"Film is not dead" website

[gesper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is also the ability to scan everything and wet print only the very best as needed.

[Guest jimmy pro]

Rubbish.

Scanning a negative does not magically transform it into just another digicam, the feeling and look of the film are preserved.

The thought that someone finds that modus 'clunky' just shows ignorance of the highest order.

There is no right way to make an image, and suggesting that people only use film because of their attachment to vintage cameras is simply ridiculous.

 

Well, first of all, calling someone ignorant who you disagree with tends to make other people think you yourself know your own argument is too weak to stand on its own, so you resort to tossing insults.

 

That said, your point about scanning is theoretically true. But theres a big difference between what's theoretically true and what's practically the case. Theoretically a skilled person useing a top-grade scanner can get impressive results from film that rivals top-grade digital. Practically, the majority of film that gets scanned is done on <$1000 desktop machines or even flatbeds, by people who don't have great skill, and the results don't stack up to top-grade digital capture. And it's mostly those people who rant on about how much better there results are than digital. And most of those guys seem to be shooting Leicas and other 60's rangefinders and SLR's, not Nikon F5's and EOS 1V's, and that suggests an attachment to nostalgic gear. Which BTW there's nothing wrong with, because there is no right and wrong way to approach photography including a gear fetish if that's what turns you on, cool, as long as you don't go around trying to deny it and getting all defensive and making actually ridiculous arguments that people who approach photography from the image side can see right through, such as saying to the affect that digital sucks compared to film, and then you go straight ahead and digitize your film.

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

And most of those guys seem to be shooting Leicas and other 60's rangefinders and SLR's, not Nikon F5's and EOS 1V's, and that suggests an attachment to nostalgic gear.

 

You seem to be implying that using an F5 or EOS whatever will produce better images just because they are newer? Please tell me I'm wrong!

[elansprint72]

As Mark has already said that is complete rubbish. There is NO right way and wrong way. I don't boil my own cow bones to make my gelatin - I'd better stop using film.

 

Hey, there is a dead cow in the field at the back of our place; I already sent some bits off to imants for him to photograph, maybe I'll get you some bones tomorrow.

 

btw, I already got bored with this thread, so have not read any of the crap which no doubt followed the post which I replied to. Seems like I read this stuff five years ago.

[Mark Antony]

Well, first of all, calling someone ignorant who you disagree with tends to make other people think you yourself know your own argument is too weak to stand on its own, so you resort to tossing insults.

 

That said, your point about scanning is theoretically true. But theres a big difference between what's theoretically true and what's practically the case. Theoretically a skilled person useing a top-grade scanner can get impressive results from film that rivals top-grade digital. Practically, the majority of film that gets scanned is done on <$1000 desktop machines or even flatbeds, by people who don't have great skill, and the results don't stack up to top-grade digital capture. And it's mostly those people who rant on about how much better there results are than digital. And most of those guys seem to be shooting Leicas and other 60's rangefinders and SLR's, not Nikon F5's and EOS 1V's, and that suggests an attachment to nostalgic gear. Which BTW there's nothing wrong with, because there is no right and wrong way to approach photography including a gear fetish if that's what turns you on, cool, as long as you don't go around trying to deny it and getting all defensive and making actually ridiculous arguments that people who approach photography from the image side can see right through, such as saying to the affect that digital sucks compared to film, and then you go straight ahead and digitize your film.

 

You are the one with the weak argument lets discuss:

"the majority of film that gets scanned is done on <$1000 desktop machines or even flatbeds, by people who don't have great skill, and the results don't stack up to top-grade digital capture".

So what? even if the majority results from scanning are inferior and don't match up to "top" grade digital capture the majority of digital shots DON"T come from top grade gear, and those negatives have the capability of being scanned on better gear, where the largest market for digital P&S and camera phones will never see a better quality.

"And most of those guys seem to be shooting Leicas and other 60's rangefinders and SLR's, not Nikon F5's and EOS 1V's, and that suggests an attachment to nostalgic gear".

