Back to Film?

[fotografz]

Well Nadine you asked, so ...

 

I had one start acting up a couple of months ago. Intermittent firing ... also didn't fire

using the test button ... then would fire. Now the newer one is doing the same thing. At

first I thought it may be the rechargable batteries which are 1.25 volt and the flash is

suppose to use 1.5 volt batteries ... so I put in fresh 1.5 volt AAs. Didn't work. Hooked the

D40s up to a second 503CW to see if it was somehow the camera TTL conection. Nope.

Tried different lenses to see if it was a bad sync port on the lens. Nope.

 

I've got a Hasselblad Potato Masher made by Metz, and that works on both cameras ... so

it isn't the lenses or the cameras. Something is up with both these D-40s and it is really

irritating ... I've used the older one forever with zero problems ... now it, and the newer

one, suddenly don't work. I'll try to get a diffuser for the Metz, but I like bare bulb flash

and have all kinds of light modifers for the D-40s ... what's a mother to do?

[ned1]

For me, the biggest advantage of film over digital is the latitude. You can be a LOT sloppier with film and still get by. That said, I still shoot weddings digital, but how many times have you been burned with a digital exposure that's just a LITTLE bit off? I've pretty much retired my D200 for my S3 for that exact reason, even though the thing is slow as a racing snail.

[ned1]

Marc, how about a Qflash?

[picturesque]

Marc, I thought maybe I might have had a similar thing happen with my 120Js, since they are both made by Sunpak. But the only thing I've had was a long time ago with my older 120J--the sync wiring on the inside of the flash must have failed. I had to send it in to have it repaired. No problems after that. I found somthing similar in a thread here in the Medium Format forum. Here it is, although it sounds in Gup Jeffries' case, to be the lens sync in error. Or the sync cord, which, I guess, is permanently attached.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00822h&tag=

 

Might want to e-mail Gup. I have actually talked with him via e-mail about Metz units. Another thing you can try if you haven't already is to re-form the PC end of the sync cord, although I doubt very much that could be it since you said one of them didn't fire with the open flash button. Just sounds like internal sync wiring, although it is very strange for both to act up at once.

[picturesque]

About the Metz 45--might want to try a Demb Diffuser. It can mimic a Lightsphere. Try putting the wide angle diffuser on the Metz's head and then the Demb Diffuser--front and back.

[think27]

Ben .. Now let's be nice..

 

Just an FYI - The "hero" thing will be completly changed soon. There will be a new way of recognizing service and it won't have anything to do with quantity of posts but more to do with the quality of posts and a helpfulness factor.

 

Everyone will loose the hero Icon from what I understand and we'll start fresh.

[david j.lee]

when i was at flying school the instructors told us there was 4 posible ratings for our work

as student pilots:

 

1- over normal

2-normal

3-failed

4-failed with dangerous attitude.

5- number 1 was reserved to god.

 

since Magnum hasn't called me yet, i don't aspire to any icons here anymore...

[david j.lee]

...i just hope for one reasonable good print a year.is that to much to ask...?

[larry schaefer - chicago,]

Do away with the icon thing all together. It induces a class structure. Class structure is inconsistent in a community where there is frequent and overt monitoring of opinion and suppression of visual expression.

 

Give a trophy to whoever has the most expensive, most quantity, and most prestigious name brand gear on P/N. Let that icon be a golden ox.

[fotografz]

Thanks Nadine. It is wierd that both are doing the same thing, almost at the same time ...

which is why I keep going back over it to see what I may be doing wrong.

[steve_levine]

What is a hero icon? I didn't know I had one?

 

 

 

Film shooting to me is "no brainer". I don't need new gear, and I can fully anticipate my results. In my mind, digital is expensive, complicated and produces inferior prints.

[steve george]

I use digital for colour but film for black and white (mostly, anyway) - I don't know about logic, good sense and ease of use as I think each has their merits but black and white film printed properly looks a lot nicer to my eyes than digital black and white.

[rtrace]

I guess the original question was sort of lost - "Could logic, good sense, ease of use and a better medium win in the end?"

 

While many like and shoot film along digital (myself included) or solely (like Steve, Mary, etc.), and film obviously has its merits, I don't see how anyone can deny that "in the end"/future digital will of course "win" and be the preferred medium for the majority. Film may exists in niche areas, but who knows for how long? I don't see how anyone can deny this obvious thing - like it or not. My point was to learn it sooner rather than later if you can. You will have an edge when you least expect it perhaps.

