Film is still hard to beat
- Thread starter itsnotmeyouknow
- Start date
- Status
Maybe it has been expressed, maybe not. I just picked up a 10 bit monitor vs. the 8 bit 99.9999% of the internet images are used to display images.
Suffice to say it begs for 12 or even 14 bit, and most DSLRs do 16 - there is a robust debate if the SNR can really resolve 16 vs. 14 and 99.999999% of the folks on the internet don't have the equipment to discern anyway. And just be curious go price a 12 bit or 14 bit monitor - your investment in imagine gear will jump.. AND no one else can really see/judge your product.
Those films you see in the theater - i suspect they are mastered down to 8bit.
It might be that in print is the only way to compare digital to film - there is still a data/projection bottleneck that limits 99.999% of people to 8 tops 10 bits of image quality where as film is film w/ no conversion or data pipe/display bottlenecks.
You can soft proof all you want, 8 bit isn't 10 bit and I am trying to figure out how to afford 12 or 14.
Yep Porsche is a different beast than Ferrari but they both get you to where you want to go quickly.
Suffice to say it begs for 12 or even 14 bit, and most DSLRs do 16 - there is a robust debate if the SNR can really resolve 16 vs. 14 and 99.999999% of the folks on the internet don't have the equipment to discern anyway. And just be curious go price a 12 bit or 14 bit monitor - your investment in imagine gear will jump.. AND no one else can really see/judge your product.
Those films you see in the theater - i suspect they are mastered down to 8bit.
It might be that in print is the only way to compare digital to film - there is still a data/projection bottleneck that limits 99.999% of people to 8 tops 10 bits of image quality where as film is film w/ no conversion or data pipe/display bottlenecks.
You can soft proof all you want, 8 bit isn't 10 bit and I am trying to figure out how to afford 12 or 14.
Yep Porsche is a different beast than Ferrari but they both get you to where you want to go quickly.
Upvote
0
What a keen film photographer said to me when I was complaining about my dirty sensor was that he has a new and perfectly clean sensor every time he takes a photo.
This sounded to me like a clear advantage. ;D
This sounded to me like a clear advantage. ;D
Upvote
0
Hector1970 said:
Clearly he doesn't actually use much film. If he did he would know of the myriad of issues that can arise from dirt both in the camera and in the developing stage. I don't know any photographer who shot film who hasn't had an entire roll, or even job, ruined by a bit of grit or sand at the development stage or that got in the back of the camera, film pressure plates are every bit as sensitive as digital sensors. Indeed it used to be such a concern that many would send films from the same job to different labs or the same lab on different days to mitigate the possibility of complete loss.
Talking of complete loss, how's that film backup strategy working out for you?
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Actually he's probably alot more well informed than you and taking photographs with film alot longer than you but more worryingly you lack a sense of humour. I am only repeating what he said after over 60 years of photo taking (boy and man). He's never moved to digital, he's an extremely precise and skillful photographer who very carefully looks after his gear. He's used more film than you've had posts on Canon Rumors. It was said in jest but with a ring of truth to it. Seeing the precision of how he operates he is using a new sensor with every photo he takes.
Upvote
0
Hector1970 said:
You can't have it both ways - either it's a serious point or a joke. If it's a serious point, you've completely ignored PBD's reasoned responses ('my friend has been shooting for 60 years' is not a response). If it's a joke, then it's a joke :
Upvote
0
It must be a slow day on CanonRumors. It is actually a response. If look after your gear properly (which he has over a long period of time) you have a clean sensor everytime he takes a photograph. He develops his own photos so he doesn't have the second issue either. Privatebydesign questioned his experience without knowledge so I informed him of his experience. There are too many "obviously" people on Canon Rumors who just jump to maintain their biases and lack a complete sense of humour or understanding that not everyone who disagrees with them is wrong or attacking thetm. But that's the internet for you. Even I as a hardened Digital user would agree that film has some merits but I wouldn't choose film over digital.
Upvote
0
Hector1970 said:
His was an off the cuff remark, and I made an off the cuff reply, we have the same sense of humour, sorry if I missed off am emoticon to make the point clear
Again, I do not know of a film shooter, ever, who hasn't had a good amount of negative damage from either a film pressure plate or in the developing process, that is just a fact and an unfortunate byproduct of using film.
Being as this is a fact that he knows about he was obviously pulling your leg, not mine.
As for the entire premise of the thread. Film is easily beaten in every metric one can use to 'measure' it. DR, resolution, colour accuracy etc etc are all easily beaten by digital cameras.
But alluding to those measurements entirely misses the point of film, nobody would ever say watercolours are dead, or oil paints are hard to beat. Film is an entirely different medium for image capture than digital and it takes a different mindset, film used to be the only effective way of mass image capture but glass plate photographers were just as 'valid', it was a choice that individuals used to get the results they wanted.
If you want results and images are the intention there is no practical or measurable reason to shoot film*, indeed there are very good reasons to not shoot film, in that respect film is easily beaten and is dead. If the process is part of the output then film is alive and kicking and looking healthier than it has in quite a while.
* Technically there are few things you can shoot with film that you can't shoot 'better' with digital, but there are looks you can get via a wet process that are very difficult to match without some skill and time in Photoshop. But again, that really is missing the point of using film most of the time.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:Hector1970 said:
His was an off the cuff remark, and I made an off the cuff reply, we have the same sense of humour, sorry if I missed off am emoticon to make the point clear
Again, I do not know of a film shooter, ever, who hasn't had a good amount of negative damage from either a film pressure plate or in the developing process, that is just a fact and an unfortunate byproduct of using film.
