May 27, 2018, 04:26:17 AM

Author Topic: Film is still hard to beat  (Read 99010 times)

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1085
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2012, 04:47:00 AM »
Hi Dr Croubie, I know you intend to scan the transparencies.  But I'd also suggest buying a slide projector and having a look at the projected images.  I seriously doubt that you'll find the scans are on par with digital.  But I don't think that's point.  Its not about which is "better"... I thinks its generally accepted that digital is "better".  Instead, its about the experience that each offers.  One of the differences is that viewing photos on a monitor is generally a solitary experience (or alternatively, is so common that it looses its impact).  But film gives you the chance to have a slide show!  Very old fashioned, but its fun to gather the family (and/or friends) around, turn off all of the lights and view wall sized projections.

Also, its not that hard or expensive to get into B & W printing - one of the other experiences that film offers.  Trust me, its fun.  If you do it at night time, you don't even need a real darkroom.  I just use my garage.  I've got a feeling you're in Australia?  If you don't have a local camera shop, have a look at Blanco Negro Supplies in Sydney.  Their prices and shipping costs are pretty good.
Camera Obscura

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2012, 04:47:00 AM »

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #91 on: June 11, 2012, 08:32:51 AM »
Film=Vinyl

BCMAR15

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #92 on: June 11, 2012, 11:37:52 AM »
Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

distant.star

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1813
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2012, 11:39:16 AM »
.
Hi Bob. I didn't know you were on the CR Forum. Glad you are.

For everyone else, this man is an extraordinary photographer -- has more experience and broad understanding of visual technologies and process than most of the rest of us combined. When he has something to say I listen. His work is a delight to experience.

And like most of the pros I know who spent so many years in darkrooms/labs his perspective on the wonders of digital technology are instructive -- none of them would go back to those "dark ages."

Don't mean to embarrass you, Bob. Just speaking the truth!


I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping.  I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions????  Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down.  Never assume anything.  Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now.  Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!  :-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne
You're offended? Oh, really! Life IS offense -- get used to it.

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #94 on: June 11, 2012, 11:45:36 AM »
Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

You're talking about convenience not quality.

crasher8

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #95 on: June 11, 2012, 12:00:19 PM »
Quality without convenience is a dying concept, like common sense.

dafrank

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • davidfranklinphoto.com
My thinking about film vs. digital
« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2012, 03:26:40 PM »
As I see this thread has gone on for a long time, I am re-posting my contribution from early-on, because I imagine not many at this point have reads it, and I thin that it makes some cogent points about a subject which has failed to die a much deserved death; film and digital are quite different paths to image making and always will be, and, therefore, their uses and aesthetics will continue to diverge more and more.

Here's my previous post, keeping in mind that a previous poster brought up his film camera - a Fuji GX 680:

"My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.

I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then most every digital capture is better.

But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or certainly 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same.

While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.

This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that excellent film shots will always look better than just average digital ones, and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture or future films ever become, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure."
Outcomes are more important than intentions.
See my work at: http://www.davidfranklinphoto.com

canon rumors FORUM

My thinking about film vs. digital
« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2012, 03:26:40 PM »

BCMAR15

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #97 on: June 11, 2012, 05:02:30 PM »
Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

You're talking about convenience not quality.

Excuse me?  Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post?  I don't see "quality" in there, do you? 

How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?

And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective.  Hello?

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #98 on: June 11, 2012, 05:25:51 PM »
Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

You're talking about convenience not quality.

Excuse me?  Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post?  I don't see "quality" in there, do you? 

How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?

And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective.  Hello?

Well in the first place it was kind of a rhetorical question.  I liked the colour quality to the shots I had taken with particular film types that are a result of the emulsions used in the film.  If you had bothered to read the thread you would have known what I was talking about.

I'm not stupid, I know that film is more expensive and harder to process or are you suggesting I am? Put away the claws, please.

Edited to add - I am now dealing with one of the inconveniences of film - scanning 4 rolls of film - 2 B&W negatives and 1 x Ektar 100 and 1 x Reala 100.  A lot of the B&W is scanned already, and the guy at the lab hasn't developed it correctly - way too grainy for Ilford delta 100. Not an expensive error as he forgot to charge me and I forgot I hadn't paid when I dropped it off. 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 05:34:24 PM by itsnotmeyouknow »

BCMAR15

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #99 on: June 11, 2012, 06:39:18 PM »
Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

You're talking about convenience not quality.

Excuse me?  Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post?  I don't see "quality" in there, do you? 

How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?

And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective.  Hello?

Well in the first place it was kind of a rhetorical question.  I liked the colour quality to the shots I had taken with particular film types that are a result of the emulsions used in the film.  If you had bothered to read the thread you would have known what I was talking about.

