A Question of Faith [in film]

Scott W wrote:
That_Rich wrote:
All of the media you list are ultimately destined to become archaic
and or fail. I guess that's progress
Like I said earlier... my negs and slides ain't gonna fail, will not
suddenly become corrupt or unreadable and will not replaced by new
technology.
I have all my scans archived in two places as well but I still am not
confident these scans will be usable in 30 years. On the other hand, I
know my film will be.

My Kodachromes have held up fairly well but everything else has faded,
in some cases I have mold or other problems with some negatives that
makes them unusable.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/55744935
The top image if a scan from the negative, scanned about 15 years after
it was taken, the bottom is a scan of the print that was made at the
time the photo was taken. The print has survived but the negative is
trash.

So, the situation on one particular place on the planet, where film is a
real disadvantage, should be applied to the rest of the world...

Chris Loffredo wrote:
So, the situation on one particular place on the planet, where film is a
real disadvantage, should be applied to the rest of the world...

Hey it is a pretty nice part of the world.

I do belive that others have problems with fading as well.
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/subz...2004_04_HW.pdf

How many people cold store their negatives?

Some films do well, others not so much.
I had some Agfa negatives that pretty much disapeared in about 10
years.

Scott

All of the media you list are ultimately destined to become archaic
and or fail. I guess that's progress

Point missed or purposely avoided, but I'll adhere to Hanlon's Razor;
It's the image that matters, not the medium, unless you use film . . .
My original digital images will survive the obsolescence and even the
destruction of "all the media [i] list[ed]." My original film images
will not survive the destruction of their integral storage medium.

Like I said earlier... my negs and slides ain't gonna fail, will not
suddenly become corrupt or unreadable and will not replaced by new
technology.

They will crack, fade, burn in a fire, suffer mold or other fungus,
scratch and a million other things that don't affect digital images that
are properly backed up.

I have all my scans archived in two places as well but I still am not
confident these scans will be usable in 30 years. On the other hand, I
know my film will be.

The scans are but a diminished copy of the original film. Original
digital images can be losslessly copied many, many times.

Eric Miller

That_Rich wrote:

Most of your issues would be the result of "operator error".
I have many very old kodachromes and have scanned countless other
types of chromes for friends. Some do indeed have bit of a fade but
the scanning software I use (Vuescan) has a built in correction for
old chromes which works wonderfully. Personally I have yet to see mold
on a chrome but that may be due not only to my meticulous storage
methods but also the climate I live in. I guess living in a jungle may
be detrimental to long term storage of film.

Here are some 30+ year old scans of chromes using the tools in
Vuescan....

http://www.pbase.com/that_rich/dan_webster

Over all my Chromes have lasted far better then my negatives, but then
I tended to shoot Kodachrome. And I also have lots of chromes that
still look fine today, this one is from about 25 years ago
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/59972486/original

But just because some of my film has surveyed does not mean it all did.


People who archive film worry a great deal about fading and tend to
refrigerate to just to slow down the fading.

My other problems is that 30 years from now I very much doubt I will
still have a working film scanner, so my digital scans had better last
as they will be the only viable copy I have at some time in the future.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
So, the situation on one particular place on the planet, where film is a
real disadvantage, should be applied to the rest of the world...

Hey it is a pretty nice part of the world.

I have no doubt that your part of the world is fantastic; in fact I
really hope to visit it one day.

That doesn't mean that I agree that the disadvantages of film, which you
go on about, apply to the rest of the world.

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"It's enthralling when you come to develop the images
because you have no idea what's going to come out -
and there's no guarantee that anything will come out
at all!"

Anthony Browell
B&W Magazine (UK)
July 2006

How dare you suggest that film has any redeeming qualities at all:
That's terribly insulting to digital!
;-)

Now for the posts from the Digitologist Tag-Team...

Naw it has nothing to do with digital, but nice try at turning this
thread in to a film vs digital war.

I think the original quote already impied that film was superior to
digital, given their own (very) subjective criteria.

"Enthralling" was a bit hyperbolic, at best.

Now I'm wondering if the quote was taken out-of-context and was
actually part of a more overall sarcastic point to begin with.

Personally, there are some aspects I prefer about film and some aspects
I prefer about digital, but to me waiting for developing has never been
a point in film's favor.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"It's enthralling when you come to develop the images
because you have no idea what's going to come out -
and there's no guarantee that anything will come out
at all!"

