Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DSLR, MF digital...... :D  (Read 17794 times)
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 12, 2008, 08:43:41 PM »
ReplyReply

You are right and it is an interesting topic. When you first dispel the concept of just shooting digital and start talking to people a great deal comes up. I found that the market in both New York and Los Angeles is shooting a lot of film for commercial/ad and editorial. The photojournalism, fine art market is very much film.

Recently we had the Palm Springs Photo Festival. In it's third year, it draws some of the top photographers from around the world. Attended by people from many walks of photography life over the 4 or 5 days, you quickly find that film is still very important. Indeed person after person and panel after panel discussed much of their work as film based.

The last and surprise speaker and presenter was Andy Summers of the "The Police". You can see his photography works and published books at http://andysummers.com/

Andy made an interesting point regarding his own photography that very much mirrors some of my feelings. He had mostly shot through his career with a Leica. But at some point he went digital. And during the course over time of shooting digital he found himself losing interest. And it was to the point of not even picking up the camera anymore. But then one day he picked up that Leica again and it all started over. The creativity for him was back. He again was shooting photos.

So it is not to say film is dead, no one cares or anything else. It is a matter of being a photographer and shooting photos.

For me, I shoot digital for assignments because of client requirements. But I am now shooting more and more film and indeed it is now showing up in my work for my clients and is being published. For one assignment I just shot, the client picked finals of two photos for the feature. One was shot film and one was shot digital and they do not know, they just picked the photos as they usually do from the selects. But I know and I like the film shot better.

Quote
I think this probably is an interesting topic.

Obviouisly we all spend way too much time on the computer and whether we would actually translate that time back to shooting, or even walking the dog, I don't know.

I do know that at the very high end, most photographers are not spending hours or days working on an image.  They shoot and leave the studio so for many of them it's not really important if it's digital or film.

I have a lot of outside people that do retouching and some digital post, but even at that I still have to oversee it, make changes, put my thumbprint on it and that takes almost as much time as doing the whole thing myself, so how others do it, I don't know.

Still, I believe I'm a better photographer with digital because the feedback is so instant and I know where I can take an image later in post.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 12, 2008, 10:41:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are right and it is an interesting topic. When you first dispel the concept of just shooting digital and start talking to people a great deal comes up. I found that the market in both New York and Los Angeles is shooting a lot of film for commercial/ad and editorial. The photojournalism, fine art market is very much film.

Recently we had the Palm Springs Photo Festival. In it's third year, it draws some of the top photographers from around the world. Attended by people from many walks of photography life over the 4 or 5 days, you quickly find that film is still very important. Indeed person after person and panel after panel discussed much of their work as film based.

The last and surprise speaker and presenter was Andy Summers of the "The Police". You can see his photography works and published books at http://andysummers.com/

Andy made an interesting point regarding his own photography that very much mirrors some of my feelings. He had mostly shot through his career with a Leica. But at some point he went digital. And during the course over time of shooting digital he found himself losing interest. And it was to the point of not even picking up the camera anymore. But then one day he picked up that Leica again and it all started over. The creativity for him was back. He again was shooting photos.

So it is not to say film is dead, no one cares or anything else. It is a matter of being a photographer and shooting photos.

For me, I shoot digital for assignments because of client requirements. But I am now shooting more and more film and indeed it is now showing up in my work for my clients and is being published. For one assignment I just shot, the client picked finals of two photos for the feature. One was shot film and one was shot digital and they do not know, they just picked the photos as they usually do from the selects. But I know and I like the film shot better.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Film is an emotional issue, but personally I don't understand the allure.    There is nothing I've seen with film I can't do with digital and a lot I do with digital that would be damn difficult with film.

Anyway, they may be shooting a lot of film in LA or NY but there are less and less places to process it.

[a href=\"http://www.nardulli.com/]http://www.nardulli.com/[/url]

JR
Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 12, 2008, 10:48:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been using Icon and I am very pleased with them. http://www.iconla.com/ But Paris is certainly a great choice too.

But I know a number labs processing film, and I know that they are reporting increasing levels of film processing. Now I don't know if it is more film being processed or fewer labs available.

