Future of Film

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[...] Can you make an argument of how one will take better pictures on film than on digital. I can. For instance, If I shoot architecture with a 4x5 on transparency film, and scan the film, I bet I'd get better technical quality than if I used an M9. [...] .

 

I've been disappointed when a client could not see the difference.

 

I meant to bring this up the last time you wrote that you are an architectural photographer. You and I are probably about the same age, so we know that in the past, architecture almost always meant view camera work (or at least some perspective controls.) Certainly, there can be a strong niche in 35mm archi work.

 

If you do perspective control in post-processing, is it very much the same outcome as using a view camera?

[pico]

I am going to come back to the original question of the future of film, and the irrelevancy of the "quality" debate.

 

I worked for a newspaper that won three Pulitzer prizes for its photography between 2000 and 2007. It had the biggest circulation of the two newspapers in Denver, at least within the metro area. It was good, and it was popular - and it went out of business in 2009.

 

Whether film is equal to 6 or 60 or 600 megapixels is just not going to be a signicant factor in its future. That's an "inconvenient truth" - but truth nonetheless. If you want to preserve film, quit arguing about IQ and who loves what, and find a better strategy.

 

Yep. The Rocky. A great paper. I remember when they had the Versamat processor. During the Sixties in Chicago there were still newspaper photographers using MF and LF cameras. Some of them complained about us new weenie miniature camera users. Not much has changed!

[Xmas]

Of course if you are worried about cost and longevity. That can be a factor in not buying an expensive digital camera. But there are cheap digitals and cheap film cameras. A new M7 body is only about $1400 less than an M9.

 

What does the longevity of a camera have to do with picture quality? Can you make an argument of how one will take better pictures on film than on digital. I can. For instance, If I shoot architecture with a 4x5 on transparency film, and scan the film, I bet I'd get better technical quality than if I used an M9. I bet if I shot active people, the M9 images would be more full of life. I bet if I shot active people with an M7 and an M9, they'd look pretty similar much of the time.

Hi Alan

 

Cost and availability, cost of procurement and availability to take photos - if the M9 goes back to Solms, I don't have it for photos. If the M9 is out of warranty I need to sell a kidney.

A M2 is cheap I can buy two and not notice, I use them in rainstorms and dont worry, I normally carry four... I dry them off afterwards...

Yes I could buy a Canon DSLR cheaper then a M8, but it is simpler to buy a Canon P.

If you shoot with a M7 (&XP2) and a M9 then there may be a difference when the highlights on the XP2 are just marginal, what will they be like on the M9?

You asked why I used a mechanical M, they are mature and cause of supply and demand cheap, it is difficult getting a lens for them, the early DigM adapters are buying up all the lenses.

It is nothing to do with digital v film, or quality or 5x4 v 35mm, most of my shots are out of focus and/or have camera shake, a 5x4 would be worse.

I'm not an early adapter.

 

Noel

 

.

[AlanG]

I've been disappointed when a client could not see the difference.

 

I meant to bring this up the last time you wrote that you are an architectural photographer. You and I are probably about the same age, so we know that in the past, architecture almost always meant view camera work (or at least some perspective controls.) Certainly, there can be a strong niche in 35mm archi work.

 

If you do perspective control in post-processing, is it very much the same outcome as using a view camera?

 

I have 7 TSE and PC lenses but yes sometimes I will correct in post. That works ok if you have enough area to crop.

 

My first architectural portfolio 35 years ago was comprised of beautiful quality 16x20 Cibachrome prints that I printed myself from 4x5 transparencies. I later also had a portfolio of 8x10 transparencies that shipped with a high quality battery powered light box. The idea was to stress quality along with my visual approach.

 

Today there is a dumbing down in the industry where many clients don't have a clue about image quality and everything is reduced to what they see on their uncalibrated computer monitors. Some commercial photography is at risk of being looked at as a commodity and it can be challenging for photographers to find clients who appreciate what they can bring to the table. (Some of my clients barely understand that I actually light and sometimes re-arrange the spaces I shoot.)

