A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old June 14th 04, 01:38 PM
Mark Weaver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark Weaver wrote:


Or maybe you just hang out in
the shallower end of the gene pool


I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started..


Do humorlessness and film advocacy go together (he says as he ducks)?



This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is
still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine
until both
my parents are gone


Why because you can't scan them?


Because scanning is a huge, time-consuming job and I'm not close yet to
finishing the scanning of my own pre-digital negatives.


The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more

usable,
copyable, and shareable.


See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or

prints
can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.


Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is
easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But
scanning is slow and tedious. In contrast--making copies of image that are
digitial in the first place is extremely fast, cheap, and easy and, so is
much more likely to happen.

Mark

--

Stacey



  #132  
Old June 14th 04, 05:17 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mark Weaver wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...

Mark Weaver wrote:


Or maybe you just hang out in
the shallower end of the gene pool


I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started..



Do humorlessness and film advocacy go together (he says as he ducks)?


This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is
still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine
until both
my parents are gone


Why because you can't scan them?



Because scanning is a huge, time-consuming job and I'm not close yet to
finishing the scanning of my own pre-digital negatives.


The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more


usable,

copyable, and shareable.


See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or


prints

can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.



Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is
easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But
scanning is slow and tedious. In contrast--making copies of image that are
digitial in the first place is extremely fast, cheap, and easy and, so is
much more likely to happen.

Mark


--

Stacey






--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

  #133  
Old June 14th 04, 05:27 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mark Weaver wrote:



Yes, negatives and prints can be digitized and, once that is done, it is
easy to share them (either digitally or by making more prints). But
scanning is slow and tedious. In contrast--making copies of image that are
digitial in the first place is extremely fast, cheap, and easy and, so is
much more likely to happen.


Where the quality of digital is up to the end use of the image,
then that convenience is of course dominant. The higher end
digital cameras certainly can be used for 95% of photography.
But there remain uses of film images that digital can't yet
match, and so film thrives. There are the digital holdouts who
stick to film for a variety of reasons, which include
stubborness, tradition, investment, etc, ad nauseum (as too often
debated in these groups).

If one were to scan 20 years worth of negatives and slides, it
would be tedious at best. But if he selects the images really
worth scanning, it shouldn't be so bad.

Sharing? A friend returned from a trip to Corsica recently with
nearly 600 images on her P&S digital camera. I 'donated'
webspace to her (360MB) to gen links and send around... that is
two weeks worth of images. I've urged her to cut it down to,
say, 100 images, but to date she hasn't dug in to do it. The
effort of downselecting is in fact made worse due to her
prolifigate rate of image production. I've looked at many, and
as vacation snaps go, many are very well composed and interesting
.... but not 600 worth.

IOW, there has been an exchange of tedium. One set of work
abandoned and a new set of work created.

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

  #134  
Old June 14th 04, 05:40 PM
bagal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Stacey - don't let the Newgroup Tantrum Troopers get to you

If you prefer fim based media - hey, it is fine with me

das B

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Mark Weaver wrote:


Or maybe you just hang out in
the shallower end of the gene pool


I was wondering how long it would be before personal insults started..



This is in contrast to the photos from my childhood of which there is
still only one copy in boxes at my folks' house -- they won't be mine
until both
my parents are gone


Why because you can't scan them?


My 94-year-old grandfather
still has all his photos...including the photos of my mother's
childhood--most of which I've never seen.


Why because they can't be scanned?



The great thing about digital images is that they are so much more

usable,
copyable, and shareable.


See above. You act like only one print can be made from a negative or

prints
can't be scanned and copied. And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.

--

Stacey



  #135  
Old June 14th 04, 08:43 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Bob Monaghan wrote:

Wow, this is sooo confusing ;-)

Mike says that digital is the shortest way to get from what you saw in the
viewfinder to a print, thanks to all the digital manipulations and
corrections you can do?


I thought the shortest (quickest) route to a print was a Polaroid.



One of my problems with digital is that the images increasingly look fake
and manipulated to some perfection (the birds on the sunset..) that never
happened. Then again, there are all those photojournalists getting fired
for doing those same digital manipulations.


My feeling is that it should be termed photo illustration. I have done this
often for my work, but I don't do any photojournalism, so I see nothing wrong
with the way I approach it. The temptation is definitely there to manipulate,
or alter, since it is very accessible. There is already an eroded trust in
journalism, so obviously this behaviour does not help.



And in any case, it takes a heck of a lot of time and talent to do those
manipulations, versus dropping off your film and picking up your prints?


Worth the effort, and well paid, if it is for work. If it is not work, then
it is up to each individual.


. . . . . . . . . .

How much time does it take to put all those images into a database, give
them names and IDs, then add in key words and so forth for each one?
Doesn't that take time too? ;-) How good is your amateur key word table?

