Film to be extinct in X years ?

[student]

Things have changed dramatically in terms of quality and speed. It is not there yet; but for consumers; film is dying fast. Digital labs are far better then the old wet process labs and I wouldn't want to go back

This is the kind of hysterics/extremism we do not need. Film dying? Nobody use horses anymore? No more candles?

Please!

Developments in digital technology will mean that the quality, dynamic range and speed of digital will surpass film in a few years! I have been using a digital SLR for nearly 3 (Fuji S2pro) for nearly 3 years and would not want to go back to 35mm film.

So what if the quality and dynamic range of digital technology exceed film?

Machines can weave a carpet better than the human hands. Why do people still want to pay premium for hand-wovened carpets?

Because there are other considerations besides dynamic range and resolution!

The advantage of film over digital is theoretical rather than actual. Digital works best with real world objects and does not always perform as well on test charts. Dynamic range is a greater issue than pixels. Understanding the limitations and compensating for any limitations in the equipment is the hard part.

Really? I would not use the word "advantage" here. They are different mediums. Undoubtedly digital have many many practical advantages over film. But there are something in films that are, well, films. BTW, films also work better in real life situations over MTF charts.

Whether a photo is taken on film or CCD should not make any difference. The ability for the knowledgeable and experienced photographer to produce great pictures is less to do with the picture taking machine; than the eye of the photographer and technical ability.

Really? There is no difference?

1 Try projection. Project a digital image and the same image taken with a transparency and tell me there is no difference?

2 I wonder how many have seen well printed B&W images. Take a good look at the inkjet B&W prints and the traditional B&W prints and tell me there is no difference?

Now I am not saying which is better. What one likes is a matter of personal preference. But to say there is no difference is to my mind, total ignorance.


Technology is here to stay, and it would be foolish for anyone to ignore the tech advantage. I use an Olympus E1, and is seriously thinking of getting the Canon 5D with the 24-105 lens. But I will wait a little while to see if Olympus has new offerings.

For my day to day usage, I use my fingers to switch on the lights. But for a nice dinner with my wife, I prefer the romance of the old-fashion light and fragrance of a candle.

To heat up my room in winter, I much prefer the efficient built in heating system. But there is just something special sitting next to the glow and warmth of a log fire.

For my day to day usage, I use a car. But once in a while, it is really nice to ride on a horse. I think cars have not killed off horses yet.

For my travels, I prefer to go by the 747s. But I do enjoy the sun and sail in a yatch.

For my technical/professional reports, I use my iMac with a HP laserjet. But there is nothing so sweet and romantic than a carefully crafted letter written with an old fashion fountain pen.

The huge words seen in advertisements are dramatic and eye-catching. They do the job well. But they do not bring out an "ahhhh..." from my soul compared to a well executed calligraphy with the brush and ink.

No, I do not reject technology. I use them. They are very useful, and in the area of arts and photography, can be used to create amazing images.

But they are different from film. Much as a candle is different from a lamp. A yatch different from the plane. The horse from the car. The brush from the inkjet.

There is no need to say which is better. Is the florescent light better than the candle for the romantic dinner? Is the car better than the horse for a romp in the woods? Is the heater better than the log fire for a nice evening with your loved one? Is the plane better than the yatch for enjoying the sea breeze and the sun?

They are different technologies. Use them in their intended purposes. Why be divisive? Why be exclusive?

Use technology.

Embrace life.

 

[forward]

This is the kind of hysterics/extremism we do not need. Film dying? Nobody use horses anymore? No more candles?

Please!



So what if the quality and dynamic range of digital technology exceed film?

Machines can weave a carpet better than the human hands. Why do people still want to pay premium for hand-weaved carpets?

Because there are other considerations besides dynamic range and resolution!



Really? I would not use the word "advantage" here. They are different mediums. Undoubtedly digital have many many advantages over film. BTW, films also work better in real life situations over MTF charts.




Really? There is no difference?

