DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:31 pm**

OK, now I've got your attention, there was the beginning of some discussion on the topic of whether film is dead in this post of Matt K's. I've moved the salient points here for the discussion to continue.

In this first quote, Matt refers to a man with a very fancy film camera on a tripod

Matt. K wrote:This guy didn't want to talk much so I snapped this and moved on. I thought to myself "Film is dead Mate! Even if the old gear looks great"

To which Antsl responded

Antsl wrote:Beg to differ on that thought....

Digital is a fantastic medium and it is letting amatuers everywhere learn a lot more about photography in a short time, simply because you can see your results immediately and make adjustments to get the image right as you need to. It is a great tool for learning, shooting reportage work and commercial work. If you were serious about being remembered as a great art photographer when you die though, then I would be quietly taking a lesson from this guy.

To begin with, that old gear does things that digital can't do for the moment including full movements and a format that offers better lens options and resolution than most medium format digital sensors on the market.

That negative, when processed properly, will last a lot longer than most digital formats ever will.

The final printing process will probably afford its own value to the final image, particularly if the photographer makes the image on Fibre Base paper. Fibre Base prints have a better tonal range than most other processes.

Each print is likely to be unique in its own way and as such it will have a higher value if you go to sell it through an art gallery.

The integrity of the process also adds value to the work... it is unlikely that he will be clooning out backgrounds or pasting in skys and so again, the work is worth more than a digital print.

That photographer did not say much to you simply because he has to work harder to get the image (no instant image review on the camera).
Rather than bagging the guy for working in this format, why not get familiar with what the process is really capable of. Go to a good gallery and look at some decent traditional photography on the walls. At the moment this format would represent less than 1% of all the images being made at the moment but it is a siginificant 1%. My work is in the permanant colleciton of two public galleries and it was all shot on 120 black and white and printed on fibre base. My next serious exhibition will also probably shoot on black and white 120, simply because it has a quality that I am yet to achieve in digital.

A colleague of mine is also working in 4 x 5 (similar or same format that the guy in your photo is using) and one of his selling points is that he is working in 4" x 5". His day rate can vary between $2500 to $5000. We both use digital but we also shoot film when we are getting serious about what we are doing.

Film is not dead, it is just becoming the exclusive medium of those who can actually take a photography without an LCD screen for a crutch.

and Matt K replied with:

Matt. K wrote:My Linhof and my Hasselblad are gathering dust in a storeroom because their day has come and gone. Sure...it's sweet, romantic and nostalgic, like piano rolls and 72rpm records...but for making images its digital all the way

Let the discussion begin...

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:44 pm**

Film isn't dead, it's just becoming less used.

Is vinyl dead just because more people use cd's?

Are compact discs dying now that people are switching to lesser quality mp3's?

The technologies won't really die but will just become less used by people.

People who use mp3's over CD's often don't realise the difference in sound quality and people who prefer digital over analogue photography might go through the same issue.

With digital photography, it's an issue of cost and convenience.

It's a lot easier to take a picture on a digital camera as you can see a visual representation immediately after you've taken the shot.

It's also a lot cheaper, especially in regards to film costs.

But you're not getting the same tones or real grain, and nor are you getting the versatility that film offers.

If you shoot on a 35mm SLR, you can get that shot to 1 metre by 1 metre and beyond.
If you shoot on a 6 or 8 or 10mp DSLR and don't use interpolation, you're unlikely to hit those sorts of sizes without losing or risk losing quality.

Likewise, if you shoot on a nice 6x7 Blad, even with a digital back, you're unlikely to get the sort of versatility in size that the negative or slide will give you compared to the digital copy.

You will get options like RAW and the ability to see it, but you won't get the same sort of resolution or "grain" that the real deal will give you.

Film isn't dead. It's just getting less used.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:44 pm**

Antsl I love your work and respect your opinion, all that is bar your last sentence, which to me smacks of elitism and inverse snobbery.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:46 pm**

Peter,

Wow, will this open up a can of worms!

