"Why don’t you just go digital?"

[Frontman]

I have been carrying my new X-Pro since I bought it a couple of months ago. I have shot a lot with it, and I am really pleased with the camera. But when I went out for the weekend, I left the X-Pro at home, and packed my Rolleiflex and Nikon S3 into my bag. As much as like the X-Pro, it still doesn't appeal to my mechanical nature as much as my old film cameras do.

[raid]

Keith,
I have never used an RD-1. In a nutshell, is it "as good as film"?

[rayfoxlee]

Like many, I have both digital and analogue, but there is no doubt that for me film has a special quality, not least being the tactile issue of being able to handle the film - as well as the storage. I have just gone through my parent-in-law's photo files going back 60+ years and there are priceless memories there - some faded, some scratched, but all with a real connect to the past. Irreplaceable

Ray

[Keith]

Originally Posted by raid

Keith,
I have never used an RD-1. In a nutshell, is it "as good as film"?

Absolutely Raid if you're talking about the user experience itself.

With the LCD reversed there is nothing that distinguishes it from being a film camera ... it just feels like a slightly heavier Bessa and is virtrually the same to operate.

[peterm1]

I just find that the convenience of digital outweighs all else. I have to admit I habitually post process my images so there is convenience in that sense too. I now shoot much more than I ever did with film and my images have improved as a result. But at the end of the day its really down to personal preference.

[maddoc]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

While trying to explain why I shoot film to a friend the other night.
She listened intently in a noisy bar over a couple drinks and then replied...

" So like the difference between Facebook friends vs real friends or fake boobs vs real boobs?"

It was hard to not laugh even though I use digital as well as film.
Do we think film is more "real"?

A "fake boobs vs real boobs" thread, nice !!

[Jockos]

Originally Posted by PKR

As a OT note: many PJs traveling to locations where they can't get their Digital camera and laptop batteries charged - because there is no power, are going back to film cameras for these assignments.

Sounds crazy. How many rolls of film do you need to replace the capacity of one 5D mk II battery? You can leave the camera on for months or you could take a few thousand pictures before it's drained.
And I bet it's easier to find a power generator than a darkroom in the jungle too.

[Trius]

Originally Posted by Jockos

Sounds crazy. How many rolls of film do you need to replace the capacity of one 5D mk II battery? You can leave the camera on for months or you could take a few thousand pictures before it's drained.
And I bet it's easier to find a power generator than a darkroom in the jungle too.

I think it actually has more to do with lack of telecom (ability to upload,) lack of enough power to keep a laptop charged and the relative safety of film. By the latter I mean that one can more easily and securely mail film back to the agency, lab, etc., without it being intercepted by Internet monitoring. Maybe John Densky can comment and clarify.

[ray*j*gun]

I as talking to my son over the weekend, he is a computer toy designer. He wants to get into photography as a way to improve his overall artistic scope. Wants to do B&W. So, I told him you can either get a digital camera and spend ohhhhh many thousands of $ and maybe get good images or spend about $50. to $100. for a good Nikkormat (with a lens) etc and get great results using film. He thought I was kidding and it does sound like a joke.

[Jockos]

Originally Posted by PKR

I don't know how much traveling you have done in the 3rd world. Generators aren't easy to find. Then you must worry about the output - usually 220 50Hz converting to your charging gear. Poor output will often fry your gear. Solar panels are popular, but can take a full day to charge one battery (and you're stuck waiting on site for the charge to complete). So with Laptop use (and you have to pack your laptop) and charging that battery too, it's a lot easier to use film cameras.

Film is shipped out, rarely processed on site.

What is your experience doing PJ in the field - for more than 14 days out, in the 3rd word.. North Africa as an example?

I have absolutely no experience of PJ whatsoever but...
If you can ship out your film, you should be able to ship out your CF-cards just as easily?
And if you can carry more than one roll of film, you should be able to carry more than one battery? For each roll of film you carry, you could just as easily carry one more spare battery, with the shooting power of 100 film rolls, at the same weight/size. They even come packaged in a environmental sealed container when you buy them!
And if you don't look at you film images before sending them out, then you shouldn't have to look at your digital files in a laptop before sending the CF either?
What I'm suggesting is that if you use the same workflow with digital as film, you could have hundred times more shooting power at the same size/weight with digital, and that's why I think it sounds crazy.

[buzzardkid]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

Sean Bonner is "a Los Angeles based entrepreneur, journalist, activist and enthusiast" holding an interesting view about not switching to digital:


http://blog.seanbonner.com/2012/05/0...st-go-digital/

Marked that link since it exactly conveys what I think and feel about my film photography. Rare!

Thanks for posting, Bob!

