Future of Film

[Clearlight]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Repeating myself - "There's that "Tea Party" approach again - if you don't have any real argument to present, resort to snide characterizations."

 

^^^

Snide characterisation.

 

(By the way - why is the comment about Freudian motives taken as offensive?)

[adan]

OK - we'll strike the first part. DO you actually have a real argument to present, other than snide characterizations and amateur psycholoanalysis?

 

As to "....presumably Freudian, need...." it introduces the idea of psychopathology, aka neurotic, psychotic, irrational. A "neurotic need."

 

Literally, of course, it means "...presumably related to the ideas and methods of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, especially his theories about people's subconscious thoughts and feelings, need... - but that doesn't track conceptually or grammatically....

 

Or, in borrowing from the most common usage of that particular adjective: "A Freudian slip is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious wish, conflict, or train of thought."

 

Trust me, none of my posts on this forum stem from unconcious anything - I'm fully aware of what I'm saying and what my reasoning and reasons are. Thank you.

 

Now perhaps what you actually meant was "...presumably rational, need..." Did I guess right?

[pgk]

Certainly very near to the limits of what is currently possible, but not as ludicrous as you imagine.

 

M9, part 8B

 

You may or may not like what EP has to say on the matter, but it ties in with my own experiences of high definition photography.

 

Again, it's not necessarily better, but it is available if you require that kind of resolution in a small portable package.

But what has this to do with 60 MPixels??? My problem is that a statement with no accuracy can all too easily be accepted and become 'fact' on the web, even when its wrong.

[AlanG]

^^^

 

 

(By the way - why is the comment about Freudian motives taken as offensive?)

 

And you have to ask this? Why not just stick to a discussion of the facts or opinions represented without getting involved in personalities or questioning motives?

 

If you look over everything I've written on this thread, I think I stick to why some emulsions are here and why some are gone or will be going away. I also address the reasons why professionals and many others have moved away from film.

 

Additionally, I put forward that digital cameras and digital technology will improve and it doesn't seem to be the case with film and film cameras. This last point seemed to bring out responses, such as, "What's left to improve?" To not understand that some photographers need features that now are only being offered in digital cameras is to close your eyes on what is going on in the marketplace. Yes, you personally might not want some or any of those features... I know that. But these features contribute to some of the reasons why people are giving up film cameras for digital cameras. Why not understand that this is happening even if you don't value their choice?

 

I really don't see how any of this is controversial or can be disagreed with. I have no qualms about someone liking shooting images on a given type of film or with a given camera. Likewise if you don't want to shoot with a "computer" so what? Don't use one. I think everyone should use a view camera to learn photography, but that is just my opinion. Unless you are putting forth the argument and supplying evidence that this anti- computerized camera viewpoint is becoming more and more widespread and is being acted upon to the point that it will reverse the trend toward digital, what does it matter? I like taking out some of my old cameras occasionally and shooting film in them too. Is it a trend? I don't think so.

[Clearlight]

OK - we'll strike the first part. DO you actually have a real argument to present, other than snide characterizations and amateur psycholoanalysis?

 

Not amateur. No, Freudian psychoanalysis is not just concerned with the pathological state (if there actually is a state in a functional mind that can truly be called pathological). My comment was simply a reflection on the seemingly "gut reaction" comments being made by digital exponents in a thread which should, on the face of it, hold no interest to them. I ask why they go out of their way to create discord in a film thread? Is it some deep psychological disequilibrium?

That's all - what do you think is the explanation of such behaviour?

 

Oh - you missed my contribution? My point was that film is still freely availably, new emulsions are appearing, and film has attracted young interest. Perhaps you should re-read my post? (I wasn't aware that the film users were arguing. The theme of this thread was not at all contentious until some others turned up)

[Clearlight]

And you have to ask this? Why not just stick to a discussion of the facts or opinions represented without getting involved in personalities or questioning motives?

 

I think the discussion was about what is the future of film, not why digital is better.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is the final warning.

 

If this thread is not brought back to a civil tone it will be closed.

[AlanG]

I think the discussion was about what is the future of film, not why digital is better.

 

I'm not saying that digital is always better. I gave reasons why film usage is down and why many photographers (who have extensive film experience) may feel that digital is a better choice for them. That affects the future of film. But hypothetically speaking...if film is worse, what is its future?

 

So to be clear to you. Here is the future of film: Fewer sales, fewer choices in emulsions and sizes, fewer places to get it and fewer places that can process the film and make good analog prints. Higher costs. Fewer users. Greater satisfaction by those who do use it because they will be the only ones who really do know what photography is about. (That last one must be a Freudian slip.)

