Going Back to Film

[photobum]

For crucial and none time constraint assignments, I still use film (transparency film to be exact).

These days, most people want everything instant and fast. Therefore, digital is the way to go.

As for my personal preference, it is film. In terms of color reproduction, color saturation and tonal interpretation, film is still the winner.

 

[Stereobox]

i have film cameras that are way older than i am - and still very relevant, photographically-speaking, today. i don't forsee the same with my digital ones.

i still prefer Mom's homecooked meals more than any "yummy-king"-endorsed zhi-char stalls out there.

going back to film .. going back for meals .. different things, but same feelings! :bsmilie:

 

[raptor84]

I still have 2 rolls ofr 160C sitting in the fridge...shloud go out and give my 300v a workout soon =p

Just got another roll of slides back form grace too..hard to shoot negatives after seeing the results...

 

[Seeto]

I just went to a shop to buy some slide film and realised how much slide film price has gone up since the last time I purchased it!! Indeed it has been a while since I last bought slides here in Singapore, but the price has gone up well over 30%!! To make matters worse, I found out there are limited places in Singapore left that processes slides.

Anyone knows other places other than FotoHub and Ruby that processes slides? And how much is process w/o mount? and how much is with mounts?

 

[csisfun]

I just went to a shop to buy some slide film and realised how much slide film price has gone up since the last time I purchased it!! Indeed it has been a while since I last bought slides here in Singapore, but the price has gone up well over 30%!! To make matters worse, I found out there are limited places in Singapore left that processes slides.

Anyone knows other places other than FotoHub and Ruby that processes slides? And how much is process w/o mount? and how much is with mounts?

Just wondering, why do people want to mount slides?

 

[rokieto]

it's only a matter of time, film will become history (extinct)........in this digital age, even xray is digital.

going back is more of enjoy before it's gone forever......back to the future!

(the only reason I used film recently was the $2 film I bought from IMM Daiso & also trying out a manual fisheye on my eos50....no FF dSLR....)

for some, maybe commercially viable reasons.....but not for long....with new sensors of higher megapixels & maybe new generation of sensors.......unless there is no such thing as electricity or batteries.....then all go MANUAL & back to film............happy for some!

(use typewriter to write forums) :bsmilie:

 

[student]

it's only a matter of time, film will become history (extinct)........in this digital age, even xray is digital.

going back is more of enjoy before it's gone forever......back to the future!

with new sensors of higher megapixels & maybe new generation of sensors.......unless there is no such thing as electricity or batteries.....then all go MANUAL & back to film......happy for some!

:bsmilie:

Really?

Do you know that some of the "old" technologies used in the beginnings of photography are still very much alive?

When silver emulsions came about, they did not make platinum printing "dead". There are more people using silver than platinum. But platinum is very much alive.

When color emulsions came about, they did not make B&W photography "dead". There are more people shooting color. But B&W is still very much alive. BTW, why do companies such as Epson etc try to make their prints look like film?

Every technology has its minuses and pluses.

An inkjet print will be an inkjet print.

A silver print will be a silverprint.

A platinum print will be a platinum print.

They are all beautiful in their own way.

Much as technology tries to make silver print look like platinum, and inkjet tries to look like silver, they will be different.

And that is reason enough for platinum to continue, and silver to continue.

The reason is called "Artistic Preference". One is not the other.

 

[rokieto]

Really?

Do you know that some of the "old" technologies used in the beginnings of photography are still very much alive?

When silver emulsions came about, they did not make platinum printing "dead". There are more people using silver than platinum. But platinum is very much alive.

When color emulsions came about, they did not make B&W photography "dead". There are more people shooting color. But B&W is still very much alive. BTW, why do companies such as Epson etc try to make their prints look like film?

Every technology has its minuses and pluses.

An inkjet print will be an inkjet print.

A silver print will be a silverprint.

A platinum print will be a platinum print.

They are all beautiful in their own way.

Much as technology tries to make silver print look like platinum, and inkjet tries to look like silver, they will be different.

And that is reason enough for platinum to continue, and silver to continue.

The reason is called "Artistic Preference". One is not the other.

not saying it's dead,

the current advantages (film) that the users going back for can be overun by digital.....also commercial & economic reasons (film processing more expensive & less economically viable to operate), which is a reality....closing its jaws

every technology has pluses & minuses..........pluses can "multiply" & minuses can "diminish" (not a mathematical formula though)......that is, technology can improve, just like film did.......at a slower pace.........technology is progressing much faster these days.

earlier days of dSLR, "film is still better"....now? diminishing "better" as digital is catching up fast.

one day, artistic preference can also be at a click away, flip of a switch or a tap of the keyboard. old technology is still alive......at the backroom, supporting the new technology.

so when the time comes...don't be sad.....you will be happier with newer & better technology.

only a matter of time, wait & see. (don't blink....snap!)

 

[student]

not saying it's dead,

Someone called me a wordsmith.

I am guilty as charged.

To me, words have meaning. If you say that film will become extinct, then the word extinct must mean what it is supposed to mean.

