Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film > Film vs Digital

Film vs Digital Discussions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of Film vs Digital are important as they can help us understand our choices as photographers. Each medium has strengths and weaknesses which can best be used in a given circumstance. While this makes for an interesting and useful discussion, DO NOT attack others who disagree with you. Forum rules are explained in the RFF FAQ linked at the top of each page.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Keanu Reeves on film vs digital
Old 03-21-2012   #1
porktaco
Registered User
 
porktaco's Avatar
 
porktaco is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,501
Keanu Reeves on film vs digital

__________________
- Adam

M digital, M film, X digital.

More photos at my flickr, some of which is friends & family only. Please feel free to message me to become a flickr friend.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49274520@N04/sets/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #2
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,692
Better Neo would start saving film from Smiths.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #3
dexdog
sans bokeh
 
dexdog's Avatar
 
dexdog is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,359
all i can say is "whoa"
__________________
_____________________
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #4
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
 
dogberryjr's Avatar
 
dogberryjr is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: WV, USA
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by dexdog View Post
all i can say is "whoa"
I came to say this.
__________________
M, LTM, FD, F, Film, Digital, MF . . . Jack of all, master of none.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #5
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 50
Posts: 1,508
He's feeling nostalgia. And, the pressure from the finance guys about burning film.

I DO agree, however, with printing. Even a disorganized shoebox full of 4x6s is a surprising pleasure to browse. Even if negatives are lost or destroyed, the image remains physically, in print. Honestly, I don't think I have my wedding negatives from 23 years ago, but we have some framed prints and a book of 4x6s which we cherish as fine art.

I think the highest form of our "art" (still photography) is the printed image. It's unfinished until that point...and it doesn't matter how the image was made.
__________________
My Tumblr site
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #6
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 32
Posts: 1,354
__________________
Gear:
right eye
right index finger
cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #7
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,950
Well ... 'Canoe's' stature in the movie industry is similar to peanut butter's importance to the culinary arts IMO!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #8
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,096
I agree 100%. It's sad seeing digital replacing film for movies. When you see a movie like Barry Lyndon, which had large portions filmed w/ just candles and natural light, you see how beautiful and wondrous film stock is in the hands of an artist. Sucky colors, blown highlights, no shadow detail, lack of tonal quality...I refuse to watch digital movies. Just can't tolerate the "new technology" I guess. Well, we all have our standards.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #9
Jack Conrad
Registered User
 
Jack Conrad's Avatar
 
Jack Conrad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,477
It's always the spirit behind the skin of things that matters.

Not the object, but the intent an object is imbued with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #10
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 50
Posts: 1,508
Film doesn't "bloom" like digital does in the highlights, which I think gives it a much more organic look...one that I like.

BUT...I see older movies which were scanned for bluray...and they look terrible. HD digital movies have an incredible sharpness to them, which is a feast for my eyes on a home-theater screen.

My favorite to view is new-technology movies, filmed on film stock, and then ARRI-laser-scanned. They are sharp, and you get to enjoy the grain too.
__________________
My Tumblr site
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #11
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
 
Griffin's Avatar
 
Griffin is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 501
I think It's nicely put by mr Reeves. Especially the mass thing.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #12
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,249
More longing and yearning for the days of old...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #13
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 63
Posts: 12,543
Mmmm ... peanut butter, with a nice orvieto ... just to stop it sticking to the roof of ones' mouth you understand
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



Youre only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #14
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,822
That's a bit more profound than what I expected when I read the title of this thread
He uses the word 'photochemical' not 'analog' or 'film' ... I just though that's interesting.

"Whoa" indeed...
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #15
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
More longing and yearning for the days of old...
Or a reminder that the latest and greatest is not necessarily those for everything.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #16
Paul Luscher
Registered User
 
Paul Luscher is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 650
'Course, the diff is, we're shooting still instead of motion pics, so some of what he says is not applicable...

Well, I shoot both film and digital,and each has its good points. I do like digital for low light work--it seems to do a much better job of picking up shadow detail than film ever did. Also, at an average cost of $15 for each roll of film shot (Purchase of film and processing price), digital doesn't do that kind of damage to my back account --after you get over the initial costs.

Plus, there's the advantage of not having to haul along a load of filters. And I love that fact you can change ISOs on you camera to reflect whatever shooting situation you're in, rather than having to change out film in your camera, or carry multiple camera holding different ISO film.

But I admit there's still something special about shooting film--probably 'cause that's how I started out. Shooting film always has a more tactile feel to me, for lack of a better word. Also, 36 frames on a roll slows you down a bit when shooting, and makes you think a bit more carefully before you hit the button. Actually. that can make shooting a bit more relaxing. Digital makes it way too easy to shoot and the whole thing can sometimes feel more like a race than a pleasant excursion. And then, instead of being able to quickly pick out 5 or 6 good ones off a sheet of 36, you may have to wade through 200 or 300 images, which can lead to burnout...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #17
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Or a reminder that the latest and greatest is not necessarily those for everything.
Of course, but you have to weigh the pros and cons...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #18
Gary Sandhu
Registered User
 
Gary Sandhu's Avatar
 
Gary Sandhu is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 492
Some others' thoughts here (originally, I was trying to find out who really wrote that- I admit I was surprised Reeves really did)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign...n&type=article
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #19
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 64
Posts: 10,198
i think keanu did a fine job. this thoughtful item is not what i expected from his movie persona. he clearly is much brighter than i previously thought.
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #20
timor
Registered User
 
timor is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Manning View Post
I think the highest form of our "art" (still photography) is the printed image. It's unfinished until that point...and it doesn't matter how the image was made.
So right you are.

