Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

We're so lucky today. Do we really appreciate it?
Old 09-01-2019   #1
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,534
We're so lucky today. Do we really appreciate it?

I've been digitizing some of my old negatives and slides recently. Interesting to dig through almost 50 years of pictures and realize I never labelled most of them as to date, place, person, etc. I've been printing some of them this morning along with some more recent photos.

Anyway, I came upon a photo I had taken probably in early 1973. It was of my girlfriend at the time inside someone's apartment. She was still in college at the time. I recall taking the picture but I don't recall the details. I know it was done with a Nikon FTn and a cheap, off brand 25mm lens on Kodachrome X film. I like the picture but it's soft, poorly exposed, lacking in shadow and highlight detail and it would be a candidate for the poop chute except for the subject and my memories. I made a print of it despite its limitations. I also found some Kodachromes of my wife that I had done somewhat later. I recall using a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor for those photos. A pretty decent lens of the time. I love the photos but the aberrations present in that old lens made individual hairs on her head have bright blue outlines and fine details were lost.

Another picture I printed was of my step son playing with our dog on the floor in the den. The light was poor and very dim so the ISO was banging on the high side. I shot it with a fairly recent wide to short tele zoom wide open at f/4 with a DSLR using Raw. This zoom doesn't get much respect on Internet forums or lens review sites. But the image is sharp, detailed, with excellent shadow and highlight detail and the built-in image stabilization meant I could handhold it at a slow shutter speed, necessary despite the high ISO.

It occurred to me that we are blessed with photography equipment today that exceeds the capabilities of anything from the past yet I don't think we really appreciate how lucky we are. In the 1970's, I struggled to get a printable negative from high school football games when the meter said Tri-X at 1600 was at least two stops under. Today, no problem. You can shoot it in color at ISO 25,000 and get usable images.

Admittedly, Kodachrome was beautiful film. But today we can use software to create a color palette and quality close to most films and use ISOs much higher than the original film's speed. Lenses are better, cameras are better. The world's not perfect but some things are better than they used to be.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #2
AlexBG
Registered User
 
AlexBG is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 187
The world is a million times better, especially technology. When I look through photo albums of say 50/80 photos there are only around 20 that I know what camera I used. I take photos for memory and most of my favourites are with a mju 1 or other point and shoot I have at the time because I've just thrown it in a bag/car and done something fun for the day. Think camera manufacturers are going to struggle now because a top end fuji/sony/canon from the past 5 years is more than good enough for 99% of people. So many photos on here from M9's and they are old in tech terms.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #3
AlwaysOnAuto
Registered User
 
AlwaysOnAuto's Avatar
 
AlwaysOnAuto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 553
Every once in a while I'll dig out the M3 that I inherited from my grandmother and compare it to my latest digital A7iii.
We've come a long ways.
And yes, I appreciate that, a lot.
__________________
IIIa, M3, some lenses + digital
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #4
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,583
If finding Kodak Chrome slide film to be worse than ORWO slide film I used.
But it is still natural. All of those experiments with color pallete on digital doesn't looks natural to me. I just learned to appreciate natural colors rendering of Canon DSLRs.
Oh and high digital ISO doesn't look natural to me either, I still prefer flash and lower ISO.
Something like 1600 .
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #5
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 926
I have an EM5 (which 2012 is old in today's terms) and a 35-100 f2.8 that's equivalent to the classic telephoto zoom. Shot a fair bunch of concerts, as an amateur, and the results are glorious. Although I don't go past ISO 3200 it's beyond what I could get on film.
Was checking some of the first portraits I shot with it and your observation about hair comes to my mind. It's sharp, considering it's a small format.



On the other hand, an iPhone is your computer, still snapshot camera and Super8 camera in one and sometimes better. Also telephone if you call, which no one in my generation (90s) does anymore. Just last decade I recall the odyssey it was to communicate with relatives in another continent, now you can have a live videocall... For free.



But I still appreciate film for its characteristics and fun provided. And wish I could have a roll of kodachrome now and then. 10 years since it went almost...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #6
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38's Avatar
 
Deardorff38 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Dogman, I hate to be a naysayer, but i never drank the digital kool-aid. In 40+ years will someone be able to recover your digital files? Leica M9 and Sony's will be paperweights. Kodachrome was a lovely film. Ilford & Kodak have 3200 film if you need it. Tri-X, TMY2 & FP4+ are still pretty deluxe. People are putting pre-war glass on their digitals.... & you can still shoot with a screw mount leica. Over-processed HD and super sharp images?.... meh... i'll take classic silver gelatin prints all day long.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #7
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,317
People would even pay big money to go "back".

