oh my god, film is dead...!!!

[geoff_edwards]

Hi rumi scan it to your pc! I use an Epson 4180 flatbed. Epson and other manufacturers have realised that film is alive & kicking, even if just to archive to digital. As a consequence, film has been given an even longer lease of life, especially MF.

One very important advantage is that printing can be controlled by the photographer. Large prints can be sent by email to have archival quality large prints made. Also the costs of using film has been reduced to the cost of purchase +cost of processing. That's about $1 a shot on 6x7. The future of 35mm cameras is very poor- just look at the winning bids on eBay. But! 35mm SLR cameras are still a delight to use.

Digital cameras are improving, but are still very expensive, compared to digital videocameras, we can buy a broadcast quality videocamera for less than the price of a high end DSL camera. As they improve, the possibilty of improving the flat bed scanners likewise becomes a reality as there must be some relationship between the technologies.

Film is film & 35, 120, 5x4,...is not different except in size. Holding the film flat is another matter. But then, film camera manufacturers have been steadily improving this and this effort will result in improved scanners.

Keep your film safe and rescan it when scanners become cheaper & better. I have a scan of a 6x12 transparency taken with a Lindhof Technorama 612 of a river. You can see the fish! but you can also see hair and all sorts that seem to only have come from the processing fluids! I intend to setup a website with some of my work. I find that digital pictures are fine they are just shown on my PC at their optimum size.

I even have a series of still pictures taken with a Panasonic DS38 digital videocamera. I regard these photographs as among the best I have ever taken! and they are less than 1 mega pixel in size! One of my pictures is below. All I regret is that these photos should not be viewed or printed larger than their optimum size.(postcard) I also have landscape photos taken with MF, the Lindhof, Mamiya 67 that can be viewed so that leaves on the trees are life size! With prints, like other artwork, there is a minimum distance that the picture should be viewed at. I have recently expanded my camera collection to 5x4, my 35mm gear is goin to be sold on eBay, but I will keep my 6x4.5, 6x7 & 6x12 & 5x4 gear. My decision was based mainly on being able to scan my film. This allows for post processing using computer programs. And is inexpensive, that's a major factor!

To return to your original dilemma. Pay for big prints for those film photos that deserve it and scan the rest. Or save up for a Phase1 39MP back!

geoff<div></div>

[ken_bynum]

Thanks for the entertainment! I seldom see cost mentioned on these threads. So for my 2-cents worth: I would love a new 5D, but violin, piano, ballet, and choir lessons (for my girls, not a chance for me) limit my "disposable" income. I did upgrade from a SDIV to a Coolscan V for ICE4 so I could spend more time shooting and less time spotting.

I do hate that film is dead - I bought 20 rolls for Christmas. It does look good in the fridge, tho. Heck, I still shoot my F-1 that I bought while I was in the Navy in 1977. Mainly tho I use my 7E.

Back to the cost thing. Digital is fun, film is fun. For me it's how much it would cost to move to the digital camera I would like to have. I don't have that much so I stick with film. I even have prints on display at the mall. Nobody has asked if they're digital, so you guys keep my secret, ok?

[daniel_taylor]

Wow...836 words from Les and he still didn't explain why his 4000 ppi 35mm scan failed to "annihilate" my lowly 6 MP "digiscam" picture.

 

Les, why don't you quit theorizing about 35mm Velvia vs. a 1Ds mkII and post your images? You have them, right? Post them! Unless, of course, you're so emotionally invested in your arguments that you just cannot post evidence which disproves them.

 

"But the bottom line is that, as far as pure line pair per millimeter resolution is concerned, 4000 ppi scanned Fuji Velvia 50 should be an average resolution match for a full frame Canon type sensor carrying 20.96 megapixels."

 

Really? Gosh, that's funny. See, I framed your map with my 35mm body, then put my 10D on the tripod with the exact same lens and mm setting so that the APS sensor was recording the exact same image that a 35mm frame would within APS dimensions, a simulation of what the center would look like in a 9.6 MP capture using 10D sensor technology. (This is all in the other thread.)

 

Here's a repost of 35mm Velvia "annihilating" a 9.6 MP digital image. Kind of like your flower shot "annihilating" mine. (As a test engineer, you should appreciate direct, empirical evidence of just how many MP it takes to put Velvia away. About 9.6 MP is sufficient.)