[brbo]

Originally Posted by PKR

RAM doesn't ship well with uncalibrated X-Ray machines.. film does better.

Any reliable source to back that up? I've never had any data corruption on any of my digital devices that use memory chips. Never heard/read any warning from device manufacturer of such danger. Even more, memory cards are marketed as x-ray resistant. Unlike film.

So, I'm confused. Is this "x-ray will destroy your memory card" a new or an old thing?

[brbo]

So, some ill-functioning 3rd world x-ray machines suddenly have the ability to destroy memory cards and at the same time suddenly loose the ability to fog film?

Exactly the opposite of all other x-ray machines used to scan package/bag contents?!

http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/upload...media_test.pdf
http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/upload...testreport.pdf

Maybe some smart peeps should look at that 3rd world x-ray scanners and figure out how they manage not to fog film.


Edit: This is from Kingston's website:

6. Avoid U.S. Postal Service radiation scanning of mailed packages.
According to the CompactFlash Association, X-ray scanners at airports will not damage CompactFlash cards but radiation scanning by the U.S. Postal Service may damage them. 2 Because of this warning by the CompactFlash Association regarding mail irradiation by the U.S. Postal Service, it may be preferable to use a commercial service such as FedEx, UPS or other private carrier as an alternative to mailing Flash storage devices by U.S. mail.

vs. Fuji's take on the matter:

As of October 27th, the USPS has begun purchasing electron beam scanning
equipment for use in sterilizing mail and eliminating any possible exposure to
anthrax. This electron beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film as if it
were exposed to sunlight.

[btgc]

Originally Posted by PKR

Poor output will often fry your gear.

Colleague recently fried his iphone using car adapted charger. No need to travel to North Africa for that

Originally Posted by brbo

As of October 27th, the USPS has begun purchasing electron beam scanning
equipment for use in sterilizing mail and eliminating any possible exposure to
anthrax. This electron beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film as if it
were exposed to sunlight.

Does it means something to those buying film overseas on individual basis, I wonder?

[JoeV]

Originally Posted by PKR

...The most popular field cameras (other than the use of film) are X100, X10, GX1, M9 and some small stuff like Canon S95/S100....

I'm not trying to dispute your credentials here, or the veracity of what you're saying, just trying to understand. So, aside from the M9, the other cameras you mention as alternatives to big Nikon/Canon DSLRs have only been out on the market for a year or less?

Is this a very recent phenomenon of using these types of alternative digital cameras? What did PJs do, say 5 years ago? DSLRs were still dominant in PJ work back then, right?

I don't understand the mention of the M9 as a more affordable camera to a Nikon/Canon DSLR in 3rd world situations. I'd rather lose a 5D and L-series lens to dust/havoc/whatever than an $8k rangefinder with $3k lens attached.

Actually, I don't understand your mentioning any of these cameras as alternatives in 3rd world situations, they're all digital, electronic, need battery chargers and laptop tethers, etc.

And no, I'm not a PJ, but that doesn't disqualify me from the discussion here.

-Joe

[sojournerphoto]

Originally Posted by FrankS

If one were totally rational about things, digital would prevail over film, but artistic endeavors are not totally rational.

Exactly. I want to just use a digital camera, but for emotional reasons I'm more engaged with film. So I continue to use both.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by ray*j*gun

So, I told him you can either get a digital camera and spend ohhhhh many thousands of $ and maybe get good images or spend about $50. to $100. for a good Nikkormat (with a lens) etc and get great results using film.

I better return to film so I can be guaranteed great results! In all fairness, it IS a great time to be a film photographer as long as you buy outside of the desirable cameras and work in a wet darkroom (or have a good scanning workflow). That said, there are plenty of cheap digital cameras on the market these days that can do the job too.

[brbo]

Originally Posted by PKR

I didn't mean to offend the people or postal service of your country. Shipping Memory cards is not a great idea. That was my point.

I'm not offended. I'm not even from US.

I thought that your point was that film is better than memory cards because it's immune to any postal/airport scanner treatment.

So, maybe shipping memory cards is not a great idea (if you package is unfortunate enough to get the generous radiation treatment from a USPS which may result in data corruption) but I still don't understand how shipping a film is better when, according to Fuji, same treatment will destroy images on film?

[Phil_F_NM]

Originally Posted by PKR

The bottom line is - most professional photographers (PJs and many others) don't want to look like professional photographers. It's often amateur photographers (lead on via ads by camera makers) who want to look like "what they think" a professional photographer looks like.

