lovcom_photo

<p>Grain does in fact limit resolution. If not for the grain clobs, you could enlarge much more...for the most resolution I shoot with a 21mp DSLR...but I prefer film for it's wider dynamic range, and smoother tonalities. I have countless color negatives that I wish I could enlarge bigger, except for the grain...it's the limiting factor.</p>

<p>35mm FujiFilm Superia ISO 400</p><div></div>

<p>can anyone tell me if the iPhone 4 is a lot faster then the 3gS model? I'm on the fence about getting one to replace my S model....</p>

<p>I do not think jpg is the way to go. Looking at a 6m jpg on an HD TV is a terrible metric because HD TV is not really HD...a marketing term at best but really, it sucks compared to still photography abilities.</p>

<p>Also jpg does not offer more then 8 bit color which sucks.</p>

<p>Better to scan the negatives at the highest resolution you can and at at least 16 bit color. It matters a lot, don't let anyone tell you different.</p>

<p>I scan my negatives with a CoolScan 5000 at 4000 dpi and at 16 bit color, and this is the bear minimum IMHO.</p>

<p>Edward, the new screen on the iPhone v4 is in fact the best of any smart phone; for it's higher resolution. Steve Job's assertion that the iPhone is a precise thing has nothing to do with innovation, or what Apple outsourced or insourced....the thing is, the iPhone feels precise in the hands, it parts fit precisely, the joins of material, etc. </p>

<p>And can you really fault Apple? It makes the best selling smart phone and has surpassed MicroSoft in revenues...surely you'll agree they're doing something right.</p>

The lens is much more important then going to a full frame body. I would NOT get the fullframe yet, and instead get the best zoom lens in

that range: the Canon 24-70L F2.8. The 3rd party offerings really are not in the same league as the Canon, and this is true for build, optical

performance too.

 

If you have to skimp, do so with the camera but not the lens. Get the fullframe later...

<p>Russ, sure one stands and moves around in the darkroom, but you missed my point. The point I made was that regardless of wet or dry, one can burn up a lot of time in either, processing pictures.</p>

<p>Russ, one can drop off an SD card at most drugstores and get prints just as easily as dropping off film so I don't know what you mean. Also doing so does not cost one an "arm and a leg". Try like 10 to 20 cents a print.</p>

<p>The prime directive, the reason why we have cameras, is the print, the picture. There's nothing space-aged about that.</p>

<p>All this fuss about equipment, cameras, lenses, mediums, so much so that one can forget the point of it all.</p>

<p>Digicam shooters spending too much time gawking at the LCD? Maybe, but lacking an LCD on a film camera still doesn't prevent one from shooting crud.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Russ wrote response to Da's: ""Your problem is not that you shot digital. Your problem is that you were never in love with the pictures, because if you were, you'd find post processing a labor of love, excitement, and anticipation"<br>

I disagree with this. Digital encourages a "Shoot everything" mentality. Sitting down and editing countless images on a computer is bad for you. It encourages sitting on your butt at a computer rather than being out shooting. I do agree that sorting through countless 35mm images is a pain as well. But digital multiples that many times over. When I moved to shooting medium and large format, my photography improved. I now tend to edit before I shoot, thinking whether a banal shot is really worth the effort. That discipline is tough to maintain with digital."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Russ, digital may allow one to give a bit less thought to releasing the shutter, but it does not necessarily mean parking one's butt in front of a computer for hours. If one shoots JPG, one does not have to do post processing. And in the same way one can shoot film and let the lab or drug store print the pictures out. Those that spend hours dealing with their images in front of a computer are probably ignorant of proper post processing.</p>

<p>Or one can shoot film and park their butt in a wet dark room for hours. Same for digital, except the darkroom is dry.</p>

<p>In other words, if one is not motivated by their pictures, one can collect exposed and unprocessed rolls of film in the same way one can collect SD cards filled with images. </p>

<p>Since shooting nearly 100% film, I "waste" a heck of a lot more time dealing with my film, processing, printing, etc then I did dealing with digital photos, and this seems to negate what you wrote.</p>

<p>I really don't think this issue is tied to a particular medium....if a guy has tons of SD cards awaiting processing, switching to film will often mean he'll have tons of exposed rolls awaiting processing.</p>

