Future of Film

[marcusperkins]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We all know many of our old lenses performed increasingly poorly on digital cameras as the resolution crept up, particularly the wide ones. However, If we had only ever printed the material rather than viewing it 100% or 200% on screen we probably would never have known there was any difference.

 

Scanning old negs shot on lenses that may not have been that sharp is probably not the best way to compare how film can look today

 

Using the new canon 17mm TS lens mounted on a solid tripod, and shooting on Ektar 100 gives truly stunning results if scanned at 8,000 dpi (or even 6,000 dpi). Screen viewing doesn't look as 'sharp' or clinical as digital, but to my eyes the prints have a particularly beautiful quality with a greater (perceived) depth and resolution.

 

I for one would not generally go the film route for this kind of work because of the inconvenience (end use is not critical enough in the same way 35mm is often good enough over MF), but my point here is not inconvenience, rather quality.

 

Digital is without any shadow of a doubt far more convenient, and undoubtedly better at higher ISO, but the quality of slower speed film is difficult to beat if your workflow uses good technique and good modern equipment.

 

However, I don't expect many jobbing photographers will ever go back to film even if the true resolution out-resolved digital - for many it's just not worth the effort.

[AlanG]

It's mostly convenience. Go talk to the professionals. I have. They love film, but it just doesn't make sense from an efficiency point of view. And now that I'm scanning through my negatives, I see what they mean. 'Tedious' is the word that comes to mind.

 

I shot film professionally for over 25 years. A lot of large and medium format. There was very little I liked about film. The wasted time and materials from testing emulsions under various lighting and filter combos, shooting Polaroids, bracketing and extra "safety" exposures really disturbed me. Eventually I had to scan it and retouch out dust spots. Replacing it with digital solved a lot of problems for me.

 

The overall quality I deliver today is better than what I used to produce by shooting 6x9cm transparencies and scanning to 40-50 meg files. (This is as large as my clients generally wanted.) And due to the lack of material costs and greater shooting and processing efficiency I can now deliver a greater selection of images to my clients.

 

Note, even when I made 200meg+ scans from 6x12 cm panoramic photos, the images generally were not that much better than 21 meg digital captures. But now I shoot digitally stitched panoramas that are far better than the 6x12 images were.

 

I could get into all the tests I did, prints I made, and comparisons that I showed my clients for approval before shooting their jobs using digital capture. But why bore you with that?

[bill]

It's alright, Alan.

 

Really.

 

We do understand. There is no need to go on and on and on and on.

 

Personally I would rather enjoy steak in a decent restaurant than a McDonalds Happy Meal, but that's just me.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

I'm shooting a wedding in a few weeks, the client asked about film and were delighted when I suggested I shoot both digital (for colour) and film (for B&W).

 

Nice to know there are non photographers out there that appreciate the difference.

[thebarnman]

Noisy at ISO 100 or 400 - but we are only need ISO 16 here.

 

My math says that would generate, on a 24 x 36 sensor, a 7,590 x 11,384-pixel image (86.4 megapixels)

 

Then we'd have something to compare with Adox 20.

 

 

Very cool. Sounds like the digital equivalent of Kodachrome 25, a film I used to shoot all the time.

[AlanG]

It's alright, Alan.

 

Really.

 

We do understand. There is no need to go on and on and on and on.

 

Personally I would rather enjoy steak in a decent restaurant than a McDonalds Happy Meal, but that's just me.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Besides trying to be condescending, your point is....? Do you think you have more insight into how I want my pictures to look than I have?

 

Here's a link to a gallery of some of my typical residential photography. Some were shot on 35mm (or smaller) digital and some were shot on 6x9 film and scanned. Please tell me which are which?

 

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com/modelhomes/

[redbaron]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just asked a mate of mine, the GM of the largest newspaper in Australia, why they switched and guess what his answer was. Cost. No other factor even came close.

[bill]

Do you think you have more insight into how I want my pictures to look than I have?

 

Nope. I've never claimed that. If you are happy with what you do, good for you, Old Chap. All I ask is that you extend the same courtesy in return.

 

Here's a link to a gallery of some of my typical residential photography. Some were shot on 35mm (or smaller) digital and some were shot on 6x9 film and scanned. Please tell me which are which?

 

No. I neither know nor care, and frankly it's irrelevant. Again, if it works for you, good for you. I'm not the one trying to proselytise. If you are happy, you really don't need to keep justifying yourself and your results

 

...do you?

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

 

 

No. I neither know nor care, and frankly it's irrelevant. Again, if it works for you, good for you. I'm not the one trying to proselytise. If you are happy, you really don't need to keep justifying yourself and your results

 

 

Please don't call me an "old chap." I find that demeaning whether you intend it or not.

 

The satisfaction of my clients justify my results. And I am not the one who is being condescending, glib, or snide so often. (Do you think your little quips are convincing of anything but making you sound trite to me?)

 

Since you made the statement, I just want you to tell me if some of my images are steak from a good restaurant and which are McDonald's Happy Meals. Maybe you feel they are all rubbish. Did you even bother to look at them? I bet I've shot much more film than you have so consider that I might just know what to look for.

 

Yes it is perhaps a little tougher to actually prove a "put down" statement than it is to make it.

 

There are good reasons to use film... you like the look of it, you like the process and the craftsmanship required, you want a silver print, you like the cameras that use it. I don't dispute any of that. But none of that will change the fact that digital technology and digital cameras are advancing and film cameras are not. (Film technology itself looks to be pretty stagnant and the choices of emulsions seems to be decreasing annually.)