 

That is one reason why I question this whole digital vs. film quality thing. Quality can be subjective and illusive. One interior image of mine that was pretty successful was made handheld under existing light with a small sensor 8 megapixel Konica Minolta A2. It was on several magazine covers, large displays and the client used it almost as a logo on ads for a while. It looked surprisingly nice even blown up fairly large. It made me reconsider if chasing more detail was always so important. Here is a link to it at full res:

 

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/knoles.jpg

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

 

Cost and availability, cost of procurement and availability to take photos - if the M9 goes back to Solms, I don't have it for photos. If the M9 is out of warranty I need to sell a kidney.

A M2 is cheap I can buy two and not notice, I use them in rainstorms and dont worry, I normally carry four... I dry them off afterwards...

Yes I could buy a Canon DSLR cheaper then a M8, but it is simpler to buy a Canon P.

If you shoot with a M7 (&XP2) and a M9 then there may be a difference when the highlights on the XP2 are just marginal, what will they be like on the M9?

You asked why I used a mechanical M, they are mature and cause of supply and demand cheap, it is difficult getting a lens for them, the early DigM adapters are buying up all the lenses.

It is nothing to do with digital v film, or quality or 5x4 v 35mm, most of my shots are out of focus and/or have camera shake, a 5x4 would be worse.

I'm not an early adapter.

 

Noel

 

.

 

I really don't know what to say about cost or how you prefer to work. I certainly wouldn't try to persuade you to change from what you are doing. But can you show that most people would be able to get better pictures with a film camera than with a similar digital camera?

[tomasis7]

I'm getting far more detail in my photos from the DMR than from any of the real-world film I've used in either the SL or R8.

 

it might be for you.. for some it is irrelevant. There are other important factors. Sensors capture light at different way than silver emulsions for example.

 

 

 

I say Lol when people who shoot color, discuss with other who shot B&W..not even mention the ones who shot digital vs analog shooters

 

fun discussion anyway

[MacAulay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If M9s don't hold up as well as M2s, that probably is Leica's fault, not the fault of having more electronics in them.

 

What makes you think that?

 

Don't you consider the tendency for electronics to become obsolescent relevent? A digital camera is a computer. These fail, become old-technology, generally clutter up cupboards.

[AlanG]

What makes you think that?

 

Don't you consider the tendency for electronics to become obsolescent relevent? A digital camera is a computer. These fail, become old-technology, generally clutter up cupboards.

 

In a lot of items, electronics are more reliable and more durable than their mechanical counterparts. E.g. a digital light meter will generally be more durable than one that has a mechanical indicator. I have an old Commodore 64 that still works fine. (Yes, it is obsolete.) I have lots of really old radios - transistor and tube, that still work.

 

If you like the images from a given camera, digital or film, I don't see how it becomes obsolete to you as long as you can get film for it and it can be repaired if it breaks. My 8 year old 11 megapixel digital camera never had a repair, is still working perfectly and can be used on my jobs. But overall, the longevity of a camera is not very important to me (as long as they don't fail on a job) since even the more expensive ones are not that big a deal if you have a reasonably successful business and compare it to the cost of film, processing and scanning for the volume I shoot. A lot of fine work could certainly be done with sub $1000 cameras. If a new camera comes along with features you need, you may buy it. Hasn't this been true with film cameras too?

 

Almost anything can fail. There are many times more "obsolete" film cameras cluttering up cupboards than digital ones. How else can we explain that film use is down?

[pop]

.. I don't see how it becomes obsolete to you as long as it can be repaired if it breaks. My 8 year old 11 megapixel digital camera never had ...

 

8 years is not that uncommon for goods with embedded computers; 30 years is.

 

Your digital product can become obsolete for several reasons: lack of special batteries; lack of storage media; lack of replacement data or power cords; lack of power supplies; lack of support of the product or the data formats by recent computer systems and applications.

 

None of these need become joy killers for any one particular owner; there are workarounds for practically all of those, but they might be beyond the means or the experience or the time budget of an owner.

 

Also, you glibly mention repair when it breaks. Mechanical replacement parts can be stocked for a long time or - if out of stock - they usually can be made. No such luck with replacement parts for a digital (or - indeed - any electronic) product. Something as trivial as a flexible compound cable of a ridiculous net value can render the most cleverly engineered product broken beyond repair.

 

Also, some time after a product has been taken out of production, both the skills and the work benches needed to do any kind of service or adjustment will become unavailable.