1 Try projection. Project a digital image and the same image taken with a transparency and tell me there is no difference?

2 I wonder how many have seen well printed B&W images. Take a good look at the inkjet B&W prints and the traditional B&W prints and tell me there is no difference?

Now I am not saying which is better. What one likes is a matter of personal prefrence. But to say there is no difference is to my mind, total ignorance.


Technology is here to stay, and it would be foolish for anyone to ignore the tech advantage. I use an Olympus E1, and is seriously thinking of getting the Canon 5D with the 24-105 lens. But I will wait a little while to see if Olympus has new offerings.

For my day to day usage, I use my fingers to switch on the lights. But for a nice dinner with my wife, I prefer the romance of the old-fashion light and fragrance of a candle.

To heat up my room in winter, I much prefer the efficient built in heating system. But there is just something special sitting next to the glow and warmth of a log fire.

For my day to day usage, I use a car. But once in a while, it is really nice to ride on a horse. I think cars have not killed off horses yet.

For my travels, I prefer to go by the 747s. But I do enjoy the sun and sail in a yatch.

For my technical/professional reports, I use my iMac with a HP laserjet. But there is nothing so sweet and romantic than a carefully crafted letter written with an old fashion fountain pen.

The huge words seen in advertisements are dramatic and eye-catching. They do the job well. But they do not bring out an "ahhhh..." from my soul compared to a well executed calligraphy with the brush and ink.

No, I do not reject technology. I use them. They are very useful, and in the area of arts and photography, can be used to create amazing images.

But they are different from film. Much as a candle is different from a lamp. A yatch different from the plane. The horse from the car. The brush from the inkjet.

There is no need to say which is better. Is the florescent light better than the candle for the romantic dinner? Is the car better than the horse? Is the heater better than the log fire? Is the plane better than the yatch?

They are different technologies. Use them in their intended purposes. Why be divisive? Why be exclusive?

Use technology.

Embrace life.

Well said and Thumbs up for you! This is what experience is all about.
You did spent time to educate the younger set. Congratulation! I appreciate your input.

-------------------
Many has yet to seek or know how to
seek spiritual values. People were
just work up on techno processes
and the human conditions. If only
one knows how to embrace life, the
world will be really a different place
to live in. :sweatsm:

 

[Sion]

As such i concure, film is immortal.

So are great photographers.

They don't die. We just bury them.

Their images live on.

 

[F5user]

I think that pros will be foolish to use films.

It will remain an art form.

so i guess that the majority of pros within the fashion/detailed reproduction/design industry are all foolish la...

:dunno:

 

[Bobman]

Film will extinct if Chemicals extinct. Instead of stick to Roll film, I am starting to use Sheet film.

 

[lsisaxon]

This is the kind of hysterics/extremism we do not need. Film dying? Nobody use horses anymore? No more candles?

Please!

So what if the quality and dynamic range of digital technology exceed film?

Film will still stay. Very much like vinyls and analog tapes. CDs offer better resolution and better SNR etc etc.. ADC and DAC Technology has improved to such a point that digital artifacts are no longer discernible. Still there is still a certain quality of analog tapes and vinyls that digital signal processors cannot reproduce.

Same for digital and film. It is the chaos that exists in the analog domain which makes it different from digital, which come as pristine and accurate and very clinical. For vinyls, the noise is also dependent on how much dust which is left behind after you clean it. It's all about unpredictability.

Machines can weave a carpet better than the human hands. Why do people still want to pay premium for hand-wovened carpets?

Because there are other considerations besides dynamic range and resolution!

It is the randomness. If anyone wants to argue from an accuracy point of view, digital wins hands down. No doubt about that. But, it is the randomness, the very human touch that makes the difference.

Even in film, just controlling the process, there is an element of randomness which alters the output. Art is not about reproduction accuracy. It's about the human touch.

Really? I would not use the word "advantage" here. They are different mediums. Undoubtedly digital have many many practical advantages over film. But there are something in films that are, well, films. BTW, films also work better in real life situations over MTF charts.

Really? There is no difference?

1 Try projection. Project a digital image and the same image taken with a transparency and tell me there is no difference?

Many movies are now shot on film, transferred to digital, edited, transferred back to film and they look as good. It involved a digital domain which do not have much more resolution than 6mp. The biggest problem is the current projectors do not offer the resolution now. There are new cinemas using the new digital projection now and I don't think they lose out to screens which are still screening film.

The drawback is these projectors cost a bomb. The only reason why film still looks better after projection is that the grains are irregular and the eye is able to smooth these chaotic non-information and ignore them.

For digital projection, the pixels are regular which is why the eye is able to discern them. Very much the same for printers, if you used a random/chaotic dithering, you will tend to be able to ignore the dots than if you used a regular screen dithering.

It still boils down to randomness for a more human touch.

2 I wonder how many have seen well printed B&W images. Take a good look at the inkjet B&W prints and the traditional B&W prints and tell me there is no difference?

Now I am not saying which is better. What one likes is a matter of personal preference. But to say there is no difference is to my mind, total ignorance.

Of course, the chemical is different, the reflectivity is different, it appears different. Again, the randomness of the film process.

Technology is here to stay, and it would be foolish for anyone to ignore the tech advantage. I use an Olympus E1, and is seriously thinking of getting the Canon 5D with the 24-105 lens. But I will wait a little while to see if Olympus has new offerings.

For my day to day usage, I use my fingers to switch on the lights. But for a nice dinner with my wife, I prefer the romance of the old-fashion light and fragrance of a candle.

To heat up my room in winter, I much prefer the efficient built in heating system. But there is just something special sitting next to the glow and warmth of a log fire.

For my day to day usage, I use a car. But once in a while, it is really nice to ride on a horse. I think cars have not killed off horses yet.

For my travels, I prefer to go by the 747s. But I do enjoy the sun and sail in a yatch.

For my technical/professional reports, I use my iMac with a HP laserjet. But there is nothing so sweet and romantic than a carefully crafted letter written with an old fashion fountain pen.

The huge words seen in advertisements are dramatic and eye-catching. They do the job well. But they do not bring out an "ahhhh..." from my soul compared to a well executed calligraphy with the brush and ink.

No, I do not reject technology. I use them. They are very useful, and in the area of arts and photography, can be used to create amazing images.

But they are different from film. Much as a candle is different from a lamp. A yatch different from the plane. The horse from the car. The brush from the inkjet.

There is no need to say which is better. Is the florescent light better than the candle for the romantic dinner? Is the car better than the horse for a romp in the woods? Is the heater better than the log fire for a nice evening with your loved one? Is the plane better than the yatch for enjoying the sea breeze and the sun?

They are different technologies. Use them in their intended purposes. Why be divisive? Why be exclusive?

Use technology.

Embrace life.

At the end of it, it is all about the human touch. Technology is just a domain by which we harness to express our human selves. There is no right or wrong, better or worse media. It is about the effect you want to achieve to express yourself. If accuracy and preservability is of a great concern, digital is good. But if a certain effect is required, then it is up to the individual to select the media.

One very simple question. Which media is able to more accurately depict the other is the technically superior one, but it may not be the best one. Has anyone tried to cut a vinyl from a digital master and record a vinyl onto a digital medium? Which one is able to more accurately reproduce the original? It is obvious the digital one is able to do that, even the effects which you get from a vinyl can be accurately recorded onto a CD and it is virtually impossible to tell the recorded version from the original vinyl.

It is the same with digital photography. You can write a digital image onto film and you can scan a film into digital. Given enough resolution for the digital, which one do you think will depict the original better? I will leave this for you to answer yourself.

 

[LittleWolf]

The 35mm film still bares commercial value, it's just that consumers have discovered the convinience of digital photography.

