| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2004 10:09:33 PM · #76 |
I read the article you suggested and there is only a quote from one assistant professor of digital technology who actualy makes the prediction you made regarding the obsolesence of film. There is no question that digital sales are overriding film sales in the popular market but it does not immediately follow that the one will kill off the other.
The persistance of vinyl recordings decades after the release of CD's is testament to this. If you doubt that there are people purchasing turntables, styluses, and vinyl I am here to attest that they do. My husband manages a privately owned stereo store that sells new and used turntables and a wide range of styluses to people of all ages. History shows us that it is far too soon to be making predictions about the demise of film.
It is quite possible that the popularity of digital photography could lead a few people to explore film photography.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:13:53 PM · #77 |
I think it is a misconception a lot of photographers have, that a photogoraphic process when using film ends with exposure. The two or three times that I shot film I specifically chose a particular film, gave the lab specific instructions on how to process and print (down to the chemical solutions I wanted them to use).
This only differs from digital (for me personally) that I can choose the film after I made the exposure, and that instead of chemically altering a negative and a positive I use curves, saturation, etc..
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:25:42 PM · #78 |
This is not to make a point, but just want opinions as to weather these images have character/soul, or not. Just to underline this is for my personal curiosity only.
 
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:30:13 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
The same can be said for the digital camera sensor vs. film. A slow speed film will pick up far greater actual detail then any sensor will. In a highly detailed, contrasty scene, sensors have to approximate a certain amount of the information. In other words, they make it up based on an educated guess which is based on the surrounding pixels. This is why noise, color abberations, and artifacts occur. As I already mentioned, the newest 8 mp cameras have problems with noise at the higher ISO ratings so they haven't fixed this problem yet. |
That's an inaccurate statement. The 11 MP Canon 1Ds can capture a LOT more detail than 35mm film can. And do it at any ISO. Let me quote Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape:
"Here's what I see on prints, not just on the JPGs that I've created for this page, but real-world 11X17" and 13X19" prints made on an Epson 2200. In any print size up to 13X19" (Super A3), prints made from the 1Ds are sharper and have less grain than those from 35mm or 645 film scans. There is no area in which 35mm film scans are superior, and the 645 scan is only superior in terms of its ability to make prints larger than 13X19"."
And the 8MP DSLR's like the 1D MII produce prints with a LOT LESS noise at any ISO than film at the same ISO. In fact my lowly Digital Rebel produces images that are a LOT LESS noisy at any ISO than film. I've done the comparison by shooting my Elan II with ISO 400 Kodak Gold and my Rebel at ISO 400, there is NO comparison, the DSLR wins hands down.
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 22:49:34.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:38:32 PM · #80 |
| digital cameras and media count for 70 percent of all camera market in north america in the last 3 years.. doesnt that say something.. i didnt say film will be non-existent. i said it will be a novelty thing and it will be and it will happen fast and it is happening now.. pretty soon it will even be hard to find places that you can get your films developed. business is all for money and companies are not going to support film or its media when its sales are declining rapidly. i would encourage you to wake up and just acknowledge the truth. like doctornick pointed out there already are digital cameras superiro to 35 mm film and prices of dslrs will reduce dramatically in the next 2 years making them available to general public. and vinyl records are still gettting sold but in my age i only know 2 people that keeps records and that is for mixing purposes and they are switching to cd turntables as fast as humanly possible. and apart from my personal experience only a hadn full people use and like and have the equipment to playa dn enjoy records. i would assume mostly elderly people. vinyl record hold no arguement in my eyes. i think unsliced bread would have been a strongger arguement since it is still around even though sliced breads are widely available |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:38:49 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
This is not to make a point, but just want opinions as to weather these images have character/soul, or not. Just to underline this is for my personal curiosity only.
|
Again, just for me - it wasn't a question of if the images have character - but the media used to capture them - looking at them both, they certainly capture the spirit of a desert to me. (though as a total aside, both show digital artefacting, due to the JPEG compression too)
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 22:40:51. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:40:56 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
This is not to make a point, but just want opinions as to weather these images have character/soul, or not. Just to underline this is for my personal curiosity only.
|
Then visually, or feel wise, what's the difference as to what you capture it with?
Again, just for me - it wasn't a question of if the images have character - but the media used to capture them. |
I wouldn't print them from a JPG (I always capture RAW), I only print from TIFF(s).