I hope we can agree on that. Otherwise communication will be impossible if thewords we use are not suppose to mean what they are suppose to mean.

the current advantages (film) that the users going back for can be overun by digital.....also commercial & economic reasons (film processing more expensive & less economically viable to operate), which is a reality....closing its jaws

every technology has pluses & minuses..........pluses can "multiply" & minuses can "diminish" (not a mathematical formula though)......that is, technology can improve, just like film did.......at a slower pace.........technology is progressing much faster these days.

earlier days of dSLR, "film is still better"....now? diminishing "better" as digital is catching up fast.

one day, artistic preference can also be at a click away, flip of a switch or a tap of the keyboard. old technology is still alive......at the backroom, supporting the new technology.

so when the time comes...don't be sad.....you will be happier with newer & better technology.

only a matter of time, wait & see. (don't blink....snap!)

Nobody is saying that we should go back to horse carts to move around. I am now using the computer to write, and after this I will use my iMac and Hp laserjet to make some reports.

To me, whether film is "better" or digital is "better" is totally irrelevant.

The issue is not whether digital can do everything film can (Actually it can not!). For practical purposes, there is absolutely no question that digital is the way to go. The issue is not which is better. The issue is a matter of difference.

I do largely with silver B&W images. But I am not so daft to believe that in terms of delicacy, silver can be the same as platinum print. Have you seen a platinum print? Have you seen a good silver print? Have you compared a good silver or platinum print to a good inkjet print? Yes? No?

Technology will improve, there is no question about it. One day synthetic food made from soya bean will taste the same as a a good quality steak. And one may even prefer the soya bean steck. But are they the same?

Technology have improved so much that a factory carpet is very good. But why do people still prefer hand-made carpets? And pay premium for that?

There are much more in life than deciding which tecnology is better. There is the issue of romanticism, fun, something made with the hands with loving care etc. For many things, new is not always better.

And that is why, "old things" still persist.

The "old" is not supporting the new. The "old" is standing proud on its own. The new is trying to emulate the old, at least for the time being, particularly for B&W imagery.

And I will still prefer my steak from cows than from those imitation made from soya beans.

I WILL be sad, if one day, Morten or Lawry's will only serve imitation beef.

 

[rokieto]

Someone called me a wordsmith.

I am guilty as charged.

To me, words have meaning. If you say that film will become extinct, then the word extinct must mean what it is supposed to mean.

I hope we can agree on that. Otherwise communication will be impossible if thewords we use are not suppose to mean what they are suppose to mean.



Nobody is saying that we should go back to horse carts to move around. I am now using the computer to write, and after this I will use my iMac and Hp laserjet to make some reports.

To me, whether film is "better" or digital is "better" is totally irrelevant.

The issue is not whether digital can do everything film can (Actually it can not!). For practical purposes, there is absolutely no question that digital is the way to go. The issue is not which is better. The issue is a matter of difference.

I do largely with silver B&W images. But I am not so daft to believe that in terms of delicacy, silver can be the same as platinum print. Have you seen a platinum print? Have you seen a good silver print? Have you compared a good silver or platinum print to a good inkjet print? Yes? No?

Technology will improve, there is no question about it. One day synthetic food made from soya bean will taste the same as a a good quality steak. And one may even prefer the soya bean steck. But are they the same?

Technology have improved so much that a factory carpet is very good. But why do people still prefer hand-made carpets? And pay premium for that?

There are much more in life than deciding which tecnology is better. There is the issue of romanticism, fun, something made with the hands with loving care etc. For many things, new is not always better.

And that is why, "old things" still persist.

The "old" is not supporting the new. The "old" is standing proud on its own. The new is trying to emulate the old, at least for the time being, particularly for B&W imagery.

And I will still prefer my steak from cows than from those imitation made from soya beans.

I WILL be sad, if one day, Morten or Lawry's will only serve imitation beef.

wordsmith? where? cheem....

anyway, never said old things are bad. just the technology & economical impact on film usage .....

I am talking more of majority level with impact of technological progress on general film usage & market.........in the end only those rare & artistic, with high level of film technology expertise who would persist & produce their masterpieces........ART not just photography in general & not "extinct" (sensitive:bheart: ). Just a different medium fewer & fewer people would use in the end. Commercially with future technology? would it be rare or none? or replaced? I shall not argue.

your reply reminded me of Slyvester Stallone's "JUDGE DREDD" a robotic food venting machine saying: "recycled food is good for the environment & okay for you!"......terrible isn't it?........:bsmilie:

 

[student]

wordsmith? where? cheem....

Somewhere..........

Not you of course

anyway, never said old things are bad. just the technology & economical impact on film usage .....

No. You did not say old things are bad. You said film will be extinct.

I am talking more of majority level with impact of technological progress on general film usage & market.........in the end only those rare & artistic, with high level of film technology expertise who would persist & produce their masterpieces........ART not just photography in general & not "extinct" (sensitive:bheart: ). Just a different medium fewer & fewer people would use in the end. Commercially with future technology? would it be rare or none? or replaced? I shall not argue.

I know what you mean. But whatever the advantages of digital (and there are many! I use a DSLR too!), there will be a role for older technology - which this post of yours agreed to.

That means that according to yourself, film will not likely to be extinct - certainly not in the near future - mine and perhaps yours too!

This is where my guilt as a "wordsmith" stands!

your reply reminded me of Slyvester Stallone's "JUDGE DREDD" a robotic food venting machine saying: "recycled food is good for the environment & okay for you!"......terrible isn't it?........:bsmilie:

Terrible, isn't it? This modern technology?

 

[LazerLordz]

I'm branching out to film after starting out on digital.

These days I shoot mainly Portra, Reala and Velvia 100 these days. It's something that I find satisfying as a hobby. However, on assignments, I will stick to digital for practical reasons.

I did cover two events this year using slides when temptation struck me, but the turnaround time is unacceptable for me, although my clients are not so time-sensitive.Even so, having the latitude still didn't convert me to shoot events in slides.

Personally, it's good to give both a go. :thumbsup:

 

[Ansel]

I know what you mean. But whatever the advantages of digital (and there are many! I use a DSLR too!), there will be a role for older technology - which this post of yours agreed to.

Something which may or may not be OT. But hear my out.

There is really no need nor role for older technology such as mechanical timepieces. Quartz has overtaken 99.9% of timekeeping function in our lives. Yet mechanical watches, especially in the luxury sector are still selling like hotcakes! I'm not even talking about brands like Rolex where mechanical watches have always been their mainstay. Even those "budget" swiss brands (eg, Oris, Titoni, etc) have been resurrected because of the mech watch revival. Though less accurate, require servicing, more fragile, and more expensive on the average, many people still prefer a mechanical watch.

I love to hear the ticking sound on my wrist. Practical? No. Just feel shiok that's all!

 

[clubgrit]

Just use whichever one desires

Hasselblad's stance is praiseworthy, to quote:

"In today’s photographic world, film and digital live side by side; and there is a time and a place for both. The choice of medium is like the choice of lens: just another color in the
photographers’ palette. Because, strictly speaking, the Digital Revolution isn’t even a revolution any more. It’s just a fact. Since our inception, Hasselblad has been at the forefront of photographic innovation. Our recent merger with fellow Scandinavian imaging company Imacon continues this tradition. Cutting edge digital technology has now
been merged with Hasselblad quality and expertise, and Hasselblad is proud to continue to offer the ultimate in photographic tools and expertise – for both the digital and analogue worlds."

Of course, the digital backs that can be used on their analogue cameras are still stratospheric in price, being very sophisticated and able to control the camera. But time should change that ...

 

[rokieto]

Just use whichever one desires

Hasselblad's stance is praiseworthy, to quote:

"In today’s photographic world, film and digital live side by side; and there is a time and a place for both. The choice of medium is like the choice of lens: just another color in the
photographers’ palette. Because, strictly speaking, the Digital Revolution isn’t even a revolution any more. It’s just a fact. Since our inception, Hasselblad has been at the forefront of photographic innovation. Our recent merger with fellow Scandinavian imaging company Imacon continues this tradition. Cutting edge digital technology has now
been merged with Hasselblad quality and expertise, and Hasselblad is proud to continue to offer the ultimate in photographic tools and expertise – for both the digital and analogue worlds."

Of course, the digital backs that can be used on their analogue cameras are still stratospheric in price, being very sophisticated and able to control the camera. But time should change that ...

only a matter of time.....

 

[clubgrit]

Maybe, in the meantime, we enjoy it to the fullest. And some products, like a Hasselblad analog camera, are digital ready for the future. Best of both worlds.

That's what they said about vinyl records too, extinct. Well, the best-sounding hifi systems in the world still use turntables as main source, no horse run. Just bought Johnny Cash's last record before his death, superb and full of emotion even in his old age.

To each his own passion ... we just go on and take photos any way we want I still love my tiny Canon Ixus fashion digital camera in burgundy red, served me well, and my kid is enjoying it now ...

 

[plasma]

I think the best part of owning a film camera is to develop your negatives and film in a dark room. And since film is expensive and have limited exposures, you tend to be very careful in taking a shot. But the sastification is there no matter how bad the picture turn out on prints.

 

[lightning]

With digital going at such high res, even 35mm film has problem keeping up. Some of the high end digital camera has resolution close to a mid. format camera.

I have seen so many commercial photographers who switched to digital when in the first place they oppose to me going into digital.

 

[antitrust]

With digital going at such high res, even 35mm film has problem keeping up. Some of the high end digital camera has resolution close to a mid. format camera.

I have seen so many commercial photographers who switched to digital when in the first place they oppose to me going into digital.

high end digital camera close to a MF cam? no offence, but it just doesn't sound right to me. i think even high end dSLRs cannot match a MF? i think la. :dunno:

 

[student]

high end digital camera close to a MF cam? no offence, but it just doesn't sound right to me. i think even high end dSLRs cannot match a MF? i think la. :dunno:

I think lightning is right. For practical purposes, it is close.

But to me, it is not how close high end DSLR is to medium format or large format. To me, the issue is that of difference between the medium.

One is not the other. It does not matter which one has the higher resolution.