A rather silly argument, I'll tell you why they shoot old gear and F5s and 1v et al

Digital has become the main capture medium, those cameras are the last Pro models from those makers that use film, its not about nostalgia, its about results- and some people just like film, and you'll have to accept that as much as it seems illogical.

In other words its NOT the gear, its film they like and that is just as valid a method as "top digital gear' which ages pretty quickly compared to "nostalgic old film gear" which with modern film can give indistinguishable results between a 50 year old M3 and a new M7 with the same film and lens combo.

Try that with a digital, and you'll understand why there is no 'old gear' barrier to using film– its about the film!!!

 

there is no right and wrong way to approach photography including a gear fetish if that's what turns you on, cool, as long as you don't go around trying to deny it and getting all defensive and making actually ridiculous arguments that people who approach photography from the image side can see right through

 

Who mentioned the gear? not me! and I'd argue that digital photographers obsess about gear FAR more than film guys. Also I never put down the digital method of capture, far from it I'm a working pro myself what I was disagreeing with is that scanning= just use a digicam.

 

as saying to the affect that digital sucks compared to film, and then you go straight ahead and digitize your film

 

Where did I say that? No please really?

What I'm saying is this:

There is no wrong way to make an image, if you use film and scan it ISN'T the same as just using a digicam.

NO WHERE in my posts have I put down digital capture and I think it's a shame that you have to pull it down to the lowest common denominator of "film vs digital"

I think you need to re read my post Sir!

[elansprint72]

You are the one with the weak argument lets discuss:

"the majority of film that gets scanned is done on <$1000 desktop machines or even flatbeds, by people who don't have great skill, and the results don't stack up to top-grade digital capture".

So what? even if the majority results from scanning are inferior and don't match up to "top" grade digital capture the majority of digital shots DON"T come from top grade gear, and those negatives have the capability of being scanned on better gear, where the largest market for digital P&S and camera phones will never see a better quality.

"And most of those guys seem to be shooting Leicas and other 60's rangefinders and SLR's, not Nikon F5's and EOS 1V's, and that suggests an attachment to nostalgic gear".

A rather silly argument, I'll tell you why they shoot old gear and F5s and 1v et al

Digital has become the main capture medium, those cameras are the last Pro models from those makers that use film, its not about nostalgia, its about results- and some people just like film, and you'll have to accept that as much as it seems illogical.

In other words its NOT the gear, its film they like and that is just as valid a method as "top digital gear' which ages pretty quickly compared to "nostalgic old film gear" which with modern film can give indistinguishable results between a 50 year old M3 and a new M7 with the same film and lens combo.

Try that with a digital, and you'll understand why there is no 'old gear' barrier to using film– its about the film!!!

 

there is no right and wrong way to approach photography including a gear fetish if that's what turns you on, cool, as long as you don't go around trying to deny it and getting all defensive and making actually ridiculous arguments that people who approach photography from the image side can see right through

 

Who mentioned the gear? not me! and I'd argue that digital photographers obsess about gear FAR more than film guys. Also I never put down the digital method of capture, far from it I'm a working pro myself what I was disagreeing with is that scanning= just use a digicam.

 

as saying to the affect that digital sucks compared to film, and then you go straight ahead and digitize your film

 

Where did I say that? No please really?

What I'm saying is this:

There is no wrong way to make an image, if you use film and scan it ISN'T the same as just using a digicam.

NO WHERE in my posts have I put down digital capture and I think it's a shame that you have to pull it down to the lowest common denominator of "film vs digital"

I think you need to re read my post Sir!

 

Like I said.

[Mark Antony]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter

I don't know why we get drawn in by people like "jimmypro" I don't remember anywhere saying "film roolz, digital sucks', or even insinuating that stupid argument.

I think the whole film vs digital thing as presented here is a false dichotomy brought up to polarize issues that have been beaten to death countless times.

Film is good, digital is good its all good there is no right way to make an image.