I would think that the major professional segment that traditionally used 35mm film (photojournalism) has mostly switched to digital. Larger formats are another issue.

When companies develop new film products, the advances will trickle down to the consumer market. The sheer volume of that market means new developments are ultimately profitable. Without that market segment, it will be economically more difficult to keep developing and producing film products. Film prices will probably go up, which may drive even more people towards digital imaging.

But u see, digital photgraphy is all abt buttons and numbers. Whereas film photgraphy requires u to understand and comprehend the science of light.

News flash: ever since the dark medieval ages, science is based on mathematically formulated theories and analyses, i.e. it is largely about numbers. "Understanding and comprehending" light would have been pretty difficult if people hadn't succeeded at measuring its propagation speed, the wavelengths involved, and the quantum energy associated with a certain frequency.

And even the most purist publications that insist on large-format diapositive slides - pardon, "trannies" - and write editorials on how digital doesn't cut it mount them on a scanner to (gasp!) digitize them for further processing and printing.

When developing in a darkroom, the developer can tell u truly y the light turned out in a certain manner. Not because of megapixels and dimensions but purly because how the light was playing on the film... and to any realist photographer it's that very science of light, the understanding of it, that sends shivers down a person's spine!

My command of the English language may be limited, but I'm pretty sure what you describe is not called "science". Maybe "mysticism" would be a more suitable word.

 

[Dave P]

This is the kind of hysterics/extremism we do not need. Film dying? Nobody use horses anymore? No more candles?

Please!



So what if the quality and dynamic range of digital technology exceed film?

Machines can weave a carpet better than the human hands. Why do people still want to pay premium for hand-wovened carpets?

Because there are other considerations besides dynamic range and resolution!



Really? I would not use the word "advantage" here. They are different mediums. Undoubtedly digital have many many practical advantages over film. But there are something in films that are, well, films. BTW, films also work better in real life situations over MTF charts.




Really? There is no difference?

1 Try projection. Project a digital image and the same image taken with a transparency and tell me there is no difference?

2 I wonder how many have seen well printed B&W images. Take a good look at the inkjet B&W prints and the traditional B&W prints and tell me there is no difference?

Now I am not saying which is better. What one likes is a matter of personal preference. But to say there is no difference is to my mind, total ignorance.


Technology is here to stay, and it would be foolish for anyone to ignore the tech advantage. I use an Olympus E1, and is seriously thinking of getting the Canon 5D with the 24-105 lens. But I will wait a little while to see if Olympus has new offerings.

For my day to day usage, I use my fingers to switch on the lights. But for a nice dinner with my wife, I prefer the romance of the old-fashion light and fragrance of a candle.

To heat up my room in winter, I much prefer the efficient built in heating system. But there is just something special sitting next to the glow and warmth of a log fire.

For my day to day usage, I use a car. But once in a while, it is really nice to ride on a horse. I think cars have not killed off horses yet.

For my travels, I prefer to go by the 747s. But I do enjoy the sun and sail in a yatch.

For my technical/professional reports, I use my iMac with a HP laserjet. But there is nothing so sweet and romantic than a carefully crafted letter written with an old fashion fountain pen.

The huge words seen in advertisements are dramatic and eye-catching. They do the job well. But they do not bring out an "ahhhh..." from my soul compared to a well executed calligraphy with the brush and ink.

No, I do not reject technology. I use them. They are very useful, and in the area of arts and photography, can be used to create amazing images.

But they are different from film. Much as a candle is different from a lamp. A yatch different from the plane. The horse from the car. The brush from the inkjet.

There is no need to say which is better. Is the florescent light better than the candle for the romantic dinner? Is the car better than the horse for a romp in the woods? Is the heater better than the log fire for a nice evening with your loved one? Is the plane better than the yatch for enjoying the sea breeze and the sun?

They are different technologies. Use them in their intended purposes. Why be divisive? Why be exclusive?

Use technology.

Embrace life.

