Film not dead yet...
 

From the CNN website.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2011/08/18/natpkg.film.not.dead.yet.cnn?hpt=hp_abar

Cheers

Film not dead yet...
 

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:53:44 -0400, "Martin Riddle"
wrote:
: From the CNN website.
: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2011/08/18/natpkg.film.not.dead.yet.cnn?hpt=hp_abar
:
: Cheers

Watching those diehards is a touching experience, like an anthropologist
observing a primitive tribe in New Guinea. But just as the tribesmens'
children will inevitably have roads, schools, hospitals, and other trappings
of modernity, so too will the children of these last "analog" photographers
use only digital cameras, viewing their parents' peculiar obsession with
bemused detachment. Film may not be dead, but it's drawing its final labored
breaths and will soon be relegated to antique shows and museums. Requiescat in
pace.

Bob

Film not dead yet...
 

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 20/08/2011 8:35 AM:


Watching those diehards is a touching experience, like an anthropologist
observing a primitive tribe in New Guinea.

Amazing. Why did you watch, then?

of modernity, so too will the children of these last "analog" photographers
use only digital cameras, viewing their parents' peculiar obsession with
bemused detachment.

And yet, with one exception, the folks in that clip are very young, cvertainly
younger than most of the deadbeats around here. Goes to show, doesn't it?

Film may not be dead, but it's drawing its final labored
breaths and will soon be relegated to antique shows and museums. Requiescat in
pace.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that bull**** in the last 112
years. Usually from some low-life troll like you, trying to push their own
little digital imaging "business" aspirations.
Ah well, it must hurt like buggery...

Film not dead yet...
 

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:51:18 +1000, Noons wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 20/08/2011 8:35 AM:
:
:
: Watching those diehards is a touching experience, like an anthropologist
: observing a primitive tribe in New Guinea.
:
: Amazing. Why did you watch, then?

Idle curiosity. The same reason you read my article.

: of modernity, so too will the children of these last "analog" photographers
: use only digital cameras, viewing their parents' peculiar obsession with
: bemused detachment.
:
: And yet, with one exception, the folks in that clip are very young, certainly
: younger than most of the deadbeats around here. Goes to show, doesn't it?

That's true. They're older than my grandchildren, but mostly younger than my
kids. But neither of my kids has touched a film camera for as long as I can
remember, and my grandchildren have never even seen one. All are digital
camera users of varying degrees of avidity.

What we see in the video are a very few people out of a very large city who
share an interest in a technology from the past. You will also, in almost any
large city, find people making vinyl records or refurbishing antique
automobiles. Some resurrect old steam locomotives and run them on tourist
lines. They, like the "analog" photographers in the video, are statistically
insignificant, and their existence does not suggest that vinyl records will
ever return to common use or that steam locomotives will ever again be part of
our transportation system. And the existence of a tiny group of film
enthusiasts doesn't mean that film photography will make a comeback in the
real economy. You and I both know that it simply isn't going to happen.

: Film may not be dead, but it's drawing its final labored breaths and will
: soon be relegated to antique shows and museums. Requiescat in pace.
:
: I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that bull**** in the last
: 112 years.

Well, 112 years ago it *was* bull****! Even 11 or 12 years ago, which may be
what you meant to say, it wasn't yet true, but the handwriting was on the
wall. (I believe the first time I saw a commercially available digital camera
put to practical use was in 1998. It was expensive and didn't produce very
good pictures, but you could see where things were headed.)

: Usually from some low-life troll like you, trying to push their own
: little digital imaging "business" aspirations.

Call me a low-life troll if you like; it's an opinion I have no way to
dispute. But your ability to jump to absurd conclusions is almost comical. Who
told you I'm pushing "digital imaging business aspirations"? I take pictures
at work (for our Web site and photo archives, for magazines and report covers,
to give to award recipients, etc.), and I use digital cameras to do it. But
that decision is as much theirs as mine. If I told them I wanted to switch to
film, they'd tell me to go fly a kite.

: Ah well, it must hurt like buggery...

Go back on your meds, Noons. You're starting to embarrass yourself again.

Bob

Film not dead yet...
 

On 2011-08-20 11:15:46 -0400, Robert Coe said:

SNIP


That's true. They're older than my grandchildren, but mostly younger than my
kids. But neither of my kids has touched a film camera for as long as I can
remember, and my grandchildren have never even seen one. All are digital
camera users of varying degrees of avidity.



