Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Film vs Digital
Page <<first <prev 9 of 11 next> last>>
Mar 4, 2021 08:04:51   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
RodeoMan wrote:
Remember that we are talking about regular folks and not trained professionals at museums, universities or other facilities with specialized equipment for retrieving images from ancient media. Yes the knowledge will be there and I would think some version of the equipment also, but I don't think this will be available to the average person but only to professionals. How long has the floppy disk been gone? I don't have a way to access the old floppies I have, you might have, but I doubt if most people do. Lets say that the floppy disk has been discontinued for thirty years, now instead of going into the future a hundred years, lets just go seventy years. Where would you go to find someone to extract the data on those floppies and how much would that cost?
I assume (and hope) that your family is important to you. Now to continue that thought, lets say that you have made a significant number of images of your family in two ways. In the first situation, all the images are on storage devices and in the second situation, the images have been printed and are paper. The printed images and the images stored in various digital storage devices will each go in to their respective "shoe boxes" to be found by a member of your family in the distant future. Now put yourself in the shoes of that far in the future Superfly family member, if you say that, instead of the paper images, you would be happier to find that shoe box of SD cards, CD's, DVD's and etc and that you believe that these could be easily converted to print form, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
Remember that we are talking about regular folks a... (show quote)


How many images are you gonna print? Are you gonna make sure they’re archival prints? Are you gonna use archival storage? Sure I print, but usually only wallhangers and competition prints. The truth is most family photo sharing is done digitally. You have 5 1/4” floppies? Technology that’s 45 years old. You can buy a USB floppy drive for under $25. Same for 3 1/2”. You can also buy a USB adapter for just about any industry standard PC storage device that’s ever existed. And if your family cares about those photos they’re not gonna sit on some storage device for 100 years. How many people have taken their old Super 8 movies and had them transferred to DVD? As a matter of fact, what do people do when they have a bunch of old photos and negatives to archive? They usually scan and digitize them.

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 08:38:32   #
Riverrune
 
While my film cameras are also on a shelf collecting dust I do still have, and use, a manual typewriter, two pocket watches and a fountain pen....

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 08:59:53   #
Thorburn Loc: Virginia
 
My kind of guy, I also have a pocket warch, an Underwood Manual Typewriter (which I learned to type on) and many fountain pens (of which I collect). I also have many film camera on display some of various film sizes that work well and use when needed.

Reply
 
 
Mar 4, 2021 09:09:38   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
I'm with both Riverrune and Thorburn. I don't use the typewriter all that often but the fountain pens, definitely.
--Bob

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 09:18:20   #
Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN
 
For commercial work and amongst most hobbyists film is dead. This makes sense as the costs, time and labor are rather substantial. However, it is interesting that in the art world there really isn't such a thing as a dead process. Pretty much any historical process photography and otherwise can be found being used by contemporary artists.

I am currently printing my MFA thesis at 30"x40" in the darkroom because I am chemically altering the prints and darkroom prints are necessary for this reason. It has been very difficult, expensive and time consuming. The result cannot be achieved in software or inkjet printing. However, if weren’t doing the alteration I probably would't bother even though I love film. I would likely do digital output.

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 09:30:35   #
1grumpybear
 
My first film camera was a camera my dad brought back from Japan at the end of WWII. Which he gave me I think for my 10th birthday. My second camera was an Minolta 35 I bought about 1969. For large prints I use Graflex Super Speed Graphic. My first digital was a Sony MVC-FD87 which used a 3.5" floppy disk to store your pictures. It was ok but film was still better at the time. My second digital was a Olympus C-2500L and it replaced the film cameras and then switch to Nikon when they came out with the D1. Now shoot with the D850 and D6. I shot a lot of sports and the hardest transition for me from film to digital was with film you tried to anticipate the action shot, digital you fired away with as may fps the camera would do. With film I have pictures that the fullback looks like he is marching rather than running. These cameras are for sale along with the my Nikon D3, D4 and D5. I would like to know what can you do with film that can't be done in digital it sure not cost per frame.



Reply
Mar 4, 2021 09:42:35   #
pendennis
 
There's plenty of room for film and digital in the current photography "genre". Digital, especially scanning, opened up huge opportunities for me. I have literally thousands of negatives and transparencies of all formats, from 35mm to 8x10. The Epson V850 (choose your favorite, though) has allowed me to expand my horizon for images which were difficult to translate in the film era. For instance, transparencies are traditionally higher contrast than those of print film. I shot thousands of transparencies which never got to print because of the cumbersome process of creating an even higher contrast inter-negative. Printing from high contrast negatives just wasn't the same as the original transparencies.

