View Full Version : 5 Reasons Film Is Better...
wgerrard
11-30-2007, 07:53
...according to this guy at Wired: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/11/five-reasons-fi.html
:( it wont let me wired at work..
you would think as a telecommunications company they would let us read wired...
BillBlackwell
11-30-2007, 08:06
...according to this guy at Wired: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/11/five-reasons-fi.html
Well spoken from someone who most likely has never shot with a professional level digital camera or processed large RAW photo images. I know this because I would have made all of the same arguments (and more) before experiencing the M8.
Loved the part about the Grubba software - Trugrain - to add grain back into the images.
So with special software to:
Upres the image for bigger printing
Add grain back in
Sharpen the image
Reduce Purple Fringing
Convert RAW
Etc. Etc. Etc
You need never leave your computer keyboard....
The items I listed above are a minor sampling of the plugins for Photoshop and other image editors.
Talk to me about the immediacy of digital.... The Final Image that is. Paychecks come faster insofar as the client is NOT demanding.
Tuolumne
11-30-2007, 08:13
Oh, please. This was obviously written as just an ad spam page. Notice that all the ads on this anti-digital write-up are for dSLRs! They just wanted some page space to display advertisements, and this mock digital attack was written to stir controversey and send eyeballs to the page so they could rake in some CPMs. Don't fall for this nonsense - AND DON"T GO TO THE PAGE.
/T
Oh good, a film v. digital thread. I'm going to go make some popcorn. :D
Al Patterson
11-30-2007, 08:23
Pshaw! I'm tired of film AND digital. I'm going to buy me a sketch pad and some crayolas. And charcoal for B&W.
Seriously, hasn't this been done to death already? The equine corpse has been flogged so long it's starting to stink up the place...
Pshaw! I'm tired of film AND digital. I'm going to buy me a sketch pad and some crayolas. And charcoal for B&W.
Seriously, hasn't this been done to death already? The equine corpse has been flooged so long it's starting to stink up the place...
Al, you beat me to saying it, although I'll vote for colored pencils instead of Craoyla... hey, there's the next "X vs. Y" debate :)
Pshaw! I'm tired of film AND digital. I'm going to buy me a sketch pad and some crayolas. And charcoal for B&W.
Seriously, hasn't this been done to death already? The equine corpse has been flogged so long it's starting to stink up the place...
Serious artists use oil pastels; more dynamic range, crayolas are for amateurs
Screw the whole "artist using tools" thing, that's so done to death. I think I'll go chew some magic mushrooms and watch the trees breathe. :angel:
photogdave
11-30-2007, 08:30
Obviously the writer has never actually used a G9. They are very, very fast!
A more important question:
What do pixels smell like?
I spent many hours in the darkroom and developer, stop bath, fixer and toner all have a particular odor. But despite all my time using photoshop, I've never smelled a pixel. :confused:
A more important question:
What do pixels smell like?
EDIT :confused:
In the morning they smell like victory?
:D
In the morning they smell like victory?
Ah, the clean, fresh scent of victory, sweet! :)
Al Patterson
11-30-2007, 09:15
Al, you beat me to saying it, although I'll vote for colored pencils instead of Craoyla... hey, there's the next "X vs. Y" debate :)
Coloured pencils??? Die heretic!!!
;)
Al Patterson
11-30-2007, 09:18
Serious artists use oil pastels; more dynamic range, crayolas are for amateurs
That's good, because I can't draw beyond stick figures anyway. So why should I spend the extra money on a Leica.. er oil pastels anyway...
rogue_designer
11-30-2007, 09:35
I'm sure there is some trace off-gassing. Can't be good for you.
:D
A more important question:
What do pixels smell like?
I spent many hours in the darkroom and developer, stop bath, fixer and toner all have a particular odor. But despite all my time using photoshop, I've never smelled a pixel. :confused:
Actually, I've read a few papers about microscopic particules from inkjet printers.
wgerrard
11-30-2007, 12:13
Well, most of the reaction here, being about crayons and mushrooms and such, is entirely besides the point, and therefore quite appropriate for such a weak piece.
The author pitches the piece to users of inexpensive digital P&S cameras. He outlines 5 issues that film cameras may or may not handle better than digital. He neglects to mention the names or prices of any film P&S cameras that a reader might actually stand a chance of buying at the local big box. Not terribly impressive.
The ads are fed to the page by Doubleclick, which is keying, I imagine, on the repeated use of the acronym "DSLR" in the article.
BillBlackwell
11-30-2007, 12:47
... He neglects to mention the names or prices of any film P&S cameras that a reader might actually stand a chance of buying at the local big box...
And what (new) film P&S camera could the writer of the article have pointed to that could be purchased at the local big box (or anywhere else for that matter)? :confused:
wgerrard
11-30-2007, 14:14
And what (new) film P&S camera could the writer of the article have pointed to that could be purchased...:
No disagreement here. The only film cameras I see in any mainstream retail store are those disposable things.
Amazon will sell you a Holga, and, surprisingly, an Olympus Epic (1 left in stock) and even a Canon APS camera.
Most people are not interested in "photography". They just want to take a few pictures to mark specific events. A lot of those folks are happy with buying a $10 throwaway once or twice a year. Others will spring for a couple hundred bucks for a little digital to stuff in a pocket while on vacation. ("Little" often being the most important criterion.) These folks don't have any reason to know about, much less worry about, things like noise, shutter lag and sensor size.
Which is why the Wired article, like most similar arguments, is relevant to a tiny sliver of camera users.
In the morning they smell like victory?
:D
ah yes...I know that smell very well. it comes in a green and white cup, costs a couple of bucks, and it goes well with a blueberry scone or a butta cwasant.
.
Pshaw! I'm tired of film AND digital. I'm going to buy me a sketch pad and some crayolas. And charcoal for B&W.
Seriously, hasn't this been done to death already? The equine corpse has been flogged so long it's starting to stink up the place...
If you don't drawn/sketch on a Moleskine don't bother showing it here.
M. Valdemar
11-30-2007, 15:12
That writer is a big windbag.
Probably a flak for Truegrain software. Notice the build-up, the point by point exposition, then POW!@
Buy Truegrain, pathetic digital users!
Hey, I'm a professional advertising copywriter, I know whereof I speak.
IGMeanwell
11-30-2007, 15:15
Not that this adds or subtracts anything to the article ... but I found it really funny last week while in Wellsley MA at a paper/craft/art store, a table featuring the latest and greatest from the lomo society
I happened to have my little fuji f30 to take the shot of the moment that made me burst out laughing; not that I have anything against lomo (though these were all Holgas and Dianas), but that it was a featured item in a store that prides itself on gift wrapping
I guess my point is that film is still alive, even if in a artsy niche way
charjohncarter
11-30-2007, 15:16
Maybe someone mentioned this (I didn't read all the posts), but he left out my biggest reason (I could live with his anti digital reasons) for liking film over digital: Dynamic Range (digital doesn't have enough yet).
M. Valdemar
11-30-2007, 15:25
I think the whole thing is a silly non-debate, digital is just another way to do imaging and if you like film use it, if not, don't.
Stop complaining and pontificating about why you like something or not like a bunch of menopausal old ladies.
Interestingly the camera that sits at the head of that peice of crap ... the Leica 1 ... was regarded as "not a real camera" because of it's teeny negatives and the guys with the real cameras that required two people to lift them knew damned well that 35mm film would never catch on! :angel: :p
Theres a bit of irony in that image. :)
IGMeanwell
11-30-2007, 16:03
Maybe someone mentioned this (I didn't read all the posts), but he left out my biggest reason (I could live with his anti digital reasons) for liking film over digital: Dynamic Range (digital doesn't have enough yet).
Depends on the camera you use ... I can say without hesitation that my Fuji S5 has the dynamic range of most negative films
I routinely set my S5 to overexpose at +2 and can still recover most highlights
but they are specialized cameras to some extent
charjohncarter
11-30-2007, 16:44
I read that some company was addressing the dynamic range problem (which proves my point). I hope they and others succeed. But for me it is still a none starter, I have three digitals, two DSLRs and I find I have to be very careful of the subjects I choose. Here in California the wedding photographers are going crazy. All these dark skinned girls (I have no problem with dark skin, it's just a fact.) wearing a very white dress and their new husband wearing a black tux.
Obviously the writer has never actually used a G9. They are very, very fast!
compared to what? And fast at what?
IGMeanwell
11-30-2007, 17:48
I read that some company was addressing the dynamic range problem (which proves my point). I hope they and others succeed. But for me it is still a none starter, I have three digitals, two DSLRs and I find I have to be very careful of the subjects I choose. Here in California the wedding photographers are going crazy. All these dark skinned girls (I have no problem with dark skin, it's just a fact.) wearing a very white dress and their new husband wearing a black tux.
If you ever get the chance to borrow an S3 or an S5, try it out... their files are a pleasure to work with
Here is a couple examples of a wedding I was an usher (not as a photographer) for where the S5 showed its ability to keep details in both the dress and tux
One example (2nd image) ISO1600 in mixed lighting (I was in the 2nd row)
and then a silly example with harsh light, the flower girl trying to keep her father's attention
These were shot in RAW at auto DR processed in lightroom
charjohncarter
11-30-2007, 17:58
It looks digital, but certainly better than the Canon or the other digitals I have. Very nice. Do you still pull out the Hassy for the formal portraits? (No judgement just as question.) I'm constantly going to LightZone when I use digital. You are much closer than my DSLRs to improved dynamic range, so you might give LightZone a try.
charjohncarter
11-30-2007, 18:15
A little LightZone and you can improve dynamic range.
photogdave
11-30-2007, 18:35
A little LightZone and you can improve dynamic range.
Just looks like you lowered the contrast. I don't see any additional highlight or shadow detail. Maybe a result of jpg compression?
IGMeanwell
11-30-2007, 18:45
It looks digital, but certainly better than the Canon or the other digitals I have. Very nice. Do you still pull out the Hassy for the formal portraits? (No judgement just as question.) I'm constantly going to LightZone when I use digital. You are much closer than my DSLRs to improved dynamic range, so you might give LightZone a try.
I wish I had a Hassy :( I suppose if photography were the major source of my income and not a 2nd job for me... I would probably incorporate medium format
For any weddings I do, I generally use nikon/fuji for all shots including the formals, mostly available light, I carry a flash, will sometimes use strobes (ABs) and I will carry film with me for specialized shots or general backup
The S5 has not as of yet been tested in a paying job for weddings, just a couple portrait sessions
For post processing I use a mixture of lightroom and Alienskin exposure plugin in Photoshop in light doses ... never tried lightzone maybe I'll give it a look
The only way to really appreciate the D-range of the Fuji SLRs are to do the same shot with a film camera and look at the similarities
Here is a a image from a leaf study I did recently, shows even with a boost of contrast you can see the different levels of this you can strain out of one file
mike goldberg
11-30-2007, 19:13
Hi All & Pete,
Is the "leaf study" a B/W film capture?
Mike
IGMeanwell
11-30-2007, 19:27
Hi All & Pete,
Is the "leaf study" a B/W film capture?
Mike
Yeah I should explain ... I have this annual collection I do for my own personal work that I call a "frosted leaf study"
Basically I have a glass outdoor table and in the fall it starts to frost over... it creates a great background for the many leaves that fall onto it. So I periodically go outside each morning, shoot each leaf the same way and with a few exceptions (such as the B&W one I posted).
They are all digital at the moment, but range in different cameras and lenses for the past two years. I'll continue to do it until I lose interest
I'll post a prototypical shot from the series
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.