and win. All of the facts you point out are spot on my friend. I love your analogies Sinatraman, you have a quick wit. Good luck with the employment opportunity, you deserve it.
My only point was that each of us have particular things we hold on to in life and Len and I, both of us by the way like digital too, aren't ready to give up something that has always been there for us in our photographic endeavors.
All the best to you and Len. Loyde
My only point was that each of us have particular things we hold on to in life and Len and I, both of us by the way like digital too, aren't ready to give up something that has always been there for us in our photographic endeavors.
All the best to you and Len. Loyde
Aug 27, 2011 21:05:13 #
The digital darkroom became a standard in publishing a long time ago, with drum scanners and Photoshop. I abandoned the chemical film lab, with the exception of film processing, a long time ago. Scanning, digital manipulation and retouching is as true for film as it is for digital shoots. With the advent of getting some resolution into digital cameras, I haven't shot film in years myself, though I have some frozen away.
In reading this thread, I have to add my project studio is also involved in motion picture and audio post production. My main suite uses Miller and Kreisel 2510s as the main monitors, as does Skywalker Sound, Walter Afanasieff, and many other studios. Sad that company died, almost. You can still get new M&K 1611ps as manufactured by a European company which bought the technology. They did maintain that excellent monitor's quality.
I was an early adopter of the CD format (the first consumer digital format) as well, but, CD's, while removing the pops and clicks of LP's, simultaneously stole the soul of music with the combination of low sampling and low bit rates. CDs are flat, from which has spawned many a box to improve the sound. 44.1 KHz is so-so. DVDs at 48 KHz and Dolby processing is sometimes a bit better, but there's a long way to go to achieve real audio quality. A great LP under great analog reproduction can wipe the floor with any CD in terms of richness and quality of sound. Every time. Analog > Digital, in this case. This includes "lossless" computer formats like AAC or FLAC which are sourced usually from CDs anyway.
Forever has the audio industry attempted to regain, in digital, its analog soul. It is possible, almost, when rising to at least 192KHz at 24 bits or better resolution. The sonic difference to CD is dramatic.
However, we live in a world of MP3s, which proclaim a Big Mac is the finest cuisine on the planet. Accepting lowering standards is the American way.
In reading this thread, I have to add my project studio is also involved in motion picture and audio post production. My main suite uses Miller and Kreisel 2510s as the main monitors, as does Skywalker Sound, Walter Afanasieff, and many other studios. Sad that company died, almost. You can still get new M&K 1611ps as manufactured by a European company which bought the technology. They did maintain that excellent monitor's quality.
I was an early adopter of the CD format (the first consumer digital format) as well, but, CD's, while removing the pops and clicks of LP's, simultaneously stole the soul of music with the combination of low sampling and low bit rates. CDs are flat, from which has spawned many a box to improve the sound. 44.1 KHz is so-so. DVDs at 48 KHz and Dolby processing is sometimes a bit better, but there's a long way to go to achieve real audio quality. A great LP under great analog reproduction can wipe the floor with any CD in terms of richness and quality of sound. Every time. Analog > Digital, in this case. This includes "lossless" computer formats like AAC or FLAC which are sourced usually from CDs anyway.
Forever has the audio industry attempted to regain, in digital, its analog soul. It is possible, almost, when rising to at least 192KHz at 24 bits or better resolution. The sonic difference to CD is dramatic.
However, we live in a world of MP3s, which proclaim a Big Mac is the finest cuisine on the planet. Accepting lowering standards is the American way.
Aug 27, 2011 21:08:17 #
Interesting points Sinatraman. It is easy to understand where digital fits into your present life. Sorry about your unemployment and the problems that go with that. It's easily understood the need to find the best photographic values of today. Budget digital cameras do the job well. (a little like our past disposable cameras) If it works for you then by all means go for it......
So then film cameras and whatever goes with that would wait for another day. When money is tight, buying film and the cost of processing is not what you want. Especially if there is affordable digital p&s available. But I still can't agree with your take on film as though it comes from the days of Henry Ford. We discuss the lens technology of the fifties on up to the near present. Our value lies mainly in the wonderful results achieved with film and still having that chance to use it. It is also not about CVS or Walgreen's processing (although they are not always that bad) It's all about a good and wholesome hobby that a segment of society still enjoys and gets beautiful rewards from.