No, we could never learn to appreciate the present...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #8
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,600
Am thankful for modern tech of having all the memories saved. But at the same am bit sad for inflation that a photography has experienced, being now free, easy and ever present.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #9
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,534
Deardorff38, I gotta point out a coupla things. Those photos I printed this morning were done on an inkjet printer with pigment inks and the paper was of a type that's been made for several centuries, coated with some magic so it will take inks properly. According the most recent reports I've read, those prints should last about 200 years (unless I do something stupid like burn the house down). The digital files are a means to an end for me--I like prints. And the digital prints I'm making today are several times better than I ever did in my darkroom.

And one other point....Those Kodachrome slides I copied into digital files. They had stains and discolorations on them that I cannot explain. They were stored well, kept in archival pages in the dark for several decades. Apparently the Kodak labs that processed some of them were not as careful as they should have been with their chemicals. But the stains and discolorations are gone now along with the dust spots. The prints are beautiful, just like my girlfriend and then my wife were in the 1970s. And they will remain beautiful in those prints long after their youth and beauty have faded. Again, as long as I don't burn down the house.

We are indeed lucky today as photographers although some fail to see the blessings.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #10
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,536
I'm in two minds about this; when I'm holding the camera and taking the picture etc I like film cameras but after it's taken I prefer digital. Luckily there's good lenses for both.

It's the feel of the camera in my hands that causes it and the convenience of digital for the second like. A pity there's no diital cameras that feel like my old film ones...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #11
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 47
Posts: 1,553
Don't worry, in 50 years people will chuckle to themselves thinking of how we must have suffered using such cumbersome and primitive contraptions. In a technocratic society such as ours the future is always better... until it isn't! People didn't really have fits of despair being limited to what they had in the past. That being said, I agree that you should drink it in right now.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #12
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,848
In 50 years today's digital files will likely be unreadable
and those old Kodachromes will look exactly the same.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #13
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,534
Chris, reread my last post. Those old Kodachromes were already deteriorating after just over 40 years. I've noticed that in some of my other Kodachromes as well. Something I can't explain since I always believed Kodachromes would last longer. But nothing like the old Agfa and Fuji slides. They have faded badly.

But nothing is forever. We should enjoy what we have while we have it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #14
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,534
And this thread was never meant to be a film vs digital diatribe. I was pointing out how much better today's lenses and cameras are than those of the past, even the so-called mediocre lenses are excellent nowadays. The segue into digital was just a byproduct of that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #15
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 76
Posts: 3,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
..................
It occurred to me that we are blessed with photography equipment today that exceeds the capabilities of anything from the past yet I don't think we really appreciate how lucky we are. In the 1970's, I struggled ...............
Realize we are just at a point along the spectrum that extends back in the known past as well as goes forward into the unknown future. While we look back and marvel how far we have come from the 1970's, someone will look back in the 2070's and think what those poor photographers back in 2019 had to deal with for equipment.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #16
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
And this thread was never meant to be a film vs digital diatribe. I was pointing out how much better today's lenses and cameras are than those of the past, even the so-called mediocre lenses are excellent nowadays. The segue into digital was just a byproduct of that.

Today's lenses and cameras are digital and the ones of the past were/are film. So it can't be avoided.

As for better, I never print larger than 12" x 8" and have had lenses more than capable of that for decades. OTOH, digital printing is a lot easier.

It's like cars, they go a lot faster these days but the speed limit is the same or lower. So only faster on paper but not on the roads that I drive on (legally)...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #17
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,681
"It occurred to me that we are blessed with photography equipment today that exceeds the capabilities of anything from the past yet I don't think we really appreciate how lucky we are. In the 1970's, I struggled to get a printable negative from high school football games when the meter said Tri-X at 1600 was at least two stops under. Today, no problem. You can shoot it in color at ISO 25,000 and get usable images."

Yep. This is why I shoot digital pretty well exclusively these days. OK some people shoot film, good luck to them - it a sensible thing to do, especially if you do it by your own choice. Sometimes setting limitations for yourself and then transcending them by your own efforts helps develop your skills.