I, up until recently, was a film user. I used 35mm pro slide films such as Velvi 50 and 100 and Provia 100F. I was sure that my slides, when well exposed/sharp etc, etc, would beat any digital shots. How wrong could I have been!

I have seen some absolutely remarkable shots from digital SLRs, printed and framed in galleries and exhibitions, and they have been simply stunning. A lot depends on the printing process and also on the skills of the photographer who is behind the camera.

Sure, medium and large format cameras have their place and some stunning imagery has been created using these, but I don't agree with the next comment made by Antsl (although he is entitled to his opinion):
"Film is not dead, it is just becoming the exclusive medium of those who can actually take a photography without an LCD screen for a crutch".

This comment will surely cause a bit of a stir....

Cheers

Michael

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:53 pm**

"Film" is a very broad term.

People who were using medium and large format are STILL going to use medium and large format.

However, 35mm might be in trouble as digital sensor technology approaches an equivalent level of quality... especially at the viewing and print sizes of 95% of photographs - ie: the old 4x6 print.

For a large majority of people, who take happy snaps and get some of them printed out at 4x6, and maybe the odd 8x10 enlargement, IMO there is absolutely no need to go back to film.

However, if your intention was to take photos to be enlarged (say 1m and larger), then digital is largely inadequate.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:54 pm**

I've seen a few of these debates all over the place, and for some reason it always comes down to the quality of digital v film.
IMHO It has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's all to do with money. When it becomes financially unprofitable for a manufacturer to make film, they will stop making it. Regardless of how much better it is, if you can't buy it it's dead.
Vinyl may sound better then CD but can you buy the latest album release in vinyl?

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:55 pm**

phillipb wrote:Vinyl may sound better then CD but can you buy the latest album release in vinyl?

Actually, depending on the release, you can.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:56 pm**

Juse a quick couple of comments form me at this point ...

Antsl wrote:That negative, when processed properly, will last a lot longer than most digital formats ever will.

Digital formats, perhaps?

But not the data. The data can be migrated from format a to format b to format c ....

Antsl wrote:The integrity of the process also adds value to the work... it is unlikely that he will be clooning out backgrounds or pasting in skys

ROTFLMAO. There's very little that can be done in photoshop that cannot be done in a wet darkroom.

Antsl wrote:Rather than bagging the guy for working in this format,

Where did Matt go about "bagging" this guy?

He merely made some observations, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

Antsl wrote:why not get familiar with what the process is really capable of.

Clearly, you're unaware of Matt K's background. Mine too, for that matter.

When one suggests that people need to "get familiar with the process", but at the same time they're saying that "it is unlikely that he will be clooning out backgrounds or pasting in skys", what I'm seeing is some statements that are coming from somebody who hasn't really spent that much time at a wet bench.

Sorry, but as one who has spent far too much time inhaling lots of chemicals, your statements are coming across as somewhat contradictory, and perhaps ill-informed, or maybe just being made from inexperience.

Antsl wrote:Film is not dead,

It is.

It's as dead as COBOL.

Matt. K wrote:My Linhof and my Hasselblad are gathering dust in a storeroom because their day has come and gone. Sure...it's sweet, romantic and nostalgic, like piano rolls and 72rpm records...but for making images its digital all the way

Matt, you can donate those dust gatherers to my museum if you like.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:40 pm**

I don't know if I'd say film is dead, like a Nnnnsic pointed out, you can still buy vinyl, and for notstalgic reasons, it sounds better (old blues, like James Cotton, sounds something special on vinyl). I've seen new releases on vinyl (Joss Stone is one that springs to mind).

There will always be film. But the major manufacturers clearly see the writing on the wall, thats why they are laying off people left right and centre.

I don't agree that if you want to be remembered, then you have to shoot film. Plenty of photographers will be remembered years down the track who shoot digital today. A well maintained high quality CD or DVD will last for many many years, and the digital file can easily be backup'd or printed years down the track.

I also don't see an LCD as a crutch. It's an advancement on wasting film to get the perfect shot. Advancements aren't always crutches. Paper is an advancement over papyrus!

