*Shrug* Whatever suits the occasion. There are some areas film would excel in, and there's some things digital would excel in. Do what you think suits you best.
Anyone still using 35mm film?
- Thread starter edfck
- Start date
- Status
Heheh...as long as both mediums exist for us to dabble in, and without substantial cost, then I think we should be happy. :bsmilie:
The debate between new and old will last forever because progress is always being made. And today, things are progressing at a very high speed. Yet, as they say, "the more things change, the more they remain the same". Ultimately the goal is to unite ourselves as 'photographers' and go after that image which we feel will best move our audience.
The debate between new and old will last forever because progress is always being made. And today, things are progressing at a very high speed. Yet, as they say, "the more things change, the more they remain the same". Ultimately the goal is to unite ourselves as 'photographers' and go after that image which we feel will best move our audience.
LittleWolf said:
My "definition" of a "technohead", is one who is obsessed with technology.
In that sense, you are completely wrong. I do use the "latest" technology. Just returned from India and shot more about 15 gigs worth of images. I also used 8 rolls of TriX.
I am with technology as much as anyone. But I am not stuck at any stage of technology development. I chose what I feel is best for the particular image.
LittleWolf said:
Again you are completely wrong.
You are confusing a romanticising of the past with what is appropriate for the image. No I do not think that my father's Morris Minor is the best. And I have not intention to use such a car for my daily communication. I use a Subaru WRX STi.
I use change when it suits me and my purpose. I do not enjoy smelling chemicals. But when I feel that the images are best served by an older technology, I have no problem with using it.
LittleWolf said:
I will disagree with the latter part of this quote.
Of course, do we need to be reminded that great pictures are produced with any medium. But to say that the recording medum is unimportant is to show a total lack of understanding how different mediums render a same image differently.
I assert that you are completely off here.
Littlewolf said:What the progress of technology has done for us to continuously remove technical limitations that prevented us from taking pictures in certain situations. When exposure times where a few minutes instead of an hour, the first portraits became possible; when it was reduced to seconds, it became possible to take the first street scenes with humans; when wet collodion was replaced with dry plates, photographers didn't have to carry a darkroom around with them. With each technological innovation, there was an outcry by traditionalists, but in the end everyone profited from it.
I still have a fondness for film, but I have to acknowledge that affordable electronic imaging technology has progressed to a point where it surpasses film in many aspects. (It is no coincidence that in science, where the cost of equipment is not the primary concern, electronic imagers have been continuously replacing photographic emulsions for many years - be it in astronomy, spectroscopy, remote imaging/sensing, or X-ray imaging/diffraction.) In particular, I'm still very fond of slides - but once there's similarly affordable high-quality projection technology for digitized images available, I will probably get a bit sentimental, but not get much gray hair if slide film disappears from the market. There's developments in the world that worry me more.
I have no quarrel with using technology, as mentioned ad nauseum. The advantages of technology is clear.
What I do not accept is that the new can totally replace the old. There are something that the new just cannot replace.
And I assert that such a thinking arises out of an ignorance of what different mediums and ways of doing can do to an image.
Frankly, life hasn't gotten any easier whether one is using film or digital.
In film, you worry about exposure, development and the copying and printing. As well as the time taken to do all that, instead of the almost instanteneous transfer 'on scene' photographs we've seen today.
Plus we had to do things right the first time round. There's no way to know if we got it right, that's another thing.
Plus if we go anywhere we got to bring all those weeny canisters. Plus pay for the processing. Plus having the trouble to assimilate out of the original source.
Plus the amount of hassle it takes just to send a picture to a clientele across oceans.
And of course..the environment to store the negatives and positives is another issue.
In digital photography, we've cut the time factor as well as the non recovery rate.
However, now the cameras we have to worry about heat noise (1 red streak down a pic, very apparent in long exposures), and induction noise, where each electronic component (such as a capacitor) often induces a magnetic field that cuts through another conducter that induces an electrical field (which often describes into those tiny red dots floating around at high isos)
Plus there's white balance and all those features besides aperture and shutter speed. Plus the post processing. Plus the limited dynamic range which to me is actually a little worse than slides.
Plus obsolence. Plus the heavy investment in equipment and software just to get things going. Plus now those CDs are translating into Hard drives which are even tougher to store in a proper enviroment.
So honestly, life hasn't gotten much easier. Digital seemed the easy way out but like anything in this world, there are other complexities to even things out.
In film, you worry about exposure, development and the copying and printing. As well as the time taken to do all that, instead of the almost instanteneous transfer 'on scene' photographs we've seen today.
Plus we had to do things right the first time round. There's no way to know if we got it right, that's another thing.
Plus if we go anywhere we got to bring all those weeny canisters. Plus pay for the processing. Plus having the trouble to assimilate out of the original source.