But as for me, I spent my early photographic years shooting film so I have "been there, done that, got the T shirt" and do not need to do it again by choice (mostly). So yes, I do appreciate how lucky we are right now. One way I consider myself to be lucky is that I can for every day shooting allow the camera to set aperture/shutter speed/ISO sensitivity in program mode. Adding ISO into the equation is very liberating. This is very convenient because it helps avoid missing shots, though mostly I prefer to set these parameters myself in most situations. Another way I consider myself to be lucky is that I can shoot, as you say, images in situations where I simply could not do so when using film and then - get this - use software to manipulate the image in post to emulate an analogue film (sometimes poorly admittedly ). I guess it's human nature to want to have your cake and eat it too.

There is one other way it occurs to me we are lucky today. We can take pretty much any lens from any era and for almost any system and (sometimes with a little ingenuity) put it back to work again making images. I simply could not do that before except to a very limited extent. (This is also a disadvantage because it motivates me to buy more lenses I really do not need....there are no free lunches I guess).

Here is one of my (I think) more successful attempts to emulate Kodachrome using Nik plugins.

Street Shots - Cinematic by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

And in this one I did not quite get it right (it's very image dependent) though I think it still looks somewhat "film like".

Hawaiian Shirts by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #18
sjones
Registered User
 
sjones is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 124
Digital brought me into photography, and even after I switched to film, I used a digital scanner to process the negatives. I’m still using the scanner for internet purposes, but I’m now doing darkroom prints.

Photography is an artistic medium (or at least it can be used as one). And in this sense, technology’s benefits are subjective, given that people still use their hands, vocal chords, paint brushes, chisels, charcoal pencils, pianos, electric guitars and other antiquated technology to produce art just as compelling and creative as anything produced by today’s latest technological advancements.

As for ‘user experience’ of cameras and simple tactility, nothing new gives me more pleasure than my M2, and the black and white prints I’m creating satisfy my objectives and expectations perfectly. And I’m not arguing digital/film as much as present and past.

My lens from 1958 is more than capable, and even my lens from 1934 is sharp enough when stopped down, meaning that even when certain aspect of image quality are objectively measurable (irrespective of digital or film), its actual significance will vary greatly among people, particularly in terms of sufficiency.

But yes, we are living in a great time, not because technology has elevated the level of aesthetics, but because it gives us all broader choice. If technology were to completely lay waste to preceding artistic mediums, then no, it wouldn’t be a blessing.
__________________
Smugmug Site

RFF, the best joint to get your fill of rangefinder bashing!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #19
Takkun
Ian M.
 
Takkun's Avatar
 
Takkun is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sunny South Seattle
Posts: 794
I won’t comment on the digital/film debate other thanks to data recovery, I’ve yet to lose a single photo.

It is an amazing time to live in photographically. For me, that means affordable and light tripods, digital cameras that leave little to be desired image wise, a bounty of high-end film cameras for cheap, and film itself on the rebound. High quality, archival inkjet prints, and plenty of labs that do them. Ilford is doing BW C-prints from digital, so best of both worlds.

On the digital side, even though I’m not in the market for anything new, I’m amazed at what’s out there and how many makes are now (or back to being) major players. I worked at a dealer over a decade ago, and a Canon/Nikon were really the only mainstream options for small format — Minolta was on its last legs, Olympus was pretty heavily in point-and-shoots and still figuring out Four Thirds, and Pentax didn’t really seem to have a road map to the future. There’s a lot more out there, be it DSLR or mirrorless.

Going back even further, I’ve been flipping through old issues of PopPhoto and the like from the early 90s and getting an idea of just how cumbersome digital photography (or digital anything—remember WebTV and PalmOS?) were.

As someone trying to make it as a working photographer, the internet and social media, even though there’s a lot of crap to cut through, make it so much easier. It takes about 30 seconds to apply for an exhibition online or deliver work to clients over Dropbox. My mother, a painter, was telling me about how convoluted getting work reproduced on transparency, sending it out, and hoping they might just remember to send it back, was. Meanwhile, I’ve had shows at galleries across the country that do printing onsite for me.

Great time to be a photographer, whether that’s film or digital.
__________________
Ian M., Seattle
Current bag contents: Just a Fuji GX680iii. Nothing else will fit.

--
my infrequently updated blog
Finally on Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #20
shimokita
白黒
 
shimokita's Avatar
 
shimokita is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Japan, Tokyo
Posts: 829
When I look at my old film I am surprised at how good the low ASA results were just using that paper exposure guide that was included in the film box... even more so when shooting Kodachrome without a meter...