<p>Some people love the process more then the results. They've lost the prime directive.</p>

<p>It should be about the pictures more then anything.</p>

<p>Jim, I see your plight a bit differently. You might be hung up with the medium. Film, digital. That is all insignificant. What really matters is the pictures. And if it is the pictures that matter, you will take loving care of the keepers you capture, regardless of the medium, film or digital.</p>

<p>In other words, the fact that you have zillions of pictures on SD cards unprocessed means you're not in love with the picture. Switching mediums will not change anything. Your problem is not that you shot digital. Your problem is that you were never in love with the pictures, because if you were, you'd find post processing a labor of love, excitement, and anticipation. Digital shooting didn't cause you to neglict pictures of your children, family, friends, outings, etc. There are too many digital shooters that print, archive, and post all the keepers they shot.</p>

<p>I've seen film shooters too, that have zillions of unprocessed rolls of film, unprinted negatives, and who loath wet post processing as much as you might loath PhotoShop. I've know film shooters that collect rolls of exposed film, so you see your plight is not just for the digital set.</p>

<p>You can change mediums, idealize and romanticize film all you want, but until you fall in love with the picture, the prime directive, the only reason we use our cameras, switching to film is not going to change much in the long run. Sure at first the wow factor will be there, but soon the novelty will where off, and you might find yourself disillusioned in the same way that cause you to leave digital to film.</p>

<p>I don't suggest switching to film is a bad thing, and in fact I too have done the same. My two DSLR's sit in a bag unused for going on nearly a year. However I didn't leave digital for the same reasons you did. I switched to film for it's look, it's wider dynamic range. Before, during and after this switch I was in love with the picture.</p>

<p>Film and digital are both fantastic mediums, and I really don't see one better or worse (in balance) then the other. I hate film vs digital threads. I will not jab either, nor will I demonize either.</p>

<p>Those that idealized one, and jab the other are lost, and have forgot the reason they use a camera.</p>

<p>I love both because they allow us to make awesome pictures.</p>

<p>All the power to your future film shooting endeavors.</p>

<p>Dave, I asked a question...I don't know if the film comes to the stores refrigerated...does anyone know? Maybe what is more important then refrigerated film is the expiration date, or how close the time is to the expiration date....I buy the cheapo drug-store FujiFilm Superia, so I have no such concerns...</p>

<p>I think those photographs are fine and support that type of documentary. </p>

<p>However I think his descriptions of Americans is classic Euro-Socialist drivvel, and has little base in truth. He wrongfully victimizes the poor and he seems to blame society. There is some societal blame there, but I find it troubling that he holds none of the poor responsible for most of their own plight. I don't appreciate the jabs he makes, the generalizations, and his too broad a "paint brush".</p>

<p>Perhaps he can sell this piece to NPR or MS-NBC....I'm not buying it. Still, the photographs are not bad. His presentation would work better for me without much of his commentary.</p>

<p>The OP has a LOT of developer....how long will it last? It seems he'd have to shoot a heck of a lot of rolls to take advantage of it's life....so any chance it will all get used before it goes bad?</p>

<p>I find it interesting that a company markets their failed attempt at making a decent Land film as a "feature" for the alternative photogprahy market....shame on them! I sense they'll not last long in the film business...until they find a way to (1) give alternative results that (2) are fairly permanent. </p>

<p>The other thing that troubles me is that when the OP called to complain, they told him that they never heard of that fading issue before....so much for trust in that company.</p>

<p>I'm curious....does fresh film from the factory ship to the store in refrigerated trucks?</p>

<p>I like FujiFilm Superia ISO 400. Will you be scanning the negatives? What part of Mt. Rainier Park will one find the best wild flower scenes? And what time of the year is the best?</p>

<p>No Pierre, a DSLR is not the medium. It is like a film camera, in that it captures the light but instead of recording it on film, it records it on a flash card. Many shooters don't realize this, but a digital camera's sensor is an analog device. Both film and digital cameras capture the light in analog, not digital.</p>

<p>Pierre, you wrote that as we get older and older, the journey matters more then the destination. Granted, but what you also forgot was that as we age, we get more subjective, we idealize, we romanticize, and lose sight of the prime-directive: </p>