Thankfully photographers have a choice in whether to use film or Digital. I would not criticize anyone for using any kind of media; but it is the end result that counts not the method.

If you are comparing a projected MF colour slide to a XGA projected image there would be no doubt that the slide would be far superior. But that would apply to a comparison with 35mm also.

I do not suggest that there is no difference between digital and film, They are not the same. but an image should be judged on its merits not on its media. There are many creative photographers who produce stunning images on whatever media they have available.

Digital enables the creative photographer to produce work which would not be possible using conventional methods. Also creative film photographers can achieve results that digital printing could never get close to achieving.

What is best is in the eye of the beholder; At the moment there is a choice; it would be very sad if film was to die entirely; though I expect the days of 35mm are sadly numbered.

 

[student]

but an image should be judged on its merits not on its media. There are many creative photographers who produce stunning images on whatever media they have available.

In my earlier post, I made it very clear that I believe that great images can be made with the high tech media that are available to us. There is no question about this and there is no disagreement.

But to say that an image should be judged on its merits and not on its media begs for a disagreement and retort.

How can images be independent from the media through which they are portrayed? An image printed on glossy papers and an image printed on matt papers will have a totally different impact. Why do artists take great pains to show their images in certain frames? Why are images, in an exhibition, arranged in a certain way? Why are lights positioned in such manner as to bring out the texture and nuances of a print? Why do people still use the expensive and laborious platinum processes? Why do people use the bromoil processes? Why do some photographers prefer to use painted wooden boards for their images? Why do some photographers chose to use special hand made papers? Have you ever seen images printed in different media?

I am trying to understand why you felt that the media is not important in evaluating the image. I may be wrong here. But could it be that in this electronic age, people hardly print their images anymore? And images are evaluated only on the computer screen? I have friends who did just this! And even if an image was made with film, by the time it gets to the screen, with its miserable quality, that there is hardly any difference? Remember the image on the computer screen is only a VERY poor imitation of the real stuff.

What one prefers is another matter. But to imply, as you did, that the media play an unimportant role is plainly wrong.

The image is inextricably linked to the media.

 

[cocoa]

Interesting thread!

need many more "student"s to keep film alive though :bsmilie:

cocoa

 

[student]

I do not suggest that there is no difference between digital and film

And to remind you what you wrote earlier

Whether a photo is taken on film or CCD should not make any difference

 

[waileong]

Interesting thread, but too focused on winning arguments and showing contradictions in other peoples' postings. Will X admit his mistake or misunderstanding or stupidity in front of a worldwide audience? What do you get if you expose X's mistake or misunderstanding or stupidity? After a while, it gets tiresome.

Another F vs D thread. Mods, perhaps you should close this-- waste of server space.

 

[student]

Interesting thread, but too focused on winning arguments and showing contradictions in other peoples' postings. Will X admit his mistake or misunderstanding or stupidity in front of a worldwide audience? What do you get if you expose X's mistake or misunderstanding or stupidity? After a while, it gets tiresome.

Another F vs D thread. Mods, perhaps you should close this-- waste of server space.

Yes, please delete your post. You are wasting server space. And do not tire yourself by spending time writing such.

Please do not read such threads - if you think that clarifying things is not important. It is not about winning arguments. If you do not know the value of debates and how it contribute to clearer thinking, then keep your peace and let others clarify their thoughts.

Some are contended to have muddy thinking and remain in that state. So be it.

 

[David]

I think films are virtually dead for some time.

This is my informal observation -- People who shoot films are usually:

1. not into latest tech gadgets
2. come from developing countries (but there are many picking up digital)
3. hardly shoot pics or not into photography

The convenience of digital is just too useful to pass it away.

Unfortunately, though I use digital more than films these days, I still think digital generally is not here to beat films in terms of the print quality.