I'm not stupid, I know that film is more expensive and harder to process or are you suggesting I am? Put away the claws, please.

Edited to add - I am now dealing with one of the inconveniences of film - scanning 4 rolls of film - 2 B&W negatives and 1 x Ektar 100 and 1 x Reala 100.  A lot of the B&W is scanned already, and the guy at the lab hasn't developed it correctly - way too grainy for Ilford delta 100. Not an expensive error as he forgot to charge me and I forgot I hadn't paid when I dropped it off.

I did read what you wrote.  How does that in any way, shape, matter or form limit my comments, hmm?  What, do I have to run my opinions by you first?

And chancing ISO on the fly and having instant feedback on exposure, lighting, framing, etc. is most CERTAINLY about quality.  Clients--and bank accounts--don't like redos.

Edit: somebody else brought up cost on page 1. Cost isn't quality. Why didn't you jump on them?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2012, 06:43:42 PM by BCMAR15 »

smithy

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #100 on: June 12, 2012, 10:22:03 PM »
Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.

You're talking about convenience not quality.

Excuse me?  Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post?  I don't see "quality" in there, do you? 

How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?

And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective.  Hello?

Well in the first place it was kind of a rhetorical question.  I liked the colour quality to the shots I had taken with particular film types that are a result of the emulsions used in the film.  If you had bothered to read the thread you would have known what I was talking about.

I'm not stupid, I know that film is more expensive and harder to process or are you suggesting I am? Put away the claws, please.


I did read what you wrote.  How does that in any way, shape, matter or form limit my comments, hmm?  What, do I have to run my opinions by you first?
You might not mean to come across as being aggressive, but it certainly reads like that.  We're pretty laid back here, even when we disagree with each other.  For all-out war, go register on an Apple forum or something.   :D
5D Mark III, 40D, 1V.  Bunch of strobes, lenses and other bits.
They're, their, there, it's, its, too, to, than, then, you're, your.  One lens, two lenses, the lens's aperture.

pwp

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #101 on: June 13, 2012, 01:06:40 AM »
The only thing I miss about film is the great conversations photographers had with each other once or twice a day at the E6 film lab. That was nice.

Recently I looked at some files of premium level drum scans from 6x7 Velvia shot on an RZ67 that I used to think were the bees knees. They looked awful compared to what I'm shooting today on 1D4 & 5D3, and would be surpassed easily by the old 5D Classic.

Film does deliver certain unique characteristics, but certainly not ones that I have any willingness to continue to explore. I've always gone by the rule that "Content is King". Most (not all!) photography today leaves the work from previous decades gasping for respectability. Go and take a look at photography books and magazines from the the 1970's, 1980's & 1990's. Then try to convince me that Film is Still Hard to Beat.

PW

Richard8971

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 403
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2012, 01:31:22 AM »
I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"

I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.

Now comes digital. You can see the image as soon as you take it and can instanly make changes and now anyone can learn how to take a photo (outside of using "auto") and have it be affordable. One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll?  ::) (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket. :)

With digital, a journalist can take a photo half-way across the world and sent it back to his/her editor in minutes, if not seconds. Do THAT with film.

If you choose to shoot film then so be it, but in MO film is going the way of the 8-track, super 8, beta tape, records, lazer disks... It is simply being replaced by a superior tecnology. Before long, any leftover superiority of 35mm film over digital will be long gone.

D

« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 01:49:15 AM by Richard8971 »
Canon 6D, 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2012, 01:31:22 AM »

Danielle

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
    • D.Judd Photographics
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2012, 03:25:03 AM »
One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll?  ::) (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket. :)


Yup, totally agree with that as much as I'd defend film where I can.

I've shot well over 2400 shots in day shooting sports and stuff before (haven't done it since though). But how many rolls of film would that be? Oh, lets say at bare minimums at least $1300 worth!!!!! Not a chance in hell I could have afforded to do that.

I was taught on film, before any other options were available. But will only shoot medium format film now, and no I don't shoot much of it. Darkroom access is also getting harder to come by.
In the end, only the image matters... Not what equipment you used to get there.

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2012, 05:40:56 AM »
I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"

I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.

Now comes digital. You can see the image as soon as you take it and can instanly make changes and now anyone can learn how to take a photo (outside of using "auto") and have it be affordable. One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll?  ::) (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket. :)

With digital, a journalist can take a photo half-way across the world and sent it back to his/her editor in minutes, if not seconds. Do THAT with film.

If you choose to shoot film then so be it, but in MO film is going the way of the 8-track, super 8, beta tape, records, lazer disks... It is simply being replaced by a superior tecnology. Before long, any leftover superiority of 35mm film over digital will be long gone.

D

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta wasn't better than VHS, VHS just won the marketing war.  Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though?  I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera.  I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100.  There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2012, 05:40:56 AM »