And that same generation probably downloads all or most of its audio.
The vinyl-lovers will argue the CD was a step down but certainly iTunes
and similar download services, for all their convenience, are an audio
PLUNGE down from the CD. The iPod generation (all of us use it but some
remember stereo systems) does not appreciate, probably cannot even hear
the difference between an MP3 or AAC download and a CD, let alone an
SACD. We are losing high fidelity and in photography we are losing the
high fidelity of film.

But there ARE kids using film. And there ARE kids not only listening to
high fidelity, but rediscovering vinyl. And it is not just fidelity
that is being lost, but the archives. I can pull out my father's
negatives from the 1950s. They will print now as well as then. Can you
pull out a piece of digital media even from the 1980s and still read
it, even if it were not already corrupted? And don't invoke the story
of "all we have to do is periodicially archive to the next generation
of storage device," because we all know that doesn't happen, at least
not on much of a scale.

--
Michael

Film not dead yet...
 

On 2011-08-20 11:45 , Michael wrote:
On 2011-08-20 11:15:46 -0400, Robert Coe said:

SNIP


That's true. They're older than my grandchildren, but mostly younger
than my
kids. But neither of my kids has touched a film camera for as long as
I can
remember, and my grandchildren have never even seen one. All are digital
camera users of varying degrees of avidity.



And that same generation probably downloads all or most of its audio.
The vinyl-lovers will argue the CD was a step down but certainly iTunes
and similar download services, for all their convenience, are an audio
PLUNGE down from the CD. The iPod generation (all of us use it but some
remember stereo systems) does not appreciate, probably cannot even hear
the difference between an MP3 or AAC download and a CD, let alone an
SACD.

Most people can't hear the difference on a high end system, never mind
on their headsets, PC speakers and car speakers. On that last note, the
quality of FM (pretty good) was never up to the ears of people who can
hear the difference.

We are losing high fidelity and in photography we are losing the
high fidelity of film.

High fidelity of film? Really? Do you really believe film, except the
finest grain films, when used with critically sharp technique, is better
than the average digital SLR? Really?

Deluded you are if you do.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Film not dead yet...
 

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-20 11:45 , Michael wrote:
On 2011-08-20 11:15:46 -0400, Robert Coe said:

SNIP


That's true. They're older than my grandchildren, but mostly younger
than my
kids. But neither of my kids has touched a film camera for as long as
I can
remember, and my grandchildren have never even seen one. All are digital
camera users of varying degrees of avidity.



And that same generation probably downloads all or most of its audio.
The vinyl-lovers will argue the CD was a step down but certainly iTunes
and similar download services, for all their convenience, are an audio
PLUNGE down from the CD. The iPod generation (all of us use it but some
remember stereo systems) does not appreciate, probably cannot even hear
the difference between an MP3 or AAC download and a CD, let alone an
SACD.

Most people can't hear the difference on a high end system, never mind on
their headsets, PC speakers and car speakers. On that last note, the
quality of FM (pretty good) was never up to the ears of people who can
hear the difference.

We are losing high fidelity and in photography we are losing the
high fidelity of film.

High fidelity of film? Really? Do you really believe film, except the
finest grain films, when used with critically sharp technique, is better
than the average digital SLR? Really?

Deluded you are if you do.

--

Unfortunately, most prints from negatives are made on scanner/lightjet type
printing systems, such as those used in the one-hour photo "labs". This
method of printing brings the quality of the negative down to the level of a
digital print. When negatives are printed optically with a good quality
enlarger, the 'fidelity' of film is preserved in the print. If you care to
come to my studio, I can show you side-by-side comparisons of digitally
printed vs optically printed negs. Unfortunately, there is no way to show
this online, as the prints would have to be converted to digital images.
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Film not dead yet...
 

Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2011 1:15 AM:


Idle curiosity. The same reason you read my article.

Given that it's to do with "dead" film, I'd call it morbid curiosity...


That's true. They're older than my grandchildren, but mostly younger than my
kids. But neither of my kids has touched a film camera for as long as I can
remember, and my grandchildren have never even seen one. All are digital
camera users of varying degrees of avidity.

And that shows your kids are as old in spirit as you are.