And let us not forget how amazingly Slooooow many of those same programs
are in going from image to image, even on a fast Mac or PC. Maybe you just
use thumbnails to speed it up - kind of hard to evaluate images that way
though, isn't it? ;-)

Gordon calls this the problem of linear editing vs. random editing, IIRC.


That is a good summary. Basically, I take many images from a shoot, spread
them out over a light table, then sort them into groups. I can take any two
or more, and place them next to each other for comparison. After I have done
my sort and select, there may be some of those that get reviewed and sorted
again with a client, or art director. Only when final image selections are
done, then comes scanning, either through a lab, or in my office. The
randomness of comparison, and ease of moving images by hand on a large light
table are the advantages for me, and quite quick too.


Linear means you are forced to go thru image after image on screen to see
and evaluate them, rather than pulling a few slide sheets out on a light
table and finding what you want by a quick random look in a once-over look


My first sort and select is not often in slide sheets. Only if I have a
larger review and sort later with a client or AD, then sometimes the slides
go in sheets. I also use sheets when I need to leave something for review,
since they stay better organized. Sometimes I give clients coloured peel and
stick dots to help in their selection process.



If reviewing images on a CD with software was so great and fast and easy,
then why does Corbis and others publish very costly stock photo
publications with hundreds of images so you can flip thru the pages to
find what you want quickly? Isn't it because linear searches with current
software is so slow and annoying?


You should try their search engines. Anyway, I don't think stock imagery
relates too well to work situations, since if a company was using stock
images, they may not be hiring a photographer to get images.



I have to say what you-all see as virtues I see as burdens of the
technology ;-)


So far, though I hope some software developers eventually get this correct. I
still have lots of digital files catalogued, and they are not always
convenient to go through. I use Extensis Portfolio, which works okay, but I
would not use that for initial sort and edit.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

  #136  
Old June 14th 04, 09:44 PM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bob Monaghan wrote:

Wow, this is sooo confusing ;-)

Mike says that digital is the shortest way to get from what you saw in

the
viewfinder to a print, thanks to all the digital manipulations and
corrections you can do?


I thought the shortest (quickest) route to a print was a Polaroid.


What I said was "the most direct path from what you saw as you looked
through the viewfinder to a finished print to hang on a wall." Why stop with
Polaroid? I can just sketch it in Crayola and skip the rest of the nonsense.
It won't be what I had in mind when I clicked the shutter, but we're all
trying to live within the limitations of our favorite technologies.

  #137  
Old June 14th 04, 11:31 PM
Bob Monaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


yes, digital manipulations do make it easier to shift color balances and
contrast and some edge effects.

But a large part of the reason this approach works is that digital
shooters usually check their images right after shooting. If the images
are blown (overexposed..) then they reshoot the images - if they can.

That's why all those histogram readings are checked, right? ;-0) If you
couldn't check (as on some digital models), then you would also likely get
some blown and difficult to correct images (cf. contrast masking film).

Film types also practice this multishot approach, calling it "bracketing"
;-)) Yes, it does use a bit more film and costs more, but you usually
only have to do so under difficult (non-average) lighting conditions.

Of course, if it was an action shot, then you can't reshoot the image
after realizing the exposure was blown on your DSLR histogram view, right?

In such cases, you might be better off with film. Films, thanks to
non-linear shoulders and toes does better, in my view, than linear digital
sensors that block-up under similar conditions. Just dodge and burn ;-)

=========

You are right that there may be one "ideal" exposure and lighting point
for a given film. But most films produce very credible results under a
surprisingly wide variety of lighting and exposures. Such film latitude is
often a number of stops for print films over which the printed results
will be hard to distinguish (for the prosumer) against ideal exposures.

The same is true of lighting conditions, with many automated film printers
adjusting color channel exposures to match the best flesh tones or
whatever in an image. The difference here is that one is automated at
minimal cost and takes no user time, while the other requires much
puttering around and manipulation for each print. ;-)

Contrast is similarly adjustable at a number of points in the film to
print process. Smoothing or reducing contrast with various filters is
easy. But unlike most DSLRs, film types aren't forced to ALWAYS shoot thru
a softening filter (A.K.A. anti-aliasing or low pass filter). So we
probably have a higher range of contrast from our lenses to start with on
film. And most of us (slide) film types select films with contrast in mind
(e.g., velvia).

Finally, there was only rather modest levels of contrast masking and
darkroom manipulations in pro and amateur photography before digital
photography's manipulations arrived. This wasn't a big problem to be
solved for most prosumers and a lot of pros, who relied on darkroom gurus
to make their shots look good.

Now digital photographers have to do all the work, often behind the scenes
and for FREE (Ouch!), to make their digital shots look perfect, right? ;-)

==========

Digital photography's manipulations are available to film photographers
too. We simply have to scan the film and manipulate away. Lots of us don't
bother to do so, because the vast majority of our images or slides can be
printed directly in the darkroom to a satisfactory level.

