NZDavid Posted June 7, 2007 Share #1 Posted June 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Scanning through the film and digital forums (fora?) reveals some interesting variations. At any one time, many more people are looking at the digital forum. What does this mean? That film is on its way out? Or that there are more issues with digital? I can't help noticing that many threads on the digital forum are about things going wrong: "Another dead D2...Digilux 2 sensor failure...Noise....battery won't charge...black screen." M8 forum also dwells on problems: "Why Apple won't support Leica M8 or Epson RD-1." By contrast, the film forum is far more leisurely and laidback: "Classic M for Leica feel...Just as good...35 Summicron", and so on. Just my observations. What does it all mean? That film is a mature technology, digital is still developing? That more digital people like taking part in forums, more film people are out taking pictures? Who can say? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 7, 2007 Posted June 7, 2007 Hi NZDavid, Take a look here Digital v film forum. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest user10847 Posted June 7, 2007 Share #2 Posted June 7, 2007 Let me guess: you're into film ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted June 7, 2007 Share #3 Posted June 7, 2007 Hello David. Unfortunately thats the problems with electronic photography. The major manufactories tell us the life expectancy of their shutters, 100,000 150,000,etc But none will tell you the life of the image sensor, the most important component, They hope, (manufactories) it's a bit more then 12 or 24 months (passed their warranty) The life of Electronic sensors in your average Digicam is based on constant usage like a light bulb, but not how many shots you're going to take, Eventually it's going to DIE. In the Film forum, the biggest problem and complaint we have is that we all miss Kodachrome, but otherwise we change our Light sensor around 36 frames my oldest camera is the Leica SL, BUILT IN 1971, I can insert a 35mm film cannister that was manufactored yesterday and bingo it will work, so what else can we talk about. The on going problems with the Electronic medium will always be there. Read about the DMR, owners are continually complaining about updated firmwere. M users, it's all about the M8 problems. The R users it's all doom and gloom, the only hope for us will be the R10. So at least, the Digi people are entertaining us, so lets enjoy it, otherwise the Leica forum would be a boring place. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 7, 2007 Share #4 Posted June 7, 2007 I'm not "into film" ( two M8's, Canon DSLRs, multiple MF Digital backs ) ... unless I'm shooting film ( a MP3, multiple MF film backs : -) David, digital has quite a learning curve, and for many migrating Leica M shooters it's a steep curve. So there are a lot of questions. With digital changing so rapidly those questions keep evolving. Film users are in less of a learning curve since they've been doing it for so long, and any changes are incrementally small and easily absorbed. And no matter what individual digital shooters may say, it is frought with considerably more problems when viewed in as a big picture because it is part of a more electronically complex total process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 7, 2007 Share #5 Posted June 7, 2007 I think its just that, digital is 'new' technology, people switching over, new M8 users etc etc. The film M is basically the same camera that was launched over 50 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron110n Posted June 7, 2007 Share #6 Posted June 7, 2007 I can't help noticing that many threads on the digital forum are about things going wrong Semi Conductors has a duty cycle. Three years is about average. Film media has a storage cycle, It will tell you in the packaging. Darn!!! I should've stored my D2 in the freezer when not is use... -Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spydrxx Posted June 7, 2007 Share #7 Posted June 7, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) A number of new digital users are both new to photography and digital products, so there could well be expected a lot of redundant questions. On the issue of things not working...people today have internet access and expect instant responses to their issues. I expect the "not working" stuff represents a relatively low percentage of the overall product in question...but most of us don't go online to tell everybody everything which is working properly. So, therefore, there may be a distorted perspective created as a result of some things not working, or people not knowing how to work them. Lastly, even though I've been doing digital for years, I'm very interested in what is going on with new products and processes. In the film arena, IMHO, there just isn't as much new stuff taking place. I keep hoping the day will come when digital products not only match film in performance, price and versatility...but find a way to markedly exceed film in every manner...and allow me the flexibility of choice of interspersing old technology (film based lenses) with new without ripping a