What we see in the video are a very few people out of a very large city who
share an interest in a technology from the past. You will also, in almost any
large city, find people making vinyl records or refurbishing antique
automobiles. Some resurrect old steam locomotives and run them on tourist
lines. They, like the "analog" photographers in the video, are statistically
insignificant, and their existence does not suggest that vinyl records will
ever return to common use or that steam locomotives will ever again be part of
our transportation system. And the existence of a tiny group of film
enthusiasts doesn't mean that film photography will make a comeback in the
real economy. You and I both know that it simply isn't going to happen.


Did anyone at any stage suggest film would return to common use? Why the morbid
obssession you idiots in rpe35mm have with film ever "coming back"?
Does it really matter if folks prefer to use it? Who gives a royal pluck if it
is 10, 100 or 1000000 or of it continues for 100 years? What business is it of
yours to pass ANY comment on what other folks prefer to use for their imaging?
WTF do you think you are, dickhead?



what you meant to say, it wasn't yet true, but the handwriting was on the
wall. (I believe the first time I saw a commercially available digital camera
put to practical use was in 1998. It was expensive and didn't produce very
good pictures, but you could see where things were headed.)


My first digital camera was bought in 1999. I still have it. It cost me a
small fortune and is worth around 10 cents nowadays. My oldest film slr cost me
$50 in a plastic bag - it had been flooded in an underwater housing - and is
worth last time I priced them in ebay around $200. Which is the better value?
CAreful: handwriting on walls doesn't qualify you as a mathematician...


Call me a low-life troll if you like; it's an opinion I have no way to
dispute. But your ability to jump to absurd conclusions is almost comical.

And your conclusions about the "death of film" are just hilarious.

Who
told you I'm pushing "digital imaging business aspirations"? I take pictures
at work (for our Web site and photo archives, for magazines and report covers,
to give to award recipients, etc.), and I use digital cameras to do it.

In other words: you take digital images as part of your business and you're
concerned that film might "comeback"?

But
that decision is as much theirs as mine. If I told them I wanted to switch to
film, they'd tell me to go fly a kite.

If you told them you wanted to switch to a 80MP digital back they'd probably
have the same reaction. Like: it matters to anyone what gear you use to produce
images? Call it film, digital or whatever?


: Ah well, it must hurt like buggery...

Go back on your meds, Noons. You're starting to embarrass yourself again.

Don't flatter yourself, dickhead. You are the embarassment, to the human species.

Film not dead yet...
 

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/08/2011 2:24 AM:

High fidelity of film? Really? Do you really believe film, except the finest
grain films, when used with critically sharp technique, is better than the
average digital SLR? Really?

What possible experience would you have of that, dickhead?

Of course film can be as sharp as even a top end digital. It all depends on the
quality of the lens and how it is used, dickhead.

Do you really believe a digital camera provides infallible lens use?

Deluded you are if you do.

You just answered my question.

Film not dead yet...
 

On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:40:19 -0400, "K W Hart" wrote:
:
: "Alan Browne" wrote in message
: ...
: On 2011-08-20 11:45 , Michael wrote:
:
: We are losing high fidelity and in photography we are losing the
: high fidelity of film.
:
: High fidelity of film? Really? Do you really believe film, except the
: finest grain films, when used with critically sharp technique, is better
: than the average digital SLR? Really?
:
: Deluded you are if you do.
:
: Unfortunately, most prints from negatives are made on scanner/lightjet type
: printing systems, such as those used in the one-hour photo "labs". This
: method of printing brings the quality of the negative down to the level of a
: digital print.

Almost certainly "below", not "down to". Because the scanner's digitization
will not match the natural digitization of the film. (Let's face it: "analog"
photography is a misnomer. An image on film is a digital image; its pixels are
just not arranged in a regular array like those in an image produced by a
digital camers.)

: When negatives are printed optically with a good quality enlarger, the
: 'fidelity' of film is preserved in the print. If you care to come to my
: studio, I can show you side-by-side comparisons of digitally printed vs
: optically printed negs. Unfortunately, there is no way to show this online,
: as the prints would have to be converted to digital images.

In the scenario you describe, it really makes no difference whether film or
digital is capable of greater sharpness. Introducing the scanner step is bound
to degrade the resolution you could otherwise get. Whether Alan's right or not
(and I think he probably is), a picture taken on film should always be printed
with a decent film enlarger.

Bob