Quote
Film is an emotional issue, but personally I don't understand the allure. There is nothing I've seen with film I can't do with digital and a lot I do with digital that would be damn difficult with film.

Anyway, they may be shooting a lot of film in LA or NY but there are less and less places to process it.

http://www.nardulli.com/

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 10:49:15 PM by SecondFocus » Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #43 on: May 13, 2008, 01:47:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Luckely we have a lab very close to our town.
They charge 3.95 euros for developing, so that's still very much doable.

If it were more expensive I would probarbly also just shoot digital only, now it's just fun to sometimes add a roll of film.
As James said it's also an emotional choice, AND to fully use the DOF given by the 6x7 (my digital back crops on the RZ67).

Clients will probarbly not even notice the difference, what is a shame.
Logged
AndrewDyer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 13, 2008, 02:27:18 AM »
ReplyReply

For me, the only reason I would wish to shoot film and hope some of it lasts is just for large format and at a stretch 6x6 on my Hassey V... an 8x10 colour tranny is a beautiful thing to see.
I haven't shot film since I got my Aptus 22.
35mm film is horribly too small in detail for me... surpassed by DSLR's long ago...
If I was desperate for a square crop I would crop the 645 format or stitch 2 images...
And one reason that many choose to shoot film ... for the grain??
I hate grain. I view it as an imperfection in film, a byproduct of achieving fast film at the expense of quality.
That is only how I view grain, and appreciate that most people like it for some reason.
So, even though I hope it survives for others to enjoy, I will most likely never use it again.

Andrew
Logged

patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #45 on: May 13, 2008, 02:54:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello All,
I like this !
It is another proof that we need to wake-up from time to time from the digital dream.
I can be an endless discussion, comparing digital to film.
They are completely 2 different media.
Like oilpaint and aquarel, which one is better, has no meaning.
Each serve their purpose.
Film is here, and here to stay, as is digital.
ONLY Film has a constant quality and longvity.
I use Film for 30 years now, and still do my B/W in a darkroom, the same way.
For digital, it is not the case, I bought for thousants of euro's, gear, year after year.
Always something new, something better.
New computers and software and storage media come along.
A never ending story.
I dare not to calculate how much I spend over the years, but I 'm shure,
If I stayed 100% on Film, I could have saved me a lot of money ...
Scanners will improve over time, and a 30 year old "timeless archived" slide will scan!
I just wonder how many times I will have to "migrate" my digital files in the coming years, to new computers and storage media and file formats...
Within 5 years no computer will have CD drives, and the TIFF file format, will still it exist; in 8, 16 or 32 bits???
I even know photographers that "archive" their best files on FILM through a filmrecorder on MF or 4x5 slide, to archive it technology independent for the next 200 years at least.

patrick


Quote
There is alot of discussion about DSLR vs MF digital and more about that a 8MP will easily outresolve a good MF scan.

Well.....
We talked alot about that and I thought let's post a sample to show something about that 5MP statement.

Not a good photo but I only have shot one roll of film that I got back today and most was testing to get used to the camera.
Scanning was done with a relativly cheap V700 Epson scanner, when using a better scanner you can expect ALOT more detail and sharpness.

So just for fun to show what is possible with a cheap solution scanner and 6x7 slidefilm.

And remember we don't even talk about the different DOF, better glass, better dynamic range (for digital) etc.
Although I'm a big fan of my Leaf Aptus digital back I have to say that the 6x7 film scans have impressed me very much, taking into consideration that the V700 is one of the cheapest MF scanners.