Anthony Browell
B&W Magazine (UK)
July 2006

What a stupid statement. I really hope you quoted that without
appropriate context. We should be shooting for a result and expecting a
certain outcome. Of course we screw up, make mistakes, etc., but our
objective is a _result_ and when thought out that is what we should get.
The only time where I would subscribe to the nonsense above is when
delierately experimenting with odd exposures, light, chemicals, some
subjects, etc.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Let's see:
"Now for the posts from the Digitologist Tag-Team..."
"Just trying to illustrate the "logic" used by certain
foaming-at-the-mouth film haters..."
"Digitologists (the film-haters and "Luddite"-chanters) are nothing
more than common and boring brand-fetishists..."
"All this goes to show that the biggest film-haters are usually those
least competent at using it."
"Digitologists are those anti-film posters who shout "film is dead" and
"luddite" all the time."

All the above quotes were from Chris.

I checked back through the thread looking for similar insulting words
aimed at the 'filmologists', but found none - maybe Mr Loffredo can
quote them, so I can understand where he is coming from? If his
argument is simply that his 'nemeses' have posted nasty things to
*other* posts, why does he bring the argument here? Wouldn't it be
better, as a calm rational being, to address the content of each post
on its merit?

By the way, I particularly enjoyed Mr Loffredo's straight laced,
serious, indignant, scowling reply to Annika's light hearted invitation
to share a story or two about fallibility.. with these lines:
"Film pros" learn to watch the take-up spool right after or during
loading.
You've been told, Annika - Harrumph!! And then straight for the
jugular:

All this goes to show that the biggest film-haters are usually those
least competent at using it.

Nice, Chris. Very 'respectful'....

And then he says:
And, no, it isn't a battle between film and digital, but rather a
struggle over simply respecting other people's choices.

???? Yes, *respect*, Chris.... this, after the unnecessary insults
above and not a single post implying any 'hatred', until your own?

A word starting with H and ending with ypocrite springs to mind...

But surely you are in fact a troll, no-one could really be this
seriously hurt (and humourless) just because a few folk insulted your
favorite medium... could you? If the answer is yes, you should ask
yourself "why?"

Sad.

As for the op, like the others posting here, I would like to see the
context. And what does the 'enthrall' turn to when the result is not
positive (pun not intended), usually due to operator error?

Oh, and just so I can be appropriately judged and labelled by Chris:
- favorite medium currently - digital
- favorite medium *ever* - Kodachrome 25 (sob!)
- ever worked as a pro? yes, for several years but not nowadays.
- ever made mistakes? yes. (O:
- so, ever lost images on film due to incompetence? yes. (thankfully
not many, but they *hurt* and of course there was no image feedback to
sound alarm bells)
- ever lost images on digital due to incompetence? yes. (much less than
with film, but maybe that's partly because I'm older and smarter
nowadays - however I do think that with equal amounts of care, you will
screw up less with digital - If anyone wants me to elaborate on why,
start a new thread. I'm not encouraging this one further... (O

wrote:
Let's see:
"Now for the posts from the Digitologist Tag-Team..."
"Just trying to illustrate the "logic" used by certain
foaming-at-the-mouth film haters..."
"Digitologists (the film-haters and "Luddite"-chanters) are nothing
more than common and boring brand-fetishists..."
"All this goes to show that the biggest film-haters are usually those
least competent at using it."
"Digitologists are those anti-film posters who shout "film is dead" and
"luddite" all the time."

All the above quotes were from Chris.

O.K... Point received and taken!

But surely you are in fact a troll, no-one could really be this
seriously hurt (and humourless) just because a few folk insulted your
favorite medium... could you? If the answer is yes, you should ask
yourself "why?"

Mainly because, often as soon as film is mentioned in any positive way,
a small group jumps in and starts with the "film is dead" and "Luddite"
posts.

I react to them because:
1) they are very annoying (and untrue).
2) for any newbies to know that there isn't a total agreement on the matter
3) a reaction to people who claim to know the whole truth + taking sides
with the underdog.
4) this "Luddite", undoubtedly like several others, has always been the
resident computer wizard and digital photography expert (believe it or
not) at every workplace.

But I realize that I have let my reactions take me too far.

I can't say I enjoyed reading your post... at all!
If that what it takes to start me rethinking my posts and their tone,
well, thanks (sort of...)

I'm a bit surprised (pleasantly!) by your reaction, Chris. Not too
many hard feelings, I hope.. I realise I descended to insults also,
and I appreciate very much that you stopped the descent!

Now I wonder if Nick will return and post the context.. (O;