Plus the amount of hassle it takes just to send a picture to a clientele across oceans.
And of course..the environment to store the negatives and positives is another issue.
In digital photography, we've cut the time factor as well as the non recovery rate.
However, now the cameras we have to worry about heat noise (1 red streak down a pic, very apparent in long exposures), and induction noise, where each electronic component (such as a capacitor) often induces a magnetic field that cuts through another conducter that induces an electrical field (which often describes into those tiny red dots floating around at high isos)
Plus there's white balance and all those features besides aperture and shutter speed. Plus the post processing. Plus the limited dynamic range which to me is actually a little worse than slides.
Plus obsolence. Plus the heavy investment in equipment and software just to get things going. Plus now those CDs are translating into Hard drives which are even tougher to store in a proper enviroment.
So honestly, life hasn't gotten much easier. Digital seemed the easy way out but like anything in this world, there are other complexities to even things out.
Voigtlander said:
Depending on the setup you're using, you can actually get quite good results on a digital workflow for B&W prints. I'm using a Epson 2200 with an ImagePrint RIP. Prints are very good with the usual tone and contrast you see in conventional B&W prints. Off the rack 2200 gave me B&W prints with varying colour casts. The RIP, to me, is essential.
Just thought you'd like to know.
fWord said:
Actually, debate is not necessary. The issues are very clear and there are no ambiguities.
The problem is that those with more "modern" technologies (for any given time of the history of photography) seem to want to assert that theirs is the "best" way.
An example is Silver prints versus Platinum prints. There is absolutely no question that silver prints are definitely more convenient, and cheaper to produce than platinum prints. And that is why, silver prints are a lot more popular than platinum prints. But put a silver print and a platinum print of the same image side by side, and see the difference.
Getting the image is of course the main issue. Why belabor that point? But to move your audience. There is more than just the image.
A major issue is that because people are so used to seeing images on the LCD, they think that there is all that is to it!
This is ignorance! This is a frog looking up and say, this is my world!
Macky said:Depending on the setup you're using, you can actually get quite good results on a digital workflow for B&W prints. I'm using a Epson 2200 with an ImagePrint RIP. Prints are very good with the usual tone and contrast you see in conventional B&W prints. Off the rack 2200 gave me B&W prints with varying colour casts. The RIP, to me, is essential.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Good on you. However, maybe you'd like to take a look at the other camp and compare their best with yours before you settle on any opinion =).
Wisp said:
Apart from development, I'd say it is largely the same with electronic image capture/processing.
"Exposure bracketing" functions preceed the "digital" revolution by about 15 years or so, no? And without those, the universal advice was "film is cheap, take a lot of exposures, weed out later". With my dSLR, I won't know if it's "right" until I come home either - at least I cannot judge images by looking at a thumbnail of a mini-LCD. Plus, commonly available "digital" cameras are much less forgiving with respect to overexposure than film.
I started with film-based photography quite a few years ago, including b/w developing and printing. Things are more convenient (and faster) to do with digital image processing, but IMHO not fundamentally different from what one did with films before. What I really like about electronic cameras is that I don't have to live anymore with films ruined by scratches, dust particles embedded in the emulsion, and film cut through frames (as frequently experienced with "brand name" labs in the US). The advancement of technology is only one reason for the rise of "digital"; another big reason for me is the obvious quality decline in commercial photofinishing.
I can't help the impression that to some, "digital" means meaningless snapshots without any thought. But how is that different from most "compact" or "single use" camera users? How much thought one puts into a picture doesn't necessarily depend on the technology used.
Both of which are, in a sense, positive. With film, I used to take a picture only when I'm reasonably certain that it will turn out. With electronic cameras, I have less inhibitions - meaning e.g. I risk handholding a shot at 1/15s and get some ok pictures out of it that I would otherwise have never taken, fearing the waste of precious film.
Have you ever printed in colour in the darkroom? The term "white balance" may come from the video world, but exactly the same functions had to be achieved in the colour darkroom using filters - in the absence of an expensive colour analyzer by expensive and time-consuming trial and error.
I'm not so sure about dynamic range. I find contemporary cameras quite competitive with film. The density curves of films can look quite impressive, but to interpret them in terms of dynamic range without further supplementary data is fundamentally flawed (I can elaborate on this, if requested).
Hmmm... I remember from old magazines that the "upgrade" and "buy buy buy" urge was common even in the 1970s around photokina time. Equipment wise, the investment is not so steep - a computer is not a dedicated "darkroom device", but has many other uses. Chances nowadays are, one may already have one before one starts out in photography. OTOH, film camera prices have gone up significantly over the last 20 years, while build quality overall declined. (Plastic lens mounts? Unthinkable not so long ago, even for "entry level" cameras.)
My film bodies have lasted longer (and still going strong!) than what I expect of the present electronic cameras. But frankly, I don't think film cameras of recent vintage are up to it either.