Greetings,
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 13, 2008, 03:35:20 AM »
ReplyReply

You know you can often pick up a drum scanner for near Epson price. I have a 1045i Screen, It's as big and heavy as a piano. Talk about sharp though.
As for scanning batches I'm looking for a cheap A3 xy scanner, you can lay out a lot of film on a A3 and set it scanning.
 Film stuff I'm shooting for fun, I'm putting together a 5x7 kit with 1940's portrait lens, it's bargain basement time right now, so far I've spent less than 1k on camera lens film holders etc. The scanner cost me 720. (in addition to camera) including computer and mounting station.
As for comparing my 1DsmkII with a scanned 6x7, film wins and not just resolution, more importantly it's tonal gradation. And film actually is more fun if deadlines are not involved, I'm even getting a desire to go into a darkened room to print it and not have anything to do with pixels.
That must be why I couldn't bring myself to sell the big Durst when I went digital.
Commercial though has to be digi.
What I have noticed more is the differences between film and digital going back to film more than I did when first going over to digital from film, then I only noticed digi's plus points. I reckon I've got a pee'd off with worrying about noise, artifacts, moire, strange effects around highlights and coloured mosaics often with sparkly water. Don't get me started on Canon wide lenses.
Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3220



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 13, 2008, 05:41:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
ONLY Film has a constant quality and longvity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Speaking as someone who has lost film in a fire, I beg to differ. With digital I have the option of having perfect multiple copies and storing it elsewhere.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #48 on: May 13, 2008, 06:33:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Speaking as someone who has lost film in a fire, I beg to differ. With digital I have the option of having perfect multiple copies and storing it elsewhere.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have been scanning film that dates between 30years & 10years and many slides and negatives have deteriorated over the years, even those that have been kept in acid-free holders in their books in the dark. Some actually worse than others, now I know film can be kept very long but that is by no means a guarantuee it will actually last and keep its original quality.

I have also scanned film dating 60years back which was still very very good, BTW.

I am not so sure which I prefer for archival purposes.

Maybe I should give my kids an understanding about the value of images, if they are careless nothing will get beyond another 50 years or so
Logged
patrickfransdesmet
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #49 on: May 13, 2008, 09:00:55 AM »
ReplyReply

well, that will be something what is going to identify our 21st century.
While we have images from midieval periods, and caring for them by concervation techniques and museums, we probably end up with having NO pictures at all from the 21st century...
Will somebody please invent an OILPAINT printer on canvas?  


Quote
I have been scanning film that dates between 30years & 10years and many slides and negatives have deteriorated over the years, even those that have been kept in acid-free holders in their books in the dark. Some actually worse than others, now I know film can be kept very long but that is by no means a guarantuee it will actually last and keep its original quality.

I have also scanned film dating 60years back which was still very very good, BTW.

I am not so sure which I prefer for archival purposes.

Maybe I should give my kids an understanding about the value of images, if they are careless nothing will get beyond another 50 years or so
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 13, 2008, 09:25:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Negatives can fade or burn. Digital media is corruptible and incompatible. The only thing that really survives is the print. A print behind glass will be around for a long, long time. Negs or digital files in a file cabinet will be tossed or ignored by whomever inherits them. Prints, on the other hand, will be passed along for generations.

John
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 13, 2008, 10:08:19 AM »
ReplyReply

About archival value there is no competition for digital, why do you think alot if now digitized to save for future generations.

I expect my developed film to be arround for my life time but I have scanned some old stuff from 15 years ago shot on 35mm and it was horrible, but it could also be the material was horrible.

With digital you can have multiple copies of the original, ALL in 100% perfect condition, scratch your negative and it's gone.

Compatibility will be no problem.
Just open the files in photoshop and save them as the new format.
Or just transcode them to DNG or whatever new standard.
I don't see a problem there.
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #52 on: May 13, 2008, 10:44:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Problem is Frank that with digital you do not know where it is going. Try sticking a 5 1/4" floppy into a pc now (or even a 3,5" for that matter). This used to be mainstream storage not more than 20years ago.

An IDE drive will probably be obsolete in a couple of years (replaced by S-ATA), etc..

Standards come and go. JPG only exists since what? 1992? I remember before that everything was bitmap or GIF.

You have to continously update your files and storage media to be able to continue to read it. It is a very high risk you are taking when you store it and simply archive it. Even when you store the disks with readers who know whether it can be connected to future systems?