Being as this is a fact that he knows about he was obviously pulling your leg, not mine.
As for the entire premise of the thread. Film is easily beaten in every metric one can use to 'measure' it. DR, resolution, colour accuracy etc etc are all easily beaten by digital cameras.
But alluding to those measurements entirely misses the point of film, nobody would ever say watercolours are dead, or oil paints are hard to beat. Film is an entirely different medium for image capture than digital and it takes a different mindset, film used to be the only effective way of mass image capture but glass plate photographers were just as 'valid', it was a choice that individuals used to get the results they wanted.
If you want results and images are the intention there is no practical or measurable reason to shoot film*, indeed there are very good reasons to not shoot film, in that respect film is easily beaten and is dead. If the process is part of the output then film is alive and kicking and looking healthier than it has in quite a while.
* Technically there are few things you can shoot with film that you can't shoot 'better' with digital, but there are looks you can get via a wet process that are very difficult to match without some skill and time in Photoshop. But again, that really is missing the point of using film most of the time.
Good reply - well written - more of this please. Nice to see this from you
Upvote
0
justaCanonuser
Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
privatebydesign said:
The main reason to shoot film today is the way it changes your way of thinking. It's a bit like slow food compared with fast food (fast food can be very okay). I shoot a lot digital and still love it but I also returned to use more film again. Technically, digital is superior in most respects: sharpness, high ISOs - when I got my 5D3 in 2012 it opened up a whole new world of available light photog to me -, flexibility in post-processing. But as your footnote says, there still are some areas in which film is superior. In Iceland I recently shot a very subtle rainbow in a waterfall's mist with my EOS 3 loaded with a Fuji Velvia because I knew from experience that I'd have to tweak a digital image much to get it out. The color slide displays it wonderfully - but I know: if I try to scan it I again need to do a lot of post processing to get it so nicely. Also sunsets shot with a Velvia are still hard to beat digitally, same with subtle color shadings in snow and ice. Digital you have 14 or 16 bits of color depth or so, film offers analogue infinity (okay not quite because of the grain).
Plus, I personally still prefer true grain in black & white prints over fake vintage filters despite those are impressively good (e.g. Silverfast). For me this is a question of philosophy, of pureness and honesty. I'd never drive a New Beetle because it is a faked VW Golf or shoot a Fuji or Nikon retro style camera because like any digital camera they are computers with sensors but they pretend to be classic cameras.
Upvote
0
I always laugh when I read threads like this!
Do you go into and art gallery and compare oils to water colours? Do you compare charcoal drawings to engravings?
Film is another medium to digital, another tool in the kit and has its place. Film has made a dramatic comeback in high end Hollywood movies all of which are scanned and edited, graded etc. digitally as well as adding digital visual effects. Here the two work in harmony and the grain is either supressed or enhanced (Star Wars).
The tonality of film is really the reason many DOPs give for choosing it with their directors, that and the slightly softer feel it imparts which improves skin tones etc.
Digital is sharper, more resolution and more clinical looking but many are tired of the clinical look / TV look and are using old optics to impart imperfections deliberately. We see this across commercials, TV, Features and photo shoots more & more. Maybe once Rec. 2020 is more widely adopted digital will have a colour gamut that allows the tonality of film its certainly possible with the Sony F65 which does utilise Rec. 2020.
Do you go into and art gallery and compare oils to water colours? Do you compare charcoal drawings to engravings?
Film is another medium to digital, another tool in the kit and has its place. Film has made a dramatic comeback in high end Hollywood movies all of which are scanned and edited, graded etc. digitally as well as adding digital visual effects. Here the two work in harmony and the grain is either supressed or enhanced (Star Wars).
The tonality of film is really the reason many DOPs give for choosing it with their directors, that and the slightly softer feel it imparts which improves skin tones etc.
Digital is sharper, more resolution and more clinical looking but many are tired of the clinical look / TV look and are using old optics to impart imperfections deliberately. We see this across commercials, TV, Features and photo shoots more & more. Maybe once Rec. 2020 is more widely adopted digital will have a colour gamut that allows the tonality of film its certainly possible with the Sony F65 which does utilise Rec. 2020.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Merry Christmas and happy New Year, Neuro(sis)-You know we all love you, here (cough, cough)
You know I can't be where you already are, brown.
Please PM me with your address so I can send you some canisters for future use. In the meantime, you can put bulb hangers on them and use them for ear rings. All the best to you. Cheers!
Upvote
0
Working in the motion picture industry I hear this rhetoric all the time. Film and digital ARE different and have pluses and minuses with the world deciding film has more minuses than digital. Your wrong at this level though Producers do compare film to digital but mainly in terms of cost whereas DOPs compare because along with the director they want a different "look".leGreve said:
The times you see people trying to make digital look like film and in stills a whole industry of plug-ins try to make digital look like film however Ive never heard anyone say they want film to look like digital.
Your opinion of "quality" is a technical one not an artistic one and even that is based on other peoples finding unless your able to qualify technically the differences yourself. I'm able to test in a multitude of ways but Ive never found a conclusive answer because even technical tests can be read various ways.
I always say the great masters decided whether to paint in oils or water colors who am I to say one is better than the other when its clear both can and did coexist.
The new Star Wars shot of film, made millions & millions of $$ it did not stop the public watching it as content is king not the method.
Long live film & long live digital and long live choice.
Upvote
0
- Status