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:43 pm**

gstark wrote:
Antsl wrote:Film is not dead,

It is.
It's as dead as COBOL.

COBOL isnt dead either :wink:

I had an experience the other night which says to me that film's days are very numbered in consumer land.

My brother/sister-in-law have just had a new baby and we were there for when grand-dad got to hold the rugrat for the first time. There were 8 people in that room and 5 cameras (I didnt have mine there. Not ONE of them was a film camera.

To me, the most telling thing is that 3 of those 5 digital cameras were owned and being weilded by people older than 50, all of whom are relatively technophobic.

Edit: Im not being age-ist, just my general experience is that unless they have a technical background, or are interested along those lines, this age group tends to relatively technophobic compared to other age groups.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:31 pm**

Oneputt wrote:Antsl I love your work and respect your opinion, all that is bar your last sentence, which to me smacks of elitism and inverse snobbery.

Ooops, did I push the wrong button! You are right Oneputt and others, that last comment of mine was a bit below the belt; I do however get a bit annoyed at some the occasional flippant comments that get thrown about on this site (the one of vignetteting a while back comes to mind).

I enjoyed the image of the guy working with his 4 x 5 right up until Matt threw in the comment "film is dead, mate". That to me had a good touch of arrogance to it and implied a single minded mentality to photography as a whole.

Film and film camera sales might be declining rapidly however neither are unlikely to diasappear anytime soon. As I predicted several years ago in a magazine story, it is the larger formats that are going to persist rather than the 35mm formats. Having had a play with the latest medium format digital backs the other day (including a look at some images from a 39-megapixel back) I have a good idea of how the technology is advancing but there are still several strong points of difference between digital equipment and large format film, most of which I have mentioned already.

Worth noting is the consideration that seventy years ago many photographers walking about with the new 35mm format of cameras were probably looking at large format camera users and were thinking to themselves "large format is dead, mate!".

The next time you walk past someone working with a medium or large format camera give them a "gidday" as you walk past, smile nicely and then keep walking. Unlike digital photographers these guys don't get to check their image immediately on an LCD display a second or two after pushing the shutter button and so they tend to think extra carefully before exposing another $5 sheet of film. Good on em, I say!

I respect every photographers right to make the images that they want to on the gear of their choice. Let the images speak for themselves and lets judge those images, not the photographer or the gear they chose to make them on.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:32 pm**

i just bought d200 last month, and now i've just got shiny new f100

once i get to know how to use slr, im going to use my a lot more of my f100 :wink:

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:02 pm**

ant!

threw in the comment "film is dead, mate". That to me had a good touch of arrogance to it and implied a single minded mentality to photography as a whole.

I think you misquoted me here Ant! If you read my original post you will see that what I wrote is (I thought to myself "film is dead mate!").

This is not quite as arrogant as saying it to someone I don't know. That is still my opinion and I hope you don't mind me bringing it up occasionally for discussion. However...there is one point that needs to be understood, just because a man is using a large format camera does not infer that the image will somehow be more valuable than one taken on a smaller format. Nor does it somehow give the image more 'respectability'. I have seen too much rubbish come out of the darkroom on 5" x 4" with the photographer thinking that somehow, because it's large format.....it's really better than it looks. It's the image that counts...everytime.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:14 pm**

Antsl - this time your last comment is spot on

It is the quality of the image that is produced which counts..nothing else.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:30 pm**

Hi Matt,

No, I didn't misread your initial post, I was just a little upset that you thought to yourself "film is dead, mate" rather than "good on ya, mate".

I'm sure you didn't express such thoughts to the guy in your photograph but the fact that you commited your thought to the forum beneath the guys photo almost equates to the same thing. You might have well said "what a loser"! I just hope he was is not a member!

As a commited Hasselblad user I will also put up my hand for any gear that you are not using at the moment! Who knows though, one day you might want to use it again for the hell of it!

