fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 With all the debates about film's demise, I thought to extoll it's virtues. Perhaps a positive slant can keep those on the "digital fence" still shooting film. So, with enough folks demanding film, it'll be around at some decent level of availability well into the future. I may be preaching to the choir here, but if we don't all become somewhat evanglistic about film, there will be nothing to counterthe massive push of the corporate advertisers and their competively aggressive slogans. (Canons' "Are you digital yet?", comes to mind). It's all designed to suck people into the next wave of improvements to keep the corporate profits flowing through sales of gear that becomes obsolete overnght, (a concept I'm well aware of, being from Detroit). I believe this is happening because there was no where to go with film cameras. They had reached such heights of performance and durability, that they needed some new avenue to reach into our pocketbooks. I'm heavily into digital for commercial reasons, but have started to migrate back to film for its' look and feel for some types of work. I'm currently scanning my film archives and have been struck by the quality of images produced on film using specific (often manual) equipment... compared to all the wiz-bang digital and automated gear I often use now. The following 3 images are from one image shot on film at a cowboy wedding, and two crops moving in tight. When you do this with digital you will retain resolution, but start to flatten the sense of lighting that adds depth and dimension. Also, this is T-Max 400 cn at ISO 400. If you set a digital camera at ISO 400 and shoot in this type of light you are in for a world of difficulty holding the highlights without blocking the shadow areas. I'm specifically interested in B&W because this is digitals' biggestarea of disappointment for me. The following was scanned at 4000 dpi, and cropped twice, each crop closer than the other.Web presentation will probably screw up this demo, but I'll try to show just how beautiful film is, even scanned. And, as I've said before...it all comes down to preference. So, this is NOT digital bashing. It is extolling the virtues of film as the other side of the photographic coin. Something I think we all need to more of if we believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 The full image scanned at 4000 dpi.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 In tighter.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Sorry, here's the correct one fixed for web viewing (the previous one I lightened but should've just let it alone)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Even closer.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Oh for crying out loud, God I hate the web, Here let's try it again.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean3 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 don't worry about the availability of film in the future. Do you remember super8? Well, I guess that it's about 20 years ago that super8 was overrun by video. Perhaps also two decades now that there's no significant production of these cameras. And probably there are much less super8 cameras out there than even leicas. Now, guess what - you still can buy super8 film easily. Kodak makes 5 different types, b/w, color, negative, and the good old kodachrome. And is introducing another one this year. And I can buy super8 kodachrome in almost every decent photostore in munich. Worried about increasing price? Super8 costs almost the same than 10 years ago. So, what are you worrying about? Bet that tri-x will stay around longer than most of us. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david a. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Marc, You are funny. I mean amusing, not weird. Unfortunately, you said it yourself -- you are preaching to the choir. People switch to digital for a lot of reasons, none of them having to do with image quality. You are absolutely right about the marketing campaigns being designed to suck money out of our wallets -- and not because film cameras have "reached such heights of performance and durability," either. Digital is, quite simply, good enough -- and getting better. I will probably switch myself, in 10-15 years. I think I can wait until then. Think, for example, about the environment. We film shooters pollute. Wet darkrooms use toxic chemicals and we just can't change that. Of course, on the other side, chemicals are used to produce all the digital goodies we use, too. And inks may not be the most environmentally friendly items either. But, I think you get my point. I don't want to pollute and I am waiting for digital to get to the level where I want to use it before I switch. I hope we all do, eventually. Some people here are plumbers (example) by day, and amateur photographers in their spare time. They don't have the money, or space, or the will to set up a wet darkroom. Using a PC, however, gives them the benefit of a darkroom and the fun of using a computer. I work with computers so digital manipulation is not that exciting to me. A wet darkroom is. There are, also, some interesting possibilities to consider. Imagine a company -- let's say Cosina -- selling a digital camera where the imaging software is programmable. Want your pics to have that Leica "look?" Just mod the software and off you go. Nikon? Canon? Contax? Take your pick. Want to play around with the imaging software yourself? Go ahead. Your camera will record light the way you want. Some people would love that. And this is just one possibility. Anyway, that's just an opinion. Your point is valid too, of course. At least today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramy_sadek Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Absolutely right Marc. I like your example shot too. Film film film. It is so lovely and nice. I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to chime in a response, agreeing with your notion of numbers in positive reinforcement leading to good things. buy film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcg Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Marc, A convincing example of the differences. And I concur that there's charm in the closeup that simply wdn't exist in a digital version. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip_p Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Nice pictures as usual. You don't have to convince me. I have not touch my digital camera for a while. Not that I don't like my digital camera, it just that I've been using my M6 and quite happy with it for now. Trying to save money for a scanner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christoph_frick1 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Thanks for this nice example, which illustrates your arguments very well. Up to now I don't have any own experience with digital. Being mainly interested in BW, I wonder why digital seems to be so disappointing in particular for BW -- shouldn't it actually have a significantly higher "effective" resolution than colour? Surely resolution isn't everything, but in general, theoretically, BW should be much simpler than colour, as there are much less degrees of freedom, but maybe this would require dedicated BW sensors? Does something like this exist, or is simply the demand too small? Or should it be possible to better optimise BW output from a colour sensor via software? Maybe again not enough demand for someone to come up with this software? But anyhow, my fridge is packed with film and I plan to burn it as fast as I can; I even would build a wet darkroom if I would have the space and the infrastructure for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Lovely shot, Marc; it's an excellent illustration of the point you're making. And don't think of it as 'preaching to the choir,' that makes it sound like you're wasting your time. You're motivating the faithful, man! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I have four bricks of film in my mini-fridge and I will keep buying it until I die. So, there you have some long-term market demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix_erazo Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Hello Mark, I concur with you 100%. TO make a long story short, this past photoexpo here in NYC, as soon as you walked into the exhibit hall, you literally walked right into Canon & Nikon. One on your left & the other right. Both of them were showcasing their digital products and their film cameras, nobody was paying any attention to the slr's. I for one, took a look at the Canon D60 and the Nikon D100. I was impressed. but to tell you the truth these cameras seem very complicated. All I really want to do is, see an image or a photo op happening in front of me and be able to just look thru the finder focus & shoot. That is the same reason why i got rid of my Nikon F100, so many idiot settings and many autofocus buttons and A/E hold button etc.... you know what i mean. So I went to the photo show and wlaked roght up to the slr counter looking for a manual slr. of course CAnon didn't have any, so I looked at the Nikon FM3A and the leica. I do have a Nikon coolpix 5000. but i bought this camera for the company i work for. and just to proof you that i hate this camera , this morning while driving to work, I was at a traffic light and saw this sexy billboard of a beautiful model on the side of the bus. I took out my coolpix and this is the crap that I got, but i also took out my M6 with the 50 and shoot it in tri-x. lets see what the difference will be. But Marc, I will stay with film and do my scanning if i want digital. By the way those scans are awsome. very very sharp. it has that 3D effect. Keep up the great work!!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix_erazo Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Marc, The image that you see, from the coolpix is slightly out of focus even though the camera indicated that the image was foucused and I have a good steady hand,the image was still out of focus. this sort of thing happens alot with this camera. PLus I forgot to mention, that you are correct in saying, that they are shoving this digital stuff down our throughts so they can have us spend more money on their products. BUt don't get me wrong I'm sure that for the working Professional like you, the digital cameras are a big plus if you are to remain competetive. Take care Marc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 <<don't worry about the availability of film in the future. Do you remember super8? <snip>Now, guess what - you still can buy super8 film easily.>> Another faulty analogy. Super 8 can be produced because major manufacturers are still producing *film itself*; all that's required is to have it made up in Super 8 size. The cessation of *film manufacture in general* is the ultimate outcome of the blind stampede to digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 "When you do this with digital you will retain resolution, but start to flatten the sense of lighting that adds depth and dimension"---Marc Marc, I think your point would be more complete if you could kindly show us what you meant by the above with some crop in tight digital pictures at iso400? thx, good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean3 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Jay, indeed, a good point. On the other hand, the analogy still is valid in the way that even decades after the death of a product there still is demand, and companies offering products. I see no reason to worry about the availability of film, as long as there are millions of cameras being used out there. Digicams are quite expensive, and not everyone has the infrastructure (read: superfast pc) to make use of them. So there