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

How do you know this Bogdan? And why are you so insistant on convincing others as if

the absolute demise of film was a fact? "Me thinks thou protest to much" : -)

 

I don't think there is any issue about digital being the dominate medium. As far as I'm

concerned it already is. Just look at all the P&S digital cameras at every wedding.

 

Yet, perhaps, more discriminating people will come to the same conclusion about digital

and keep film open as an option. I eventually did. A die in the wool, digital toting pal of

mine recently has also.

 

This is a creative endevior, and options for something that isn't a homoginized tactile look

may indeed be desirable.

 

I just saw a show of large color analog prints made from neg film that was a sobering

reminder of how far we have regressed in the name of progress.

 

Different strokes for different folks ... and I'd like to keep the different strokes alive rather

than having just one forced down my throat.

[jake_holt]

"I just saw a show of large color analog prints made from neg film that was a sobering

reminder of how far we have regressed in the name of progress."

<p>

Were these prints from 35mm of a larger format? Large format film is amazing, and I would

not dispute that medium or large format film can easily outdo 35mm format digital - I'm

basing my prferences on equivalent sizes - 35mm vs. 35mm. My opinions are based on the

fact that I don't like the grainiess of 35mm color film. (I do appreciate the look of some high-

speed b&w 35mm film, particularly Neopan 1600, but I don't like incorporating it into my

workflow.)

[al_kaplan1]

We recently "redecorated" the living room, mostly moving the furniture around and hanging a different selection of photographs and paintings. There are a number of my photographs from the 1962 through 1968 period and a pair of signed 11x14 B&W prints by A. Packard dating to 1906 and 1918. He was a very old man when I purchased the prints from him in the late 1960's. They're pictures of old three masted whaling ships at the docks in New Bedford, Massachusettes. Packard had been the photographer for the New Bedford Standard Times at the time.

 

Most people have already gone digital but there's still a market for film, especially silver based B&W. I agree with Marc that analog color has a nicer look to it. Price will always drive the mass market. What rock group was it that had the hit song "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap"?

[think27]

Moderator note:

 

Hey folks.. Hero icons etc. are for discussion in the Feedback Forum - Not The Wedding forum - Cheers.

[fotografz]

Well Jake, it's all in the eye of the beholder isn't it? We differ on what we like. No surprise

there.

 

I look at shots on the wall, like those at the show I mentioned, at normal distance not at

computer screen distance. Some of the shots were from MF and some from 35mm. There

was a deep, 3D richness to them, and the skin tones looked so ... well, like skin.

 

In the lobby of my ad agency I have a series of eight 11X14 color prints made from 35mm

Leica M negs. They are a documentation of a TV shoot in LA and are very different looking

than work done on any of my digital cameras.

 

I like having the choice of looks that neither can quite duplicate from one another.

[rtrace]

"How do you know this Bogdan? And why are you so insistant on convincing others as if the absolute demise of film was a fact? "Me thinks thou protest to much" : -)"

 

Know what? By your own admission you essentially agree - see below! I'm not against film (I use it!!), I just don't see it "winning in the end" - the answer to Steve's question. It's already a niche and will be more and more so. For how long? I don't know. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You are essentially agreeing, but getting defensive for no reason! Easy!

 

"I don't think there is any issue about digital being the dominate medium. As far as I'm concerned it already is. Just look at all the P&S digital cameras at every wedding.

 

Yet, perhaps, more discriminating people will come to the same conclusion about digital and keep film open as an option. I eventually did. A die in the wool, digital toting pal of mine recently has also. "

 

Technology moves on - like it or not! Film may be coming back in certain nice areas, but they are exactly that - niche. I said nothing more and nothing less! And who's to say that's a guarantee in 10 years? So, IMO it's good to be prepared - that's all!

 

I just see people getting defensive. I already said many times I use both and even prefer film many times.

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

Yes, agreed, the majority. As if that were a good thing. Good like Mac Donald's and most

other homogenized aspects of contemporary life ... a billion served.

 

Of course, Steve's meaning of "winning in the end" when taken literally is not gonna

happen.

