Jump to content
Leica M EV1: Die erste M mit EVF statt Messssucher ×
Leica M EV1: The first M with EVF instead of Rangefinder ×

Future of Film

fotolebrocq

By fotolebrocq
in Film Forum

Recommended Posts

Guido

Guido

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem with this digital vs film debate is that very few film users are employing high end scanners.

Exactly to the point. A Flextight scanner with Flexcolor software costs quite a bit more than an Epson V750 with Vuescan. But this additional cash translates into tangible results: you run a negative through the Flextight, and - bang - you get the scan you need. No Newton rings, no flatness issues, no color casts, no nothing. Whereas with Vuescan, I used to find myself in the same boat as many other Epson/Vuescan users here: lots of tweaking, and still no real satisfaction in the end.

 

So if you are really serious about film, yet still feel the need to ponder the "film vs. digital" question, you definitely might want to embrace a high-end scanner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 482
  • Created
  • Last Reply
plasticman

plasticman

Posted
Posted
Okay I'll put in my 'fivepennyworth' as the saying goes and I really do hope someone is going to tell me I've been missinformed. On a Magnum professional practice course in London in February this year the head of Metro Labs ( I think that was the lab ) was ask the inevitable question what is the future of film, his answer was that there was only one company (in Switzerland) making film quality gelatin and if the demand dropped too low they are a commercial business and they would simply give up producing the stuff.

 

Please someone tell me I have been missinformed. I still own an M6 and love using it

 

Paul Glendell

 

www.glendell.co.uk

 

Crikey I think I've heard it all now. The entire world production of film would simply collapse overnight if some Swiss company decided not to melt down cow's hooves anymore...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted

 

..... There is plenty of information on this forum alone regarding post process workflow for the M8 (and beginning to evolve, the M9), which I've been grateful to follow and reproduce the results claimed. But no such information on scanning and printing from film. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that the people who claim that scanned film is better than digital capture haven't yet been forthcoming with the how-to as their digital-capturing counterparts. BTW I shot film for 40 years, happily, and was a very reluctant and skeptical convert to digital.

 

I'll have to check out Viewscan, but I don't think that most of the scanning software is as evolved as some of the raw conversion software is. I also haven't used the recent Nikon scanners, but the early ones seemed to produce a very harsh result compared with the Polaroid Sprintscan 35 Plus and the Polaroid Sprintscan 120 (Microtek made film scanners.) This seemed to me like the difference between using a condenser enlarger vs. a diffusion enlarger.

 

I have very little patience for scanning these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted
Okay I'll put in my 'fivepennyworth' as the saying goes and I really do hope someone is going to tell me I've been missinformed. On a Magnum professional practice course in London in February this year the head of Metro Labs ( I think that was the lab ) was ask the inevitable question what is the future of film, his answer was that there was only one company (in Switzerland) making film quality gelatin and if the demand dropped too low they are a commercial business and they would simply give up producing the stuff.

 

Please someone tell me I have been missinformed. I still own an M6 and love using it

 

Paul Glendell

 

www.glendell.co.uk

 

When I was a student, Dr. Francis, my photo chemistry professor, once said, "If cows didn't like to eat mustard, we couldn't go to the movies." Apparently the sulfur in the mustard plant was important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guido

Guido

Posted
Posted
Oh well, I guess I really should've spent 20 thousand dollars on a decent scanner instead...

If you insist on buying a new one... yes, I guess so ;)

 

On the other hand, used Flextight scanners and the Imacon models that predated them, pop up on eBay and secondhand dealer websites in regular intervals and can be had for far less. If I were in the market for one, I'd look out for a 343, 646, or X1, and stay clear of the older Imacon models since those still have SCSI connectors instead of Firewire. Built like tanks and no flimsy holders prone to breaking and the like. Leica quality, so to speak...

Link to post
Share on other sites
hamey

hamey

Posted
Posted
Full frame cameras have advanced in various ways since the 11 megapixel 1Ds in 2003. I don't think anything about film cameras, film technology, film processing, and scanning has improved significantly in those 7 years. Over the next 7 years, digital sensors, digital cameras, firmware, and software will continue to improve while film, film cameras, and scanners will not improve much, if at all. (For instance, the top shutter speed on an M7 is 1/1000 and is 1/4000 on an M9.)

 

So when it comes to versatility, capability, and overall quality, film will be functionally obsolete in a few more years (it is already for many)... whether some people will prefer using it and the look of it, is another matter.

 

WOW! M7=1000 M9=4000 shutter speed.

 

Gee Alan my OBSOLETE FILM CAMERA the R8 and R9 have a shutter speed of 8000.

Also they have this ability of photographing on both Mediums Film and Electronic,with the DMR.

