Another reason to shoot non digital

[artofseeing]

I posted this here because this is the forum I inhabit the most. I

use a Rebel Ti, 100mm macro, 50mm 1.4 and Tokina 19-35mm and shoot

90% velvia. For a long time I was torn on the trouble I was going

through when I shot slides. I would laboriously scan them for

sharing and posting and it was always several hours of back breaking

labor to finish a roll once I got it back from the lab.

 

I had always thought of throwing my film body and going digital.

 

Well, long story short, its all worth it. I bought a used Kodak

Ektagraphic slide projector in Ebay for 70$. And I would say this is

the best 70$ I ever spent other than on good lenses. Seeing your

slides projected at 6 ft by 6 ft is simply A M A Z I N G. I fell in

love with some of of my pictures all over again.

 

Can shooting digital show me my pictures this way? Not today, not

this cheap. Anyway, to anyone shooting slides and not having a slide

projector, I say dont walk, but run to Ebay!

 

Thank you for listening.

[eosbob]

While the cost of a digital projection unit is beyond most folks today, you could look into the local camera clubs for the same experience. Our club started a digital projection competition group last fall and it has been a big favorite. Seeing you work up on the big screen is always a thrill.

[mike_smith2]

But there again playing Devils advocate and flying the digital flag as a recent convert.....

 

 

you could hook up your computer to your TV with one of the many cheap TV video cards and enjoy a slide show on your tv from the comfort of your own armchair.....

 

AND ALSO

 

you can produce 35mm slides from digital files, albeit it at cost, so maybe you should keep your newly acquired projector and still junk your 35mm stuff...... ;-)

 

35mm film has a finite future life, Agfa are about to pull out of the film market, how long before Kodak and Fuji are forced by reduced sales to push the price of film up to a ludicrous amount and thereby hit a downward spiral of supplying specialist photographers - such as medium or large format pros. still shooting film - how many pros. now burn a mountain of 35mm film at sporting events- none, how many people snap 35mm film at the beach, virtually none, it is all pocket digital cameras or video mobile phones these days!

 

Also don't forget that with the exponential rate that we have with home electronic advances, Widescreen TVs will undoubtedly have a short shelf life and digital projectors will rule the roost so in a couple of years time you will be able to view your digital photos wall sized at home from the comfort of your armchair as well....

 

I have just jumped on to the digital bandwagon with a second hand 1D, and can now see why once converted you will never shoot film again. My first session produced much cleaner sharper pictures than I used to get with Fuji Sensia or Velvia , no risk of scratches or finger prints again, and this is with the now much maligned small CCD sensor - are there enough pixels? - you bet there are.

 

Regards

 

Mike Smith

London

[Greg M]

Yet another preacher of the doomed 35mm format speaks!

 

Against that latest speach of doom and gloom comes another who after 4 months of shooting digitally only has again started shooting 35mm film and appreciating it even more. I will still shoot digitally when I need/have to, but for my own fun and enjoyment, and for me that's 60-80% or more of the time film is still the way to go.

[aljaz_.]

Is there a rumour about a clear 2600*4000 pixel digital projector at a price of 70$ coming soon?

[scott_eaton]

I plug my 10D directly into my 65" Pioneer for everybody to watch the same day I take the pictures. Plus, unlike the anti-digital posts here, I don't lurk in my basement/garage/cellar by myself and living in denial that anybody cares. It's merely another version of light table masturbation nested inside slide film worship, and has nothing to do with photography. As I've said previously, if you want to impress us with your film, get a real format other than 35mm. If 35mm sucks when printed at 30x40, then please don't try to tell me it looks good at 5' x 7' on your wall because you have a magical $70 projector.

 

That's really cool you have a $70 projector, but I'm wondering how much you paid for the reference quality screen, and much care was made that you got perfect projection on a non lenticular, high albido finish projection screen, and how often you change the cooling fans on the color corrected Xenon bulb in your projector. Until I see a laser level run across your screen and color calibration, you can stuff the resolution arguement.

 

With my digital camera, I just plug it into my set and get the full glory of the image. Plus, I learned to use my digital camera vs using the excuse of projecting on my basement wall as an excuse that somebody needs to hide behind slide film.

[johannes_minkus]

Since a couple of months I am a happy EOS 1oD shooter. I enjoy the instant feedback which DSLRs give.

The last vacation however I shot mostly slides with my EOS 3. Why? Because I want to share my pictures with my friends and my family. And nothing beats a slide show - that way the pictures are appreciated the most. Its amazing how may details you see!

On the other hand, if I shoot for publication in newspapers or the internet - digital is much better and faster.

So I enjoy both.

