A Question of Faith [in film]

jeremy wrote:
"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
...
Scott W wrote:
Funny - almost every day I speak to people who are migrating from film
to digital. Most of them are happy with film. Their reason for migrating
is simply that "film is old fashioned" or "Everyone says I have to move
with the times".

These relentless insults on film users are getting really fast.

Now just look at the wording of Scott's attacks:

"Almost every day," he claims, he "speaks to people who are migrating from
film to digital."
psst - just so you know - I said that and i'm on your side. shush now or
you'll blow our arguments out of the water :-P

Yeah, right. "Every day." He meets people that are continuing to "migrate"
and he speaks to them "every day."
re-read the original of what I said - I meet people who have migrated
from film to digital, the only reason they migrate is because they have
been told they need to keep up with modern times. They were happy with
film but have changed just so they can keep up with the times. To me
this isn't a valid reason. Especially when it seems they all go from
high end film gear to low/mid end digital because that's all they can
afford, and find that low/mid digital isn't as good.
For the people who migrate because they want/need the different
workflow, or find that digital is just as good for them as film was,
then great. These people will find digital an advantage (and lets be
realistic, for the majority of people, digital does provide an advantage).
I'm as pro-film as anyone here, but I can't see any valid reason to buy
a new film compact camera when for not much more money you can get a
digital that will be far more versatile. The SLR category is a bit
different though - If your budget doesn't extend to DSLR, but you want
the quality and versatility of an SLR, then in most cases a film SLR
would be a better choice than an SLR-Look-Alike digital. And for
someone who already has a decent film SLR, there is no point migrating
to digital unless you can afford a decent DSLR. If the migration means
selling the film SLR to get a prosumer, then it is a backwards step.
Personally I think I currently have the best of both worlds - Film SLRs
combined with a digital compact and digital big zoom, and using DSLRs
that someone else has paid for whenever I take a job on.

And just WHO are these people that he speaks to "every day?" Are we to
presume that these unidentified people have better judgment than we do?
I'll give you a hint - my 9-5 monday to friday job puts me in very close
contact with a photolab (sometimes I'm the guy behind the counter
driving the frontier, other times I'm doing less hands-on stuff to do
with it). Additionally, I occassionally do "pro" work (I use that term
very loosely), like taking photos of kids in shopping centres etc (I
only do this stuff part time, usually as favours for friends, because I
would go insane if I did it all the time), and have been known to take
complete leave of my senses to shoot the very occassional wedding. I
also participate in various photography related and some non-photography
related community groups. Due to these various endeavours I meet a lot
of people, and talk to a lot of people. Some are non-photographers, some
are mum & dad snapshooters, some are amateur enthusiasts, and some are
working professionals. I am pretty well known around some of these
circles as "the bloke who still uses film", so I tend to hear all sorts
of opinions, and sprout my own opinions, on everything photography related.

Why would any self-respecting person set aside his own judgment in favor of
that of strangers, that do not know him, and whose powers of discernment
cannot be assessed?
I don't know, but lots of people do it. Why do hula hoops and yoyos
suddenly become popular? no reason other than that a bunch of strangers
are also doing it.
Let me put it in the first person, to illustrate. I am
walking about, film camera hanging from my neckstrap, and a complete
stranger approaches me and suggests that it is high time I dumped that old
dog of a camera and "migrated" to digital. I guess I should just rush right
over to my nearest camera store and pull out my wallet, right?
No of course you shouldn't, but that's how the sheeple think.

Wrong.

I'd be more likely to tell that moron to mind his own fukkin' business and
get the hell outta' my face, before I shoved his zoom lens right up his
arse!

Graham Fountain wrote:
jeremy wrote:
"Graham Fountain" wrote in message
...
Scott W wrote:
Funny - almost every day I speak to people who are migrating from film
to digital. Most of them are happy with film. Their reason for migrating
is simply that "film is old fashioned" or "Everyone says I have to move
with the times".

These relentless insults on film users are getting really fast.

Now just look at the wording of Scott's attacks:

"Almost every day," he claims, he "speaks to people who are migrating from
film to digital."
psst - just so you know - I said that and i'm on your side. shush now or
you'll blow our arguments out of the water :-P

That's our Jeremy, if he things it was a digital user who wrote it why
then it must be bashing film, regardless of what the words say.