The [Honeywell] Pentax model 3°/21° spot meter came out in circa 1961 and that paper guide started to disappear... flash guide number and we were playing in a different ballpark.

Sometimes it depended on intuition and a bit of good fortune
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #21
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,393
My first camera was a 110 film cassette camera in the very early 80s. but I learned photography with Dad's Pentax ME. As a kid, I was sort of caught between Mum telling me to 'just take pictures' and Dad telling me, 'film costs money to develop!' So while I got some pictures from the past, and halfway decent ones with the Kodak disc camera I had as a teenager, I didn't get anywhere near what I would have liked, in hindsight.

Digital has changed all of that. Even with a phone, I can take pictures of anything, anywhere, and not think of cost. I went from small sensor digicams in the early 2000s to DSLR's, mirrorless and digital rangefinder in the space of ten years. I shot film in the middle, but software and good cameras give me the ability to create almost any look, in almost any conditions I might come across.

I have terabytes and terabytes of photos, video and audio from the last 17 years, and I shoot professionally, something I would never have thought possible in the days of film. Everything is time stamped and organized, backed up in multiple drives and places. In the 80s, I would have had to use a film camera, a VHS-c camcorder and an audio cassette recorder to do what I do now, and while I have a deep nostalgia for those times, I very much appreciate what I have now.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #22
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
 
Pál_K's Avatar
 
Pál_K is offline
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Gig Harbor
Posts: 145
My one wish is that old photos had names, locations, dates written on the back. I'm doing a lot of ancestral research and not having people's names or locations is often frustrating. I have prints from Hungary going back to the 1890's - they are in excellent condition.

When I first started in 35mm, 1971, I used to keep a little pocket notebook where I wrote the date, subject, and exposure information. I did that until about 1977. The exposure info was useful in case I screwed up a photo and wanted to know why.

These days, both with film and digital, I just write down basic info after I'm done with a roll or if I download images. We have access to great equipment today, both old and new, but I don't think there's a quick and convenient way to make notes.

I'd love to get a pair of working MF-23 backs for my F4s's to record exposure info between the frames.
__________________
"Great photography is about the visual effect upon the viewer, not sharpness." - Stephen Gandy, Cameraquest
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #23
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,393
An anecdote: in the late 80s and 90s, I had friends who were quite interested in camcorders, and to a lesser extent, cameras. Some recorded themselves doing comedy skits, others recorded their rock band performances and rehearsals. Our family had a camcorder as well, but didn't use it much, as it was large and cumbersome. Today's tech lets us shoot 4K video with something the size of a wallet.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #24
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pál_K View Post
My one wish is that old photos had names, locations, dates written on the back. I'm doing a lot of ancestral research and not having people's names or locations is often frustrating. I have prints from Hungary going back to the 1890's - they are in excellent condition.

When I first started in 35mm, 1971, I used to keep a little pocket notebook where I wrote the date, subject, and exposure information. I did that until about 1977. The exposure info was useful in case I screwed up a photo and wanted to know why.

My family has quite a collection of prints and a few slides from decades past. We have no idea as to the exact dates they were taken, apart from gauging things based on how old the subjects are. My images are all organized in folders based on date and subject, so it's easy to see what is where. Although GPS data would also be helpful! It's only a matter of time before it all comes together.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #25
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,994
Digital is ok, but the cameras they build to use it are not so nice. And disposable.
You dig out your old all metal, mechanical, manual 35mm odd are it can be put back into use. The average wizz-bang digital wunder camera that is 5 years old, if the electronics go out, it’s a paper weight. Cheaper to replace than to repair, if it even can be repaired.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #26
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
 
ColSebastianMoran's Avatar
 
ColSebastianMoran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,372
My comment: with digital post-processing I am now getting better prints and larger good prints than I ever did back in the film era from 35mm. This is both from film/slides and from digital captures.
__________________
Col. Sebastian Moran, ret. (not really)

In Classifieds Now: Nothing.
Use this link to leave feedback for me.

Named "Best heavy-game shooter in the Eastern Empire." Clubs: Anglo-Indian, Tankerville, and Bagatelle Card Club.
Sony E/FE, Nikon dSLR, and iPhone digital. Misc film.
Birds, portraits, events, family. Mindfulness, reflection, creativity, and stance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #27
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,333
IMO, 2019 is the best time to forego all the "niceties" and get back to actual photography. Sure the whiz-bang stuff is fine for quick photos, but so is your phone, so why even own a DSLR outside of commercial work where you need that kind of tool?