Cheers for now,
Ants

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:35 pm**

Filum - what’s that

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:37 pm**

Is film dead? Who cares, as long as DSLRs have a bulb setting, and I can use my magnesium flash powder... :lol:

Cheers
Steffen.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:47 pm**

Film - may not be dead, but the executioner can be seen walking up to the block... :twisted:

The vinyl analogy is interesting - the death of vinyl was temporarily slowed by DJs who wanted to be able to scratch during their set. As CD decks became available with a buffer that allowed that effect to be recreated, the number of DJs using vinyl fell dramatically. There are very few vinyl DJs around these days, and vinyl releases are drying up.

Vinyl only still exists for nostaglia - digital sound quality is more than good enough for any application. Even DJs are now phasing out CD in favour of MP3 - they will just work out other ways to play the crowd rather than spinning those turntables.

The same will happen to photography. The quality is just not there yet for some of the bigger formats, but ultimately film is well on its way to its retirement in the museum...

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:55 pm**

robboh wrote:
gstark wrote:
Antsl wrote:Film is not dead,

It is.
It's as dead as COBOL.

COBOL isnt dead either

And that was exactly my point.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:55 pm**

Mitchell
The Vinyl versus CD analogy was not a good one. My mistake! Vinyl sounds better for most music but not piano, guitar or violin. I think CD handles them better. Definitly Vinyl for jazz and voice.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:59 pm**

Antsl wrote: they tend to think extra carefully before exposing another $5 sheet of film.

It was about $5/sheet around 20 years ago when I was shooting E6 on 5x4. Probably closer to $20 to trip the shutter on a5x4 these days.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:06 pm**

Mitchell wrote:digital sound quality is more than good enough for any application.

I'll accept "most" applications here, but not "any" application.

As good as digital is, thee is still parts of the sound that are lost in the transition from analogur to digital - by definition it cannot be otherwise - and a good analogue setup will sound warmer - and to my ears, better - than a good digital one.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:07 pm**

True Gary.... it was $7 a sheeet when I was a student but I was being optimistic.... he could be buying his film from the US!

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:09 pm**

Really this debate is pointless. It's not as if we have any choice. The future of film is not dictated by the few medium format users, but by the masses. When the vast majority of snapshooters abandon film, so will the manufacturers. At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget

) but what will you put inside your Blad?

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:17 pm**

Beleive it or not, Our australian skateboard magazines (and really all the others over the world too) are 75%+ film only. and maybe only 5% or less of that is actually 35mm. Now for ad's with companies I can shoot digital and keep my costs down but to get almost anything run in a magazine that isnt just reportage images from a competition or alike, you have to shoot MF. Funny thing is, that the companies that use your digital images for ad's etc will pay up to 10times more than the magazine will give you for a full page print.
Film is not dead. And I like someones quote earlier, I will always apreciate a good film picture over a good digital photo anytime. Back in the day of film you could really only produce a consistant amount of good images if you knew what you were doing. These days alot more depends on your skill behind a monitor and the decisions you make from the results on your lcd. Now before anyone takes that the wrong way, both are art forms and should be credited for there own seperate reasons. But I do say that next time you see a pro using a digital format like at the football or alike, notice that they will very rarely check the lcd.

On the lighter side of this debate though. I read this on another forum that was debating the same things, and I just had to laugh'

A new program made for the film purists.

New Software Yellows Neglected Digital Photos Over Time

February 8, 2006 | Issue 42?06

ROCHESTER, NY?Eastman Kodak released an imaging software package that yellows, fades, and even loses digital photos over time. "With the click of a mouse, Fotomatshop will make your digital photographs crease, develop fingerprint spots, and even stick together in their 'virtual shoebox,'" Kodak president Antonio Perez said. "It even has motion-blur and redden-eye features." The software takes a week to process 36 digital photos, and charges $9.95 per use.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:40 pm**

Sounds like someone has ripped off the TIFF decay joke done on DPReview last year with that one.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:48 pm**

It's really naughty to pull quotes from a post, but Brad I couldn't help commenting on this:

I will always apreciate a good film picture over a good digital photo anytime

If you know one is film & the other digital, then that very knowledge colours your perception. The real test is when you don't know. I wonder if you could really tell? Motto: NEVER make a sweeping generalisation (including this one :wink:

)

And for my 2 cents.

