Future of Film

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Levels mounted into a hot shoe don't tend to be accurate enough. I have a half dozen of them. What a lot of this boils down to is not even comparing film to digital. It is some people wanting a very simple camera. Simple cameras of various sorts have been made for a long time and are still available. So what?

 

But when we are talking about the future of film, I'd say that film's future role will be reduced more and more as the gulf between what a digital camera can do and what a film camera can do widens. Regardless of whether some here prefer minimalism or want any of these newfangled "space invader" features.. The "minimalists" are a very tiny sector of the photography business. Years ago, when I gave my parents a VCR, they were afraid to touch the remote control for fear they'd break something. Eventually they learned to use it and appreciated it. But my dad would never use the microwave oven. Who would think that way today?

 

The Contax IIa and Contarax made little profit for Zeiss compared with the Nikon F and Nikon, the Nikon S3, SP, and F were sinpler. The M2 and M3 orf the same period were simpler.

 

The above para is history, nothing to do with dig v film?

 

Zeiss could not make commercial products Nikon eat their lunch.

 

If your photos are not level use photoshop to rotate a little. Having a spirit level on a camera is like putting a jack under the house cause the mirror on the wall is skew..

 

I'm perfectly happy with my M2 and Canon P, if I was a pro PJ doorstepping/or doing demos I'd need a DLSR, to email photos to publishers..

 

Noel.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

"...do you really mean to put words in my mouth...? Come on..."

 

So what do you mean by that "space invaders" statement?

 

 

"NOT TO ME.

 

It's as simple as that, Alan. I get pig sick and tired of TechnoTubbies telling me that something would be "useful sometimes" just because it can be stuffed into a bit of firmware.

 

Get the message. Please. We do not all want the same things."

 

It is understood that not all want the same things. But those who want or need certain features may not find them on a film camera. I for one really need to shoot many of my images level. It is very important to ME. So any camera that makes this easier to do will be attractive to me. Of course this is not a paramount feature to many, but it illustrates my point.

[AlanG]

The Contax IIa and Contarax made little profit for Zeiss compared with the Nikon F and Nikon, the Nikon S3, SP, and F were sinpler. The M2 and M3 orf the same period were simpler.

 

The above para is history, nothing to do with dig v film?

 

Zeiss could not make commercial products Nikon eat their lunch.

 

If your photos are not level use photoshop to rotate a little. Having a spirit level on a camera is like putting a jack under the house cause the mirror on the wall is skew..

 

I'm perfectly happy with my M2 and Canon P, if I was a pro PJ doorstepping/or doing demos I'd need a DLSR, to email photos to publishers..

 

Noel.

 

I don't seem to be able to follow what you are getting at with the Contax/Nikon thing. But I've owned and used most of the cameras you've mentioned.

 

I don't know how many of you are professional photographers, but it seems to me that while you are aware of your needs, you can't understand my needs nor perhaps the needs of some other shooters.

 

Specifically, you are probably not an architectural shooter and thus don't understand why I need to shoot level. Using levels has always been a standard practice for architectural and some other photographers. Yes I can rotate or de-skew images via software, but if I have shot many images for my clients to select from for final use, and if I have to post them from the field in a hurry, I really don't want to go in and adjust each one in post - simply for decent looking proofs. Additionally, rotating in post means you have to crop some of your image. Cropping can be a problem if the image is tight in the first place.

 

Here is a link to a gallery of building proofs that illustrate the point. Some were rotated to get straight, some were shot straight, and some are still a bit crooked - because my level is not very accurate and I was trying to work quickly and shot hand held on some of them. (You can't set up a tripod in the middle of a city street.) They are typical examples of basic "bread and butter" assignments that I rely on to make a good living.

 

UBS low res samples - Images | Alan Goldstein

 

Having confirmation of level in the viewfinder would be a big help to me. Some of my previous MF and panoramic film cameras had levels that could be seen through the viewfinder. I choose a camera system because it has the features I need to help me quickly and conveniently produce the images that I need in order to earn a living. I don't philosophize about it.

[Xmas]

I don't seem to be able to follow what you are getting at with the Contax/Nikon thing. But I've owned and used most of the cameras you've mentioned.

 

I don't know how many of you are professional photographers, but it seems to me that while you are aware of your needs, you can't understand my needs nor perhaps the needs of some other shooters.

