Film Lives!

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"I did think you were inviting me to discuss Sontag. I re-read your post and it still seems like an invitation to me."</i><br><br><i>"If you want to discuss <b>your</b> rather "too funny" because pointless "Read Susan Sontag sometime [...]"-<b>appeal to philosophy</b> seriously, Fred, just say so and i'll happily go over it with you."</i><br><br>You know about adjuncts and such, do you Fred?<br>An invitation it was. In the light of the trouble it takes to get through to you, i cancel that inviation.

[yog_sothoth]

<p>People take pictures for many reasons, and some of them are best done with film. For many people the inconvenience is the point to some extent. If you like playing with antique cameras, film is pretty much your only choice. If you have fun playing with different development times and different chemicals (XTOL vs Rodinal) film is where it is at.</p>

<p>Lets say one can have a Canon 7 and a Canon 7D in your bag and have fun with both.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>What is wrong with just saying "Film photography is an interesting craft. I love doing it." Why insist it is a better and more worthy passtime? <br>

To insist that film cameras will still work after some calamity effects electronics is equally absurd.<br>

Those doddering Luddites need a good thrashing with a buggy whip!</p>

<p> </p>

[absent]

<p>From response #2:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Below is one of the images from that roll of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it isn't - it's a <em>digitized copy</em> of one of the images from that roll of film.</p>

<p>Which (unless I'm much mistaken) could have been taken with a <em>digital camera</em> in the first place.</p>

<p>Which leads to the obvious question: If you digitize film images, does all the "Zen" leak out of them?</p>

<p>But, I suspect most who have read this far "couldn't care less", except for the ones who "could care less".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>If you digitize film images, does all the "Zen" leak out of them?</em>>>></p>

<p>LOL! What a great question. It's the digital zen ooze. Sounds like a horror movie.</p>

<p><<<<em>What is wrong with just saying "Film photography is an interesting craft. I love doing it." Why insist it is a better and more worthy passtime?</em> >>></p>

<p>What's wrong with just saying that is that it doesn't create a scapegoat, the digital photographer, against whom the film photographer can express his superiority. Your simple statement, Alan, doesn't give that film photographer an enemy who is impatient, who doesn't get it, who can't live with mistakes. It doesn't give him a guy who he can feel better than while he's busy allowing his machine its passivity in relation to its subject.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Show me the image! I <strong>could</strong> care less what you took it with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Couldn't.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1787762">Steve Smith</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 27, 2012; 05:39 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Show me the image! I <strong>could</strong> care less what you took it with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Couldn't.</p>

 

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>You're a little late to the party, Steve, but thanks. We've already had a number of posts discussing that particular linguistic lapse. ;-)

 

 

</p><p>

 

And thus, the thread gets extended by yet another 2 posts. Excellent. </p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>JIm Ruley. I have been shooting both Film and digital now for quite some time. And My experience is that when a negative is scanned and that digital image is the starting point for digital manipulation, i find that it is for me far superior to that of a RAW digital image. A well scanned image from a well exposed and developed negative, produces character and depth that i cant find in digital. When you finish your processing (dodging burning or whatever) and then start the sharpening process by focusing on getting the grain structure right, the resulting image comes to life in only a way B&W film can (the grain structure from the negative is 3 dimensional and when scanned it reveals that dimentionality. Pixels are not and never will be 3 dimensional. Now a lot of people may not agree with this, but for me it does, and to be honest that's all i really care about. as stated previously to each their own, what ever floats your boat.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Just to add further to your comment, I did take 2 images of the same scene, one in digital and one with film. The results are quite different with their own character and quality. I am sure the opinions about which of the 2 images appeals to people would be divided as this debate is. there is no right answer.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Everyone comes to this party with differing desires and opinions.</p>

<p>For myself (and ONLY myself) I still use film because the cameras are for me (and I can only speak for myself) a mechanical delight. I still get a warm feeling using my Olympus OM and Pen F equipment. I have a E-410 with a kit lens and it's competent enough for color snapshots and so on. But it awakens in me no feeling at all, a total blank. I don't 'love' my toaster or my coffee maker or my laptop, or my refrigerator. They are just appliances that do the job. I feel the same way about the E-410. Actually I started to loose interest in cameras the moment the shutters started to be timed electronically and if the battery died or the built in caps on the proprietary (and discontinued after 6 years) circuit board degraded they became a paperweight.</p>

<p>I know my DSLR was a cheap, entry level camera and I've treated it carefully but now, after buying it new in March of 2009 already some of the buttons take 2 or 3 pushes before they work, I have to tape the card slot door shut tight to avoid error msgs that keep it from working. You see one of the 2 tiny plastic tabs that kept it shut fell off about a year ago. When it goes completely I won't even consider sending in for repair. Just another piece of electronics for the landfill. </p>

<p>I expect my 37 year old OM and 47 year old Pen F to outlast my 3.5 year old digital SLR. But on the up side, I only paid $325 for a new but discontinued DSLR w/kit lens so I won't feel too bad about the loss.</p>

[d_f11]

<p>I can't believe it - I'm actually going out to purchase a copy of Popular Photography! Deja-Vu! Just for old-time sake, I'll get it at that corner news-stand at Main & Chicago in Evanston, Illinois. How long has it been since I've done that? 12 years atleast. Happy Days are here again...</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Do what makes you happy!</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I would like to say 'Thank You' to Popular Photography for giving film some public credit. Over this very topic, I chose not to renew my subscription to Outdoor Photographer.</p>