Johannes

[adam_deglmann]

Wow Scott. Good thing you let Madhan know that his new projector sucks. Otherwise he might have unknowingly enjoyed it just as thousands of others enjoy theirs. Now he knows that his projector as well as 35mm film sucks and digital is the only thing that would be worth his time and worthy of his enjoyment. Dodged a bullet there.

[Greg M]

Madhan,

 

You need to post stuff like this in the film and processing discussion group. there are people who take this one-way-or-the-other only subject way too seriously in both directions. Of course, maybe the posting was meant to stir certain folks up- if it was you succeeded admirably.

 

I think there's room for both film and digital users in the world to exist.

[chris_carroll]

Yipes. I get the feeling their are some out there who want to

gather up all the remaining slide film in the world and dance in a

circle as it is consumed in a mighty bonfire. Or put those cretins

of us who still shoot 35mm chrome--or at least those whose

projection screens don't pass the laser-level test--to better use

working in salt mines.

 

Dude didn't say that digital sucks, he didn't make a resolution

claim, nor did he say he has the world's best screen. What he

did say is that currently, to equal the quality of a projected 35mm

slide with a digital file projected or shown on-screen, you gotta

spend exponentially more. Can someone explain how he's

wrong?

[adam_deglmann]

Well said Chris.

[Tony Rowlett]

I always knew that 35mm was unreal. I sure am glad that photo.net has confirmed this for me.

[mark u]

Of all Scott's pro-digital posts this has to be the one that's filled with the most drivel. If he is satisfied with his 65" Panasonic that resolves a mere 850 lines horizontally, I know his eyesight can no longer distinguish anything much.

[Greg M]

Mark, that's probably exactly what manufacturers want to see. The public accepting less and paying more for it.

[jay_.]

Well I've got a Leica RT-S projector with a 90mm Super Colorplan PRO lens and a 6' square professional-quality screen in my home theater and also a Kodak Ektagraphic IIIa with a Shneider Vario-Prolux zoom which I take cross country when I do slide-lecture presentations at dental seminars. Most of my colleagues who present alongside me at these courses have succumbed to their need to dispose of as much of their disposible income as possibe and gotten into digital projection and Powerpoint presentations. I am bombarded at the end of each seminar by comments from attendees as to how much sharper and more detailed my slides are than the others (these people are clueless that the others are using a different technology). Thus there is *no* contest between analog projection and digital projection at this time, and evidently it is Scott who sits in his basement pleasuring himself since he is ovbiously ignorant to the fact that 1500 people in an auditorium can't all crowd around a TV set, and there are literally tens of thousands of such seminars presented every day around the world.

 

Not that any of it really matters because the rats have been led to the river by the Pied Piper of Digital and film will be gone sooner than any of us can imagine.

[digitmstr]

You can plug your digital camera to any TV, record to VCRs, burn to CD-R, etc... How much is it going to cost YOU to duplicate your slides?

 

Can you people stop the nonsense about film VS digital? Do *you* always have to throw that in? You know, another version of your story could read "hey,I found a cheap used projector somebody wanted to unload on Ebay and now I can watch slides because I have lived on another planet for the past 50 years so, I was not aware that such machine existed and that I could have bought one ages ago instead of buying a DIGITAL SCANNER"...?

[mcgarity]

I want to stay out of this argument. But I do want to respond to the question "How much is it going to cost YOU to duplicate your slides?"

 

The answer is not much actually. Years ago I bought a Canon FD bellows and slide duplicator. It makes duplicating slides quick and easy. The cost is a few minutes of time and the expense of film and processing.

[PuppyDigs]

"It's merely another version of light table masturbation nested inside slide film worship, and has nothing to do with photography."

 

Scott, it appears you're the only here spanking your whanky. Plus, you're simulating it digitally!

 

Incidentally, TV viewing is extremely low rez compared to slide projection.

[qtluong]

Despite some misunformed comments, of course slide projection provides

better quality than digital projection at the moment. However, despite

having a $2,000 projector, I haven't done any projections lately, just

because of the hassle of having to have slides in trays. I admit that,

just for the convenience, I would use a digital projector more if I had

one. Also, the ability to show <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">photos</a> to

millions through the web has diminished the appeal of projections, even if the quality is even less...

[citizensmith]

Ahh forget film or digital. I think I'll hand in my cameras and go back to a big ol' piece of paper and a delux set of crayola crayons. No worries about low light, camera shake, color balance, depth of field, and I can edit for content on the fly. And think of all the money I'll save!