What is it that nobody likes to pay for things that can be fun? I don't understand how someone will pay up to and more than $20 for a cocktail and enjoy it and then complain about the price of milk being too high.
Somehow there are those that don't really understand what our discussion is about. It's all about enjoying something that we like and do what we need to be able to have that fun. Very simple.
So then film cameras and whatever goes with that would wait for another day. When money is tight, buying film and the cost of processing is not what you want. Especially if there is affordable digital p&s available. But I still can't agree with your take on film as though it comes from the days of Henry Ford. We discuss the lens technology of the fifties on up to the near present. Our value lies mainly in the wonderful results achieved with film and still having that chance to use it. It is also not about CVS or Walgreen's processing (although they are not always that bad) It's all about a good and wholesome hobby that a segment of society still enjoys and gets beautiful rewards from.
What is it that nobody likes to pay for things that can be fun? I don't understand how someone will pay up to and more than $20 for a cocktail and enjoy it and then complain about the price of milk being too high.
Somehow there are those that don't really understand what our discussion is about. It's all about enjoying something that we like and do what we need to be able to have that fun. Very simple.
Aug 27, 2011 21:24:42 #
One other note, about out of date, old fashioned, obsolete film cameras:
I have a venerable Nikon F2 with motor drive built in 1977. While I've run at least 800,000 frames through this camera, I could place it beside any modern digital camera, brand new, and just start firing the shutters, frame for frame. When the digicam breaks, grab the next manufacturer's top digicam, and repeat the process, frame for frame, until the second digicam breaks. Then, take the old F2 and a brand new, top of the line 35mm digicam, and drop them down one flight of metal edged concrete steps. Clankity clank. The F2 will still work, ready to burn out another digicam's shutter.
For all the magic of the latest generation of pro digital SLRs, they are simply no longer meant to last. They are meant to be replaced, about every 300,000 frames or when the next newer, better digicam debuts.
That said, I'm all for digicams. I'm involved in the development and marketing of a new 3D movie camera which shoot 24fps at 8K resolution.
I have a venerable Nikon F2 with motor drive built in 1977. While I've run at least 800,000 frames through this camera, I could place it beside any modern digital camera, brand new, and just start firing the shutters, frame for frame. When the digicam breaks, grab the next manufacturer's top digicam, and repeat the process, frame for frame, until the second digicam breaks. Then, take the old F2 and a brand new, top of the line 35mm digicam, and drop them down one flight of metal edged concrete steps. Clankity clank. The F2 will still work, ready to burn out another digicam's shutter.
For all the magic of the latest generation of pro digital SLRs, they are simply no longer meant to last. They are meant to be replaced, about every 300,000 frames or when the next newer, better digicam debuts.
That said, I'm all for digicams. I'm involved in the development and marketing of a new 3D movie camera which shoot 24fps at 8K resolution.
3D Camera from Meduza, Under Development
Aug 27, 2011 21:28:50 #
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
The digital darkroom became a standard in publishi... (show quote)
How right you are on both subjects and how unfortunate our Big Mac society is missing out or pushing things away. It isn't all that bad because many people are very satisfied with our fast moving world of technology. I must admit that I am as well, especially when it comes to I pads and I phones and HD this and HD that. I also feel quite honestly for us music lovers, it can be very costly to reap the finest sound out of an LP vinyl. Many have no idea of how much music is hiding in those grooves.
Hi end equipment can set one back and it never ends. But photos are much simpler and within reach of any one interested enough to the point of passion. I still can (with patient and careful shopping) put together a nice high end camera and lens (Leica or Nikon and others) for a lot less than a decent Digital slr. One only has to be passionate about their hobby to do it.
The point of a healthy discussion is in sharing something special with hopes of enlightening others that there is more out there than one realizes. These older cameras are often waiting for a creative user to capture some prize shots.