Usage of film in making movies, romantic or not, will lose in one major department: digital is cheaper. And that's all what for Hollywood movies makers counts most. We will see more and more digitally sharp movies with fuzzy of flat ideas directed at unsophisticated mass market. The only interesting thing about them is how far creators imagination can go with all this computer generated special effects. As for now each next movie is more graphic and more impossible than the previous one.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #21
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 3,681
I think I feel the same thing when I'm using a film camera vs. a digital one. Its not a feeling I've let deter me from moving on to digital, but I do strongly miss that sensory thing of loading the film, feeling the smooth tension in the film winder, and the anticipation of using up one of the 36 valuable exposures. And the image quality questions...

BUT... BIG BUT: Digital is getting better and better with each new techno-marvelous camera that comes out. Yes, there will be the inevitable wacky bells and whistles used to attract the masses. But the ever-improving image quality and operating capability across a huge range of conditions is a good thing, IMO, of course.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today.

Some Fuji digital gear; Speed Graphic (gathering dust); Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/79590026@N08/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #22
DougFord
look at the birdie
 
DougFord's Avatar
 
DougFord is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: freud's garage
Posts: 679
"I often feel a photochemical image contains the mass of the subject and dimension"
Film is my density
__________________

the walk
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #23
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,030
That was an intelligent and beautiful statement.

For some reason it is easy to make fun of Keanu (iconic roles? sometimes wooden acting?) but I think he has a lot of talent and is under-appreciated.

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #24
bigeye
Registered User
 
bigeye's Avatar
 
bigeye is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 1,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
More longing and yearning for the days of old...
I still have a place in my heart for Gbs of cheap, fast and unimportant digital images.

.
__________________
I bought a new camera. It's so advanced you don't even need it. - Steven Wright
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #25
tomtofa
Registered User
 
tomtofa's Avatar
 
tomtofa is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Well ... 'Canoe's' stature in the movie industry is similar to peanut butter's importance to the culinary arts IMO!
Now you've mad him sad as he eats his PB sandwich...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #26
john_s
Registered User
 
john_s is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigeye View Post
I still have a place in my heart for Gbs of cheap, fast and unimportant digital images.

.
When we holiday in an interesting place like Spain my wife takes hundreds of digital pics a day and while we would be tempted to print very few of them, it's great to relive the trip by looking at them in succession. I take my RF and black + white film. It's the best of both worlds.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #27
Mr_Toad
Fluffy Marsupial
 
Mr_Toad's Avatar
 
Mr_Toad is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Age: 59
Posts: 304
But think of it...

Digital movies will ultimately develop to their own demise....with no longer any need for actors/ actresses/ moppets/ animals/ sets/ weather/ equipment/ gaffers/ wardrobe...or entertainment industry lawyers!

It will all be electronically-generated and shat into mass distribution through the ether.

Happily, I will be long dead and toasted by then.

Robt.
__________________
__________________


My Transaction Feedback Link...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...2809&protype=9
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #28
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigeye View Post
I still have a place in my heart for Gbs of cheap, fast and unimportant digital images.
Right, because we all know that digital cannot be used for serious work. My point wasn't that one should forget film. My point is that things change and it's not worth getting worked up over. believe me, there are many things I get nostalgic over... even film (and film cameras) sometimes.
  Reply With Quote

comments
Old 03-21-2012   #29
daveleo
quello che .
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,377
comments

Some of the snarking commentary here takes me back to the old "grade school" yard.

It's embarrassing in some cases.

If you disagree with whatever the actor said, put your opinion and arguments of the subject on the table.

Simply pissing on his shoes (where he is not around to reply) is not a credible response.

I know that sounds pompous, but if we are going to sh#t on the guy's opinion, . . . someone please invite him to the discussion.
__________________
Dave

http://www.cafephotos.net

"I photograph my fantasies" .... Man Ray
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #30
rpsawin
RF Enthusiast
 
rpsawin's Avatar
 
rpsawin is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Well ... 'Canoe's' stature in the movie industry is similar to peanut butter's importance to the culinary arts IMO!
LOL...too funny, Keith. Spot on btw.

Best regards,

Bob
__________________
Best regards,

Bob
CEO-CFO-EIEIO, Ret.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 42
Posts: 16,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post

I know that sounds pompous, but if we are going to sh#t on the guy's opinion, . . . someone please invite him to the discussion.
Ok, let's restart this thread at:

http://www.club-keanu.com/forum/

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #32
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,950
I've got nothing against Canoe personally but do confess to being pretty non plussed by most of his movies ... I do like peanut butter though and come to think of it a lot of my favourite Asian dishes use it!