I like film-even when scanned, and scanned film isn't just the same as a digicam, not all digital images look the same, just because they are 'digital'

Regards

Mark

[Guest stnami]

one for the Guardian.... PEte!!???

 

 

[vic vic]

one can make a very good scan even with non-top scanners. basically, software and knowledge to use it is just as important as the scanner machine quality. and once the film is scanned well, the character and quality is transcended.

again, it is true that silver print (masterly printed) is the ideal thing, but even if u make the same photo on epson digi printer with knowledge (scan/software/print) it will look more like silverprint rather than print from digi camera.

[Guest jimmy pro]

You seem to be implying that using an F5 or EOS whatever will produce better images just because they are newer? Please tell me I'm wrong!

 

You're wrong.

 

Nowhere did I imply that. I didn't imply anything between the lines. I said straight out what was my point, which is, most of the people who are on a soapbox dissing digital capture and claiming that taking a digital picture of a negative produces better results, are using old, "classic" cameras. They were the same people who ranted against the F5, and for that matter all autofocus, "high tech" cameras even before digital. Hell, a lot of those same guys were dishing out there paranoid rant against cameras that needed a battery to operate! Nostalgists in other words.

 

For the last time, there are a lot of good looking prints being made from film scans. True, there is no wrong way to make photos, that I completely agree. Most of the people making them aren't saying film is good and digital is bad...at the basics, those guys are intelligent enough to understand that once you scan film, it is digital. My gripe, if there is one, is with guys who scan there 35mm Tri-X negs on $300 flatbeds, digitized-looking grain and all, low dMax w/short tonal range, and then shout from the rooftops how it "blows away" digital capture.

 

Jim Provenzano

[Guest wls.shanghai]

......greetings from the great Platon !!!

 

"Suum cuique"

 

regards

wls

[haris]

I am not telling here film is beter than digital. I have my opinion about that, but I don't talk about that.

 

I am telling that I don't see the point of scanning film except in 2 cases, publication and web. After all if one can afford Leica, one can afford for example Imacon scanner and not some cheap faltbed, and get very good scan of film. But, one can also shoot digital, get Photoshop plugin (again, if can buy Leica, can get Photoshop and plugins) for imitating look of certain film and get film feeling on image. And wasn't said about M8 it has film like images if I remember?

 

I am just saying FOR ME if one shoot film, one should go to the end with enlarger print.

 

Of course, if images are planned to be in publication or web site (including APUG) you must scan film, that is not issue.

 

And I am not talking as ignorant, as I said, I work 13 years at job that have need for everyday scannig, I bought digicam and printer and tried digi imaging and not talking just what I would like without getting into "knowing the enemy" if you like

 

I would like one to compete Dakar rally or Camel Trophy or ordinary WRC races with Ferrari or Lamborghini. Would really like to see how far those cars would get in those races. And you can't tell those cars are not good

 

And, at the end, as jimmy pro said: "Well, first of all, calling someone ignorant who you disagree with tends to make other people think you yourself know your own argument is too weak to stand on its own, so you resort to tossing insults."

 

Regards

[fotografr]

I said straight out what was my point, which is, most of the people who are on a soapbox dissing digital capture and claiming that taking a digital picture of a negative produces better results, are using old, "classic" cameras.

 

What an incredible statement. How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion? Was there some kind of scientific poll done that I missed, or is this a massive assumption on your part?

[maxspbr]

You're wrong.

 

Nowhere did I imply that. I didn't imply anything between the lines. I said straight out what was my point, which is, most of the people who are on a soapbox dissing digital capture and claiming that taking a digital picture of a negative produces better results, are using old, "classic" cameras. They were the same people who ranted against the F5, and for that matter all autofocus, "high tech" cameras even before digital. Hell, a lot of those same guys were dishing out there paranoid rant against cameras that needed a battery to operate! Nostalgists in other words.