<p>The Print!</p>

<p>Craig, the digital image is physical....there is a physical state that changes when light hits the sensor, and when that image is digitized there is an actual physical state that changes on the recording media. The sensor's recording of that light is ANALOG, just like film! It is not until that analog information is digitized by an A/D chip that the image is digital. Sensors are in fact analog devices.</p>

<p>Craig, being able to "touch" a negative is a lame metric. At the end of the day, it is the picture, the print that matters.</p>

<p>It makes sense only to those that know, except for you Craig ;-)</p>

<p>Regardless, you go ahead and use film for your own reasons, reasonable or not; and all the power to you!</p>

<p>Craig, no it does not make sense, what you wrote because:</p>

<p>1. Digital is also a physical medium and it also has the actual light from the moment in time when you tripped the shutter burned onto it.<br>

2. Each digital frame holds a piece of time.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I prefer film but I'll never idealize or romanticize it.</p>

<p>Dave Lee, I don't dispute what you wrote. However there is more to image quality then resolution. What about dynamic range? Your whites are more likely to get blown, but not just whites, any bright color can get blown too easily. I love both film and digital and each has their place, and strengths. My 5D Mark II's 21mp is awesome, but like your D300, the highlights run to Hex 255 fast and often regardless of how good the exposure is. Here is a picture that I shot with color negative film (Fujifilm Superia 400). Notice the white tulip on the left? I could never resolve such details with a DSLR of any make or model as I did with this film. To get the dark magenta on the right, and the dark orange in the middle and the dark green foliage AND the white would be a challange for digital.</p><div></div>

<p>To you guys that say you'll get out of photography when film dies for good.....I don't get you....Isn't it about the picture?!? The composition? Perhaps for you types, the Journey is Half the Reward....I thin Steven Jobs said that....the irony is he's a digital head...lol</p>

<p>Larry, what would a digital DSLR have to offer you to get you to get one? </p>

<p>For now I absolutely love color...I shoot the cheap stuff, the FujiFilm Superia 400, and I think it is awesome...not bad for the bottom of the line cheapo drugstore stuff. I think this cheap film kills digital for color, tonal richness, fidelity, and dynamic range (of course, what film doesn't) over digital. But even the cheapo stuff is very expensive when you look at per frame costs in $ and in time (scanning, wet printing, etc).</p>

<p>Larry I did a search and I was not able to find such a thread. I did find too many film vs digital threads however, but this thread is not like that.</p>

<p>What about color work? Will you continue with color film if the stated hypothetical were to happen?</p>

<p>Another thread here got me curious about a question:</p>

<p>Hypothetically speaking, what if the day comes when digital DSLR shooting provides the same or wider dynamic range over 35mm film (B&W and Color), and provides higher resolving power too....</p>

<p>How would this effect your decision to shoot film? Would you continue? Stop? Switch to digital? Would you stop shooting B&W 35mm but not color, or vis a vis? </p>

<p>If that day came, I might stop shooting film. However getting the grainy B&W look might be reason enough to continue with film.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

<p>I think the single biggest reason we still have film shooters is because of the wider dynamic range it provides over digital. What I love about shooting film is that my whites, my highlights don't accelerate to blown as fast as you'll get with digital. I love the highlight details that are still resolved and visible with film. As to resolution, resolving details, digital kills 35mm film...my 21mp DSLR resolves so much more and a heck of a lot crisper nuances then anything I've shot with 35mm film. I do realize meduim and larger format film is still ahead of digital in this regard, however.</p>

<p>Until digital provides the same or wider DR then 35mm film, I'll continue to shoot film 95% of the time.</p>

<p>I would never use a flatbed scanner for 35mm. They just do not come close to quality that a dedicated 35mm film scanners. For the $ and for the best, the new scanner choice to get is the PlusTek, which is a still in production dedicated 35mm film scanner. I would stear FAR from any Epson new or refurbish unless you want to scan just 120 or larger negatives. Another option, is to buy a used Nikon SuperScan 5000 ED or 9000 ED, and these will give you the best, but at a rediculously too high cost.</p>