 

[michhy]

Though I no longer shoot in film, I feel that the one, largest and maybe most important advantage about film (as compared to digital) is the wider dynamic range.

we see more and more pixels, larger and larger sensor sizes, etc... but no camera makers has yet to address the dynamic range "problem" with digital cameras :thumbsd:

 

[waileong]

On the other hand, some are not willing to rest until every single inaccuracy is corrected, every point is countered and proven or discredited. However, this is not scientific debate, where the right or wrong can be proven through experiments or repeatable mathematical proofs, and F vs D threads can go on and on with all kinds of unhappiness created all round.

I see high blood pressure coming along, among other things...

Some are contended to have muddy thinking and remain in that state. So be it.

 

[yyD70S]

On the other hand, some are not willing to rest until every single inaccuracy is corrected, every point is countered and proven or discredited. However, this is not scientific debate, where the right or wrong can be proven through experiments or repeatable mathematical proofs, and F vs D threads can go on and on with all kinds of unhappiness created all round.

I see high blood pressure coming along, among other things...

Exactly, just like Canon vs Nikon... as an example.:sweat:

Move on.

 

[student]

I think films are virtually dead for some time.

This is my informal observation -- People who shoot films are usually:

1. not into latest tech gadgets
2. come from developing countries (but there are many picking up digital)
3. hardly shoot pics or not into photography

The convenience of digital is just too useful to pass it away.

Unfortunately, though I use digital more than films these days, I still think digital generally is not here to beat films in terms of the print quality.

Film is my preferred medium.

1 I admit I am not into the latest tech gadgets. I am just not particularly interested to be a tech-head.

But in photography, I use an Olympus E1, an iMac, and PS CS2.

2 I live in Singapore, which to some people from first world country, is a developing country. But we know of course that people from first world country do not necessarily have first world brains.

3 I am but a student in photography. Just learning, and taking some pictures once in a while.

Here is a photograph taken with my Olympus E1 with minor adjustment in PS on my iMac.

 

[Dave P]

I am trying to understand why you felt that the media is not important in evaluating the image. I may be wrong here. But could it be that in this electronic age, people hardly print their images anymore? And images are evaluated only on the computer screen? I have friends who did just this! And even if an image was made with film, by the time it gets to the screen, with its miserable quality, that there is hardly any difference? Remember the image on the computer screen is only a VERY poor imitation of the real stuff.

What one prefers is another matter. But to imply, as you did, that the media play an unimportant role is plainly wrong.

The image is inextricably linked to the media.

Sorry but I cannot agree on this point; I do not say that the media is unimportant I say that an image should be judged on its merits, if 2 identical compositions are produced using fibre paper and inkjet and placed side by side then you can judge them by the end result, but you cannot make the same comparison if you are looking at different subject matter.

It is the composition and idea behind the picture which is the most important part. The production and final look of the print can have a big effect; but is secondary to the idea behind the picture in the first place.

The presentation; is a very important element and using specialist developers and papers can lift a good picture to make it exceptional: but it cannot make a mundane picture a great one!

 

[waileong]

There's probably a spurious correlation. But people who shoot film are usually

a. Because they have been using film a long time and find no reason to change

b. Because they love the convenience of film and they value their time (1-hour labs, anyone? No PS, no messing around with WB, no RAW post-processing, etc)

c. Because they like certain film (like Velvia, Tri-X, etc) and the results on certain papers (esp black and white)

d. Because they believe film has certain advantages over digital (convenience is one, as above) and they are not put off by film's disadvantages (like no instant preview)

e. Because they find that their requirements cannot be met by digital (eg if you are trekking in jungles or deserts far away from civilisation, where there's no way to charge your digital camera).


The above does not imply the person is a technophobe.

Wai Leong
===

I think films are virtually dead for some time.

This is my informal observation -- People who shoot films are usually:

1. not into latest tech gadgets
2. come from developing countries (but there are many picking up digital)
3. hardly shoot pics or not into photography

The convenience of digital is just too useful to pass it away.

Unfortunately, though I use digital more than films these days, I still think digital generally is not here to beat films in terms of the print quality.