 

You are probably not an architectural shooter and thus don't understand why I need to shoot level. Using levels has always been a standard practice for architectural and some other photographers. Yes I can rotate or de-skew images via software, but if I have shot many images for my clients to select from for final use, and if I have to post them from the field in a hurry, I really don't want to go in and adjust each one in post - simply for decent looking proofs. Additionally, rotating in post means you have to crop some of your image. Cropping can be a problem if the image is tight in the first place.

 

Here is a link to a gallery of building proofs that illustrate the point. Some were rotated to get straight, some were shot straight, and some are still a bit crooked - because my level is not very accurate and I was trying to work quickly and shot hand held on some of them. (You can't set up a tripod in the middle of a city street.)

 

UBS low res samples - Images | Alan Goldstein

 

Having confirmation of level in the viewfinder would be a big help to me. Some of my previous MF and panoramic film cameras had levels that could be seen through the viewfinder. I choose a camera system because it has the features I need to help me quickly and conveniently produce the images that I need in order to earn a living. I don't philosophize about it.

 

The (Contax G) Hologon view finder does have a level, donno about the earlier Zeiss camera...

Cosina did offer a double shoe and an add on viewfinder (45 degree) gismo, device which should be available 2nd hand, for their 15 and 12mm wides, usable on any camera with a shoe... I use the finder on a double shoe with an ocular separation, I shoot both eyes open.

If you are shooting arch you can attach a level to the tripod.

But I dont think you will get a general purpose camera with one built in (apart from the Zeiss Hologon body, which might have had one) too specialist an application.

 

Noel

[thebarnman]

That's my point, digital gear is improving and film cameras are not. Whether or not one feels that it makes one's current gear obsolete depends on the the new features and what one needs.

 

Sounds like to me "features" is all your referring to, (as being your point.) Quality has nothing to do with features.

 

The most high end features for me in a digital camera would be a manual digital camera with manual focus with a built in meter (or no meter.)

 

In fact, the more features they put on a camera (digital or analog) the less desirable it is.

 

 

Whether or not one feels that it makes one's current gear obsolete depends on the new features and what one needs.

 

 

Again, we're talking about different things. According to you, new features makes a older model digital camera obsolete. I can care less about features.

 

Till companies start making full frame DSLRs that can achieve about 60 megapixels (about the same amount of information that 35mm film can store today) even the latest and greatest DSLRs are all obsolete to me.

 

In fact, more improvements I don't see coming soon in DSLRs technology is higher bit depth (tonal depth.)

 

We can start talking when full frame DSLRs achieve 60 megapixels and can approach the tonal range of 35mm B&W film.

 

 

Despite your 1/8000th second on the R9 there won't be a film M with such a high shutter speed.

 

 

Again, your talking about features. Nothing about who has the higher shutter speeds equals better quality.

 

Photography is all about capturing the image, not about bells and whistles. In fact, all the newest features of the latest cameras (film or digital) don't improve my chances of capturing the image. Those features in fact get in the way and is not what photography is about.

 

Some of the greatest images were made by some of the greatest photographers without all those bells and whistles.

 

And the M8 had 1/8000th. What is the highest ISO color slide film you can buy today?

 

Faster ISO ratings don't equal quality.

 

However to answer your question, I don't know. Is it 400, 800 or 1600 for transparency film? Either way, I almost always buy 100 speed film or slower because of the type of quality I'm looking for. Others may want faster rated ISO film for a different look.

 

However, if I need to capture something in low light, I simply open up the aperture, and/or use a slower shutter speed, and/or use a faster lens, and/or bring in more light or a combination of all four. B&W negatives film have faster ISO ratings and can be reversed processed to make B&W transparencies. I think 3200 or 6400 ISO is the fastest they make.

 

Film, just like digital sensors are always being improved. The improvements come with faster ISO ratings that provide image quality that comes close to the quality of slower ISO films and sensors.

 

Look at some of the latest technology in the Sony A55 cameras. There is an electronic spirit level that I would find very handy.

 

My old 1950s Kodak 3-D camera has a built in spirit level. However, for stereo photography, capturing an image that's level is much more important for 3-D viewing than it is for flat photography.

 

(Film cameras are only "mature" technology because nobody is advancing them today.)

 

What advancements need to be added to a light tight box? Again, your talking about features, that have nothing to do with my ability to capture images. The only improvements that need to be advanced to older cameras are the lenses being made today. The newer Leica lenses can be used on the older film M cameras.

 

 

If you need more features to help you take a picture, then by all means, make sure you get the latest digital camera with all the bells and whistles you can find.

 

 

 

 

 

Barney

[AlanG]

Sounds like to me "features" is all your referring to, (as being your point.) Quality has nothing to do with features.