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 23:02:30. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:44:06 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
Then visually, or feel wise, what's the difference as to what you capture it with? |
Because, particularly at the edges of the dynamic range, the results look different. It certainly becomes a personal preference on what you prefer, but there is a difference. I believe you when you tell me you show studio shots and people can't tell the difference - that isn't much of a surprise either. I gave several examples earlier of the kinds of thing I mean.
As to why this may or may not matter - photography is an art - not a science - so there is plenty of room for technically less perfect but more aesthetically pleasing results to be considered better no matter what the science says. But also, this leaves it open to subjective opinion.
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 22:49:25. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:47:20 PM · #84 |
| Kodak has discontinued many of it's lines of photographic paper. For scientific prints we have switched to a g high contast line produced by a small firm in California. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:51:30 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
And the 8MP DSLR's like the 1D MII produce prints with a LOT LESS noise at any ISO than film at the same ISO. In fact my lowly Digital Rebel produces images that are a LOT LESS noisy at any ISO than film. I've done the comparison by shooting my Elan II with ISO 400 Kodak Gold and my Rebel at ISO 400, there is NO comparison, the DSLR wins hands down. |
This has almost come full circle :) It may be technically cleaner and noise free - but is that aesthetically better ? or just more technically sterile. As more and more effort is made to entirely remove any visible side-effect of the capture media on the resultant image - does that improve photography ? In every possible way, without any disadvantages at all ?
There is a current fashion for high grain 'reportage' style wedding photography - typically B&W, typically heavily grainy, certainly not the best for large reproduction. Digital could easily be enlarged a whole lot more, with a whole lot less noise - yet people pay a lot of money to reject that digitally lifeless, perfectly noiseless result and desire the noisey, grainy, imperfect film results.
You could go back and approximate that in each case with a lot of post processing - seems like a lot of extra work for no real reason ?
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 22:55:26. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:52:19 PM · #86 |
Kodak, Agfa, Fuji and others are slowly phasing out X-Ray film too as Digital X-Ray imaging takes over. That's another area where film cannot even come close to Digital. We've switched to PACS (Digital X-Ray imaging system developed by Agfa) a few years back and there is just no comparison.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:54:05 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Kodak, Agfa, Fuji and others are slowly phasing out X-Ray film too as Digital X-Ray imaging takes over. That's another area where film cannot even come close to Digital. We've switched to PACS (Digital X-Ray imaging system developed by Agfa) a few years back and there is just no comparison. |
No, there isn't :) Cartoon
Message edited by author 2004-07-02 22:56:51. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:54:23 PM · #88 |
| gordon i think the question you are asking is a rather philosophical one and probably can not be answered with 100 eprcent certainty in anycase. becasue ethics is an area i have a lot problem with. and not an easy subject to pass judgements about. in my opinion i see no difference, i think as long as the outcome is pleasurable to me i like it and i dont second guess it. but my main point is no necessarily an answer to your question. rather i am saying that film is a medium which is on its way to join all the nice things that we remember from past.. no question about it... |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:55:50 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by doctornick:
And the 8MP DSLR's like the 1D MII produce prints with a LOT LESS noise at any ISO than film at the same ISO. In fact my lowly Digital Rebel produces images that are a LOT LESS noisy at any ISO than film. I've done the comparison by shooting my Elan II with ISO 400 Kodak Gold and my Rebel at ISO 400, there is NO comparison, the DSLR wins hands down. |
This has almost come full circle :) It may be technically cleaner and noise free - but is that aesthetically better ? |
But that does NOT depend on the Camera, it's Photographer dependent, it's up to you to produce the effect you want. It's a lot easier to add noise or blur to a tack sharp noiseless photo than the other way around. It's NOT the camera that makes the photo, it's the person behind the view finder. You can give a Stradivarius to a lousy musician and he will still produce lousy music...
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:58:37 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Kodak, Agfa, Fuji and others are slowly phasing out X-Ray film too as Digital X-Ray imaging takes over. That's another area where film cannot even come close to Digital. We've switched to PACS (Digital X-Ray imaging system developed by Agfa) a few years back and there is just no comparison. |
No, there isn't :) Cartoon |
LMAOOOOOO, that's a good one! :D
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 10:59:13 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by doctornick:
And the 8MP DSLR's like the 1D MII produce prints with a LOT LESS noise at any ISO than film at the same ISO. In fact my lowly Digital Rebel produces images that are a LOT LESS noisy at any ISO than film. I've done the comparison by shooting my Elan II with ISO 400 Kodak Gold and my Rebel at ISO 400, there is NO comparison, the DSLR wins hands down. |
This has almost come full circle :) It may be technically cleaner and noise free - but is that aesthetically better ? |
But that does NOT depend on the Camera, it's Photographer dependent, it's up to you to produce the effect you want. It's a lot easier to add noise or blur to a tack sharp noiseless photo than the other way around. It's NOT the camera that makes the photo, it's the person behind the view finder. You can give a Stradivarius to a lousy musician and he will still produce lousy music... |
The simple question or comment is that digital and film look quite different - certainly how you use those either of those media is a large part of the final result, in much the same way that a great painter can use either watercolours or oils to create a great painting, and I'd produce terrible results with either - but there is still a difference in the media and in the results that come from them. Horses for courses. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 11:06:39 PM · #92 |
Very interesting question... in my opinion, the second picture has more "soul." It evokes a lot more emotion for me and also it does seem more natural. The first one, with all the power lines, doesn't do much for me.
Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I would point out that your question is, truly, a personal one.
Originally posted by dimitrii:
This is not to make a point, but just want opinions as to weather these images have character/soul, or not. Just to underline this is for my personal curiosity only.
|
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 11:07:35 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by doctornick:
And the 8MP DSLR's like the 1D MII produce prints with a LOT LESS noise at any ISO than film at the same ISO. In fact my lowly Digital Rebel produces images that are a LOT LESS noisy at any ISO than film. I've done the comparison by shooting my Elan II with ISO 400 Kodak Gold and my Rebel at ISO 400, there is NO comparison, the DSLR wins hands down. |
This has almost come full circle :) It may be technically cleaner and noise free - but is that aesthetically better ? |
But that does NOT depend on the Camera, it's Photographer dependent, it's up to you to produce the effect you want. It's a lot easier to add noise or blur to a tack sharp noiseless photo than the other way around. It's NOT the camera that makes the photo, it's the person behind the view finder. You can give a Stradivarius to a lousy musician and he will still produce lousy music... |
The simple question or comment is that digital and film look quite different - certainly how you use those either of those media is a large part of the final result, in much the same way that a great painter can use either watercolours or oils to create a great painting, and I'd produce terrible results with either - but there is still a difference in the media and in the results that come from them. Horses for courses. |
Photography wise, then only the paper of the final print makes a difference. Even an expert painter (and I know couple) would not be able to tell you from looking at a painting if the paint was produced by an artist himself, a speciallity store, or a mass producer; all he/she will say it's a watercolour, or it's oil. |
|
|
|
07/02/2004 11:12:19 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
Photography wise, then only the paper of the final print makes a difference. Even an expert painter (and I know couple) would not be able to tell you from looking at a painting if the paint was produced by an artist himself, a speciallity store, or a mass producer; all he/she will say it's a watercolour, or it's oil. |
But in terms of the artist - they'd know and it could no doubt influence how they work. I don't know about you - but most of my photography is for me - not the viewer. The process plays a large part in both my enjoyment and my creativity - it isn't just the paper that I print on at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2004 11:37:15 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dimitrii:
Photography wise, then only the paper of the final print makes a difference. Even an expert painter (and I know couple) would not be able to tell you from looking at a painting if the paint was produced by an artist himself, a speciallity store, or a mass producer; all he/she will say it's a watercolour, or it's oil. |
But in terms of the artist - they'd know and it could no doubt influence how they work. I don't know about you - but most of my photography is for me - not the viewer. The process plays a large part in both my enjoyment and my creativity - it isn't just the paper that I print on at the end of the day. |
Than it's an unfare question to ask if anyone feel the difference between film & digital in someone else's pictures.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2004 02:29:29 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by dimitrii:
Than it's an unfare question to ask if anyone feel the difference between film & digital in someone else's pictures. |
I wasn't aware that anyone had asked that. I just made a statement that the results of using different media (film, digital - just like watercolour and oil) appear very different to me. It isn't about the pictures that are taken - it is about the media used to make the pictures - and it isn't about who makes the media, which your comment about who made the oils seems to point at - I don't care if Nikon or Canon, Fuji or Kodak or you in your back garden make your recording device - but the end results are likely to be different, in just the same way that Kodachrome and Fujichrome give different end results and a different feel to the end result. Much of the technical development in the dgitial arena is to remove any evidence of the capture medium from the end result - hence my comment that digital is bland when compared to most film - which is usually evident in the end result in one form or another. Again, I agree that with perfect lighting, studio conditions and a controlled environment you can make the film media effects appear essentially non-evident too.