[simonpg]

A good discussion. But, it's a shame some get defensive when digital is criticised. Simply, each medium has its place. Madhan has raised a very valid point - pictures of all types are meant to give us pleasure and he reminds us that the nearly forgotten art of a well taken slide projected to a large size remains a marvellous stimulation. He highlights the fact that even the simplest and disgarded devices can give great pleasure.

 

A sad aspect of the digital age is that the debate about its pros and cons has too many of us overly focused on the gear, rather than the images. Some will attack Madhan's comments by throwing up how digital might match his experience. Who cares; the fact is that he went back to basics and got huge enjoyment from it.

 

Despite how far digital has come technically (and it has been a race to match the achievements of film); regardless of the fact that millions of point and shoot casual photographers have been delivered a very convenient medium through digital technology; accepting the fact that journalists have been given enormous convenience by digital technology; the reality is that film of all types offers other benefits and a great medium for artistic expression. Digital and film will co-exist.

 

My similar experience to Madhan's was while drooling over some superb digital B&W art prints, I then saw a 6x6 slide projected (by an old Rollei projector) - just sensational. The depth, detail, tones, etc etc were superb. It was like going to a live orchestral concert - a great experience.

 

And finally, I recently burnt a DVD of scanned 35mm and 6x6 film shots and showed them to friends on a big TV. They looked great and everyone enjoyed them. I enjoyed the convenience and quality that digital technology provides.

 

My preference? Always a live concert. But, one can't always make the time, so more frequently I prefer the convenience of a DVD on a decent TV screen. Film and digital co-exist in my life and I always keep my eyes open for undervalued film gear that was brilliantly designed and may add to my enjoyment.

[rob_landry]

Scott, I usually find your posts quite informative (if not a bit crass) but I think you went a little too far with this one. I mean c'mon, comparing a $70 slide projector to a 65" display. Gee, can we not let the guy have some of the glory here? Not everyone has the funds to run out and buy a 65" TV to display their images on. And besides, we all know that a $70 slide projector will still beat the pants off any big screen TV with it's laughably low resolution and poor color gamut.

 

Clearly your post serves nothing except to tell us about the cost of some of the toys you have.

[artofseeing]

Let me answer simply by saying I am surprised by the vehement attack made by some members about my motivations etc. I would like to clarify that the post was not about "Digital vs Film". It was simply something nice about shooting film I didnt know about. My only motivation on posting was to let other people share in the joy I felt in looking at my slides this way.

 

Yes, I was not aware of the primitive device called the slide projector. And despite being part of photo.net for more than a year, I havent heard anyone/read anything that extolled the virtues of one. I just wanted to spread the message I discovered for myself.

 

Not that it is relevant for the discussion, but I like digital and I know more than most on what it means to acquire images from a CCD or a CMOS sensor. I am video systems engineer by profession and I have handled integration of very large sized sensors into products. I do know that digital is the future, but my find just allowed me to savor what I currently have.

[maynard_switzer1]

I am an advertising & editorial photographer working in NYC.For those of you who do not derive their livelihood from photography, I would like to offer you some facts about film vs. digital in the real world. Almost 90% of all the ads you see in consumer magazines are still shot film.As a matter of fact, many ad agencies stipulate film. As far as all the beautiful fashion editorial spreads you see in Vogue, Harpers Bazar etc.,it is almost all shot on film.Yes there are some people in advertising & fashion shooting digital,but not a lot.The only people who shoot digital 100% of the time are the newspapers & the weekly newsmagazines who switched years ago & the catalogue people who are using digital medium format backs on their cameras.Digital offers some definite advantages in certain situations,but when I hear people say that the Canon 1Ds produces medium format quality up to 13x19, thats not good enough. I just finished printing some 30"x40" prints that were from drum scans & printed on an Epson 9600.I have not seen any digital print past 20"x24" that surpases what film can produce. That being said, I will probably be shooting digital when I feel that there is no more advantage to using film. For me, digital cameras that can offer me that ,are at least one to two generations away.

[jason_elsworth3]

I have been shooting slide film from the first day I picked up an SLR, about 5 years now. I shoot slide film because that was what customers wanted and in my case still want. I have never projected any of my images, but this post has inspired me to get a cheap projecter and give it a go - no bishop bashing involved I can assure you.

 

As for Scot's post, if you have been around Pnet for a few years you have seen it all before. Lots of dogma, lots of technical stuff and some look at my toys stuff. Jay's post seems spookily similar in style - has anyone ever seen them in the same room/cellar together?

 

 

Slide film has been one of Scot's favourite areas for letting loose. Everyone knows that real photographers only use slide film and the best use velvia, some people just can't accept this :)))))

 

Having said that I have learnt a great deal from many of Scot's posts over the years, especially on film and printing. Finally I am looking forward to trying out digital when it is right for me.

 

Jason