Archiving for a long period of time is still a large concern and needs constant attention, if you really want to make sure people are still able to make something out of the data 200 or more years from now (if they are interested in that).
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 10:55:49 AM by Dustbak » Logged
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 13, 2008, 11:16:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Problem is Frank that with digital you do not know where it is going. Try sticking a 5 1/4" floppy into a pc now (or even a 3,5" for that matter). This used to be mainstream storage not more than 20years ago.

An IDE drive will probably obsolete in a couple of years (replaced by S-ATA), etc..

Standards come and go. JPG only exists since what? 1992? I remember before that everything was bitmap or GIF.

You have to continously update your files and storage media to be able to continue to read it. It is a very high risk you are taking when you store it and simply archive it. Even when you store the disks with readers who know whether it can be connected to future systems?

Archiving for a long period of time is still a large concern and needs constant attention, if you really want to make sure people are still able to make something out of the data 200 or more years from now (if they are interested in that).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think were somewhat missing the point on the useability of digital.

To begin with, once it goes onto the web it's probably there forever in some shape or form.

Maybe not high rez, print 40" tall resolution, but honestly it's there and a lot easier for everyone to view than sending out prints, or storing images in shoeboxes and sleeves.

Ever go back on your legacy film from 10 years ago.  Even under the best of conditions it's a mess and cataloging was more than a one person job.

It's a different world and I think a much better one.  

Today we are in production on an advertising project.  By end of day our studio will produce for the client and ad agency a html document that lists talent pulls, schedules, layouts, lodging, maps, studios, transportation, contact numbers on a single url and this url will morphe as the project continues with casting galleries, shoot web galleries, later a deliverable page with high rez images, and even high def downloadable video.

All at the click of one button and one continunal url.

It's a lot of work to produce this but from a client standpoint it's a no brainer as all they have to do is bookmark one page and their project is ready to view, or review at a later date for years.

You know when I started digital I caught a lot of flack, especially from unknowing clients, labs and pre press houses that wanted to hold on to their territory, or had heard a lot of disinformation that "digital wasn't there".   They were wrong, and from the first 1ds on, digital cameras matched continue to exceed what can be done with film.

I had no intention of "killing" film but I had every intention of moving my business forward and digital help with this.

There is no way in hell I could offer this type of useability to a client with film, at least not without dedicating weeks of scanning and re purposing of images.

I've read for the last 5 years about the beauty of film, how film has a feel, smell, texture and look that digital just can't emulate.

BS.    If you have the knowledge or the checkbook to hire the knowledge you can emulate any look that film ever produced and invent a lot of looks that nobody ever thought about in the film days.

In fact you don't need a fat checkbook.   A canon 5d, a high def camera and an Imac will allow you to do work for pennies that no one would have dreamed of doing 10 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars and regardless of the comments that talent is going to hell in a handbasket, I see many more beautiful photographs and moving images today than I ever saw in the pre digital world.

You can deliver stills and video and the click of a button and make your client's life 45% easier, your bottom line 50% better and the best part is you can do this world wide from hotel's, studios or the beach as long as you have some form of internet connection.

I have three studios and work the world and I find working in Paris, or LA or anywhere just a no brainer, because I am always connected to my servers and always connected to my world of commerce.

The downside is I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, the upside is I do this looking out a lot of diferent windows of the world while I continue to move my business forward.

I personally believe film is just a romantic notion of the past and if some people find it works for them, then all the better, but I don't see any reason to invest time and resources into backwards technology any more than I would invest in a  brick and mortar music store.

I don't care how nc100 looks and really don't give a rat's a___ about a wooden deardorff, any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.

There is nothing I miss about film other than there were more camera options.

JR
Logged

Snook
Guest
« Reply #54 on: May 13, 2008, 01:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think were somewhat missing the point on the useability of digital.

To begin with, once it goes onto the web it's probably there forever in some shape or form.

Maybe not high rez, print 40" tall resolution, but honestly it's there and a lot easier for everyone to view than sending out prints, or storing images in shoeboxes and sleeves.

Ever go back on your legacy film from 10 years ago.  Even under the best of conditions it's a mess and cataloging was more than a one person job.

It's a different world and I think a much better one. 