will be plenty of use for 35mm cameras for the next decade. Video was different - a camcorder is a stand-alone product, assuming everyone owns a television. Film is a technology of the past, we don't need to argue over that. But it will stay a long, long time available for everyone who want's to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 The reason why film won't die anytime soon around my house is simply that my wife want prints, preferbly doubles, and don't like that I spend 5 or 8 hrs/weekend to sit infront of the PC to crop/enhance/sharpen etc. the digital photos. I actually found that I spend more time "fixing" images with digital than I do taking pictures. Sure, I could buy a better PC, a Epson 2200 printer, a digital scanner and or new semi-pro digicam, some extra hard discs, extra back-up, but I don't see how that really makes my life any easier, or cheaper for that matter. Photography, as a hobby for me, is almost as much about the experience as much as the result, taking out some film from the fridge the night before a trip, putting some film in the camera, thinking a bit before taking a photo - "Is this worth a frame and why?" - and the small joy of getting the prints and/or proof sheet back from the lab. I don't mean to sound too romantic about it. Yes, in the world of b&w photography, film still rules. Yes, there are situations where a analogue camera system is still more suitable and reliable than a digital ditto, and finally, as a hobby photographer who produce a moderate amount of photographs in a year, I'm sorry, I don't see the economy in going all digital at this point (even though perhaps a 3-4MP cheap p&s type of digicam would be nice to have for travels or just a snap in the park) Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 <<The reason why film won't die anytime soon around my house is simply that my wife want prints, preferbly doubles, and don't like that I spend 5 or 8 hrs/weekend to sit infront of the PC to crop/enhance/sharpen >> My wife simply takes her SmartMedia card to the local lab and they give her back beautiful prints just like she got from film. Likewise I can do the same with images from my D60...and fact, as a dyed-in-the-wool loather of darkroom work (digital or otherwise)that's the way I've been doing it ever since my lab (the same one that does my film processing)got the capability to print (on photo paper, not inkjet)from digital storage media. So this is a non-issue, or quickly to become one as the commercial infrastructure expands geographically. Once again I have to reiterate that most arguments invloving this film-digital debate are or are soon to be negated, except for one: the freedom of choice to use the *cameras and lenses that we enjoy using*. I want to use my Leicas and Nikon F's and Rolleiflex, et al, and the only way to do that is to shoot film. I am not too proud to admit that at least half my enjoyment of photography derives from the feel of the gear in my hand, and digicams (and high-tech AF SLRs for that matter)don't feel good in my hand. I wouldn't care if digital images were *better* than film, I want to use the system I want to use and my biggest resentment right now is that they're trying to take that right away from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I don't understand loyalty to a material or a process. I can understand loyalty to the results from a process. I'm confident that the demise of film will occur well after it ceases to have reason to exist, well after the _results_ from digital have exceeded the _results_ from film. At that point, anybody mourning the demise of film is just being nostalgic.If the argument is "film results are better than digital results", that's fine (as long as you specify "which film" and "which digital", as the results available from digital change a couple times a year), but it seems fairly obvious that you can't prove that by demonstrating the results of only one medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 The expense of going digital is what keeps me going with film. I have a friend who's gone about 95% digital and he spends more time on the computer than he used to spend in the darkroom. He enjoys doing it, though, just as he enjoys tinkering with computer hardware. At the same time I notice other photographers are suddenly rediscovering black and white done the old fashioned way. And it will be many years before digital can replace the cheap single use cameras. They even offer those with B&W film now!(Yes, I know it's C-41 process!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david k. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Marc, I very much like your example, I only wish more of these "Digitally Obsessed" people would hurry-up and get to the point where you are, - able to assess the "look and Feel" that you like. There is a lot off excitement these days with digital in general, but some of these people (Michael Reichmann for example) just can't see the forest for the trees, they are just too caught up in their latest toys. It is refreshing to see someone such as yourself, using both mediums and still being able to be objective about the results. I think a few years from now more people will be returning to that "look and feel" of film. Unfortunately many of them will have spent Michael Reichmann type money to come to that realization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahaohio Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Recent studies show that people that work with computers *a lot* stand a highly increased risk of developing blood clots (same as the Economy Class syndrome that on and off kill passengers on long haul flights). In the digital darkroom you are stuck on your butt most of the time. In the wet darkroom you are walking around and more or less on your feet all of the time. Which is better for your health? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now