Very few home users making digital color prints have achieved adequate
control over the entire chain from color monitor standardization and
control to the final output from the printer, right? So the fine color
manipulations and contrast adjustments done by many on screen may or may
not end up looking like what was on the screen, right?

Now I agree that if you want to do a lot of work, and you invest in the
hardware (color light sensors etc.) to calibrate your digital monitor to
printer output workflow chain, and if you learn as much as Gordon about
the client's printing processes requirements (;-)) then yes, you can get
great results from digital photo manipulations. For most of the rest of
us, it is more hit and miss. Right? ;-)

Again, I see this as a disadvantage of digital photography, because to do
it well takes a whole lot of work, and to do it poorly makes you look bad.

It also takes a lot of your time to do all these manipulations, and for
many even pro photographers, that time is not billable because clients
have been told how much YOU are saving going digital, right?

And finally, most clients probably won't notice those subtle color shifts
or contrast enhancements unless you insistently point them out to the
client ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
  #138  
Old June 15th 04, 12:29 AM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

MikeWhy wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bob Monaghan wrote:

Wow, this is sooo confusing ;-)

Mike says that digital is the shortest way to get from what you saw in

the
viewfinder to a print, thanks to all the digital manipulations and
corrections you can do?


I thought the shortest (quickest) route to a print was a Polaroid.


What I said was "the most direct path from what you saw as you looked
through the viewfinder to a finished print to hang on a wall." Why stop with
Polaroid? I can just sketch it in Crayola and skip the rest of the nonsense.
It won't be what I had in mind when I clicked the shutter, but we're all
trying to live within the limitations of our favorite technologies.


I should have added a ;-) at the end of that. I was just having some fun with
Bob M. on his statement. I should also add that I can draw and paint extremely
well, though I charge much more for that than I do for photography.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

  #139  
Old June 15th 04, 01:17 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.


And around we go again... I lose track from moment to moment of who is
pro-digital, and who is clinging by bleeding fingernails to fondly held
beliefs.


How about the people who are neither? :-)

Yes, Stacey, this of course is the major strength of digital. The
price of admission, and the cost and pain of archiving, are made more than
worthwhile by the ease of correcting and manipulating an imperfectly
captured image, whether it was partly photochemical or entirely digital.


Which is why I'm still shooting film. I trust it for storing the image and I
have the -option- of digitizing it with no loss of quality, in fact with MF
it's higher quality. If the digital file gets "lost" I still have the
negatives. The only downside is I have to buy film that I can see. I
already own plenty of Medformat stuff so I see no reason to jump ship to
try to save film costs.

--

Stacey
  #140  
Old June 15th 04, 01:24 AM
Vladamir30
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Stacey said:

Yea most photographers intent is to make a crappy print to showcase their
talent.


I didn't say that Stacey. You said you weren't impressed with the digital
prints on the camera store walls. I said that wasn't much of a basis on
which to decide that digital cameras weren't capable of making photographs
equal to the quality of 35mm, partly because it's such a tiny universe and
partly because it's unlikely that the photographs were made for the purpose
of making the best possible photograph of which the equipment was capable. I
thought I made that clear by mentioning just a few of the things that one
would do if trying to make the best possible print from a technical
standpoint that may or may not have been done with these photographs (e.g.
use of a tripod, photographing in RAW mode, using a slow speed, etc.).
Contrary to your little bit of sarcasm, that hardly means they intentionally
made "crappy prints," it simply means the photographs were made for one
purpose and you're using them for a different purpose (to justify your claim
that digital equipment isn't capable of making prints that are the technical
equal of prints from a 35mm negative).

No one said anything about contact prints. For snap shots, contact printed
120 film would be OK but most "serious photographers" would want to make
prints larger than 2 1/4 inches I would think.


What do you mean no one said anything about contact prints? I've said at
least three times that film from the 1920s-1930s wasn't a "grainy mess" and
mentioned contact prints I've seen from that period as evidence of that
fact. This reminds me of your statements a couple messages back when you
first said digital wasn't the equal of 35mm and then in the next message
said "who's talking about 35mm, not me."

Then why did it have to be contact printed to be any good?


I didn't say it had to be contact printed to be any good. I said the fact
that it could be contact printed with excellent results was evidence of the
fact that it wasn't a grainy mess. I also said that people who wanted the
best quality used larger negatives, just as people who want the best quality
use larger negatives today, but that doesn't mean the film was a grainy mess
back then any more than it means today's film is a grainy mess.

but most "serious photographers" would want to make
prints larger than 2 1/4 inches I would think.


I wasn't talking only about "serious photographers." In fact I specifically
said my knowledge of prints from film in the '20s was based on family
albums. We weren't discussing the aesthetic qualities of photographs from
that period, we were discussing the quality of the film.