 

One would think that in a creative endeavor people would fiercely defend options rather

than take up the little Red Book and chant in unison the doctrine of conformity. And to

typify "technology moving on, like it or not" as if it were a comparison between beating

clothes on a rock compared to a computer controlled wash machine is beyond an

exaggeration : -)

 

Doesn't it dawn on anyone that a lot of this stuff is beginning to look the same?

 

The end is near ... LOL. Hardly.

[Spearhead]

What's wrong with the original post here is very simple, and somewhat regular from a certain crew. Anecdotal evidence is presented and the conclusion derived is that this piece of anecdotal evidence (and in this one, it is from exactly one source) can lead us to some fact. The exact opposite is true however. There is no way any single piece of anecdotal evidence can make a much broader situation true. It takes far more, in particular, some statistical evidence.

 

Given that the original post has no way of ever being useful unless you live in the same town as the original poster, what people do is get all het up over something that has nothing whatever to do with the original post. Hence, pointless threads that accomplish nothing, help nobody with their photography, and become useless in the web searches that inadvertently turn it up.

[lb-]

<i>One would think that in a creative endeavor people would fiercely defend options rather than take up the little Red Book and chant in unison the doctrine of conformity.</i><p>

 

are you serious? we're not actually talking about anything creative here. This place really has little to do with photography or the creative process. It's a bizarre social study in pack dynamics and status. what people end up "fiercely defending" are their own preconceptions and biases and/or it turns into BS pissing matches. <p>

 

dissent or deviation from the mean is almost always met with derision here. <p>

[rtrace]

"One would think that in a creative endeavor people would fiercely defend options rather than take up the little Red Book and chant in unison the doctrine of conformity. And to typify "technology moving on, like it or not" as if it were a comparison between beating clothes on a rock compared to a computer controlled wash machine is beyond an exaggeration : -)

 

Doesn't it dawn on anyone that a lot of this stuff is beginning to look the same?

 

The end is near ... LOL. Hardly."

 

The funny thing is that I never proclaimed one medium to be better than the other, so again, not sure why you feel that way.... When I say that technology moves on, like it or not, I mean just that - things are rapidly changing all around us for good or bad. I think a lot of it is bad, but that's they way it is. Is it the end of film or the world? No, but it's a change from everything analog to everything digital. And it can't be stopped, and it's happening at a furious pace. While "the end is near" may sound crazy, the end is close - for many things, film included. One just needs to look around with an objective eye. In my area there is 1 lab that's decent anymore and still profiting. *1*, and I don't live in the forrest.. The writing is on the wall - what's the point of debating it. It sucks, but that's what I was saying. No grassroots effort from me is going to change things. It's about companies making $. How long will this lab in my town continue to be? I honestly don't know. They are changing anyway - trying to stay competitive. But it's a sign that the end IS close - to me.

 

I'm not conforming to anything - just being practical and smart. Why are you also using digital and helping Big Brother? Why are you buying all the digital gear and feeding money to him? Stop! Let's hold hands and stop this insanity! We need to take it to the streets! ;)

 

Bogdan

[fotografz]

You crack me up Bogdan. We gotta have a couple of beers sometime.

 

Actually, I agree when you put it into the perspective of tradtional Lab work flow. Local

commercial labs here are closing down film lines also. Mostly because a majority, or all,

commercial work which fed those lines is now digital ... which is why I have all the digital

gear BTW... to do commercail work where film is rarely an option any more.

 

I've said it before, if all I did was shoot weddings, I would never spend this much time and

money on high end digital gear. The ROI is poor at best. From what I can tell, a fair

amount of folks use weddings as a justification to spend huge amounts of money on all

the high tech toys ... doing what my wife calls "Hobbying for Dollars".

 

My perspective is somewhat different because before digital, I did most of my own lab

work anyway. I shoot mostly B&W film anyway. So, if all the film labs here disappeared

(mine is currently going gang busters), I'll just do it myself.

 

I just scanned 24 frames of B&W film from last weeks wedding. I shot my M7 right along

with the 1DsMKII. The Leica frames absolutely murder the digital ones when printed for

the album. I actually have to organize the album flow to keep B&W film frames from sitting

next to any B&W digital frames : -)

 

God I love this Imacon scanner. It scans a 35mm frame @ 6300 dpi, true 16 bit in under 2

minutes ... if I crop, under a minute.

[kevin m.]

"God I love this Imacon scanner."

 

Well then share your 'love' with the world and post some example pics, already! ;-)