Today we are in production on an advertising project.  By end of day our studio will produce for the client and ad agency a html document that lists talent pulls, schedules, layouts, lodging, maps, studios, transportation, contact numbers on a single url and this url will morphe as the project continues with casting galleries, shoot web galleries, later a deliverable page with high rez images, and even high def downloadable video.

All at the click of one button and one continunal url.

It's a lot of work to produce this but from a client standpoint it's a no brainer as all they have to do is bookmark one page and their project is ready to view, or review at a later date for years.

You know when I started digital I caught a lot of flack, especially from unknowing clients, labs and pre press houses that wanted to hold on to their territory, or had heard a lot of disinformation that "digital wasn't there".   They were wrong, and from the first 1ds on, digital cameras matched continue to exceed what can be done with film.

I had no intention of "killing" film but I had every intention of moving my business forward and digital help with this.

There is no way in hell I could offer this type of useability to a client with film, at least not without dedicating weeks of scanning and re purposing of images.

I've read for the last 5 years about the beauty of film, how film has a feel, smell, texture and look that digital just can't emulate.

BS.    If you have the knowledge or the checkbook to hire the knowledge you can emulate any look that film ever produced and invent a lot of looks that nobody ever thought about in the film days.

In fact you don't need a fat checkbook.   A canon 5d, a high def camera and an Imac will allow you to do work for pennies that no one would have dreamed of doing 10 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars and regardless of the comments that talent is going to hell in a handbasket, I see many more beautiful photographs and moving images today than I ever saw in the pre digital world.

You can deliver stills and video and the click of a button and make your client's life 45% easier, your bottom line 50% better and the best part is you can do this world wide from hotel's, studios or the beach as long as you have some form of internet connection.

I have three studios and work the world and I find working in Paris, or LA or anywhere just a no brainer, because I am always connected to my servers and always connected to my world of commerce.

The downside is I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, the upside is I do this looking out a lot of diferent windows of the world while I continue to move my business forward.

I personally believe film is just a romantic notion of the past and if some people find it works for them, then all the better, but I don't see any reason to invest time and resources into backwards technology any more than I would invest in a  brick and mortar music store.

I don't care how nc100 looks and really don't give a rat's a___ about a wooden deardorff, any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.

There is nothing I miss about film other than there were more camera options.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As Usual I agree with everything He says...:+}
Ditto!
*Snook
Logged
micek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #55 on: May 13, 2008, 01:45:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think were somewhat missing the point on the useability of digital.

To begin with, once it goes onto the web it's probably there forever in some shape or form.

Maybe not high rez, print 40" tall resolution, but honestly it's there and a lot easier for everyone to view than sending out prints, or storing images in shoeboxes and sleeves.

Ever go back on your legacy film from 10 years ago. Even under the best of conditions it's a mess and cataloging was more than a one person job.

It's a different world and I think a much better one.

Today we are in production on an advertising project. By end of day our studio will produce for the client and ad agency a html document that lists talent pulls, schedules, layouts, lodging, maps, studios, transportation, contact numbers on a single url and this url will morphe as the project continues with casting galleries, shoot web galleries, later a deliverable page with high rez images, and even high def downloadable video.

All at the click of one button and one continunal url.

It's a lot of work to produce this but from a client standpoint it's a no brainer as all they have to do is bookmark one page and their project is ready to view, or review at a later date for years.

You know when I started digital I caught a lot of flack, especially from unknowing clients, labs and pre press houses that wanted to hold on to their territory, or had heard a lot of disinformation that "digital wasn't there". They were wrong, and from the first 1ds on, digital cameras matched continue to exceed what can be done with film.

I had no intention of "killing" film but I had every intention of moving my business forward and digital help with this.

There is no way in hell I could offer this type of useability to a client with film, at least not without dedicating weeks of scanning and re purposing of images.

I've read for the last 5 years about the beauty of film, how film has a feel, smell, texture and look that digital just can't emulate.

BS. If you have the knowledge or the checkbook to hire the knowledge you can emulate any look that film ever produced and invent a lot of looks that nobody ever thought about in the film days.