<p>If you read the fine print, most of OP's cover photos are film captures by the likes of Galen Rowell, James Kay, David Muench, et al. Yet OP almost never mentions film on their cover. Every month, the headlines read "Digital! Digital! Digital!" I grew weary of this apparent hypocrisy and eventually let my subscription lapse. (I'd rather read about the techniques behind the images than be accosted by the latest gadget hype.)</p>

<p>But I digress. Film is a powerful medium. Granted, it can be tricky to expose, expensive to process, and in the case of color positive film, more frustrating than golf. I love digital technology, and I wouldn't want to go back to using film all of the time. But when light and film conspire to do their magic dance, the results can be spectacular.</p><div></div>

[rossb]

<p> This is one of the best Film versus Digital threads of all time. Some points of a good versus thread must include.<br>

Tubes, buggy whips, the slow down thing, Soul, and vinyl records. <br>

We did get in the tubes, buggy whips and the slow down thing in there which is mandatory. We substituted Zen for Soul which is just excellent. Nobody has brought up vinyl records yet however we got a special bonus with Susan Sontag getting into the mix. That was a special treat. So if somebody would just compare film with vinyl records we would have the perfect versus thread. </p>

 

[absent]

<blockquote>

<p>So if somebody would just compare film with vinyl records we would have the perfect versus thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about vinyl records with CD's?<br>

<br />I love the old vinyl record collection I inherited from my Dad. Just listening to the old favorites takes me right back to my childhood. Yep, along with the static, skipped tracks and clicking noises, just like they used to make on that 1950's home-built monophonic Hi-Fi we had.<br>

<br />For listening rather than nostalgia, I like my CD's much better. Absolutely clean sound and far more dynamic range than any record I've heard.<br>

<br />But as they say, to each his own...</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Play me the music! I could care less what it's recorded on.</p>

[rossb]

<p>That's it then. It's the perfect versus thread. </p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Just to add further to your comment, I did take 2 images of the same scene, one in digital and one with film. The results are quite different with their own character and quality. I am sure the opinions about which of the 2 images appeals to people would be divided as this debate is. there is no right answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, Richard. This is precisely the type of scenario where film shines. People say all kinds of things on the internet but if you shoot fine grain film like Rollei Pan 25 or Adox 20 and get a good drum scan then print even complete amateurs can easily point out which one has more resolution. The problem is we have all these conversations on the internet. This is not the arena where you can properly demonstrate the difference between film and digital. A final full size large print in real life is not something I've found that anyone argues with. It's night and day.</p>

<p>Then if you go over to color slides that's another dramatic demonstration in real life. Project a medium format Velvia slide and compare it to a digital projection and no one will confuse the two.</p>

<p>The problem is all these conversations take place on the internet. But get real for a minute with a 20x24 inch print or a a medium formal slide projection and people are blown away. It's even more so now because people assume analog is outdated. They don't even realize.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Fifty years ago there were heated debates -- but of course the Internet did not exist -- about how long 120 would last given the wide acceptance of 35mm. As 120 is still around, so film will be around for a long while despite the domination of digital. I see no place here for a "versus" approach: and I do not think that Gus Lazzari wanted to start another battle in the old and pointless war.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>amateurs can easily point out which one has more resolution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes, because images are about resolution, assuming you're correct. Not what's in them, which can render all the materials science you push irrelevant. Show some photos, that might be interesting. Internet conversations, as you point out are irrelevant, but images are not, regardless of how they were made. Photographers make images, not non-stop technical arguments.</p>

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Jeff you are spot on, I think that most of the debate revolves around images presented on web forums ie photo.net, The real impact of the image cannot be seen at its best. As previously stated i use and will use both Digital and film. they are different beasts and both have their strong and week points.<br>

This thread started out with FILM lives, my first response was verifying that notion, by me stating film is a rebirth for me. and for all of the reasons stated. for film, Quality is better, convenience and costs are worse.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Quality is better</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Quality in a photograph is far more than the technical matters. Well for those of us interested in photography. Then, quality in a photograph comes from a wide range or parameters. In fact, "quality" is relative to what the photographer wants, which, as people have pointed out above, is as it should be.<br>

<br />FWIW, <a href="http://spirer.com/npg2/">my current show,</a> which has now been up three times, consists of 20"x30" prints taken with an 11MP digital camera. Not once has anyone questioned the technical quality, but maybe that's because the subject matter is more interesting than someone's technical parameters. If technical parameters are the way to judge photos, I will shoot some eye charts.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> If technical parameters are the way to judge photos, I will shoot some eye charts.

 

Probably need a portrait lens for those. Which one would be best?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Technical parameters are what photos are judged by also, Jeff.<br>You say that (quite correctly) in almost the entire post, only to end up saying the wrong thing. What you should have said is that people should not just focus (or not put so much, too much, focus) on technical quality, as it is only one part (though an important one) of what a photo makes (the other being subject matter and how that is 'framed').<br><br>Photographers make images, Jeff. They do that using technical means. Those means have an influence on what that photographer can do (he can't, for instance, create charcoal drawings with those technical means). You are guilty of making the same fault as the people you chide: put all your focus on only one of the two important qualities.

[richard_john_edwards]

<p>Jeff if quality is not an issue for you, why do you use a high end digital DSLR and High end Lenses? Why not just use your Iphone? Q>G de Bakker is correct, the tools are part of answer. In photography it is about getting the information onto film/pixels. question is, which tool is best suited to capturing that information. </p>