I don't believe film is dead, but it's already moved into the retirement home and it won't be long. With digital you have perfect copies of the original image - if it's stored and maintained properly (and there are projects looking at these very things as I type). In 100 years the digital image can be reprinted using whatever technology exists at the time and it will be identical in quality to what it is now. The same can't be said for film stock. Sooner or later the quality of digital will surpass that of film and at the rate the technology is progressing it will sure as hell be in my lifetime (and I'm one of those 50 year olds Robboh refers to :wink:

).

And like there are those who say vinyl has a better ambience/vibe etc etc than CD there will always be those that say film has a certain quality digital lacks. And in both cases they will probably vanish in a generation.

I must add a disclaimer - I have never used nor owned any photographic device that used film. I'm a purely digital boy

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:58 pm**

phillipb wrote: At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget ) but what will you put inside your Blad?

We still have a good supply of APX in 135 and 120 sizes.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:02 pm**

stubbsy wrote:I must add a disclaimer - I have never used nor owned any photographic device that used film. I'm a purely digital boy

But I'll be willing to bet that you're up to the challenge of at least playing on a wet bench and seeing what develops.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:09 pm**

stubbsy wrote: I wonder if you could really tell?

That comment alone tells me that your are soley from the digital ages stubbsy.

looking at a printed image I think most would agree that the differences are phenominal.

As for the quality catching up soon?

35mm film alone has over 60million grains that are receptive to light. So maybe if in the next 20 years when they make this 60mp camera we could compare.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:12 pm**

gstark wrote:
stubbsy wrote:I must add a disclaimer - I have never used nor owned any photographic device that used film. I'm a purely digital boy

But I'll be willing to bet that you're up to the challenge of at least playing on a wet bench and seeing what develops.

Does it involve taking my clothes off

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:24 pm**

Gary
I think Peter was refering to your bladder! :lol:

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:33 pm**

gstark wrote:
phillipb wrote: At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget ) but what will you put inside your Blad?

We still have a good supply of APX in 135 and 120 sizes.

...and the expiry date is? :wink:

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:04 pm**

phillipb wrote:
gstark wrote:
phillipb wrote: At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget ) but what will you put inside your Blad?

We still have a good supply of APX in 135 and 120 sizes.

...and the expiry date is?

Irrelevant.

It's all in the fridge.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:12 pm**

It was not that long ago that many Australian professional photography students were taught how to make their own photographic emulsions and my guess is if current manufacturers do stop making film and paper then some of these old skills will get pulled out of the cupboard again by the die hards.... what I look forward to seeing is yet another interesting layer evolving in the tapestry of analog photography.

The only question mark I actually hold over that thought is the environmental issue and whether people will still be able to buy some of the raw ingredients in the years to come. I was told recently that Hassselblad are no longer making the X-Pan because FujiFilm and Hasselblad couldn't agree on a redevelopment price to make lead free lenses for the camera.... (making no more comments on that point ,,, I thinks I have ruffled enough feathers for one day!).

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:18 pm**

gstark wrote:
phillipb wrote:
gstark wrote:
phillipb wrote: At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget ) but what will you put inside your Blad?

We still have a good supply of APX in 135 and 120 sizes.

...and the expiry date is?

Irrelevant.

It's all in the fridge.

Gary, I think you'll find that even in the fridge, some deterioration will occur over time. More so with professional film then consumer film.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:28 pm**

A while ago I was given a roll of 20-year-old Ilford FP film by a wholesaler who had found it in a cupboard at their company. I decided not to let a roll go to waste and so I made a portrait of a friend with it and despite having to push the contrast a lot it was still printable.

Long live film!

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:21 pm**

phillipb wrote:
gstark wrote:
phillipb wrote: At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget ) but what will you put inside your Blad?