In fact you don't need a fat checkbook. A canon 5d, a high def camera and an Imac will allow you to do work for pennies that no one would have dreamed of doing 10 years ago for hundreds of thousands of dollars and regardless of the comments that talent is going to hell in a handbasket, I see many more beautiful photographs and moving images today than I ever saw in the pre digital world.

You can deliver stills and video and the click of a button and make your client's life 45% easier, your bottom line 50% better and the best part is you can do this world wide from hotel's, studios or the beach as long as you have some form of internet connection.

I have three studios and work the world and I find working in Paris, or LA or anywhere just a no brainer, because I am always connected to my servers and always connected to my world of commerce.

The downside is I spend a lot of time in front of a computer, the upside is I do this looking out a lot of diferent windows of the world while I continue to move my business forward.

I personally believe film is just a romantic notion of the past and if some people find it works for them, then all the better, but I don't see any reason to invest time and resources into backwards technology any more than I would invest in a brick and mortar music store.

I don't care how nc100 looks and really don't give a rat's a___ about a wooden deardorff, any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.

There is nothing I miss about film other than there were more camera options.

JR

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 13, 2008, 02:07:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With all due respect, sometimes intelligent conversation requires more than a quick one-liner. I appreciated James' thoughtful response. I'd like to read more forum posts like that  - whether I agree or not.

John
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 02:07:59 PM by Juanito » Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 13, 2008, 02:28:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I would love to ride a horse to the studio, really I would!

Quote
..... any more than I want to ride a horse to the studio.....
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #58 on: May 13, 2008, 03:28:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Film is an emotional issue, but personally I don't understand the allure.    There is nothing I've seen with film I can't do with digital and a lot I do with digital that would be damn difficult with film.

Anyway, they may be shooting a lot of film in LA or NY but there are less and less places to process it.

I like Icon because they do optical printing and enlarging(I can do this for B&W, but not color currently - Color's much harder to work with and I'm only set up for B&W).  Done right, optical enlarging surpasses scanned and printed stuff on a D-Lab.

I think it is about it being an emotional thing.  There's a certain art to it.  You have one chance, one shot.  Click that shutter.  No altering, no Photoshop, no tweaking... So it requires a bit more luck and skill as an artist than digital.  Or at least many people see it that way.  The public sees anything digital as possibly fake I think.  Take a photograph of a subject that's hard, like a hummingbird.  If one is on film, and you tell them, the average person is amazed at how you did it.  The digital one is likely to get no such reaction.(sounds like an interesting experiment in the making  :D )

Anything requiring production speed or large volumes - digital is a godsend.  No debate about it.  If I had to do more than a roll or so a week, I'd switch to digital in an instant.  Art might be art, but money is money, and efficiency is everything when there's a paycheck on the line.

For anything that stresses absolute quality and can be done at a very slow pace, film is optimal due to cost, convenience, and high quality results.   I shot some plain vanilla Fuji 400 print film on a trip recently and was stunned at how good even cheap film looks now. (I usually use 50 or 100 slide film)   I needed a roll and spent like $2 on one at a local drug store.  It looks 95%+ as good as the best stuff I shoot.  

I think there will be a resurgence in a decade.  Digital may be superior by then, but it will be like pianos.  Digital pianos and synths may be as good now, but a small niche will always want the old fashioned technology.  In the 90s though, digital was everything and piano makers feared about being made obsolete.   Now, it's not about replacing one or the other but two different things that exist side by side.  

I suspect pianos and film will still be made a thousand years from now for a small group of customers.  And as such, the quality will be top notch as well.  Though likely a lot more expensive, too.  I do know for sure that today's film is better than the stuff made a decade or two ago.(few exceptions, but I'm sure by then they will reintroduce  the missing slower speed films due to demand)
Logged
micek
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2008, 03:29:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
With all due respect, sometimes intelligent conversation requires more than a quick one-liner.

With all due respect, sometimes intelligent conversation requires no more than a considered one-liner.

Quote
I appreciated James' thoughtful response.

I generally do as well. I always read his contributions with interest, they are sensible and balanced, and he writes intelligently from extensive experience.


Quote
I'd like to read more forum posts like that

Me too.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad