Film to be extinct in X years ?
- Thread starter NE clicks clicks
- Start date
- Status
yyD70S said:
If you think that this is like the Canon versus Nikon, think again.
NOWHERE did I say film is better. I was merely trying to say that film and digital are different mediums with their different characteristics.
NOWHERE did I say that film is better than digital.
Please think again.
Dave P said:
Of course I agree with you that the subject matter is the most important. But the power of the image presentation is dependent on the media.
Your statement said "an image should be judges on its merits, not on the media". My point is that the image cannot be divorced from its media. To compare, we should take the same image and present it differently with different media. Not different images. Then say if the image can be judged independent of the media.
We will disagree on this. It is OK.
hmmm...extinct or not...really overkill...besides quality, dynamic range and what not.
other things too could determine if film be extinct or not.
just imagine, what happens when you get a client who says they prefer
film to digital and you only have a digital camera?
And surprisingly, one such client is my own wife! She knew nothing
abt photography, but she likes the 'feel' of images with film than digital.
What's more, that was what happened when we engaged out wedding
photographer...surprise they were.
I got a frend who does digital video, and he bought an expensive XL1...
but on one of his wedding assignments, the couple wanted everything to
be as film like as possible and if possible, to be done on film itself.
You might argue abt the market niche or watever, but ppl's taste too
needs to be considered. As for me, when i can shoot something that i
could take my time to process, i'd shoot with film. And if it requires fast
processing, digital will be my choice.
That's y...i think film is here to stay...in fact, I've seen ppl
taking weddings with those m42 cam bodies and lenses.
I've talked to amatures n pros who say that they are diehard analogue shooters.
I met new photographers who just love film and do have digital cameras.
So y these ppl love film so much??? Why why why?
So, how can film be extinct in X years when ppl in CS are waiting patiently
to grab good film cams. The market make us think that film is dying, but
behind the scenes, film is still going strong!
other things too could determine if film be extinct or not.
just imagine, what happens when you get a client who says they prefer
film to digital and you only have a digital camera?
And surprisingly, one such client is my own wife! She knew nothing
abt photography, but she likes the 'feel' of images with film than digital.
What's more, that was what happened when we engaged out wedding
photographer...surprise they were.
I got a frend who does digital video, and he bought an expensive XL1...
but on one of his wedding assignments, the couple wanted everything to
be as film like as possible and if possible, to be done on film itself.
You might argue abt the market niche or watever, but ppl's taste too
needs to be considered. As for me, when i can shoot something that i
could take my time to process, i'd shoot with film. And if it requires fast
processing, digital will be my choice.
That's y...i think film is here to stay...in fact, I've seen ppl
taking weddings with those m42 cam bodies and lenses.
I've talked to amatures n pros who say that they are diehard analogue shooters.
I met new photographers who just love film and do have digital cameras.
So y these ppl love film so much??? Why why why?
So, how can film be extinct in X years when ppl in CS are waiting patiently
to grab good film cams. The market make us think that film is dying, but
behind the scenes, film is still going strong!
LittleWolf said:
Woah... chill out man, I merely meant to say that there's a certain sense of, yes, fantasy involved in film that will forever captivate most, if not all, "photographers."
The digital age cannot be denied because of it's convinience, neither can u deny the analogue for the sheer understanding it provides the user for the art.
May peace reign once again.
Let the future speak for itself. Who are we to say?
Apart from the more limited dynamic range of digital compared to films, I find another disadvantage of digital is that sometimes, it cannot reproduce details well. Let me describe further and see if u all experience this.
Whether this happens or not depends on the lighting. For eg, when u shoot trees and the background is the bright white sky, the edges appear somewhat fuzzy and the details in the leaves of the tress appear "smeared out", like an art painting instead of what a photo should be. I've seen works by photographers who used top DSLRs like Canon 1D series and this effect was still prominent. :thumbsd:
Sometimes, it's easy to identify such stuffs in newspapers and u know a digital cam has been used. I personally dun like the effect. Dun tink film has this equivalent problem.
Anyone get what I'm trying to describe?
Whether this happens or not depends on the lighting. For eg, when u shoot trees and the background is the bright white sky, the edges appear somewhat fuzzy and the details in the leaves of the tress appear "smeared out", like an art painting instead of what a photo should be. I've seen works by photographers who used top DSLRs like Canon 1D series and this effect was still prominent. :thumbsd:
Sometimes, it's easy to identify such stuffs in newspapers and u know a digital cam has been used. I personally dun like the effect. Dun tink film has this equivalent problem.
Anyone get what I'm trying to describe?
There may be several explainations for this effect.David said:
1) In a CCD sensor, each pixel is a light sensitive charge collecting well, when the well becomes filled, the charge spills over to the adjacent well.
2) The low pass filter is like a 'soft' filter such that if you have a very bright light, it becomes smeared because of diffraction.
3) The demosaicing algorithm takes information from the surrounding pixels and decodes the colour, when the adjacent pixel is too bright, it doesn't know how to decode properly.
4) The optics is dirty or not well designed.
I think this effect can also be present in film if it is due to the optics. Only that in film it is not as convenient to zoom in until you see all these defects like it can be done with digital. I used to do a lot of printing in the darkroom up to sizes of 16" x 20" so I've seen how bad film can also be.
lsisaxon said:
Not new to me though after having been in the wedding industry for more than two decades. Have oversea clients that have been spending more than 30K to document their weddings. This amount is only for still and wedding video on film.
In one of these weddings, one couple spent three days in Singapore and have the event held in a five-star hotel. The video photographer with his four-men crew and myself (as the official still photographer) had to spend three days covering the wedding. I had an assistant with me throughout the three days. The still photography alone cost them more than 12K for the three days. The images were all done on medium format cameras.
----------------------------------------
Today wedding photographers are not getting good return for their time and skills. Perhaps what may be the most important item on the learning agenda should be in the area of business practice for commercial photography.
Wow.. that's really a bomb! What did they shoot on for the videos? 16mm or 35mm? At the end of the day, they will need to screen it with a projector?forward said:Not new to me though after having been in the wedding industry for more than two decades. Have oversea clients that have been spending more than 30K to document their weddings. This amount is only for still and wedding video on film.
In one of these weddings, one couple spent three days in Singapore and have the event held in a five-star hotel. The video photographer with his four-men crew and myself (as the official still photographer) had to spend three days covering the wedding. I had an assistant with me throughout the three days. The still photography alone cost them more than 12K for the three days. The images were all done on medium format cameras.
----------------------------------------
Today wedding photographers are not getting good return for their time and skills. Perhaps what may be the most important item on the learning agenda should be in the area of business practice for commercial photography.
I think medium format for still pictures are still ok but I will not want to cover a live event with that because I don't have a medium format camera which is fast enough.
V
vince123123
Guest
Not to mention heavy....and the couple's gonna spend another bomb reprinting photographs for friends.
lsisaxon said:
SilentWave
New Member
For anyone who still has film cameras, plans to keep shooting with these cameras in the future, but worrying about the availability of film in the future...do not just sit there and worry. Worrying does nothing! Show your support by still shooting films regularly.
khairi said:
Very well said! I myself do have a digital compact but seldom use it. My main cam now is my film SLR and the reason why i stuck to film is becos i still think that film has overall better quality n colour where digital doesn't come close. I've been using film since 11 years ago and haven't been disappointed with the results.
Though there're pple around me 'psychoing' me to buy a DSLR cos of it being cheaper in the long run. Yes they're right but the problem is they don't understand the beauty of a picture on 35mm film. Shooting with films do cost more but it's satisfaction that counts ultimately.
IMO both digital n film have their own pros and cons. There're many pros out there who publish their works on photography books or fashion magazines still using film fully. So for me it's still film.
When i got an enlarger, i finally get to realize how beautiful film was...
Well i guess why b/w traditionalists who develop their own film and make their own prints (which i have finally been able to do at home) still love film is probably because the process of making that final print is so satisfying.
They know that whatever appeared on that print was almost entirely due to their efforts, with minimal help from modern technology. Not to say that digital post-processing is easy, as i use photoshop and other programs as well, and it is sometimes a hard and tedious process to get good results.
However, that feeling of total control when using film is just wonderful, and that's why i still use film today...
Digital without a doubt is where the future is, and will head to. Unfortunately, the continuation of the production film does not lie on the passion of those still using it, but on money. So what the future of film will be, i don't know.. I'll just enjoy it while it's still here.
Well i guess why b/w traditionalists who develop their own film and make their own prints (which i have finally been able to do at home) still love film is probably because the process of making that final print is so satisfying.
They know that whatever appeared on that print was almost entirely due to their efforts, with minimal help from modern technology. Not to say that digital post-processing is easy, as i use photoshop and other programs as well, and it is sometimes a hard and tedious process to get good results.
However, that feeling of total control when using film is just wonderful, and that's why i still use film today...
Digital without a doubt is where the future is, and will head to. Unfortunately, the continuation of the production film does not lie on the passion of those still using it, but on money. So what the future of film will be, i don't know.. I'll just enjoy it while it's still here.
- Status
Similar threads