I think film will be around longer that compact flash cards. in 30 years you will be lucky to be able to use a D70. Nothing around then will be even remotely compatible.

i shoot with digital and 120 film. i went back to film after using digital for a while. While I wouldn't give up digital for all reasons mentioned earlier, it's with film that i'm most inspired. Film requires you to think more and be more creative. Digital imaging hasn't reached the quality of film particularly in B&W

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:40 pm**

Given an unlimited budget I would shoot film

I shoot digital for cost and convenience.

Film is far from dead though when KODAK closed its film factory in Victoria stating "Digital is taking over" they did not publicize the fact they were opening 2 huge film factories in China with many times the production of the Coberg plant.

The rational is the middle class in chine india and asia is all of a sudden getting sufficient disposable income to afford simple film cameras.

the economics is simple instead of selling 10 rolls of film to say 100,000 Australian customers they are selling one or two rolls of film to a billion Asian customers.

You work out the maths, in the first world it is easy to forget, something like 3/4 of the worlds population does not live within a days walk of a phone. Digital to these people is completely pointless, film is a just becoming an affordable luxury.

Film will be round for a long time yet.

Posted: **Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:52 pm**

RICPIC wrote:
phillipb wrote:
gstark wrote:
phillipb wrote: At least in 30 years time I'll still be able to shoot with my D70 (it's a Nikon don't forget ) but what will you put inside your Blad?

I think film will be around longer that compact flash cards. in 30 years you will be lucky to be able to use a D70. Nothing around then will be even remotely compatible.

i shoot with digital and 120 film. i went back to film after using digital for a while. While I wouldn't give up digital for all reasons mentioned earlier, it's with film that i'm most inspired. Film requires you to think more and be more creative. Digital imaging hasn't reached the quality of film particularly in B&W

I think you've missed my point.
Again , Im not thinking about quality. I'm sure technology will be completely different in 30 years, but assuming that my D70 and CF card were still operational, I could take photos. You on the other hand cannot guarantee that there will be any film available for that perfectly good film camera. Sure you can stock up on film, but sooner or later it will be used up, CF cards can be reused almost indefinetly.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:13 am**

lets come back to this post in 30 years and see how our predictions went

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:13 am**

I must admit that this is a very interesting and (for me) a timely thread. I'm actually contemplating going down Killa's road (suprised we haven't heard from him on this thread) and combining digital and film. As an old film user whose boxes of negs and slides "magically" disappeared around the time of my divorce to my first wife.. :twisted:

I sort of miss film.

I love and appreciate the advantages of digital and with the affordability of decent film scanners these days, I can almost get the best of both worlds. That is, my DSLR can be my stock/action camera as it is perfect for spraying off 500 captures at a footy game or a family event and getting a guaranteed 20-30 keepers. However, although I'm very happy with many of the portrait and landscape images I've taken, I've often felt they missed a certain "je nes sais quoi" (indescribable quality) that film can provide.

In a nutshell, I don't think film is dead. Although I may take 95% of my images with digital, sometimes film can give a certain warmth and grain (grain is not a dirty word) that even a 100mp DSLR could never provide. Sometimes analogue (be it sound or images) can beat digital.. :lol:

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:42 am**

I am reminded of the following statement made on March 4, 1966...

John Lennon wrote:We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first, rock 'n' roll or Christianity.

There was an incredible reaction (particularly from people in the USA) against John and the Beatles. And why? Because they completely misread/misinterpreted this relatively simple (and possibly correct) observation.

Now we know that Americans generally (with all due respect) and American Christians in particular are capable of (mis)interpretive comprehension, but let us not fall into the same pit of ignorance.

Matt's comment - that he thought "film is dead mate" - is an interesting and perceptive commentary on the current state of photography. Of course film isn't dead, neither is vinyl, or steam trains, or sailing ships, or biplanes, or telephones with dials, or button-up boots, or 8 tracks, or penny farthings, or fountain pens, or muskets, etc etc.