 

For the last time, there are a lot of good looking prints being made from film scans. True, there is no wrong way to make photos, that I completely agree. Most of the people making them aren't saying film is good and digital is bad...at the basics, those guys are intelligent enough to understand that once you scan film, it is digital. My gripe, if there is one, is with guys who scan there 35mm Tri-X negs on $300 flatbeds, digitized-looking grain and all, low dMax w/short tonal range, and then shout from the rooftops how it "blows away" digital capture.

 

Jim Provenzano

 

I don't agree with you about some points, Jim.

 

First of all, I'm on of those gouys using a very cheap flatbed scanner. And I don't need more than this, because I only scan pictures (not negatives) to post in this forum - more sophisticated scanner would be waste of money. And because this I won't say a word about scanning negatives. Never did that, so I don't know how it works, etc.

 

But to say that using all mechanical camera, "classic" camera, etc, is for saudosists, nostalgists, etc, is a very bad statement. Everyone find his/her correct combo of lens, camera, gauge, film, lightmeter, acessories, developers, fixers, hardener, paper, etc, because this make the most pleasant results for the photographer. Why an old camera can't do that? And why a photographer can't use it without becoming a "nostalgist", in this bad meaning you used for this word?

 

Just my thought.

 

Martin

[Mark Antony]

Oh never mind- I can't be bothered....

[PATB]

My gripe, if there is one, is with guys who scan there 35mm Tri-X negs on $300 flatbeds, digitized-looking grain and all, low dMax w/short tonal range, and then shout from the rooftops how it "blows away" digital capture.

 

The root of the disagreement appears to be the apparent insinuation that these "guys" inlcude the majority of the members in the film forum, a lot of whom (NOT including myself) produces great art with their vintage-design Leicas. Primarily because Jimmy is making blanket statements, stereotyping everyone who develops and scans.

 

The film captures I see in the gallery are definitely not your typical digicam quality. I am not there yet, but am inspired by their results.

 

Maybe Jimmy is just talking out loud and not really insulting the BW/scan community in general.

[Mark Antony]

Pat that quote is the classic strawman, to argue against a point no-one here is making, one that he feels validates his 'point'- if there is one[sic].

A rant about spectral Tri-x using, $100 flatbed using mechanical camera toting 'film zealots' who appear to be crawling out of the woodwork 'dissing' digital.

 

Damn those Tri-x, nostalgic gear using zealots don't they know if they just used digital in the first place

[Mark Antony]

 

And, at the end, as jimmy pro said: "Well, first of all, calling someone ignorant who you disagree with tends to make other people think you yourself know your own argument is too weak to stand on its own, so you resort to tossing insults."

 

Regards

 

But when you take a digital picture of a neg, well....that is digital, just a clunky way of getting to a digital file that lets you use a "classic" film camera.

 

Is that an opinion or a statement? I think just ignorance of the fact that using a digital camera is NOT the same as scanning a film file.

Do you think scanning a neg made from a pinhole camera is exactly the same as a file made by digital camera?

Not all digital files are the same, its the content of those files that matters not the fact that they are digital.

To suggest that someone who uses film and scans -should 'just get a digicam' is ignorant, and frankly a little arrogant also.

[Guest jimmy pro]

Actually, the number of posts here by people quoting me and then purposely misinterpreting them completeley, tends kind of ironcally to support the exact point that they claim I was trying to make, but in fact which I wasn't.

 

I have no arguement with guys who shoot film (or coat wet plates for that matter, or even if they have a stone box with a hole and little bird inside who pecks out an image on a rock tablet with his beak like in Fred Flintstone's camera). Who cares what media art is made on? I sure don't. But guys shooting film and decrying digital while sticking there negs into a scanner? That makes me LOL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mark Antony]

. Who cares what media art is made on? I sure don't. .

 

So you have no argument with some peoples modus, but denegrate people using film scanners?

 

Who is decrying digital?

Please?

 

Look at your argument:

Who cares what media art is made on?

But guys shooting film and decrying digital while sticking there [sic] negs into a scanner? That makes me LOL

 

WOW