Film vs. Digital

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is unsettling. Perhaps I have never seen a truly well printed B&W M9 image. I also use Leitz enlargers (Valloy and IIa) but not with Focotar lenses and am happy with the outcome, but not M9 B&W from a local printer.

 

Looks like I have some research to do.

 

Don't worry - some people just can't tell the difference.

[AlanG]

Both of the cameras he referenced take 35mm film.

 

Well he wrote "Antique cameras' then he spoke about his Leicas. I never thought about thread mount Leicas as antiques as they are pretty modern conceptually and in execution... as far as film cameras go. Thread mount cameras were made along with the M3. But all of these well be antiques eventually. The quality of the camera is not a factor other than for a brand enthusiast (Leica.) There are plenty of quality 4x5,120 and 35mm film cameras sitting around unused today.

 

He also wrote this "As long as there are people collecting old film cameras there will be a demand for film." There are plenty of collected cameras that have no film available anymore. Collecting things and using them are two different things. Once a bunch of cameras end up in the hands of a collector, they get way less usage than if several working or serious amateur photographers owned them. I probably still have 30 cameras that I've never used.

 

Consider that it would have been much easier for Kodak to keep spooling film in 620 size than it will be to keep film production going for an overall tiny market... if film usage drops to a very low level some day in the future.

 

In any case it is an assumption that because there have been a lot of 35mm cameras produced that film will be available in the distant future. Let's check back in 100 years from today and see. Some kind of 35mm film is likely to be around for quite a while but as a specialty item.

[AlanG]

Last weekend's Washington Post had a color feature story showing high end retail stores. The images were produced by a staff photographer and captioned as having been made using an iPhone and a Polaroid film effect.

[andybarton]

Well he wrote "Antique cameras' then he spoke about his Leicas.

 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that antiques have to be 100 years old, I would suggest that the vast majority of people would consider ANY film camera an "antique", certainly those made in the 30s and 40s.

[stunsworth]

Notwithstanding the fact that antiques have to be 100 years old...

 

I'm sure I've seen things on the Antiques Roadshow less than 100 years old. Should I complain? <grin>

[jaapv]

Notwithstanding the fact that antiques have to be 100 years old,

I consider that a compliment.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Many users also 'roll their own' - 120 can be cut down to spool on 127 or rebacked for a 620 camera for example.

 

Where there's a will there's a way.

 

Agreed, but the point was that there is not enough market by users of these "odd sized" cameras for the film (or many types of film) to remain in production. Thus despite some collectors the film was dropped once mainstream usage dried up and what is available is a pretty specialized low volume item that relies on some film manufacturer supplying the material to a third party.

 

Film for Classics Order Form

 

I'm not saying this will soon happen to 35mm film which surely has the most staying power of all formats. However 100-200 years more?

[andybarton]

Do you really care about film availability in 100 or 200 years?

[pico]

[...]

Many users also 'roll their own' - 120 can be cut down to spool on 127 or rebacked for a 620 camera for example.

 

The difference between 620 and 120 is mainly the spool. Curiously, one Super Ikonta was advertised to take either film.

[AlanG]

Do you really care about film availability in 100 or 200 years?

 

I'm just responding to the person who hoped his old Leicas would still be used by someone in 200 years.

 

Personally, I am contemplating buying a farm and using my great great grandfather's plow and other farming equipment that the family brought over from Russia around 1905. And my grandmother's treadle sewing machine is used by my girlfriend a lot more than her modern electric rig and 5 thread serger. Where is that old butter churn?

 

So of course I'll want my descendents to value all of my old tools and possessions too.

[andybarton]

The difference with a plough and a sewing machine is that they don't need specialised "software" to run. Unlike a film camera.

 

I have a pair of Georgian candlesticks on my mantelpiece. They work just as well today as the day they were made, because there's nothing special about the technology to make them work.

 

Your digital cameras won't work in 200 years either, so I really don't see the difference.

[AlanG]

The difference between 620 and 120 is mainly the spool. Curiously, one Super Ikonta was advertised to take either film.

 

Yeah there's a big hot market for those spools. Kodak could sell them for more than when there was film on them.

[AlanG]

The difference with a plough and a sewing machine is that they don't need specialised "software" to run. Unlike a film camera.

 

I have a pair of Georgian candlesticks on my mantelpiece. They work just as well today as the day they were made, because there's nothing special about the technology to make them work.

 

Your digital cameras won't work in 200 years either, do I really don't see the difference.

 

I don't get your point. I never said I expect a digital camera to last either. It doesn't matter to me if a film camera or digital camera becomes obsolete or not. But various things do for a variety of reasons. I don't have a clue how most people will be recording images in 100-200 years but it surely won't be with film. I'm just saying that the poster's romantic image of his Leica being used to take photos in 100-200 years seems pretty unlikely. Your candlesticks will still be doing their job of holding down a mantle... perhaps with an old Leica next to them.

 

I don't see a candlestick holder being much of a technological device anymore however I bet you predominantly illuminate your home with electric lights despite having the viable option of using candles. The treadle sewing machine and man powered plows are still usable but mostly as a curiosity just like those old wind up phonographs I used to have. The fact that they can still be used does not keep them from being obsolete.

 

Likewise it may be possible to shoot a film image 20+ years into the future, just as it is possible to shoot a Daguerreotype today. But will many be choosing film when they simply want to record an image and are not a collector of old cameras?