 

The most high end features for me in a digital camera would be a manual digital camera with manual focus with a built in meter (or no meter.)

 

In fact, the more features they put on a camera (digital or analog) the less desirable it is.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, we're talking about different things. According to you, new features makes a older model digital camera obsolete. I can care less about features.

 

Till companies start making full frame DSLRs that can achieve about 60 megapixels (about the same amount of information that 35mm film can store today) even the latest and greatest DSLRs are all obsolete to me.

 

In fact, more improvements I don't see coming soon in DSLRs technology is higher bit depth (tonal depth.)

 

We can start talking when full frame DSLRs achieve 60 megapixels and can approach the tonal range of 35mm B&W film.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, your talking about features. Nothing about who has the higher shutter speeds equals better quality.

 

Photography is all about capturing the image, not about bells and whistles. In fact, all the newest features of the latest cameras (film or digital) don't improve my chances of capturing the image. Those features in fact get in the way and is not what photography is about.

 

Some of the greatest images were made by some of the greatest photographers without all those bells and whistles.

 

 

 

Faster ISO ratings don't equal quality.

 

However to answer your question, I don't know. Is it 400, 800 or 1600 for transparency film? Either way, I almost always buy 100 speed film or slower because of the type of quality I'm looking for. Others may want faster rated ISO film for a different look.

 

However, if I need to capture something in low light, I simply open up the aperture, and/or use a slower shutter speed, and/or use a faster lens, and/or bring in more light or a combination of all four. B&W negatives film have faster ISO ratings and can be reversed processed to make B&W transparencies. I think 3200 or 6400 ISO is the fastest they make.

 

Film, just like digital sensors are always being improved. The improvements come with faster ISO ratings that provide image quality that comes close to the quality of slower ISO films and sensors.

 

 

 

My old 1950s Kodak 3-D camera has a built in spirit level. However, for stereo photography, capturing an image that's level is much more important for 3-D viewing than it is for flat photography.

 

 

 

What advancements need to be added to a light tight box? Again, your talking about features, that have nothing to do with my ability to capture images. The only improvements that need to be advanced to older cameras are the lenses being made today. The newer Leica lenses can be used on the older film M cameras.

 

 

If you need more features to help you take a picture, then by all means, make sure you get the latest digital camera with all the bells and whistles you can find.

 

Barney

 

Think about what you wrote and then consider why various features that are irrelevant to you might be necessities to others. Such as the ability to capture action in lower light or use a small aperture and a reasonable shutter speed in low light, or be able to shoot level hand held. FYI, I mostly use manual focusing TSE and PC lenses and don't use a lot of the bells and whistles that are on the camera. But I do appreciate some things such as the ability to use magnified live view and accurately judge focus - especially when using a tilt. I don't mind that there are numerous features that I seldom if ever use.

 

And I think the fastest current Ektachrome without pushing is only ISO 200. And Kodak and Fuji do not sell tungsten slide film any more. So if you shoot for theatrical and some other subjects, digital may be your only choice. Basically the entire spectrum of subjects requiring higher ISO and tungsten photography has been abandoned by film photography. (Unless you find color neg an acceptable solution.)

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Till companies start making full frame DSLRs that can achieve about 60 megapixels (about the same amount of information that 35mm film can store today) even the latest and greatest DSLRs are all obsolete to me.

Hmmmmm. 35mm = 60 MPixels huh? Where do you get this information from? My own actual comparisons indicate 10MPixels+ provide more real-world, usable data than Velvia 50 transparencies (and I do mean real world comping systems used for scientific identification purposes). I don't want to create an argument but 35mm quite simply doesn't come anywhere near 60MPixels in a real-world situation.

[stunsworth]

Till companies start making full frame DSLRs that can achieve about 60 megapixels (about the same amount of information that 35mm film can store today) even the latest and greatest DSLRs are all obsolete to me.

 

A 10 mp DSLR can record more detail than any of the scans I've made from my Leicas - using a 4000 dpi Nikon scanner, in fact I'd say a 6 mp camera does too. Of course there's more to photography than detail, but your comment shows that you've never actually made the comparison.

[AlanG]

If your photos are not level use photoshop to rotate a little. Having a spirit level on a camera is like putting a jack under the house cause the mirror on the wall is skew..

 

Doesn't that presuppose you are working with digital files?

[thebarnman]

Hmmmmm. 35mm = 60 MPixels huh? Where do you get this information from? My own actual comparisons indicate 10MPixels+ provide more real-world, usable data than Velvia 50 transparencies (and I do mean real world comping systems used for scientific identification purposes). I don't want to create an argument but 35mm quite simply doesn't come anywhere near 60MPixels in a real-world situation.