O.K., I'll try to say this again in a manner such that you can

comprehend
it.


You consider that a personal insult? I'll grant you it's a little
provocative but I don't see that it's a "personal insult." If you do then
my apologies but since you have consistently misrepresented things I've said
I figured you perhaps didn't understand them. I actually thought that was
giving you the benefit of the doubt since the alternative would be that you
did understand them but couldn't refute them and so chose to misrepresent
them.

Why take this so personally?


Didn't think I was. I'm critical of some of your opinions with respect to
digital equipment because I know from my own experience that in some
respects they're wrong and the bases you give for them often make little
sense and/or contradict my own experience. But I haven't called you any
names or thrown any insults your way that I recall.

Not a high end one made in the last year. Mine is a fairly high end one

from
2 years ago, now considered "junk" or "A dinosour" . . .


Who considers it junk? If others do, who cares? If you do, why? Does it no
longer perform the functions for which you bought it? If so then it's maybe
it's junk. If it still peforms the functions for which you bought it then
it isn't junk any more than my Pentax 67 became junk when the 67II was
introduced. Just because something is old or isn't the latest model doesn't
make it junk. I sure don't consder my 50 year old Deardorff 8x10 camera to
be junk.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Vladamir30 wrote:

Stacey said:

Not in the least. You're the one trying to claim the people in the 20's

were
fools who thought they needed to be using LF cameras! :-)


O.K., I'll try to say this again in a manner such that you can

comprehend
it.


What you said was:

She probably doesn't realize that when George Eastman
popularized roll film the "serious photographers" ridiculed it, saying

that
it was something only for the unknowing masses, that its only advantage

was
speed and ease of use, and that its quality was no good compared to sheet
film in large format cameras.


My assertion is that film of that era was perfectly fine for contact
printing. I know that because I've seen literally hundreds of contact
prints
from that period. I didn't say that people in the '20s were fools who
thought they needed to be using LF cameras.


What you said was:

She probably doesn't realize that when George Eastman
popularized roll film the "serious photographers" ridiculed it, saying

that
it was something only for the unknowing masses, that its only advantage

was
speed and ease of use, and that its quality was no good compared to sheet
film in large format cameras.

No one said anything about contact prints. For snap shots, contact printed
120 film would be OK but most "serious photographers" would want to make
prints larger than 2 1/4 inches I would think.

People who used large format
cameras were people who needed larger prints and of a better quality

than
could be obtained from roll film enlargements of the same size. In other
words, back then people used large format cameras for exactly the same
reason people use them today. But that hardly means the film was a

grainy
mess back then any more than it means film of today is a grainy mess.


Then why did it have to be contact printed to be any good? I've done
enlargements from 120 film back then and it IS a grainy mess compared to
modern film. Smaller format cameras like the rollei TLR didn't get popular
until film got better, same with 35mm over those TLR's.


They have shots taken by local pro's with the different cameras they

have
for sale. I live in Atlanta GA and this is a shop that caters to

working
pro's trying to sell this stuff to working pro's.
Why wouldn't that show what they can do? You think someone is making
-much-
better images with these cameras and they are hiding them?


Well it wouldn't necessarily show "what they can do" because we don't

know
if the photographer's objective was to make the best possible print do

we?

Yea most photographers intent is to make a crappy print to showcase their
talent.. LOL! If this is the case, why would these same photographers want
to make such nice MF shots? That's almost as funny as the guy who said
digital is better because you can show your images to people without
haveing to turn the lights on! :-)


OTOH,
you've told us that you don't use a 35mm camera



I used one for 10 years until I tried a medformat camera.. Still use one

if
I need the speed/ease of use over quality or need a super telephoto lens
etc.

and you don't use a
digital
camera


Not a high end one made in the last year. Mine is a fairly high end one

from
2 years ago, now considered "junk" or "A dinosour" when it's my newest
piece of photo gear! :-) I do some scanning and printing of film, does

that
count as far as digital experience? Several of my friends who have been

shooting
for 20 years own them, does that count?

so you have no personal experience at all, and very very limited
second hand experience, on which to base these pronouncements you make
about digital photography do you?


Why take this so personally? All I've said is I'm looking at prints, taken
by some local pros, the local pro store is showing me trying to convince

me
to buy a digital camera from them. I can't imagine they are saving the
better ones for themselves or they are trying to produce bad prints to

sell
their high profit new cameras. The prints done digitally from scanned MF

or
LF film they've shown me and that I have done look OK (I still like the
look of optically printed better..), I'm just not impressed with the
digitally captured stuff I've seen. Obviously you think it's fine, I'm
happy for ya.

--

Stacey



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Sabineellen 35mm Photo Equipment 8 June 15th 04 07:13 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 09:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.