Even "virgin" transparencies projected weren't always what I envisioned. Added to that the instability, over time, of the emulsion. Transparencies "gained" hues that weren't there 25 years earlier, even though stored properly. I can now translate those transparencies and negatives to what I envisioned at the time of the image making.

Now, digital changes the mode, but not the process. Out-of-the-camera images still have to be edited, because dynamic ranges aren't always enough for my final images.

I buy Fuji and Kodak transparency and print film. Does it compare to my D750/D610 images? No, and I don't expect it. I can, though, scan to TIFF/JPEG images, which opens up an entire world of imaging.

Reply
 
 
Mar 4, 2021 10:05:28   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
SuperflyTNT wrote:
How many images are you gonna print? Are you gonna make sure they’re archival prints? Are you gonna use archival storage? Sure I print, but usually only wallhangers and competition prints. The truth is most family photo sharing is done digitally. You have 5 1/4” floppies? Technology that’s 45 years old. You can buy a USB floppy drive for under $25. Same for 3 1/2”. You can also buy a USB adapter for just about any industry standard PC storage device that’s ever existed. And if your family cares about those photos they’re not gonna sit on some storage device for 100 years. How many people have taken their old Super 8 movies and had them transferred to DVD? As a matter of fact, what do people do when they have a bunch of old photos and negatives to archive? They usually scan and digitize them.
How many images are you gonna print? Are you gonn... (show quote)


Most shoe boxes of prints worth anything have already been converted to digital and stored as jpg's on multiple devices. Prints are not dead, but both feet are on banana peels. My kids, hipsters in their 30's, don't even own printers. BTW, jpg's have been around since the early 90's and any jpg you own from then are displayable on every single image viewer made today. This will not likely change for a long, long time, if ever.

The medium, whether floppy disks, CD, DVD, micro or SSD disks will always be easily transferable to whatever storage devices modern tech brings us.

Today pictures (and yesterday's) are displayed on digital screens. In fact, one of the most worthwhile uses of that 55" HD TV in your living room is to display all your 1000's of favorite photo's to you, your family and friends. This includes converted slides from the '70's and converted prints from that shoe box dug out of the bottom of your closet from 100+ years ago.

Even better, if you don't like the picture quality from the 1905 picture of grandpa, you can load it into any of the super cheap digital editors and do everything from cropping to adding full on color renditions. Even if you're a "fossil", you can convert your 2021 print to digital, and have your way with it. Life is good!

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 10:50:26   #
jlsphoto Loc: Chcago SubBurbs
 
I took the digital plunge 13 years ago with a Canon 20d. In the last couple of years I shot a few rolls of Tri-X 120 and had it developed and scanned. I still love a well done full tonal range B&W print from film. That said I kept an old Minolta twin lens 120 camera. I sold my Canon F1 system with prime with multiple prime lens at a KEH & Helix camera event. Got a lot more for the system than I expected. Going to buy a Sigma 85MM 1.4 lens for my 5DMKIV.

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 10:59:33   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Not being a contrarian, just wish to note that your view shortchanges the future of technology. Surely, a technical method will exist then for extracting digitized information from passé devices.
RodeoMan wrote:
Remember that we are talking about regular folks and not trained professionals at museums, universities or other facilities with specialized equipment for retrieving images from ancient media. Yes the knowledge will be there and I would think some version of the equipment also, but I don't think this will be available to the average person but only to professionals. How long has the floppy disk been gone? I don't have a way to access the old floppies I have, you might have, but I doubt if most people do. Lets say that the floppy disk has been discontinued for thirty years, now instead of going into the future a hundred years, lets just go seventy years. Where would you go to find someone to extract the data on those floppies and how much would that cost?
I assume (and hope) that your family is important to you. Now to continue that thought, lets say that you have made a significant number of images of your family in two ways. In the first situation, all the images are on storage devices and in the second situation, the images have been printed and are paper. The printed images and the images stored in various digital storage devices will each go in to their respective "shoe boxes" to be found by a member of your family in the distant future. Now put yourself in the shoes of that far in the future Superfly family member, if you say that, instead of the paper images, you would be happier to find that shoe box of SD cards, CD's, DVD's and etc and that you believe that these could be easily converted to print form, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks.
Remember that we are talking about regular folks a... (show quote)

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 11:32:56   #
miteehigh Loc: Arizona
 
Like many here I began with film eventually using a 12X20 view camera. Each exposure took more time and expense. (the film cost alone was over $10.00 per exposure. There is simply no way any single digital exposure will approximate a 8X10, let alone a 12X20 contact print. Giga pixel images can get close. But, then again, you aren't blipping off snapshots indiscriminately. For those of us who aspire to producing really fine images digital does not get us there.