 

That's obsolescence.

 

For anyone in the position that he can afford to replace the camera should it happen to break, this all is moot, of course.

 

My brother in law used to repair old radios. He could do really ancient ones with tubes. He could do old ones with transistors. He also could do recent ones with their integrated circuits while those were on stock. Standard off-the-shelf chips could be found after quite some time. Custom built ones for specific radios tended to disappear from sight within short times.

[AlanG]

Also, you glibly mention repair when it breaks. Mechanical replacement parts can be stocked for a long time or - if out of stock - they usually can be made. No such luck with replacement parts for a digital (or - indeed - any electronic) product. Something as trivial as a flexible compound cable of a ridiculous net value can render the most cleverly engineered product broken beyond repair.

 

Also, some time after a product has been taken out of production, both the skills and the work benches needed to do any kind of service or adjustment will become unavailable.

 

That's obsolescence.

 

 

Look the motor in my Rollei 6006 film camera couldn't be repaired any more either. I got over it. If you really want to choose a totally mechanical camera, go for it. But I chose to work with the more advanced Rollei system instead of a mechanical Hassy.

 

I do expect that in another 22 years that one wouldn't be very interested in using a 30 year old 1Ds or an 21 year old M9. Digital cameras will be very very much more advanced by then, and film cameras won't be.

 

There are numerous fields of photography where all the film cameras, processors, and supporting equipment has been eliminated due to obsolescence for the needs of those industries. It really doesn't matter if those cameras can keep working forever. There was a time when all tv stations shot on 16mm film and had in house processors. I bet some of those cameras still work too.

[redbaron]

I do expect that in another 22 years that one wouldn't be very interested in using a 30 year old 1Ds. Digital cameras will be very very much more advanced by then, and film cameras won't be.

 

Believe it or not, Alan, but many film photographers actually see that as a blessing. I'll be very happy indeed if the MP remains unchanged forever. In fact, I'll be teaching my daughter, now two, photography with one and I'll be passing mine on to her. Pictorial content matters to me, not bells and whistles.

[andybarton]

Last time I looked you could still buy 16mm film.

 

For what it's worth.

[Clearlight]

Well, my 16mm still works, and I can still get food for it (and Super8)

[AlanG]

Well, my 16mm still works, and I can still get food for it (and Super8)

 

And your point is what is obsolete to most is not necessarily obsolete to all? Isn't that the content of this entire discussion? But the why part of it is what is at the heart of it all.

 

Yes but tv stations have been shooting everything on video for the past 25 years or so. A 16mm camera is useless to them today. Dslr cameras are even making inroads into Hollywood along with other digital systems. And the Amish are still using horses instead of tractors. I'm sure there are some benefits to this for them too but it won't make me sell my John Deere stock.

[AlanG]

Pictorial content matters to me, not bells and whistles.

 

I agree. Do you need film to accomplish this? Maybe she'd be more involved and learn more twice as fast using a digital camera. After all she can immediately see the effect of changing the f stop, shutter speed, ISO, color balance and lighting. She may not even need you to tell her how to do it and can have the satisfaction of figuring some of it out on her own. And by starting out on auto, she'll be able to ignore the technical details and other bells and whistles in order to concentrate on pictorial content. When I was a kid, I had to compute distance and guide numbers to work with a flash. Are you going to show her how to do that too? I started out doing darkroom work at age 11. What worked for me and you may not be the best way for her.

[redbaron]

I agree. Do you need film to accomplish this?

 

Yep, and it'll be around a lot longer than me.

[twittle]

Because many are not provincially digital bound? There is no law that prevents using film, even if the majority of one's work is digital.

 

Those people should be welcomed with open arms. On the other hand, those who come in merely to argue...

[AlanG]

Yep, and it'll be around a lot longer than me.

 

It will be interesting to see what your daughter prefers.

[Clearlight]

And your point is what is obsolete to most is not necessarily obsolete to all? Isn't that the content of this entire discussion? But the why part of it is what is at the heart of it all.

.

 

No, my point is that I can still use my 16mm camera. Duh!!

 

(at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

No, my point is that I can still use my 16mm camera. Duh!!

 

(at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious)

 

Did I miss something? Why would anyone have thought you couldn't? You aren't using it for tv news I bet.