[plasticman]

I'm fascinated by the energy, the time, the sheer word-count, expended by Alan on this seemingly monomaniacal obsession to run down film. So now we're supposed to be worried it won't be available in 200 years! WHAT AM I GONNA DO??!!

 

Anyways... scanned some lovely medium format images today.

[AlanG]

I'm fascinated by the energy, the time, the sheer word-count, expended by Alan on this seemingly monomaniacal obsession to run down film. So now we're supposed to be worried it won't be available in 200 years! WHAT AM I GONNA DO??!!

 

Anyways... scanned some lovely medium format images today.

 

Where did I say anything like this and how does what I did actually write run down film?

 

I have no idea why this would fascinate anyone. It seems pretty clear that technology will evolve in 100-200 years to the point that whatever we have today - film or digital will long be obsolete.

 

I just stated that the following quote was kind of romantic but unlikely. Is this some kind of crime to you? Then other people took my remark off tangent to read their own opinions and points into it... as some almost always do. I'd have said the same thing if someone thought their M9 or D4 would be getting much use 100 years from now. What do you think? Lots of people will be using thread mount Leicas in 2212? I never said it mattered to me but it mattered to this person...

"I guarantee that film is not going away. Ever. Digital is wonderful and obviously here to stay but it will never be better than the experience of using a film camera, only different.I hope that someone 100 and 200 years from now will be loading up and enjoying my 1929 Leica 1A and all my other 1930's-50's screw mount cameras. As long as there are people collecting old film cameras there will be a demand for film..."

 

He's entitled to his wishful thinking but I simply think and stated it will require consumers not collectors. Do you disagree about this or do you accept his "guarantee." I don't even know if digital is here to stay.

 

Feel free to misinterpret my posts in any way you prefer. And consider that word "obsession."

 

I scan film too... 120, 4x5, and 35mm. I have 3 film scanners and a Bowens Illumitran "digital" slide copy stand. What does that have to do with anything?

[pico]

I'm fascinated by the energy, the time, the sheer word-count, expended by Alan on this seemingly monomaniacal obsession to run down film. So now we're supposed to be worried it won't be available in 200 years! WHAT AM I GONNA DO??!!

 

Anyways... scanned some lovely medium format images today.

 

MF rules. 120 in particular. I'm big into Plaubel Veriwide, Super Ikontas, SWC and a Horseman 6x12 w/35mm lens.

 

BUT to answer your question with a question - A classmate of my housemate is a NASA sun expert and I just read an article on serious solar flares which can put out electrical grids, computers, all the 'good' stuff. So, if I move into a cave, will my hardware be okay? (We have a lot of caves here that were used for keeping the breweries stock.)

[erl]

Pico, I would suspect the weak link in your B&W scenario is the 'local printer'. Of course I could be wrong.

 

I have done many many A2 prints from my M9, both colour and B&W and I am supremely happy with the results. All produced on my Epson 3800. Retaining personal control solves many problems, IMO.

[pico]

Pico, I would suspect the weak link in your B&W scenario is the 'local printer'. Of course I could be wrong.

 

I have done many many A2 prints from my M9, both colour and B&W and I am supremely happy with the results. All produced on my Epson 3800. Retaining personal control solves many problems, IMO.

 

That is good to read. Have you done wet prints of the same images?

[erl]

That is good to read. Have you done wet prints of the same images?

 

Not often to be honest, but after a (long) lifetime of darkroom printing I can accurately predict the differences between wet and desktop prints. There will always be differences. A good parrel is comparing the book with the film. Same story, different medium. Varied outcome.

 

Personally, I am stunned by the image quality I achieved from B&W film I shot in Antactica. M7 images scanned on Nikon 5000 and printed on the Epson 3800. Desktop printing allowed me to extract fantastic tones and detail from the film. OTOH, wet printing the film would, I know, produce slightly richer blacks and possibly brighter whites, but also a much compressed tonal range in between. The appearance would be higher apparent contrast in the wet print when processed in my hands giving 'snap' to the overall image.

 

In the digital prints there is a wider range of tones achievable, but I often suspect the blacks not to be as good as darkroom blacks. This could be attributed to ink or paper quality/style as in my region the options are good, but not great.

 

Of course, from the M9 only digi files are produced and my only choices for printing are Epson at home or shopping a file out to a lab (not many good ones available) and paying/waiting/double travelling to them to produce wet prints from my digi files. Just not practical for the way I work, although the quality is good if you pay top price.

 

Anything bigger than A2 I have to shop out these days, although I used to do mural stuff myself.

 

Hope there is some useful info in this somewhere.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

... from the M9 only digi files are produced and my only choices for printing are Epson at home or shopping a file out to a lab (not many good ones available) and paying/waiting/double travelling to them to produce wet prints from my digi files. Just not practical for the way I work, although the quality is good if you pay top price.

 

I also prefer the look of wet prints but it's been many years since I'd had to physically take a file to a lab for printing. The pricing has been too reasonable to consider a home inkjet printer to be cost-effective and the quality has been outstanding. I don't know what is available in Australia but in the US numerous labs have on-line ordering software and deliver by UPS or FedEx within a day or two of placing the order. I care not where the lab is located. Look for a lab that uses ROES software.