[andybarton]

OK, guys. I think you've both made your point. Leave it there, please.

[bill]

Have you finished re-editing your last post now, Alan? It's downright rude to do so after a Moderator has called a time-out, IMO.

 

And to assuage your curiosity, no I didn't look at your work, because it is just not that important to me. Or to put it another way; it is irrelevant. As I said before, if you are happy, that's nice. Surely you don't need my approval?

 

Why can you not understand that I and others like me neither want nor need film cameras and emulsions to "advance", any more than I want or need pots, pans, knives, spoons, spades, saws, or any other tools to "advance".

 

For your information, Alan, I have just bought an a la carte MP, tailor-made to my specification. It doesn't have autofocus, a built-in spirit level, an intervalometer, barometer, altimeter, egg timer or deep-fat fryer. It takes film. It takes pictures. It will be working long after your digitoys are landfill.

 

I'm happy. I don't feel the need to justify myself or my photography. I don't need the approval of others.

 

There's no need to respond, Alan. Go in peace. Enjoy what you do. Just stop trying to suck the joy out of what others take pleasure in. If it mystifies you, just shake your head and move on. That's what I do when confronted with photos of dogs, the works of Anne Geddies, shortbread and anything obviously using HDR.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Posto 6]

I have never used ADOX film- what are it's main characteristics?

 

Also, agree fully with Bill's recent MP purchase decision and logic for doing so.

[holmes]

OK, I have to add my two cents worth. Techno bubbles, techno babbles. Before I retired a few years ago I worked in an area that was dominated by computers, terminals, databases, main frame, laptop, servers, transmission speed. I was so burned out by the time I threw in the towel I never wanted to see another computer. We also had our digital cameras, high end for that time frame. I was sick of all of that. Fortunately I kept and kept on adding to my analog photo gear. It was such a pleasure to place a roll or 35 mm or 120 mm into a light tight box. Judge which lens would give me the creative result I was after, and attached it. Compose and shoot my frames. Then home and place them in a mailer to my lab. That was it. No sitting and staring at a computer screen while I try to "fix" a bad photo with PS. Digital is a way for bad photographers to look good. A good photographer doesn't have to manipulate (fix) (correct) his/her work.

[twittle]

I have never used ADOX film- what are it's main characteristics?

 

Probably the simplest way to describe their film is very fine-grained. But you can judge for yourself.

 

- Welcome to ADOX -

[stunsworth]

For your information, Alan, I have just bought an a la carte MP, tailor-made to my specification. It doesn't have autofocus, a built-in spirit level, an intervalometer, barometer, altimeter, egg timer or deep-fat fryer. It takes film. It takes pictures. It will be working long after your digitoys are landfill.

 

So you've sold all your digital cameras?

 

Things have turned around, it's now film users that heap sarcastic invective on anyone who disagrees with them. Plus ca change etc.

[AlanG]

And to assuage your curiosity, no I didn't look at your work, because it is just not that important to me. Or to put it another way; it is irrelevant.

 

Bill

 

 

Of course, why would actually looking at pictures be relevant?

 

Great, you drop all these bombs and put downs and then you blame me for taking the joy out of your life. I repeat for the nteenth time until perhaps you get it. I think shooting film and using film Leicas is great. It would be wonderful for the film and camera industry if more people used film. But I am simply trying to show why the "future of film" won't be on the upswing. I don't begrudge you or anyone else their happiness. I do not get any joy from this. At one time I took great pride in my printing craftsmanship. And I'd be totally un-competitive if I tried to shoot jobs on film today.

 

This is simply an unfortunate reality of disruptive technology and film use will mostly end up being used by some artists and enthusiasts. Whether there will be enough of them to keep a reasonably large enough industry viable in 10 years or so is anyone's guess.

[Clearlight]

I think it is acknowledged that film is no longer mainstream. However, nor is it dying.

There has been a resurgence in film use recently, particularly among the young. Kodak have released a new colour film, Agfa film has re-appeared under a new guise, and an interesting (and strangely beautiful) new polaroid film emerged in 2010.

 

Maybe not dramatic, but I think it does comply with the definition of an upswing.

[stunsworth]

I think it is acknowledged that film is no longer mainstream. However, nor is it dying.

 

No one has said that it is dying, or going to disappear.

[Clearlight]

No one has said that it is dying, or going to disappear.

 

I didn't say anyone had.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[bill]

So you've sold all your digital cameras?

 

Far from it. They are tools too. In fact I recently snagged an FZ50. It's a nice digicam, the Panasonic equivalent of the V-Lux 1. I've got some halfway decent results out of it too, as I do out of my D-Lux 4, or did previously from my Olympus E-1, E-400 and E-600, or my LC-1.

 

But.

 

In the past five years I can guarantee you that I have taken three or four times as many photos with my film cameras as with my digicams, and shot for shot achieved a similar ratio of keepers. And I can guarantee that all of the above will be landfill before my 80-year old II, let alone my days-old MP.

 

I simply don't see the point of ramming my choice of medium down people's throats, nor of incessantly pointing out to them the "inadequacies" of their own. If they want to use a Lomo or a Phase back it is all the same to me.

 

Their journey is not my journey; I cannot travel it for them, nor with them. I can look at their end result and opine (subjectively of course) whether or not I consider it an interesting, competent or engaging photograph, but I cannot judge from a bunch of artfully arranged pixels on a website whether the capture medium was organic or inorganic. More importantly I cannot judge whether the shutter was pressed with a smile or with a joyless grimace.

 

Regards,

 

Bill