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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
Hello,
I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) because by postprocessing digital camera shots(e.g. with Photoshop) everything can be done/achieved? Is that true and is it really that simple? Any feedback is appreciated very much. Thank you! John |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
In article om,
wrote: I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films I haven't seen digital come even close to the results one gets from large format film. -- http://yosemitephotos.net/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
wrote in message ...
In article om, wrote: I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films I haven't seen digital come even close to the results one gets from large format film. As far as I've read, digital has still not been able to equal the D-Max from 35mm let alone any medium or large format. Perhaps someday... Derek |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative ordiapositve) (by 2006) ?
I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films
(( Reader bewa I am conciously glossing over nitpicky details. )) *In my opinion*, that is becoming more true every day (or at least every year). -- But we're not there yet. -- As someone else observed, even the best digital cameras don't come close to what a large-format film camera can do. With the latter, you can take a photo for which the *original negative* is as large as many prints you'd want to make, so enlarging them to poster size is no sweat (well, not technically a problem). However, if you're talking mainstream, main-street photography, e.g. 35mm, SLR cameras, it's pretty clear that the digital cameras can make pictures that are indistinguishable from those made with film cameras. Even those dinky little SLRs that fit in one hand (e.g. Kodak Easyshare) produce amazingly good photos. If you've got bags of money to throw around, you can get one of those 10MP or 12MP cameras (typically "pro" models, though some non-pro models can do that now). Gak. At the moment, I'm having a brain failure of some kind, and can't remember the reasons *above and beyond* image size (or pixel density) that one would get in a "pro" camera, besides ruggedness, reliability, etc. I expect other posters can describe those features for you. OTOH, be aware that all that digital post-processing you can do (whether you use the excessively expensive Photoshop or the more reasonably priced Paint Shop Pro (et al) or even the *free* GimpShop (et al)), you can do to *both* film and digital images. The main difference is that with film, you have to go through two extra steps: (1) Get the negs (or slides) developed. Optionally, get the negs printed. (2) Scan the negs, slides, or prints on a reasonably high-quality scanner. I use an Epson Perfection 4490, cost me $200 or $300 (I honestly forget). Before I switched from Windows 98 to Windows XP (and the driver didn't work anymore), I used a second-hand scanner my wife picked up at a yard sale for $20. Certainly not as good as the one we have now, but adequate for most purposes. For reasons of my own, I need the extra quality. For family snaps, the yard-sale scanner was fine. I should probably point out that if you're ready to invest in a new camera of one kind (film) or the other (digital), there are two reasons to get the digital camera rather than film: (1) It's way cheaper to use -- no ongoing cost to develop your pictures. Some number of your pictures, you can throw away right away -- they're duds. Of those that remain, most you'll never look at again. Of those that remain, you'll probably enjoy sharing them by email, web, and even via DVD on TV, more than by passing around 4"x6" prints at the table. Of the ones you want printed, using a good home printer on photo paper is adequate. For those for which this is not adequate, you can send the digital file to a lab to be printed. (2) Film processing is already getting harder to find -- The places that have traditionally handled this in the past (for the masses), i.e. the drug stores etc., are taking out their film-processing machines and replacing them with digital-processing machines. I expect that "proper" camera stores will continue to offer film processing for a while, but they will have to do it in-house, as Kodak has (I believe) stopped processing film. (Mind-bending!) I wound up getting a Nikon D70s (digital) to replace my aging (and expensive to fix) Minolta all-mechanical film camera. It's not really a "pro" camera, but (a) it was all I can afford at this time, while (b) it's significantly better than a "point'n'shoot". It cost about $1000 complete with medium zoom lens. You can find equivalent kits from Canon, Pentax, and others. Guess I should stop now. Good luck. ~ Scenic Man ~ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
Not true. I shoot all formats up to 8x10 which we process, print and drum
scan in house, and I also shoot digital using a large format high end scanning back. At its best, digital is equal or better to the best reproduction possible from large format film when it's at its best. These days, I select which avenue to take based on whether one technology is better than the other given the shooting conditions. It's no longer safe to say that one is simply better. john castronovo www.technicalphoto.com wrote in message ... In article om, wrote: I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films I haven't seen digital come even close to the results one gets from large format film. -- http://yosemitephotos.net/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
In article om,
wrote: I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films Is that a troll, or what? He "heard" (today) that film is dead? Where do these folks come from? I "heard" today that trolls are dead . . . What does everyone else think???? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:42:15 GMT, "jeremy" wrote:
In article om, wrote: I heard, that today there is no need anymore for traditional films Is that a troll, or what? He "heard" (today) that film is dead? Where do these folks come from? I "heard" today that trolls are dead . . . What does everyone else think???? Just another digital troll. I get suspicious when all the digital folks work so hard to try to convince me that their way is better. Won't hapen, folks. I'm staying with film all the way. If it goes away world wide, there's always wet plates. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
"scenic_man" wrote in message
news:ZVb4h.4486$Tz.603@trndny01... (2) Film processing is already getting harder to find -- The places that have traditionally handled this in the past (for the masses), i.e. the drug stores etc., are taking out their film-processing machines and replacing them with digital-processing machines. I expect that "proper" camera stores will continue to offer film processing for a while, but they will have to do it in-house, as Kodak has (I believe) stopped processing film. (Mind-bending!) Absolute BS! Film processing is still everywhere. Most places have upgraded their older processors to new digital models that do a much better job of printing than the old ones, but there's no shortage of film processing places. The only processing that's hard to find is B & W film processing that's non-E6. D |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative ordiapositve) (by 2006) ?
Derek Gee wrote:
Most places have upgraded their older processors to new digital models that do a much better job of printing than the old ones Most modern labs (unless its a 'proper film place' as the person above me do a **** poor job in reproducing the image quality (depth of tone, color gradiation). Probably because of cheap scanning/printing workflow. Places like walmart and the pharmacy dont care about getting quality images, they just want to be able to produce 600 photos in an hour. cost efficiency over quality. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
Well gee wiz. It's about time someone said the obvious. As a custom lab
owner for thirty years I'm still truly amazed at the number of people who convince themselves that all photo lab work is exactly the same except for the price. Then there are those more sophisticated folks who like to believe that the same equipment produces the same work no matter who's at the controls, just like the same cameras produce the same shots in every photographer's hands. Right? Get real. People make the difference in all professions and you have to pay for expertise. So just go on running to WalMart and Costco for 13 cent prints. When the last real custom lab dies, you'll all just complain that no one does good work. john tech photo & imaging www.technicalphoto.com "david Windsor" wrote in message . .. Derek Gee wrote: Most places have upgraded their older processors to new digital models that do a much better job of printing than the old ones Most modern labs (unless its a 'proper film place' as the person above me do a **** poor job in reproducing the image quality (depth of tone, color gradiation). Probably because of cheap scanning/printing workflow. Places like walmart and the pharmacy dont care about getting quality images, they just want to be able to produce 600 photos in an hour. cost efficiency over quality. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS, why does no one have this anymore? | SMS | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | September 29th 05 09:01 PM |
I can't take it anymore :o( | Steve Kramer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | April 5th 05 04:54 AM |
I can't take it anymore :o( | Steve Kramer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 3rd 05 10:13 PM |
Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital | Geshu Iam | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 109 | October 31st 04 03:57 PM |
Speaking of sheet films (Tri-X /Bush thread) --Hows the J&C House brand in 4x5 thru 11x14? Efke sheet films? | jjs | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | October 25th 04 05:24 PM |