Reply
 
 
Mar 4, 2021 11:57:51   #
pendennis
 
anotherview wrote:
Not being a contrarian, just wish to note that your view shortchanges the future of technology. Surely, a technical method will exist then for extracting digitized information from passé devices.


As mentioned in an earlier post, there are certain media which contain data, but are not readily (read economically) readable. At my former employer, we devote large areas of climate controlled rooms and vaults, to protect corporate documents, and not just the charter and others. We have millions of punched cards, tapes, discs, floppies, etc., which require storage for the life of the company.

Now, the problem comes with the need for appropriate working hardware (magnetic and paper tape, disc, and card readers). Now, add to that the operating systems which were used to write that data. Are the original operating systems even recoverable, and at what cost?

Just askin'.

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 15:31:14   #
miteehigh Loc: Arizona
 
pendennis wrote:
As mentioned in an earlier post, there are certain media which contain data, but are not readily (read economically) readable. At my former employer, we devote large areas of climate controlled rooms and vaults, to protect corporate documents, and not just the charter and others. We have millions of punched cards, tapes, discs, floppies, etc., which require storage for the life of the company.

Now, the problem comes with the need for appropriate working hardware (magnetic and paper tape, disc, and card readers). Now, add to that the operating systems which were used to write that data. Are the original operating systems even recoverable, and at what cost?

Just askin'.
As mentioned in an earlier post, there are certain... (show quote)


I wish I had the digital images I have lost due to confiscation of external hard drives by TSA agents and outright HD failures. Granted digital is far more convenient. In fact a fair number of fine art photographers have been outputting digitally printed negatives and then contact printing those negatives in platinum/paladium, carbon, and other historic processes. Why would they do that? Because of several reasons. The first and foremost is the historic process is head and shoulders above anything that can be a digital print. Second is the permanence of the final print. Third is the much higher price that a print produced in that way commands. In the final analysis it is horses for courses.

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 16:46:58   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
1grumpybear wrote:
My first film camera was a camera my dad brought back from Japan at the end of WWII. Which he gave me I think for my 10th birthday. My second camera was an Minolta 35 I bought about 1969. For large prints I use Graflex Super Speed Graphic. My first digital was a Sony MVC-FD87 which used a 3.5" floppy disk to store your pictures. It was ok but film was still better at the time. My second digital was a Olympus C-2500L and it replaced the film cameras and then switch to Nikon when they came out with the D1. Now shoot with the D850 and D6. I shot a lot of sports and the hardest transition for me from film to digital was with film you tried to anticipate the action shot, digital you fired away with as may fps the camera would do. With film I have pictures that the fullback looks like he is marching rather than running. These cameras are for sale along with the my Nikon D3, D4 and D5. I would like to know what can you do with film that can't be done in digital it sure not cost per frame.
My first film camera was a camera my dad brought b... (show quote)


Oldies but goodies, for sure

Reply
Mar 4, 2021 18:19:58   #
1grumpybear
 
miteehigh wrote:
Like many here I began with film eventually using a 12X20 view camera. Each exposure took more time and expense. (the film cost alone was over $10.00 per exposure. There is simply no way any single digital exposure will approximate a 8X10, let alone a 12X20 contact print. Giga pixel images can get close. But, then again, you aren't blipping off snapshots indiscriminately. For those of us who aspire to producing really fine images digital does not get us there.


I disagree, digital can far exceed what you can do with film do. I shot a pano of Bryce Canyon I took over 100 frames and I pieced them together, generated the image and printed a 120" by 44" print on my Canon iPF-8400. It took less than a day for me to get a print. There were hikers on a trail over 1/2 mile away and you can see their back packs. I shot that with my Nikon D2X with a 70 to 200mm lens. With a single exposure I would put my Nikon D850 up against any contact film print. My Graflex Super Speed Graphic was a good camera but it is not in the same class as the D850. It was my go to camera in the 70s when I needed detail. I shoot pictures like what you see at GIGAPIXEL all the time and with the latest version of PhotoShop with its Sky Replacement it makes it so easy with incredible results. Where film has the advantage is in the printing phase. Film you can lay the negative right on the paper and expose. Digital you need a high quality printer other wise it doesn't matter how good your digital image is.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 9 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.