Film vs. Digital

[redbaron]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Depends on one's smartness degree.

 

Most photographers get over that particular malaise early on in their career, regardless of the type of camera they use.

[erl]

David, I disagree with a lot of what you say, but that would be argument for the sake, so I won't, except to ask the question, "if you broadened the scope of what you do to reach into some 'no go areas', would film still function for you?"

 

Not looking for argument, just looking outside your seemingly defined space. I do accept that staying within it works for you, so that is the real answer.

 

P.S. I totally agree about the cost and availability of film and processing. Whilst I do all my own processing, even acquiring the chemistry is a PITB.

Edited July 29, 2010 by erl

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wildlightphoto]

Quality: Although I readily admit that eventually (probably sooner than I'd like) the final results ultimately with digital will be superior to the results one can get with film, that day is not yet.

 

That would be news to the gallery owners who have reviewed my prints.

 

To see this just project a good transparency onto a large screen and compare it with a projected digital image.

 

The projectors play a huge role in the quality of the image.

[erl]

I would take that further Doug and say, "the projector plays a huge role in degrading the (digital) image".

 

That is the sole reason I won't have a digital projector, or permit my serious work to be displayed that way.

[NZDavid]

Film is a mature technology so film cameras and their owners (I hate the word "users") are naturally more mature, refined, discreet, polite, charming, sophisticated, and urbane -- and of course, modest, too.

 

By contrast, digital cameras are immature. They are the precocious teenagers of the camera world -- always wanting to try something new, to experiment with different styles and looks, still not sure how they fit in and wanting to push the limits and prove themselves.

 

Film cameras are simpler and more straightforward. They are robust and reliable. They will keep on being dependable for decades. Digital cameras will keep on evolving. As result, their emotional attraction is more fleeting.

 

This makes film cameras more affordable in the long-term --- you will hang on to one model instead of always upgrading (which means a cheaper digital camera probably makes more economic sense). But digital cameras have the advantage of being complete in themselves -- so long as they don't break down they will keep on producing the same quality results indefinitely. Film cameras remain dependent on extra resources: the availability of film and processing.

[erl]

Well David, I will look in through the rest of the evening to see if you survive that one!

 

Good luck.

 

P.S. There is a spare bed in Oz if you get thrown out.

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ah darn - out of popcorn - can you guys wait for me? Just going 'round the corner - anybody a cold beer?

[hamey]

Now to my favourite topic, TRAINS.

 

The seven foot Gauge which was devised by Isambard Kingdom Brunal was scrapped because it was more expensive to build, wider cuttings, tunnels, sleepers, bridges etc etc.

 

If I remember correctly some parts of the confederates states had 7 foot gauge only after those

Northern Blue belly Yankees (Lol) ripped up all Southern railroad track.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Also some time ago I read American Railroads curse that limey standard gauge because it's to small for their freight loadings.

At this time I think the Americans have the biggest loading gauge, 10.6 wide and up to 17 feet high all on 4.8 feet, so just imagine if those southern rebels had won the war what they could have had on 7 foot gauge.

 

Back to the Topic.

 

Slides or transparencies for the ultimate imaging namely projection.

Or If you like looking at pretty pictures then shoot whats best for you.

 

Ken.

[aesop]

Ah darn - out of popcorn - can you guys wait for me? Just going 'round the corner - anybody a cold beer?

 

 

...popcorn and beer?

[menos I M6]

...popcorn and beer?

 

Salty, not sweet!

[aesop]

Salty, not sweet!

 

...hmmm, now that's definitely another whole new debate altogether. I rest.

[pop]

Salty, not sweet!

 

Salty beer ?

[menos I M6]

Salty beer ?

 

Of course not pop. Corn!

[aesop]

Of course not pop. Corn!

 

...speak for yourself, menos. So what if Philipp likes his beer (gulp) salty?

[NZDavid]

Well David, I will look in through the rest of the evening to see if you survive that one!

 

Good luck.

 

P.S. There is a spare bed in Oz if you get thrown out.

 

Cheers erl. I slept soundly all night.

[plasticman]

Travelling right now - so no access to images or a decent keyboard (iPhone post - so has to be short). Quickly read through the thread - couple observations:

 

- I think it was Jaap that said something like 'the lens renders the image and the film/sensor simply records it'. Jaap - both of us know this isn't correct, and I'm frankly surprised to see you say it here. I can't say much about Doug's images on this little screen, but the this type of telephoto oof is difficult to judge. For what it's worth, I prefer the DMR image in this case.

 

To see the sort of differences in rendering I'm talking about, one needs to take a more characteristic 'M' type comparison shot - a portrait or even the classic 'espresso' cafe scene taken with a 35 or 50 at f1 or 1,4. Throw in a brightly lit window in the background for good measure - something the digital sensor will just abruptly blow out - and then see whether the two media render the scene identically.

[menos I M6]

…

To see the sort of differences in rendering I'm talking about, one needs to take a more characteristic 'M' type comparison shot - a portrait or even the classic 'espresso' cafe scene taken with a 35 or 50 at f1 or 1,4. Throw in a brightly lit window in the background for good measure - something the digital sensor will just abruptly blow out - and then see whether the two media render the scene identically.

 

No, keep out the bright light, as we all know the beauty of film rendering these - keep it to the "out of focus rendering difference" only - I am genuinely interested in this!

[wblynch]

Scene: mother and daughter cleaning out recently departed grandfather's room...

 

d: Mom, look at all these old Cds and hard drives Grandpa left behind.

 

m: Yes dear, he was quite the pack rat. Throw them all in the bin over there, I'll have your father take it out with the trash.

 

d: Mom look! I found an old shoe box with Grandma's love letters to Grandpa!

 

m: Oh, that's so sweet he kept them all those years. Let's put them in a special place so we can read them later.

[zlatkob]

Storage can be a problem whether you shoot film or digital. All media get old and are subject to degradation and poor storage conditions. I shoot digital and nearly all of my clients get a box of prints. Those prints will be kept for a very long time regardless of what happens to the disks and hard drives. However, over time, storage, duplication and organization of digital photos has become easier and easier. So it's possible that Grandpa's lifetime of digital photography will be perfectly preserved in the family's media center, nicely organized and indexed, and retrievable for perfect printing for generations to come. Who knows?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Steve Ash]

Grandpa's digital images will be trashed unseen with anything else older than 5 years. Oh no, these nice memories kept on film and print I am gonna keep.

Steve

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk