View Full Version : Film VS Digital
horibilis
12-28-2007, 13:14
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
Digital does not replace film. Just look here for why a magazine like Arizona Highways simply does not accept images from digital cameras for publication since the quality is not good enough, even from 11 megapixel cameras, to print at 12 x 18."
Above paragraph from the above url. What do you think?
Dave D
Well, we certainly haven't discussed this topic in a while! :D
NickTrop
12-28-2007, 13:24
Oh no. Not this time. I ain't gettin' suckered into any more of these threads. Viva la difference (even though film is better :)
Kim Coxon
12-28-2007, 13:27
I wonder why this is in the Konica forum and why the same tired old question comes up again. ;)
Kim
What do you think?
Dave D
Also from the same site:
"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself."
mfunnell
12-28-2007, 13:31
I wonder why this is in the Konica forumThat was my question. While I'd love a digital Hexar RF, the only ones I'm aware of all take film. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
...Mike
Al Patterson
12-28-2007, 13:34
As far as Konica is concerned, film wins as there isn't a digital Konica.
Unless you count the Sony...
(Do we NEED to concurrent film vs. digial threads???)
wgerrard
12-28-2007, 14:12
Wrong forum, but...
Much of the 'film lives' argument seems to focus on the artistic and esthetic advantages of film. I don't think that's enough to save film. Most film buyers don't know, and can't see, the difference. Even if they can, digital's speed and integration with the rest of their lives takes precedence.
Besides, digital will just get better, especially regarding resolution. Film won't.
Film sales will continue to decrease. Kodak and Fuji will drop it. Maybe when someone else buys them. Some folks will try homebrew or artisan film production. A few will make money. Eventually, only True Believers will use film, and they'll lose money doing it.
Brian Sweeney
12-28-2007, 14:28
Well, my oldest film camera that I use is 70 years old and my oldest DSLR is only 15 years old. I don't think the DSLR will make it to 70. I've had to take it apart a couple of times already. And if the hard drive goes in it, I've only got one spare. Finding 80MByte 2.5" SCSI notebook drives is really hard these days. Finding 35mm film is much easier. Writing the raw convertor for the DSLR wasn't too bad, even though it is not documented. Yup, in the film vs digital one-on-one battle, the film camera will outlast every one.
wgerrard
12-28-2007, 14:46
Brian, even if your DSLR makes it to 70, odds are it won't know how to talk with anything else. Digital products are intended to be trashed, not repaired. It's the nature of the beast.
Your film cameras, and mine, will eventually break and we won't be able to get them repaired. That's what spells the commercial demise of film.
Meanwhile, digital will keep improving. Prices won't change much. But,capabilities will.
http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs6/i/2005/064/c/0/Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif
Film VS Digital
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
RObert Budding
12-28-2007, 14:53
Film sales will continue to decrease. Kodak and Fuji will drop it. Maybe when someone else buys them. Some folks will try homebrew or artisan film production. A few will make money. Eventually, only True Believers will use film, and they'll lose money doing it.
The same thing is happening with restaurants. McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's are getting bigger and bigger. Fine dining is a thing of the past. By 2020 all take out meals will originate with the "big three."
The same thing is happening with restaurants. McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's are getting bigger and bigger. Fine dining is a thing of the past. By 2020 all take out meals will originate with the "big three."
...I cannot believe you just used "take out" and "fine dining" in the same sentence...
Regards,
Bill
Kim Coxon
12-28-2007, 14:59
What was that film where Sly was a policeman taken out of deep freeze to catch a criminal and the finest restaurant in town was Taco Bell's? :D
Kim
I shall add, Ctrl c, Ctrl v.
wgerrard
12-28-2007, 15:02
The same thing is happening with restaurants. McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's are getting bigger and bigger. Fine dining is a thing of the past. By 2020 all take out meals will originate with the "big three."
Nah. The food in those joints isn't getting any better. I still eat pretty well when I go out.
The resolution offered by digital will just keep improving, as will the in-camera processing. The integration of digital images with the rest of our lives will only increase. You'll never get the quality of a Leica and a Leica lens from a cellphone camera, but few will care except artistes, and not enough of them will be around to support film. Meanwhile, you'll need a lab and a print the size of a township to tell the difference between a Leica film camera and a $400 digital.
Al Patterson
12-28-2007, 15:13
The same thing is happening with restaurants. McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's are getting bigger and bigger. Fine dining is a thing of the past. By 2020 all take out meals will originate with the "big three."
So what will I eat as I don't eat at any of those garbage dumps. Without a decent Chinese or Mexican place, I'll starve. And where will I get my Korean BBQ?
JeffGreene
12-28-2007, 15:14
No more film versus digital threads!! Pleeeeze! Each to his own!:o
Al Patterson
12-28-2007, 15:15
What was that film where Sly was a policeman taken out of deep freeze to catch a criminal and the finest restaurant in town was Taco Bell's? :D
Kim
Judge Dredd
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113492/
Al Patterson
12-28-2007, 15:18
No more film versus digital threads!! Pleeeeze! Each to his own!:o
Yeah, reading a film vs. digital thread is like watching "Alien vs. Predator". You know it's going to be a train wreck, but you still get sucked in...
What was that film where Sly was a policeman taken out of deep freeze to catch a criminal and the finest restaurant in town was Taco Bell's? :D
Kim
Nah -- Demolition Man was the film in question. Classy film hehe.
JB
Kim Coxon
12-28-2007, 15:24
That's the one!
Kim
Nah -- Demolition Man was the film in question. Classy film hehe.
JB
And he believes Leprechauns were actually aliens. :)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm
I'm stunned :eek:
Someone, tell him about the 3 little pigs ...
Kim Coxon
12-28-2007, 15:35
As Chris says:
Also from the same site:
"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself."
You weren't taking what Ken says seriously were you? :D
Oh I forgot. It's written by someone on the internet so it must be true! :bang:
Kim
Brian Sweeney
12-28-2007, 15:45
> Brian, even if your DSLR makes it to 70, odds are it won't know how to talk with anything else.
Yeah. My first digital images were done in 1981. Try to find a 7-track, 800BPI tape drive these days.
wgerrard
12-28-2007, 15:48
No more film versus digital...!
Huh? We're talking food here!
Brian Sweeney
12-28-2007, 15:50
Of course the nicest thing about my digital SLR is that I can load it with film. And if I want to shoot color with it, I have to.
dazedgonebye
12-28-2007, 16:35
That is not what it says at all, this from Arizona Highways:
"Digital files must be prepared according to our Digital Photography Guidelines (see our Web site to download a copy) and burned to a disk. Some subjects such as wildlife and people are best suited to smaller formats and digital SLRs, but in order to achieve high-quality reproductions they must be shot on fine-grained color slide film (100 ISO or slower) or digitally captured at low ISOs in RAW. "
It is not a good practice for us [RFF] to publish information so totally in error.
:)
On top of that, I visited AZ Highways a couple of years ago for a seminar. We asked about digital and I got the distinct impression that it was more organizational inertia than IQ issues that delayed digital acceptance.
If I may return everyone a moment, there is something I would like to say that is rarely mentioned regarding all of this.
Film/digital toucehs identical arguments that began at the beginning of the last century btw painting and the new photography.
Things immediately divided between people setting up stage sets and creating "high art" photography, and people who believed in capturing reality as it is.
Then the adage, "pictures don't lie" came about.
Enter film/digital.
Pictures always lied. People created scenes, etc. but not as today's digital age where copyrights and a photogs work became more and more difficult to protect.
Additionally, as recent as these days, a hack "journalist" takes 2 digital images from the war in Iraq and pastes the 2 together in photoshop to create a big story while in a hurry of a soldier beating an Iraqi or something or other...and it almost worked.
If he were a little better at PS it would have worked. That's scary.
Anything can be *created* these days. Photography as it was known is being challenged just as it challenged painting in times past.
As the technology advances further and it all grows further and frurther away as people use their cell phones or whatever to capture images and relegates what we now know as old school film photography to an "artform," well, it is all rather interesting the cycle of things....don't you agree?
Anyway, there is no genuine record like film to "protect oneself" in these days of much needed truth in accurately recorded photojournalism, and it will become a greater and greater issue in the future.
Film is protection, you can't fake an emulsion. There is no better insurance for authenticity than a film/gelatin latent image.
Mark my words, it will come around again for these reasons alone...
ciao.
Pherdinand
12-29-2007, 14:09
Judge Dredd
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113492/
i thought it was demolition man
Pherdinand
12-29-2007, 14:11
the three sea shells
LOL
yes i remember, and it still makes me think how one would use them for such a purpose!!
Sandra's hot in that movie.
And Kim, not that the finest place was taco bell's. EVERY place was called taco bell's.
Finding 80MByte 2.5" SCSI notebook drives is really hard these days.
I might have one in an old unused Powerbook, let me know if you need it :)
wgerrard
12-29-2007, 14:22
Demian, it all comes down to the honesty of the person creating the picture. You can monkey about with film, not as readily as with digital, but you can do it.
Ditto painting. When paintings or drawings were the only ways to 'take pictures', those artists had lots of reasons to create something that was less than a perfect image of the subject.
It would be good, however, if we all adopted some kind of standard that would allow anyone to quickly determine how often a digital image had been edited.
You do know that Taco Bell is better than McDonalds, right?
What about Subway?
Sandra's hot in that movie.
Oh, come on! She is hot in any movie! (As is Diane Lane who starred in Judge Dredd).
What about Subway?
Probably the most overrated fast food joint around. Sure, they can make some 'healthy' (i.e. low calorie) subs, but 95% of the customers load up with cheese and mayo and whatnot and nullify that. But really, it's mostly sugary bread, lots of cheap lettuce, and a tiny sprinkle of meat to go with it...
Brian Sweeney
12-29-2007, 15:55
> There is no better insurance for authenticity than a film/gelatin latent image.
Polaroid, baby, Polaroid. My Boss would only believe one of my pictures if I used the SX-70, followed by the SLR690. I could fake peel-apart Polaroid using a Matrix camera.
Al Patterson
12-29-2007, 15:57
i thought it was demolition man
You are correct, as I was reminded up the thread. I always confused those two movies, as they were both not very good.
(Which one had the theatre scene showing a film with a titleof "Rocky 15" or something like that? That was funny, and I can't remember anything else about either of them.)
You are correct, as I was reminded up the thread. I always confused those two movies, as they were both not very good.
(Which one had the theatre scene showing a film with a titleof "Rocky 15" or something like that? That was funny, and I can't remember anything else about either of them.)
I thought Demolition Man was very entertaining, and while Judge Dredd received pretty negative reviews I actually liked that one too. :) Then again, I think Stallone is a pretty funny guy who doesn't take himself all that seriously as an actor.
Al Patterson
12-29-2007, 16:03
What about Subway?
I live near Philly, and I can tell you that Subway subs aren't anything like a real sub. (Or Hoagie as we say in Philly.) The problem is the bread. Subway has the worst bread I have ever had. I'd rather eat at Quizno's.
Now if I'm on the road and my choices are Subway or McDonalds, I'll go to Subway. But only because a fake sub on a bad roll is still better than the best burger at the Clown Shack...
What were we talking about when this thread started? I forgot.
Now that we're on the topic of subs, I have to say that the best subs I get around here is from a local grocery chain. Instead of the Subway approach where the meat is a small decoration on the sub, these guys basically shove a LOG of meat and cheese in there and then sprinkle some greens on top. And you can get a footlong one of those for $6-7. :D
mfunnell
12-29-2007, 17:30
Film is protection, you can't fake an emulsion. There is no better insurance for authenticity than a film/gelatin latent image.I'm not so sure about that. How about "it is significantly harder to undetectably fake an emulsion"? And if "authenticity" is so important, there's any number of cryptographic authentication techniques that can be pressed into service (and I think some are used in digital cameras used by police photographers and the like). They'd probably be much harder to get around than faking up a photographic negative.
...Mike
Pherdinand
12-30-2007, 02:22
LOL, sitemistic, you never give it up, do you?
What do you want from the poor writers?? I thought analogies are "not proving anything" :)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.