hole in my wallet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StS Posted June 7, 2007 Share #8 Posted June 7, 2007 Digital photography is a fascinating technology, however every tool needs to be understood in it's limitations to give the desired results. This is fuelling some of the discussions in digital fori. On the downside digital photography is feigning measurability. Some people seem to buy a digital camera like a computer, regarding them as obsolete after three years (they probably also delete all the images for being obsolete to take the images of Angkor Wat again in higher resolution ). Lots of discussions in digital fori seem to be driven by the disappointment digital doesn't deliver the promised perfection. Moving from records to CD, the sound quality was 'perfect', trying to improve the result often moved to the metaphysical like putting the CDs in a freezer (no joke). Digital photography hasn't reached this 'fool proof perfection' yet Taking a decent camera and decent film, the image quality is simply 'good enough' and the discussion moves to the images. Don't get me wrong, the majority of my images is digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Ray Posted June 7, 2007 Share #9 Posted June 7, 2007 Expectations of digital seem to be unrealistic. How many times have you heard that digital is easier than shooting film, isn't it??? No it's the same just a different workflow. Shooters expect one camera to replace all the formats that we used to use just a few years ago. Digital is the solution for many assignments but not for all. I'm trying to re educate my clients that there's still a place for film and some are listening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted June 7, 2007 Share #10 Posted June 7, 2007 I believe the principal difference between film and digital is one of the ability to "archive." My slides and b&w negatives from from 1941 to the present can be annotated and stored without the requirement to endlessly transfer the "zeros and ones" from one digital database to another as both hardware and software technology changes. My slides from Germany in 1945-1948 (Kodachrome) still project equally as well as my 2007 Astia slides taken along the Potomac River. My next door neighbor - - who has an "archival fetish" - - has already been required to transfer his 3000+ images from computer to computer hard drive more than once, and to realize that the CDs he used in the local Kodak gee-whiz terminal in the drugstore to store his digital images isn't the end-all of his ability to archive his images. I would postulate that the difference between film and digital IS NOT associated with the cameras / lenses /computer technology used to produce digital photos, but on the necessity for the digital user to assess his or her need to keep those photos for generations. Film archiving presents one set of relatively very low cost problems and issues. Digital archiving presents another set of yet undetermined problems ansd costs that will be needed to cope with the advance in transfer and storage technology, and, at some clear increase in cost and labor. If you're shooting digital and you want to preserve your images, then think of what's coming down the road. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimcollum Posted June 7, 2007 Share #11 Posted June 7, 2007 i'd agree to a point.. BW and Kodachrome are the rule.. they have known archival qualities. But the majority of images taken by the general public are on color negative film, with a very small percentage on slide.. and even less on b/w. The color negatives have a lower life expectancy than today's inkjet print technology.... most images from the 60's have already experienced significant color loss. The only way to preserve those images would be b/w separation negatives.. and very few of the general public will be willing to do that. The general loss of family photo's isn't a digital issue.. it's both digital and film I believe the principal difference between film and digital is one of the ability to "archive." My slides and b&w negatives from from 1941 to the present can be annotated and stored without the requirement to endlessly transfer the "zeros and ones" from one digital database to another as both hardware and software technology changes. My slides from Germany in 1945-1948 (Kodachrome) still project equally as well as my 2007 Astia slides taken along the Potomac River. My next door neighbor - - who has an "archival fetish" - - has already been required to transfer his 3000+ images from computer to computer hard drive more than once, and to realize that the CDs he used in the local Kodak gee-whiz terminal in the drugstore to store his digital images isn't the end-all of his ability to archive his images. I would postulate that the difference between film and digital IS NOT associated with the cameras / lenses /computer technology used to produce digital photos, but on the necessity for the digital user to assess his or her need to keep those photos for generations. Film archiving presents one set of relatively very low cost problems and issues. Digital archiving presents another set of yet undetermined problems ansd costs that will be needed to cope with the advance in transfer and storage technology, and, at some clear increase in cost and labor. If you're shooting digital and you want to preserve your images, then think of what's coming down the road. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 8, 2007 Share #12 Posted June 8, 2007 Thing's are not always peaches 'n' cream over there. Every once in a while one of us loses a lens cover... Thanks. Allan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 8, 2007 Author Share #13 Posted June 8, 2007 Yes I still really like film but also use digital and can see its advantages in many instances. I agree the fact that digital technology is still evolving probably accounts for the relatively higher number of digital postings. But I think the fact things don't work as you expect is very common in the digital world - and that goes not just for cameras but computers and big-screen TVs, too. Unfortunately, software going haywire and products giving up the ghost after a relatively short time seems to be expected these days. Then there's the sheer complexity of digital media in general. "It's a steep learning curve." Yes, but does it need to be this complex? Archiving may end up to be more important than we think. Who knows how long CDs or DVDs will last? As for sensors giving out, I think the expected life expectancy of an LCD TV is something like 20 years with average use,and less for plasma. Old CRT TVs used to last longer if you left them in standby rather than turning them on and off. The best solution for digital cameras would be an upgradeable sensor. Can't be done? Why not? All this does certainly provide scpe for some lively discussions! Time to recharge the batteries and search for the lenscap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 8, 2007 Share #14 Posted June 8, 2007 Naturally there's a lot less 'news' on the film side these days, so the need to post is a little less urgent. But having just got back to film after a few years with digital, i'm finding there's plenty of life left in the analog debates, and a great deal to discover! One factor that i find interesting (and usually overlooked or hushed-up) is that digital sensors do degrade - as far as i know, the process begins with the first shot. This is no reason not to use digital of course, which i would definitely be doing (probably exclusively) if i were a pro photographer, but i find amusing the buyers of high-end digital cameras who claim they intend to keep the camera for 'the rest of their lives'... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haris Posted June 9, 2007 Share #15 Posted June 9, 2007 Scanning through the film and digital forums (fora?) reveals some interesting variations. At any one time, many more people are looking at the digital forum. What does this mean? That film is on its way out? Or that there are more issues with digital? I can't help noticing that many threads on the digital forum are about things going wrong: "Another dead D2...Digilux 2 sensor failure...Noise....battery won't charge...black screen." M8 forum also dwells on problems: "Why Apple won't support Leica M8 or Epson RD-1." By contrast, the film forum is far more leisurely and laidback: "Classic M for Leica feel...Just as good...35 Summicron", and so on. Just my observations. What does it all mean? That film is a mature technology, digital is still developing? That more digital people like taking part in forums, more film people are out taking pictures? Who can say? If you become member of exclusive analoug photography forum, you will see there is lots of questionsand issues too. But, on general photo forums you are correct, and others already answered most important issues. Yes, I am film only photographer, not digital imager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 9, 2007 Share #16 Posted June 9, 2007 I simply think that many of us, in this forum, are new at all to digital, so lot of problems arise on the way... both hardware & software... and one of the most important fact about going to digital is that, comparing to film, much more people take in charge the entire process of shot-to-print: I never had a real darkroom... I played 30 years ago with a cheap BW enlarger for a couple of years, then thrown away... but when I bought my M8 I never thought that I shall take out the SD card, go to a lab and say "print it": so, quite a new and longer learning curve: imagine what could be the dimensions of the film forum with people speaking about chemical developer formulae, enlargers and their lamps, lenses, condensators, color filters, analyzers..., and the various papers, and their developers, and the darkroom lamps, and the quality and temperature of water... and, for myself I used M4 for 24 years... but two years ago found a fine IIIf... I experienced some difficulties in film loading... didn't know yet the Leica forum... but anyway I would have felt something ridicolus to start a thread "problems with film loading on a IIIf":) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 10, 2007 Author Share #17 Posted June 10, 2007 Good point, Luigi. And thanks everyone for your thoughts and comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.