And I can't totally disagree with his words .... but we (and Hollywood) do have to move on and embrace the changes in imaging technology or we'll finish up like the Dodo!

If I'd read these same words written by Jeff Bridges they would have meant more to me because he actually embraces and uses film .... and he's 'The ****!'
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #33
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Manning View Post
He's feeling nostalgia. And, the pressure from the finance guys about burning film.

I DO agree, however, with printing. Even a disorganized shoebox full of 4x6s is a surprising pleasure to browse. Even if negatives are lost or destroyed, the image remains physically, in print. Honestly, I don't think I have my wedding negatives from 23 years ago, but we have some framed prints and a book of 4x6s which we cherish as fine art.

I think the highest form of our "art" (still photography) is the printed image. It's unfinished until that point...and it doesn't matter how the image was made.
Sorry, I don't fully agree. A processed transparency can be a thing of great beauty that can be appreciated just as it is, or via projection.
Regards,
Brett
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #34
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_Manning View Post
He's feeling nostalgia.
Totally disagree.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #35
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Of course, but you have to weigh the pros and cons...
Why? I don't feel I have to do that.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55 and adapted Zuikos
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #36
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Right, because we all know that digital cannot be used for serious work. My point wasn't that one should forget film. My point is that things change and it's not worth getting worked up over. believe me, there are many things I get nostalgic over... even film (and film cameras) sometimes.
Yeah, but nostalgia is not why I use film. I could even get nostalgic in using digital after shooting with it for going on 20 years. It's about a *clearly* different way of seeing the image, working the image when it is in the lab and how the entirety of the journey on film leads to living an entirely different life...

I just don't think you get it man, using an acoustic guitar over an electric or making an oil painting instead of one from Adobe Illustrator has nothing to do with Nostalgia.

Digital will never do what film does because digital photography is like all the other computer generated stuff out there, it is DIGITAL. That is not a bad thing, I am glad film is now considered Alternative Process.

Why in the hell would I spend three times the money on film, paper, chemistry and other darkroom materials in the past three months than I did on my soon to be here D800?

Why do you think that is Mr. digital?

I bet it must irritate you to no end how photographers like Mary Ellen Mark, Michael Kenna and Roman Loranc claim to have ZERO interest in digital and certainly have the talent to use it....but still pull in tens of thousands in fine art print sales...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #37
MikeL
Go Fish
 
MikeL's Avatar
 
MikeL is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,113
Trius, KM-25, nice posts!

I usually stay away from these threads where the justifiers have to justify to everyone. So dull. Like what both of you imply, whatever gets you what you want, great!

And it says a lot about a person when they bag on someone (like K. Reeves) to make themselves feel better. It is too bad those folks tend to post so much on RFF. No class.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-21-2012   #38
KM-25
Registered User
 
KM-25's Avatar
 
KM-25 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,400
Thanks man, I am not on here much, just out loving life behind the camera, in the Darkroom or the Lightroom.

I get it, I really do. No more dead notes when trying to keep up with Yngwie Malmsteen on Garage Band, I get it. But don't TELL me that he is nostaligic or yearning for yesterday when the real thing just flat out rips and like film, always will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeL View Post
Trius, KM-25, nice posts!

I usually stay away from these threads where the justifiers have to justify to everyone. So dull. Like what both of you imply, whatever gets you what you want, great!

And it says a lot about a person when they bag on someone (like K. Reeves) to make themselves feel better. It is too bad those folks tend to post so much on RFF. No class.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2012   #39
Ollie77
Registered User
 
Ollie77 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Hey guys,

you know it doesn't matter who said the statement, the message in it is fairly clear.

As an analogy for all you racing sports fans, it is a bit like watching the MotoGP or the Forumula 1 with all its high tech wizardry, with the Driver assists all switched on and all the computerised help that the drivers and riders get. This compared to 25 years ago when all the aids for the drivers weren't around, when traction control wasn't used and it came out to one two things. How fast your car was and how skilled you were at getting it around the course.

To me, someone who has been shooting digital for the past 5 years, there has always been something missing. And well it is something I am wanting to get back into. I played with film when I was younger and I loved it. Taking the rolls to the processors to get developed and waiting, actually having to wait to see what you got.

These days, with digital, you don't get that. It is instant, you can see your mistakes, you can make your corrections. Sure you learn faster, but it just doesn't feel the same.

Luckily for me I can take what I have learnt from digital, back to film.

And I agree also, why give the guy crap if he can't actually defend himself? He has made a statement, it isn't crazy or out there. Some of you seem to give credence to your statements because he is famous, not because he has said something stupid in its own right. To me that is stupid, plane and simple. I can't stand people who think they are better than others.

Anyway, hello all...... yeah this is me saying what I think. I do it a lot.... to much some say.

Ollie
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-23-2012   #40
Oldskewl808
Registered User
 
Oldskewl808's Avatar
 
Oldskewl808 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Kapolei Hawaii
Posts: 139
For what it's worth. I bumped into Keanu many years ago at a motorcycle parts shop in Los Angeles. He was riding a vintage Norton Commando so I know he is a nostalgic type of person.
I think there is much more to the man than most people see.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:53.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.