When I was walking around Fallujah in 2004, I hated the fact that I had a giant Nikon DSLR + zoom with me that I had to use for work. It drew too much attention to me from friendly forces as well as from hostiles. I was a big slow target but I had to do my job with the gear they gave me. I also happened to have 2 Leica M bodies with me but they were small enough as to not be noticed by me (weight and storage) and they looked like not-so-serious point & shoots. If you were a local in a country such as Iraq back then, the prevailing thought was that a US military member carrying the giant black camera was taking your photo for cataloging and possible future prosecution. The Leica was a friendlier camera in the eyes of locals.
My experience, your mileage may vary.

As for the "why not just go digital" question, I often ask myself why I don't just go 100% film. It's back and forth, every few months.

Phil Forrest

[literiter]

Sean Bonner wrote:
"I’m also not made of cash, so if something maintains it’s value is a very important thing for me to consider. Digital cameras do not hold their value, in fact they depreciate worse than cars. All digital technology is like that, because things keep progressing. Somethings are necessary, like computers – and you know going into it that your purchase today is going to be worthless a few years from now. Cameras are optional, and if I have the choice of spending money on something that will be obsolete technology-wise and worthless cash-wise in a few years, or something that, baring misuse on my end, be just as functional and worth just as much as today as it will be in 5, 10, 25 years – well, that’s an easy choice."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is pretty much where I stand.

If I were a photographer earning a living I'd be all digital, but I'm not a professional.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by brbo

So, some ill-functioning 3rd world x-ray machines suddenly have the ability to destroy memory cards and at the same time suddenly loose the ability to fog film?

Exactly the opposite of all other x-ray machines used to scan package/bag contents?!

http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/upload...media_test.pdf
http://www.i3a.org/wp-content/upload...testreport.pdf

Maybe some smart peeps should look at that 3rd world x-ray scanners and figure out how they manage not to fog film.


Edit: This is from Kingston's website:

6. Avoid U.S. Postal Service radiation scanning of mailed packages.
According to the CompactFlash Association, X-ray scanners at airports will not damage CompactFlash cards but radiation scanning by the U.S. Postal Service may damage them. 2 Because of this warning by the CompactFlash Association regarding mail irradiation by the U.S. Postal Service, it may be preferable to use a commercial service such as FedEx, UPS or other private carrier as an alternative to mailing Flash storage devices by U.S. mail.

vs. Fuji's take on the matter:

As of October 27th, the USPS has begun purchasing electron beam scanning
equipment for use in sterilizing mail and eliminating any possible exposure to
anthrax. This electron beam technology will fully expose undeveloped film as if it
were exposed to sunlight.

It is highly doubtful that your sources, incluiding Fuji, are correct about the danger of shipping film via the USPS. Exposed film is routinely shipped via USPS for mail-order processing all over the US. Most merchants that ship film use UPS or FedEx, but I have bought plenty of film on ebay that was shipped via USPS Priority Mail, and I've never had a problem with any of it being damaged "as if it were exposed to sunlight."

[redisburning]

I don't understand the need to justify film use.

why can't it be simple? for me, when I look at the vast majority of digital photographs, I think they look awful. that is to say, if I see a great digital photograph it is a great photograph in spite of the fact that it's digital.

much like when people take good pictures with plastic cameras.

it's possible.

but I don't care to try. I struggle enough with good cameras.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by literiter

Cameras are optional, and if I have the choice of spending money on something that will be obsolete technology-wise and worthless cash-wise in a few years, or something that, baring misuse on my end, be just as functional and worth just as much as today as it will be in 5, 10, 25 years – well, that’s an easy choice."

A lot of assumptions here I would say... I'd like to get a ride in his time machine.

[brbo]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

It is highly doubtful that your sources, incluiding Fuji, are correct about the danger of shipping film via the USPS. Exposed film is routinely shipped via USPS for mail-order processing all over the US. Most merchants that ship film use UPS or FedEx, but I have bought plenty of film on ebay that was shipped via USPS Priority Mail, and I've never had a problem with any of it being damaged "as if it were exposed to sunlight."

Obviously, USPS isn't beaming every package, if any now. If I understand correctly, this was to prevent anthrax reaching high US officials or other prominent targets. This doesn't mean that data on memory cards (which is far less affected (if at all) by x-rays than film) is any less safe in the postal system than film as PKR is suggesting. All IMHO, of course.

Number of devices that have some sort of digital storage with pre-installed software that goes through numerous postal services is so high that this phenomena would be common problem/knowledge. Yet in reality...

[loquax ludens]

Or maybe they are beaming none, since I've never heard of film being damaged by USPS radiation scans in shipping. I would say "presumably" or "apparently" rather than "obviously".

I don't have a stance on memory cards. I would think they'd fare better than film when subjected to radiation. If film were damaged by USPS radiation, that would also be common knowledge, yet it isn't.