Message edited by author 2004-07-03 21:20:40.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2004 03:26:43 PM · #97 |
My point of view is that digital is easier for the novice to ‘get into.’ For me to achieve the results I can with digital using film would be impossible. Also I’m a Painter and the ability to use Photoshop with a digital photo gives me the freedom to explore and expand on the pictures I take. For me it has opened up something that I would never have tried with film. And I believe there is Artistic merit in digital photography.
Film is something that is an art form unto itself. Digital can come close and someday will duplicate but I think the end result will be just a copy of film which is not what digital ‘I think’ should be.
Like recordings and TV’s they are going digital and we are not complaining ‘except diehards like my brother who is a musician and still stands by records because ,I think, his ears are more used to hearing sounds produced from analogue.’ I don’t know if people will argue with this but I think digital photographs are easily changed. With film there is less leeway to work with an image, and so film has a tendency too be more TRUE to the image. Even if that is a poorer rendition of the subject film has a feeling of ‘reality’ that is lacking in digital pictures at times, but the ability to make an art form from digital is almost endless.
I admit I try to use the Digital camera like I would a film camera. But with the ability to change the color to my standard and the image to some degree to how I perceive the world.
I know what you mean by blandness Gordon but the potential of Digital, I think, has opened up a whole new world of Photographers and artists. Myself included.
jm
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:28:10 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by theodor38:
and vinyl records are still gettting sold but in my age i only know 2 people that keeps records and that is for mixing purposes and they are switching to cd turntables as fast as humanly possible. and apart from my personal experience only a hadn full people use and like and have the equipment to playa dn enjoy records. i would assume mostly elderly people. vinyl record hold no arguement in my eyes. i think unsliced bread would have been a strongger arguement since it is still around even though sliced breads are widely available |
Since I actually work in the stereo business and my husband has for nearly 17 years, I can safely argue this point. We sell turntables and accessories to people of all ages on a regular basis. We don't deal in DJ equipment because there are stores around here that cater to that business and do it better. We sell turntables and cartridges for home use. A person would be a fool to spend $100+ for a Grado Gold to use for scratching and mixing.
However, I should have known better than to argue with your kind of logic. While I'm at it, I'll concede that black is white, up is down, and night is day.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2004 03:47:38 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by theodor38:
and vinyl records are still gettting sold but in my age i only know 2 people that keeps records and that is for mixing purposes and they are switching to cd turntables as fast as humanly possible. and apart from my personal experience only a hadn full people use and like and have the equipment to playa dn enjoy records. i would assume mostly elderly people. vinyl record hold no arguement in my eyes. i think unsliced bread would have been a strongger arguement since it is still around even though sliced breads are widely available |
Since I actually work in the stereo business and my husband has for nearly 17 years, I can safely argue this point. We sell turntables and accessories to people of all ages on a regular basis. We don't deal in DJ equipment because there are stores around here that cater to that business and do it better. We sell turntables and cartridges for home use. A person would be a fool to spend $100+ for a Grado Gold to use for scratching and mixing.
However, I should have known better than to argue with your kind of logic. While I'm at it, I'll concede that black is white, up is down, and night is day. |
sweetheart, of course your husband and your shop is gonna see a lot of customers because you have a shop for it. people arent going to come to your store looking for electric toothbrush or brembo brakes for their roadster, basing your judgement on a group that is based on the customers of your shop is pretty weak. i am talking about general population and let me enlighten you that modern people dont play records in their house, it is a thing of the past and only enthusiasts of that subject is interested in that.. i am sure a ferrari store gets a lot of customers from all ages too. but that dont mean general population is driving around in ferraris. now please have mercy.. all i am saying is that film is a format that is going to be obsolete in the near future. ignoring this is just futile. it really dont profit me none to be on behalf of digital like this. but it just annoys me when a person like yourself start an arguement with a pro film approach. if you like film and have equipment setup, of course have fun with it, but just becaue you are for film is not going to chanhe the fact that film is dying fast..i have a feeling i have offended you in a personal level. i am sorry for that. but that is just the cream of the arguement. please dont take it personally. but i think you already have. but i still like you:)
Message edited by author 2004-07-05 15:50:11. |
|
|
|
07/05/2004 04:33:25 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
The persistance of vinyl recordings decades after the release of CD's is testament to this. If you doubt that there are people purchasing turntables, styluses, and vinyl I am here to attest that they do. My husband manages a privately owned stereo store that sells new and used turntables and a wide range of styluses to people of all ages.
|
There will always be film, but it, like vinyl records and turntables are now, will gradually become a specialty industry that caters to a select few. I'm sure that there is a market for turntables and styluses, but that the sales volume of CD players and CDs far outweighs that of turntables and Vinyl LP's.
|
|
