Erwin Puts has spoken: FILM IS OVER

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c022.html

He says nothing of the sort. To quote from the article...

 

"This conclusion does not imply that film-based photography will be buried in two years time, as Kodak assumes."

 

What he does say is that film will become a niche market.

Rehash of facts known to many.

<p>

<i>The Image capture stage introduces a number of image degradations, not known in silver-halide processing: the discrete sampling of the CCD sensor and the colour filter array (CFA) generate aliasing artifacts ((reduction of high frequency information to low frequency information that can be handled by the sensor array) and noise. The optical pre-filter then reduces these artifacts but this does reduce image quality again.</i>

<p>

Film finished? Not by a long shot!

Vivek, show me your 80 lp/mm ISO1600 colour shots enlarged to 11x17.

For me the capture medium is irrelevant. WHAT I capture is far more important that the medium and until another camera comes along with a viewfinder that allows me to focus quickly and easily anywhere on the screen and responsiveness that allows me to capture the image the moment everything comes together I'll use whatever medium the Leicaflex SL requires.

Vivek, try a more comprehensive quote,

 

"We have to face this conclusion without emotion: the image file has more potential than the silver-halide grain structure.

 

This conclusion does not imply that film-based photography will be buried in two years time, as Kodak assumes. We should however prepare ourselves mentally to a situation that film based Leica photography will become a niche in a niche in a niche.

 

Leica photography with film canisters is still fun and a pleasure to be involved with. It will not give you the best results performance wise that are now possible. We have to wait for the Md to see what Leica can deliver and can catch up with the main players."

Film vs Digital. What a novel subject! I am bound to learn a lot as this thread develops.

 

I will read it later to see whether I should junk my DSLR or sell my M6.

Volker and Gary: Not trying to pick on any "film vs digital" topic. I was just trying to point out that Erwin is rehashing known (for sometime, to many)facts. He could have written the same article, a few years ago and it would still have been just as valid.

 

Trevor, In case you decide to junk your D70, please let me know. I will take it for UV/IR captures.

So many people have bought into the "Conventional B&W photography is dead. Siver gelatin prints are an anachronism!" that very few photographers still offer the medium. Result? You can charge a lot more for "Tri-X capture" and the enlarger made silver prints. A hefty premium! Perhaps a niche market, true, but still a viable market.

troll

I bought my first digital camera back in the late 1990's (an eternity in digital camera technology). That first digital was a Sony Mavica FD-7 that saved 640x480 images on a floppy disk. In those days, people were 'excited' by digital were saying that the output from this (and equivalent sub-megapixel) cameras was 'just as good as 35mm film'. These people were sincere in their opinion. The excitement of the new technology made them see what they wanted to see and ignore what they didn't want to see. That was when the first 'film is dead' threads started appearing. "Well, we have the Sony Mavica...I guess we can throw away all our Leica's and Contax's because film will be gone in a year." Film users looked at the digital output and scratched their heads. "Huh? Better than what I can get from film...not likely!"

 

However, with each itteration in digital camera resolution, a reassessment was made of the previous digital generation. "Well, THOSE 640x480 cameras...they didn't quite measure up to film BUT the new 1024x768 cameras...THEY were just like 35mm pictures. You couldn't tell the difference between the XVGA output and a film slide."

 

Soon, those pictures were re-evaluated when the first 1 million pixel cameras came out...NOW they had reached parity with 35mm and..film was dead...it would be gone in a year.

 

But then there were the 1.3Mp cameras and eventually the 2Mp cameras appeared and...yes, those earlier cameras really weren't up to the level of film...the NEW 2Mp cameras met and exceeded the quaity of film...and so on and so on and so on...

 

Each generation of digital enthusiasts claimed that they had finally, reached the point of parity with film...and they are still claiming it today. I saw a television review of a 6Mp digital camera nad the script could have come from the 1990's. They took the picture, showed how easy it was to load it into the computer and then made a print which 'you couldn't tell from a 35mm'.

 

What is common to all of these milestones is that they follow the identical pattern. The older resolution cameras were 'not quite there' BUT the NEW resolution is declared to be the 'holy grail' of digital photography and has finally reached parity with film.

 

Recently we began to hear that Point and Shoot digital cameras were really 'not qute there' as far as equalling film BUT digital SLRs...they were the equal of film cameras. Then, more recently, we heard that only digital SLRs that shot in RAW format were REALLY the equivalent of film cameras and the digital SLRs that shot in JPEG or TIFF were 'not quite there'.

 

I'm afraid I have lost count of the number of times that victory has been declared over film and the pending demise of film has been prophesied. It will start over again with whatever new technical itteration appears. I guess it is like the Bubmbebee...aerodynamic engineers have determined that bumblebees can't possibly fly but the bee doesn't know that and flys anyway. That will be the way it is with film users...we won't know that victory has been declared (100 different times) and we will continue to take pictures and leave the bitheads to argue over the latest toys.

Al may be on to something there. 20 years from now when I'm churning out silver based prints from my "wet" darkroom, I should be able to charge out the wazoo for them- I mean, it being a "lost art" and all. Al, I only hope there is readily available material for us to use in our darkrooms!

I love watching the predictable circling-of-wagons that always occurs on these sorts of

threads.

I sincerely hope that people buy prints because they like the photographs NOT because it is printed using any particular medium. Equally I would think very poorly of someone charging more money for a silver based darkroom print JUST because it is silver based.

 

Modern inksets (Epson K3) and good quality paper (printed by someone who really knows what they are doing and have taken the time and care to educate themselves to digital printing) can rival anything from a darkroom and the skills involved are just as valid.

"Al may be on to something there. 20 years from now when I'm churning out silver based prints from my "wet" darkroom, I should be able to charge out the wazoo for them- I mean, it being a "lost art" and all"

 

Never mind twenty years, two hundred years from now economists, art historians and photography students will be sifting through this thread for thesis material...so speak up, this is your chance to grab a place in history!

 

By the way, Ang, or Vadim, or Epsilon Minor or whatever your name is, could you look up my great-great-grandchildren and make sure they're embracing ancenstor worship?

"when I'm churning out silver based prints from my "wet" darkroom, I should be able to charge out the wazoo for them"

 

Nice.

 

Think I will pass and buy something printed with care (whatever the media) rather than 'churned out' and charged 'out the wazoo'!

Do you people remmember the good old days? Canon Vs. Nikon, Leica Vs. Contax, Prime versus zooms............ digital Vs. film is becoming sooo boring and monotematic, how about a goos eos300 - F65 thread? ;)

Fortunately, despite the advent of photography, and even Photoshop and Maya, you can still find stores that sell... paint brushes.

"Douglas Herr Prolific Poster, feb 22, 2006; 08:47 a.m.

For me the capture medium is irrelevant. WHAT I capture is far more important that the medium and until another camera comes along with a viewfinder that allows me to focus quickly and easily anywhere on the screen and responsiveness that allows me to capture the image the moment everything comes together I'll use whatever medium the Leicaflex SL requires."

 

So then you feel the camera body has a greater influence on image quality than the capture medium. Interesting contrarian viewpoint.

My post was my poor attempt at humor. I was only joking guys.

everything dies..question is whether you'd see it dead.

Nietzsche: "God is dead"

 

God: "Nietzsche is dead"

Tony Sensaorbi wrote: <I>"So then you feel the camera body has a greater influence on image quality than the capture medium" </I>

<P>

Let's rephrase this so that even a dental technician can understand it: If image quality is measured only in terms of grain/pixelization, lines per mm etc., then I'm clearly mistaken. If image quality has to do with composition, impact and the viewer's emotional response then the capture medium is far less important than the photographer's interaction with the camera. For example if the camera expects me to put my main subject at one of its focus sensors it limits my compositions. If the camera does not allow me to quickly see and evaluate focus over the entire viewscreen it limits my compositions. If the camera does not respond with a minimum of lag the moment I press the shutter release I miss the fleeting moments when composition, technique and subject activity intersect. A boring picture is still boring when grainlessly enlarged to 20' x 30' with perfect sharpness; with an interesting picture one might wish for less grain or more microscopic detail but it is still an interesting picture.

I'd like to suggest four new forums ('fora' to be precise): "Digiphobia", "Digiphilia", "Filmophobia" and "Filmophilia" with the aim of creating more discussion space for each faction to perfect its philio/phobic arguments. Then I could save a bit of time in looking up other people's views on my own pet love/hate/obsession. [i'll just duck below the parapet now].

Film vs Digital is an anagram of Digital vs Film