[Clearlight]

Greater satisfaction by those who do use it because they will be the only ones who really do know what photography is about. (That last one must be a Freudian slip.)

 

[giordano]

I think everyone should use a view camera to learn photography, but that is just my opinion.

 

+1

[BobYIL]

As of the 8th of November 2010 and based on only 35mm 36 exposure, B&H has to offer:

 

29 different sorts of B&W films,

16 different sorts of color print films,

13 different sorts of color slide fims.

 

I might be wrong however as being someone into photography since 1963, I do not remember of any year with more sorts of 35mm 36 exposure films offered. Meaning; there still are years ahead before starting to concern seriously about the future of film.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bob Yildiran

[thebarnman]

I don't know, but when I scan a 35mm negative, colored film, at 4000 ppi on a Nikon 9000 scanner, the resulting scan is about 60 MB. I don't know exactly what that means, but that seems to be a big file.

 

You could probably get even more at a higher resolution...even if all your doing is getting more detail of the grain and your probably getting more detail anyway. The point is, film like analog, is continuous. There will be a point where digital resolution will be high enough so any differences at all will be unnoticeable. Some say were already there (when it comes to color photography.)

 

Someone mentioned earlier the biggest differences they see between the two mediums is with film, (with huge enlargements) is there is a softening to the edges on objects shot on film and a sharp cutoff when looking at edges of objects shot on digital. That alone would contribute to an image that's sharper, though I'm not sure if that makes it more lifelike. (Probably not.)

 

Personally, I'm tired of printing in darkrooms and like the idea of scanning negatives. At the same time, I find scanning really tedious (and I've never been really good at that,) so I strictly shoot color transparencies and have the B&W negatives reversed processed for B&W positive transparencies to view in the dark with my Leica projector and big screen!

[thebarnman]

BTW - Agfa colour emulsions? There are rumours that European film producers are interested in Agfa colour film once the current stock runs out (there seems to be quite a lot of it), However, Lomography have started selling Agfa RSX200 in 120 format.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Do you know if the new Adox B&W film is the same as the old Agfa B&W film?

[redbaron]

For legal reasons it's slightly different.

[wildlightphoto]

... The point is, film like analog, is continuous.

 

No, it's not. Silver grains are either exposed or they're not, there's no partly-exposed. Each film grain is binary while a pixel can have numerous tonal steps from pure black to pure white, and can represent the three primary colors as well.

 

I don't know, but when I scan a 35mm negative, colored film, at 4000 ppi on a Nikon 9000 scanner, the resulting scan is about 60 MB. I don't know exactly what that means, but that seems to be a big file.

 

It means you are over-sampling. Once the scanner resolution is resolving the grain, a higher sampling rate only gives you sharper grain edges, not more image detail. I saw no difference in detail between my 4000 dpi scans of Kodachrome slides and 5400 dpi drum scans of the same slides. The files were big but the meaningful data in those files is much less than in the 19.5MB RAW files from the DMR.

[thebarnman]

Certainly very near to the limits of what is currently possible, but not as ludicrous as you imagine.

 

M9, part 8B

 

You may or may not like what EP has to say on the matter, but it ties in with my own experiences of high definition photography.

 

Again, it's not necessarily better, but it is available if you require that kind of resolution in a small portable package.

 

That's incredible. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Even with hand held photography, the digital image (I would imagine) would still have those color distortions in the very fine detailed areas. I think there's software to help with that...still, that article was very telling.

[thebarnman]

But what has this to do with 60 MPixels???

 

Seems clear to me. To get the same results with this test with a M9, it would require higher resolution. What's not mentioned however is how much more in MPixels would be needed to get the same resutls.

 

At least that's how I'm understanding it.

[thebarnman]

For legal reasons it's slightly different.

 

Do you know what the differences are? If I had to guess, I would say it's an improvement since it's newer. At least that's what I would hope.

[thebarnman]

No, it's not. Silver grains are either exposed or they're not, there's no partly-exposed. Each film grain is binary while a pixel can have numerous tonal steps from pure black to pure white, and can represent the three primary colors as well.

 

Is it a mixture of both that makes grey?

 

I would think it would be the same case on the photo paper too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[redbaron]

Do you know what the differences are? If I had to guess, I would say it's an improvement since it's newer. At least that's what I would hope.

 

From the Adox website:

 

ADOX improved the film in the following ways:

 

 

The graation was straightened which leads to an improoved copy range.

The old AgBrJ-Emulsions were replaced by more modern ones which have sensitomterically- and technological advantages. This leads especially to finer grain.

The new emulsions bring AP 400 to a true 400 ASA speed.

The film has been donated a modern AHU layer which increases sharpness and eliminates halation.

 

- ADOX PAN 400 -