It's in some respects easier, in other respects more troublesome. What works better depends on the individual and the situation. Personally, I think I mostly benefit from it.
What I don't agree with is the almost religious fanaticism of some people trying to divide film-based and electronic photography into fundamentally different things. From my point of view, they are just slightly different technical implementations of the same thing. It's a bit like whacko audiophiles - I still remember the editor of a renowned hifi magazine claiming on TV that one could hear the type of hard disk used in a computer to burn audio CDs ...
Have done colour printing in darkroom.
This is the failure of the film based technology.
The film based photo industry failed to make home printing extremely user friendly and cheap.
They failed to automate the process so that users can get a print done right in 1 or 2 tries.
They failed to make the process easily automated and easily done at home by everyone.
Digital home printing and photoshop (or any other like-software) gave these to the home user, thus hugely popularising a dying hobby.
Before that we were all taken hostage by the photo printing labs.
Just like Polaroid, they realised too late not to use "difficult" as an excuse to charge high prices. You know what Polaroid and NPC used to charge for silly Polaroid film backs for 35mm cameras?
LittleWolf said:
*shrug* whatever works for you? I was just saying whether film or digital, the complexities of taking a photograph is still the same, just dependent on the situation and the need.
I'm with student that debate is not necessary. The issues are very clear and there are no ambiguities. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. I use both format together or seperately. On certain days I like to use 35mm and on other days I like using Digital. If I have mood, then I use film....if I don't have mood....I may also use film. If I wake up on the left side of the bed, I use digital and if I burp at 2pm...I will use film. So you see...all these debate is pretty wu liao. If you want to use film, go ahead. If you fancies digital...by all means use it. If there comes a time when film is no longer made then I will use digital exclusively. Until that happens, I will use film on Mon, Wed and Fridays...all the rest will be on digital unless the wind blows from the east coz thats when I will use film. However if the wind is 28 degree celcius, I will revert back to digital.
So if you feel my ranting makes no sense, I will also say all these argument also makes no sense to me. Just go and enjoy your hobby and stop nit picking. I don't think it is necessary to justify what you use.
So if you feel my ranting makes no sense, I will also say all these argument also makes no sense to me. Just go and enjoy your hobby and stop nit picking. I don't think it is necessary to justify what you use.
From my reading of the thread, I do not see any debate.
Just people sharing their ideas.
Can safely assume most members posting messages use both film and digital. Naturally, use what you like when it suits you.
Film is great in the sense that it allows for future invention.
You just buy the camera body and lens.
If 10 years later someone invented film that could resolve the equal of 100 million pixels and could sell you a roll of 36 frames at $5. Then you can take out your 1960s Asahi Pentax Spotmatic and shoot with this film.
Digital is great in the sense that you can cut out the middleman -- the colour lab, and see the results at home and print out a fairly good photo print using your PC's printer.
One day long ago, my colour lab's owner gave me a lift in his BMW 7 series. Then I realised how much money he was making from the film d/o and printing process.
There is an immediacy to the digital result that is great fun.
But the cameras tend to get obsolete in 2 years.
Just people sharing their ideas.
Can safely assume most members posting messages use both film and digital. Naturally, use what you like when it suits you.
Film is great in the sense that it allows for future invention.
You just buy the camera body and lens.
If 10 years later someone invented film that could resolve the equal of 100 million pixels and could sell you a roll of 36 frames at $5. Then you can take out your 1960s Asahi Pentax Spotmatic and shoot with this film.
Digital is great in the sense that you can cut out the middleman -- the colour lab, and see the results at home and print out a fairly good photo print using your PC's printer.
One day long ago, my colour lab's owner gave me a lift in his BMW 7 series. Then I realised how much money he was making from the film d/o and printing process.
There is an immediacy to the digital result that is great fun.
But the cameras tend to get obsolete in 2 years.
i agree with all of you.without film photgraphy everything would be too easy for everyone to enjoy photography.all of us would love challenges.i still use an film slr.
can i see anyone's film works here?do msg
can i see anyone's film works here?do msg
You can see my works at www.pbase.com/yeocolinthearttofeelme said:i agree with all of you.without film photgraphy everything would be too easy for everyone to enjoy photography.all of us would love challenges.i still use an film slr.
can i see anyone's film works here?do msg
Do send in your views and critiques.
Patryk said:
I don't know anyone doing this here, sorry. There are online communities who are into old methods, you can find a lot of information there. I think calotypes shouldn't be too difficult to make. Wet collodion involves some substances that would probably raise some eyebrows in Singapore (e.g. nitrocellulose, which is a powerful explosive). I have frankly no experience how easy or difficult it is to obtain chemicals as a private person in Singapore.
Edit: Thinking about it, one could probably dissolve ping-pong balls to make collodion.
- Status
Similar threads