 

Never made the comparison, just going from what I've read....

 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/133281-film-vs-digital-2.html

 

From Adan...

 

"So - big surprise - a 24mm x 24mm crop from an M9 original can't quite stand up to a 54mm x 54mm film original.

 

As to film producing "50-60 Megapixels" - possibly, with an ISO 16 B&W microfilm"

[Guest nafpie]

ISO 16 B&W microfilm

 

Who ever used that kind of film? At least for one time?

 

Not me.

 

 

Stefan

[stunsworth]

Never made the comparison, just going from what I've read....

 

Read it again. What Adan is saying is that a print from an MF frame is slightly better than a crop of an M9 that represents two thirds of the M9 sensor i.e. 12mp.

[redbaron]

Sixty megs for a 35 mm film scan is nothing. Check this out:

 

- ADOX CMS Film -

 

I predict that in ten years there will be a few film cameras and iPhones. Big digital cameras are already 'obsolete'.

[stunsworth]

I predict that in ten years there will be a few film cameras and iPhones. Big digital cameras are already 'obsolete'.

 

I'll keep a look out at the Olympics after next - I assume 6 years will be enough - for all those pros snapping the games with iPhones.

 

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with loving film, but try to remain at least a little realistic.

[Guest nafpie]

I predict that in ten years there will be a few film cameras and iPhones.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

 

Big digital cameras are already 'obsolete'.

 

Excuse me, but what is the name of the planet you live on?

 

Stefan

[wildlightphoto]

A 10 mp DSLR can record more detail than any of the scans I've made from my Leicas - using a 4000 dpi Nikon scanner, in fact I'd say a 6 mp camera does too.

 

Never having used a 6 MP digital camera I can't comment on that comparison but the files I've been getting from day 1 with raw files from the 10 MP DMR at ISO 400 have given me far more detail and dynamic range than the slowest color slide films scanned with a drum scanner. Color quality is much better too.

 

Compared with color film, B&W film has a better chance of competing with the detail from most digital cameras because converting a digital camera's image to B&W means throwing away 2/3 of the image data from the digital camera (the color information).

 

Where film has a clear advantage is in purely black & white images, i.e., no grays. In this case the film image can be represented with individual silver grains. Grays require silver grains interspersed with grain "holes"; detail in a gray tone requires multiple grain/hole clusters, reducing the maximum resolution the film is capable of. In a digital image the number of pixels a gray dot requires is the same number a black or white dot requires: one. In a purely black and white image the vast majority of the digital camera's detail recording cabability is thrown away. This case is where the "film = 60MP" claims come from and in my experience this has nothing to do with real-world photography.

[stunsworth]

Never having used a 6 MP digital camera I can't comment on that comparison...

 

Doug, the only reason I mentioned 6mp was because my first 'real' digital camera was a Canon 300D - Canon Rebel in the States. Before that I'd had a 3mp Kodak point and shoot that was ok in a 6x4 sort of way.

 

I bought the Canon for all sorts of reasons, but I realised straight away that in the true spirit of George Orwell, not all pixels are created equal. Scanned film pixels are not the same as digital pixels. Compared to scans from the Nikon the Canon was at least the equal to scanned film in terms of resolution. I never had the chance of having anything drum scanned, but trust your opinions on these matters.

[Nikkor AIS]

Thanks for the link about ADOX CMS film. Very cool.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

redbaron (and thebarnman, who quoted me originally) - the fact that ONE niche film (ISO 16, B&W-only, probbaly 0.00001% of the film market) can achieve x-many megapixels is hardly representative of what film in general can achieve.

 

It's like claiming "humans" can lift 264 Kg (580 lbs) just because one human (Hossein Rezazadeh, under controlled Olympic conditions) has done so.

 

The average human probably struggles to lift 50Kg - the "average" film on the market (35mm, color neg, ISO 200) probably struggles to top 8 Mpixels.

 

btw, "possibly" in the context from which barnman quoted = "maybe," not "certainly."

[andybarton]

ADOX film IS the future of film.

 

As mainstream manufacturers in the US and Japan decide that they can't generate sufficient shareholder returns from their film plant, so small firms like ADOX will pick up the baton and run with it.

 

All film users should be using ADOX (and other small manufacturers') film now, so as to encourage them in their journey, not hang on to the old world emulsions, from companies who couldn't give a damn any more.