Instead, the best films made by the big companies are readily available, an amazing assortment of cameras are easily purchased used for pennies on the dollar, and real archival prints can be made with enlargers found for give-away prices / free.

Many of us work on computers for our day job. Why do you want to spend more time on the computer? Why do you need ISO 52789 and to shoot 1000 images an hour?

I forget to charge my DSLR batteries on the off chance I use them because I'm so used to just grabbing a mechanical camera and a roll or two of film. So much nicer to shoot, no nonsense menu diving to change some setting I forgot about, no futzing around on the computer with RAW files later, just photography.

Don't get me started on the e-waste issues with modern tech.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #28
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38's Avatar
 
Deardorff38 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
I'm all in for appreciation. That I can get fiber-based baryta paper & film delivered to my door. Thanks B&H...from Canada. That Deardorff, Leica, Rolleiflex, Nikon et al engineered and built elegant cameras that still function & can be tuned up by folks like Don Goldberg and the short list. That my Durst 138 was offered to me for a song. Those things I much appreciate.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #29
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,681
I can see this is just going to quickly degenerate into yet another film v digital "debate". Complete with heat but little light and not a single person's mind changed at the end of it.

My attitude is simple. If you like film use it. If you like digital use that. In either case be grateful that we live in an era when most of us have these choices available to us.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #30
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
I can see this is just going to quickly degenerate into yet another film v digital "debate". Complete with heat but little light and not a single person's mind changed at the end of it.

My attitude is simple. If you like film use it. If you like digital use that. In either case be grateful that we live in an era when most of us have these choices available to us.

It reminds of the threads we used to have some time ago ...
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #31
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38's Avatar
 
Deardorff38 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Peter M, The discussion only degenerates if one denigrates the opposite side of the discussion. The OP is right in that we're lucky today and have much to be thankful for...whatever one's point of view.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #32
ozmoose
Registered User
 
ozmoose is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 122
Enjoy what you have today, and make the best of it - whether film or digital.

As any good Buddhist will tell you, stuff happens.

At well past 70, I no longer care much about what will happen to my stocks of film and digital images when I've shuffled off to the great shopping mall in cloud land. Maybe my architectural shots of old colonial buildings in Australia and Asia will survive me in terms of who will be interested in them, but my hundreds (= thousands) of cat portraits won't. The subjects themselves are long gone, not that they cared much about which cameras or film I used when I was stalking them over the decades.

My partner has been after me for some time to sort out and cull the feline shots, keep the best, maybe do a book or two for family to enjoy in the future, and destroy the non-keepers. Very sensible indeed.

Yes, we are truly fortunate to be living in the time we are now. Film is still available and digital image technology has moved forward in leaps and bounds. I have photos and text documents saved electronically since the '80s and '90s which can still be accessed, as I've updated my equipment and systematically recopied to the new technology every few years. Easily done, and nowadays cheaper than ever.

Take reasonable steps to care for and protect your images - beyond this, don't stress. Nothing is permanent. Ask my late cats...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #33
kshapero
Growing with experience
 
kshapero's Avatar
 
kshapero is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida, USA
Age: 70
Posts: 9,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysOnAuto View Post
Every once in a while I'll dig out the M3 that I inherited from my grandmother and compare it to my latest digital A7iii.
We've come a long ways.
And yes, I appreciate that, a lot.
We have but there is still some magic in an M3 that nothing today can compare to. Just saying.
__________________
akiva

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero

Cameras, Lenses and Photos
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #34
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deardorff38 View Post
Peter M, The discussion only degenerates if one denigrates the opposite side of the discussion. The OP is right in that we're lucky today and have much to be thankful for...whatever one's point of view.
Dear Deardorff38 I was not denigrating anyone and certainly not you (if that is your impression). I am simply making the point that we have been here many times always with the same outcome - a film is best camp v a digital is best camp. My point is these debates go nowhere. I do not think this is what the OP intended. I think he was saying "aren't we lucky to have so much choice and the ability to make images we could never make before" And as I read it that is pretty much what you were saying from your point of view, too.