What can your overpriced (M9) electronic cam do that my cheap little G9 can't do, NOT MUCH.

I personally think EXPENSIVE Digital cameras are a waste of money.

 

IMHO I don't think they can do much more to Film Cameras as most will do just about everything you want, and frankly I have enough of them to last me the rest of my life.

 

And yes I am pleased for Canon, I do use a Canon Electro cam (G9) and it's quite adequate for my needs

should in future I do something silly and go fully into the ELECTRONIC MEDIUM then I will use my

Leica R lenses with the Canons as I consider over expensive Leica Digital cameras are not for me.

 

LONG LIVE FILM.

 

 

Ken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlanG

AlanG

Posted
Posted
WOW! M7=1000 M9=4000 shutter speed.

 

Gee Alan my OBSOLETE FILM CAMERA the R8 and R9 have a shutter speed of 8000.

Also they have this ability of photographing on both Mediums Film and Electronic,with the DMR.

What can your overpriced (M9) electronic cam do that my cheap little G9 can't do, NOT MUCH.

I personally think EXPENSIVE Digital cameras are a waste of money.

 

IMHO I don't think they can do much more to Film Cameras as most will do just about everything you want, and frankly I have enough of them to last me the rest of my life.

 

And yes I am pleased for Canon, I do use a Canon Electro cam (G9) and it's quite adequate for my needs

should in future I do something silly and go fully into the ELECTRONIC MEDIUM then I will use my

Leica R lenses with the Canons as I consider over expensive Leica Digital cameras are not for me.

 

LONG LIVE FILM.

 

 

Ken.

 

Yes there are a number of film cameras with higher shutter speeds than 1/1000. Some even have auto bracketing, auto focus, spot meters, high frame rates, and more. But I bet we won't see significant changes on an M film camera. Whereas the M digital camera will continue to evolve.

 

It sounds to me like you are set and happy. And if a film M currently does all that one thinks one will need, then one won't ever need to consider anything else either. (As long as one can get the film emulsions and processing that one wants.)

 

I used to shoot a lot of 4x5. The Kodak Readyload and Fuji Quickload systems were really the way to go over using film holders. Now Readyload is no more and Fuji no longer makes Reala daylight and tungsten 4x5 color neg film. Reala was the architectural photographer's solution for mixed lighting. I'd often have chromes made from it. Polaroid 4x5 type 55 film is also long gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adan

adan

Posted
Posted

Andy B. Film gelatin(e) and food gelatin(e) are basically the same thing - but film gelatin is more purified (and unflavored ;) ). Extracted from the collagen-containing parts of animal carcasses (hooves, bones, cartilage, hide - same as the old "that horse is ready for the glue factory")

 

I used "kitchen-grade" gelatin to make oil prints back in college - since it was a non-silver process the relative purity was irrelevant. All it had to do was become water-insoluble when doped with bichromate and exposed to UV light.

 

Early on, someone discovered that, indeed, some batches of gelatin seemed to produce higher film (or more likely, glass plate) sensitivity, and it was tracked down to things the animals ate during their life, including perhaps mustard.

 

That kind of sensitization-enhancement has been added artificially for many decades, though. However, it does show why photo-grade gelatin has to be extremely pure - to avoid unpredictable imaging characteristics from the animals' diet.

 

Kodak makes their own, so the "one Swiss company" is a canard... Gelatin information, news, history and more You'll note the U.S. makers are all located in dairy or beef-cattle country (ahem). No vegetarians among film users....

Link to post
Share on other sites
StS

StS

Posted
Posted
Hollywood, Bollywood and the rest shoot miles of the stuff. It's BS.

 

I read in the paper these days Toy Story 3 made more money in 2D than in 3D and the cinemas are worrying now about their expensive investments in digital projectors.

 

The few film snippets we stills guys use probably won't make a difference anyhow. However, I would assume, a complete conversion of cinematography to digital probably would have meant a shift in industry for raw materials.

 

I would assume cinema ends up, where photography is now: simply use, which paints best, what you would like to show, and be happy. :)

 

Stefan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knomad

Knomad

Posted
Posted

I really don't care how rapidly digital technology advances, or how many cool new things it can do.

 

I shoot Leica digital partially because it doesn't try to be all things to all people, and thus the menus don't get in the way of taking pictures.

 

And I just pulled out my old M4 again, as I do periodically, because the world is already an overcomplicated place, and I need to deal with that at the office whether I like it or not.

 

So it's refreshing sometimes to take a well made mechanical camera, a meter, and a few rolls of film and just relax and take photos at a slower pace and actually think about them sometimes.

 

Technological complexity has it's uses. So does simplicity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...