 

"So what do you think? Seems my observations, and I'm sure others as well, were not far off afterall don't you think? Or rather, don't you see . . ."

 

Scroll up and take a second look at those two flower crops. Don't YOU see?

 

"So sorry Danny, but I didn't mean to leave it out . . . it's called COPYRIGHT and I thought an experienced photog as yourself would know what that means. But hey, we're amongst friends and whats a few pics between good buddies huh, its all in fun right? ;-)"

 

Ever hear of fair use? Or do you just want to intimidate me into no longer posting comparisons which blow your asinine theories out of the water?

 

***

 

Again, my apologies to film fans in this thread. This is directed at Les and is not intended as an "attack" on 35mm as a medium, just an attack on Les ridiculous claims.<div></div>

[daniel_taylor]

"Interestingly enough, when the owner of the 1Ds MKII saw what it was compared to he too couldn't believe it either and insist on reshooting to maximize the results."

 

LMAO! BS Les. Are you telling me that my 10D records more data than the 1Ds mkII does within the APS-sized center of its sensor? Because composed as if it were full frame, the center of my 10D SPANKED your best film scan. I had NO need to reshoot that test. I could have hand-held it and still come out ahead.

 

At this point you're either lying, your friend used a 28-300 cheapo zoom, or you guys have no clue how to setup and properly shoot a 1Ds mkII.

 

"Yeah, he owns every Canon DSLR from the D30 (which he thought had long since spanked film!) and he isn't falling back laughing ;-)"

 

If he can't out shoot 35mm Velvia 50 on a desktop scanner with a 16 MP 1Ds mkII than I'm falling back laughing at his technique. Tell him he should immediately give his 1Ds mkII to someone who knows how to use it.

 

Come on Les, post the images! No cheating though! It's going to be painfully obvious you cheated if my 10D, composed as if full frame, out performs a 1Ds mkII.

 

"Of course to get back on topic, it is the year 2006 and film is still the R E S O L U T I O N K I N G ;-)"

 

Another example of the RESOLUTION KING is below. Enjoy!<div></div>

[robert goldstein]

I can't believe that this pissing contest is still going. Just for the record, the "Resolution King?" comparison posted above by Daniel clearly shows the film image to have far more resolution, although it is not as clean or sharp appearing as the digital image. The latter is totally lacking in surface texture. But we all knew this already. The main knock against digital images has long been the somewhat unnatural smoothness of surface features. But lots of folks think that a smooth, clean image is more pleasing. It's a matter of taste.

[daniel_taylor]

"Danny, you think it is appropriate for you to be spouting out, "We can only know how to love and treat another by looking at how we love and treat ourselves." when you're referring to people you don't even know and calling them incompetent?"

 

WTF are you talking about? I've never said such a thing on photo.net. What, putting words in my mouth again? Didn't you learn the first time?

 

"Well, it does show consistency with your character - lots of character attacks but nothing on topic. . ."

 

Want to talk character attacks? Let's go back to the thread where I posted 10D images that were sharper and more detailed than your hobbled 20D images, and you flipped out and started accusing me of using "extreme lossy compression" to ruin your image. (Even though anyone and everyone could go to your web page and see it was exact.)

 

"Have I ever taken yours or anyone else image then post it on my site and then completely misuse or misinterpret it?"

 

You've constantly taken other people's words out of context and misused/misrepresented their position. So do not start lecturing me on fair use.

 

"For instance you take full liberal use of my pics without even asking me, so that you can use ISO 400 speed film to compare to ISO 100 speed DSLR."

 

I've always picked images from my collection at the same ISO. Try again....

 

"Then you incompetently state DOF difference to be lack of sharpness or JPEG artifacting as grain?"

 

You're the one who is incompetent when it comes to such things.

 

"BTW, what's with the constant apologies for, does your conscience feel guilty hijacking another thread again?"

 

Oh, poor baby Les. He wanted to have a thread all to himself where he could spout his theories. How dare big bad Daniel come in and challenge his theories....

 

Guess what Les, this is a public board. If you don't want to have your pet theories challenged then don't post them.

 

***

 

"I can't believe that this pissing contest is still going. Just for the record, the "Resolution King?" comparison posted above by Daniel clearly shows the film image to have far more resolution, although it is not as clean or sharp appearing as the digital image. The latter is totally lacking in surface texture."

 

Apparently you're not looking at the same images I posted....