So bottom line - just enjoy what you enjoy. I have made the switch from film to digital and do not wish to go back. Others have a different point of view and I accept that. Why would I not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #35
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is online now
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: South East UK
Posts: 1,106
We do, the equipment available to us is exquisite, reasonable (in most cases) and taking a good photo is as easy as it's ever been. I am so delighted that I can pick up the cameras I lusted after as a boy for seemingly very little and that I can indulge my new found love of film still.
__________________
De-gassing progress:

Leica M2, Nikon D700, Bronica RF645, Leica CL, Summicron 40mm, Rolleicord Va, Hasselblad 500 CM Zeiss Planar, Leica 50mm Summicron V3 - all gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-01-2019   #36
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,349
I agree with Dogman - the choice and quality of camera equipment today allows us to pretty much photograph what we want, whatever the situation.

As for the old chestnut of ephemeral digital images, it's now about two decades since digital camera started to become commonplace, and many people I know still have all their digital photos, even from then - if they've made a point of saving them (and I don't mean with a fancy back-up system but something basic like copying data from their old machine to a new one).

Yes, files are deleted, or lost when a computer dies. But how many negatives and slides have been ruined by being kept in attics or cellars, assuming they're not thrown out at some stage?

What I'm saying is that all photos - film and digital - can disappear forever, but can also be kept and stored to see the light again decades later.

I do have a fancy back-up system, but I ignored that. For this photo I rummaged in an old drawer and found a CD labelled "France - Brittany 2000". (This was from my very first digital camera - a 2 MP Fuji that used AA batteries!) Despite stories of rotting CDs, this was fine despite being untouched for 19 years almost to the day. My friends are in their 20s in it, but are now close to turning 50...

As an aside, generation Z born in the 90s and grew up using laptops, phones and digital cameras know all about how to keep their files safe, and use cloud services working automatically in the background as a given.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Brittany_July_2000_21.jpg (44.7 KB, 15 views)
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2019   #37
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,393
The funny thing is, at every point in history, people look at advancements and improvements and think how lucky they are. People in the days of the M3 would certainly have sung its praises. Olympus OM users would love their tiny SLR's vs the chunky Minolta SR-T cameras. I was thrilled when I got my first digital camera, a 4 megapixel Canon with a 35mm equivalent zoom lens. Tech has plateaued a bit, and cameras from the last ten years are still eminently usable and comparable to those of today. We are fortunate at every stage of the way.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2019   #38
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC View Post

I do have a fancy back-up system, but I ignored that. For this photo I rummaged in an old drawer and found a CD labelled "France - Brittany 2000". (This was from my very first digital camera - a 2 MP Fuji that used AA batteries!) Despite stories of rotting CDs, this was fine despite being untouched for 19 years almost to the day. My friends are in their 20s in it, but are now close to turning 50...

As an aside, generation Z born in the 90s and grew up using laptops, phones and digital cameras know all about how to keep their files safe, and use cloud services working automatically in the background as a given.

That's incredibly cool about those images from 2000. Unfortunately, I've lost a batch or two or images from CD's that have died, not to mention a heap of files. This made me migrate everything to harddrives which get updated every couple of years.


Mum and Dad gave me my first camera in the 80s, but they now back up everything on harddrives. Dad's collection is even on a RAID server with remote access, so we can see his images anywhere in the world! Dad's always been at the edge of tech, haha.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2019   #39
Archiver
Registered User
 
Archiver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesDAMorgan View Post
We do, the equipment available to us is exquisite, reasonable (in most cases) and taking a good photo is as easy as it's ever been. I am so delighted that I can pick up the cameras I lusted after as a boy for seemingly very little and that I can indulge my new found love of film still.

The advance of tech means that old gear is becoming affordable much faster. The original 5D sells for about $550 AUD and the Mark II for a few hundred more. They take images which still hold up now; I still use my 5D II for photos when clients want them. Mattias Burling on YouTube has many videos about the great bargains to be found in digital cameras. And yet film Leicas in good condition still cost thousands.
__________________
~Loving Every Image Captured Always~
Archiver on flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-2019   #40
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,201
I agree with Dogman .
Great bargains to be had on cameras which we could only dream about a few years ago.
The technology makes it easy to store and share .
I shot Kodachrome exclusively for thirty years .
They`re all loaded up on the Leica trays but its much more convenient and sociable to view and share them now that they`ve been scanned and are stored on a hard drive.

Oh , and don`t dismiss hard drives as a means of long term storage.
I recently heard of a photographer who lost all his negs in a house fire.
The hard drives survived.
  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 12:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.