However, in terms of usage and product development and consumer interest, film is indeed, dead (ish). Like the parrott.

John Cleese wrote:'E's not pinin'!
'E's passed on!
This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be!
'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace!
If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory!
'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal
coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin'
choir invisibile!!

THIS IS AN EX-PARROT

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:51 am**

johndec wrote: As an old film user whose boxes of negs and slides "magically" disappeared around the time of my divorce to my first wife.. I sort of miss film.

(:

I feel your pain. I have absolutely no photographs/slides prior to 1981. No masterpieces :lol:

of a trip through Asia on a back of a truck in 1975, no snaps from another three month truck trip around South America in 1979 and worst of all, no photos of my parents (who are long dead) because my ex-husband chose not to send them to me

Would I go "back" to film - not in a fit!

Cheers
Sheila

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:58 am**

Newidude wrote:35mm film alone has over 60million grains that are receptive to light.

And 35mm has a much larger frame size than a typical DX sensor. Given the advances in digital technology, we'll be seeing something like an equivalent density on sensors within two years..

But the 60 million grains does little to explain why images from, say, a D2X appear to contain much more detail than those from a film camera, given that the same lens might be used on both.

While detail is only one facet of an image, this seems to be contradictory to the evidence that you're presenting.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:56 am**

gstark wrote:
Newidude wrote:35mm film alone has over 60million grains that are receptive to light.

But the 60 million grains does little to explain why images from, say, a D2X appear to contain much more detail than those from a film camera, given that the same lens might be used on both.

.

There is an intangible factor here: high quality digital capture does show incredible detail, more than that of film but it doesn't get the depth (I’m not talking depth of field), the body, the contrast, however you want to describe it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:37 pm**

RICPIC wrote:There is an intangible factor here: high quality digital capture does show incredible detail, more than that of film but it doesn't get the depth (I’m not talking depth of field), the body, the contrast, however you want to describe it.

I'd probably call that characteristic "warmth" if we were talking about CDs vs vinyl, and that's almost a good term to use here, except that it might also impart a feeling of a particular colour cast which is not what's being inferred.

Cachet, perhaps?

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:59 pm**

"intangible" - Incapable of being perceived by the senses

I would think that anything in a photo which can't be perceived by the senses isn't there.

OK, dictionary definitions in these discussions are crap, I know that.

However, I harbour serious reservations about analogue v. digital, and the idea that the former is superior to the latter, whether talking images or audio.

I have seen plenty of digital images with depth and warmth, and I have heard digital audio with depth and warmth. So quite aside from the substantial superiority of digital in terms of cost and convenience, (OK we could talk about the cost of hardware and software, but I'm not going to), I don't find any loss of anything with digital, with the possible exception of the slightly muddy sound from vinyl, with a touch or wow and flutter added for good measure. And I don't miss that.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:29 pm**

Greg B wrote:"I would think that anything in a photo which can't be perceived by the senses isn't there".

I think there is often more to be percieved in an image than many photographers ever see or notice. How often does it take a critique for someone to realise the potential or the mistakes they have made when making a photograph?

Photography is no different to wine or music... the more experienced the sensors the more likely you are to notice the subtleties of different flavours, rythyms or in the case of photography, depth, tone, design, emotion and light.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:45 pm**

gstark wrote:But the 60 million grains does little to explain why images from, say, a D2X appear to contain much more detail than those from a film camera, given that the same lens might be used on both.

Now you have to think about what you are comparing it to. Are you talking of looking at the actual pixels on a monitor to using your 8X loupe on a lightbox? A drum scan of a 35mm has alot more detail of any actual pixel image I have ever seen. And I honestly feel that anyone that says different has never compared the two and is really only trying to defend there medium.

Remember I also have 2 digital bodies to 1 MF body so this is in no way a biased opinion.

But again to be fair, I have never looked at the actual pixels of a 1DS MKII, I feel that may be getting closer.

DSLRUsers.com

Film is dead!

Film is dead!

Re: Film is dead!

Re: Film is dead!

Re: Film is dead!