Thanks very much for your good input in this thread.
Aug 27, 2011 21:33:34 #
I do agree with your last post. I am not knocking the use of film by any means. It is just that as fewwer people use film the price of both the film and its deveolpment are going to rise significantly. film technology is a dead end street. freddie lives in Orlando a major city and tourist spot so probably the competion is keeping prices down, I would kill for $5.00 development. The point i am trying to make is your options are statrting to get limited and that will increase in time. I rember maybe 10 years ago the adorama ads in the back of popphoto would have a page of just film listing. Ritz camera catalogs would have 10 pages devoted just to film. Now look where it is at. I believe that my analogy to henry ford is accurate. As the model t revolutionizes the american way of life digital technology in all its forms is doing the same in much quicker time than cars. I believe there will always be some film around and i will even predict a resurgence in printing black and whites at home, cause you still cant beat b+W to express moods in. Finaly I do have to disagree with mr LA the big mac and mcdonalds fries is the pinacle of man's culinary discoveries. Chicago deep dish pizza with a cold beer being #2.
Aug 27, 2011 22:15:00 #
With all this said, It is nice to occasionally shoot a bit of film. Yes, it is too expensive to use as your only camera. It's like a fine wine or a 50 year old Scotch, a bit every now and then keeps it special. It takes me back to a time when things were slower and simpler. It makes me really think before I take the shot. Is it focussed, is the light correct, will it be worthy of printing. All these things are there to keep you honest and will show your mistakes if you are off on any one setting. It is a challenge. Not as easy or forgiving as Digital. It is like taking the long way home every now and then just to see something different.
The other up side of the Digital revolution, film equipment is cheap. I just lucked into this perfectly good Nikon F4S and a nice manual 28mm 1:2.5 lens for $30. Yes, I said $30. I had several rolls of film given to me for free, so I'm enjoying the experience. The F4 was over $2,000 new, the MB-21 speed winder with vertical grip trigger was probably a couple hundred more, the lens was at least a hundred. It is an all metal frame pro camera that has features ahead of it's time in 1988. It was a photographer's favorite until 1996. I know it is an antique, but lots of professional photographers still use one on occasion. Me, I'm just enjoying the ride, learning as I go. I'll skip dinner tomorrow to pay for it.... Ok maybe not a Chicago deep dish pizza with a cold beer...maybe I'll skip dinner a different night. :lol:
The other up side of the Digital revolution, film equipment is cheap. I just lucked into this perfectly good Nikon F4S and a nice manual 28mm 1:2.5 lens for $30. Yes, I said $30. I had several rolls of film given to me for free, so I'm enjoying the experience. The F4 was over $2,000 new, the MB-21 speed winder with vertical grip trigger was probably a couple hundred more, the lens was at least a hundred. It is an all metal frame pro camera that has features ahead of it's time in 1988. It was a photographer's favorite until 1996. I know it is an antique, but lots of professional photographers still use one on occasion. Me, I'm just enjoying the ride, learning as I go. I'll skip dinner tomorrow to pay for it.... Ok maybe not a Chicago deep dish pizza with a cold beer...maybe I'll skip dinner a different night. :lol:
Aug 27, 2011 22:30:44 #
Hey freddie you lucky dog . If you ever come across another nikon deal like that think of me. I have an old nikon f photomic that i used to shoot with, had to use a light meter to since the camera meter ran on mercury batteries. there is something emotional and nostalgic about dusting off the old classics. like driving around town in grandpa's model a ford. When things get finacial better for me i will dust off my f load some black and white and go shooting. My point in my posts wasn't that film was bad it isn't( shooting with cannon is evil though) but that it isn't coming back and eventually will be an expensive niche market. Kinda like the guys who like to shoot like mathew brady. The other thing about digital that i really like is that i find myself willing to take more risky and experimental shots because with film it works out to 50 cents every time you press the shutter. since digital costs nothing I take more creative shots, willing to apply new techniques learned, shoot subjects like pot holes that I never would have or at least hesitated to shoot before. Digital has freed me from being enslaved to the cost of film and development.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.