I do believe if I told Jeremy that the sun came up today he would want
to know why I am bashing film.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
I do believe if I told Jeremy that the sun came up today he would want
to know why I am bashing film.

Well, why are you? ;-)

"jeremy" wrote in message news:Oktnh.5$8B5.3@trnddc08...

I'd be more likely to tell that moron to mind his own fukkin' business and
get the hell outta' my face, before I shoved his zoom lens right up his
arse!

Or, at the very least, you might ask him how he knows what you do, and how
you do it, and for how long, and how much knowledge it took for you to learn
what you need to know to do whatever it is you do? And then ask him why he
thinks he knows how to advise you to do it differently?

Chris Loffredo wrote:
TheDave© wrote:
Scott W wrote:
I do believe if I told Jeremy that the sun came up today he would want
to know why I am bashing film.

Well, why are you? ;-)

What Scott actually said was: "The sun rose this morning, and thanks to
the possibility of setting my ISO to 160,000 without any noise and
stitching 1500 different frames together, I got pictures no film Luddite
could"
What else would he say?

;-)

Hey if you aren't careful I might start quoting K.R.

Scott

Annika1980 wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
Just as I'd never want to use a Canon EOS for film, I don't want to use
its equivalent for digital either.

I take it back. You're not a Luddite.
You're a fool!


A happy fool...
:-)

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
More and more, it's becoming clearer to me that the "problem" isn't
digital anymore (though I'm sure we'll keep finding plenty of
film-digital differences and issues to keep us needling each other for
some time yet), but *what kind* of digital camera.
Just as I'd never want to use a Canon EOS for film, I don't want to use
its equivalent for digital either.

With the progressive improvement of digital quality and - especially -
to the fact that digital cameras based on a more "manual" approach are
appearing, with sensors getting closer to full-frame, I'm much less
inclined to label digital as "fast food" (at least in some cases).
;-)
Yes, well I have noted that your complaints about digital cameras seem
to have a lot more to due with the focusing of them and the lenses used
on them rather then the fact that it was a digital image that comes out
of the camera.

Whereas I have not had a chance to try on of these I suspect it would
make manual focus far easier on the Canon cameras, at least when using
fairly fast lenses.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=11367&A=details&Q=&sku=402221&is=REG&addedT roughType=categoryNavigation

I see my future as adopting a digital body in the next few years, using
it along with film.
In the long run, I can see digital mostly replacing my colour film use,
but not B&W film, which I am very convinced will be available for the
rest of my life (with any luck 40+ years) and WELL beyond (I'd accept
bets on over a century and probably more, unless civilization collapses
in the meantime).
This isn't due to film B&W necessarily having any technical advantages
over digital at some point in the future, but to the whole process -
which is an art form in itself: Think making pottery with a wheel,
baking bread, painting with paint and other technically "obsolete"
activities.
I think B/W film will be around long after color if gone. Partly
because it is much easier to manufacture B/W film and partly because
people are not nearly as dependent on outside labs to processes it,
compared to color.

Color film I see not having such a long life and becoming increasingly
difficult to use.

My remaining doubts about digital are some quality issues (which time
will probably solve - and we can argue about those for a while) and the
archival problem: Digital seem to be tied to high-maintainance backup
and updating procedures.
I don't want to get into the specific arguments (yet again), but the
long-term storage of purely digital images seem precarious (having just
lost a hard disk - many hours of scanning lost, but still have the
original negatives/slides - and, yes, I should have made full backups in
time, but I didn't; does this scenario sound familiar?)

Also, while things seem to be moving in a positive direction, the
*ideal* digital interchangeable lens body hasn't come out yet.
Is asking for a full-frame, compact body, with a great MF viewfinder
capable of *easily* using (=not manual diaphragm only) top class lenses
(my own general preferences being Zeiss and Leica, though there are many
other great lenses around) asking too much?

We'll see..

So these are the reasonings of a "Luddite", but I am waiting and hope
the industry does take such views into account.

Scott W wrote:

Whereas I have not had a chance to try on of these I suspect it would
make manual focus far easier on the Canon cameras, at least when using
fairly fast lenses.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=11367&A=details&Q=&sku=402221&is=REG&addedT roughType=categoryNavigation


I have tried very many different cameras. My conclusion is that a truly
*great* focusing system isn't due to the screen alone - the prism itself
and various other optical components also play a key role.

I would be very interested in hearing how the screen you mention, as
well as similar ones on the market, really do compare to the MF focusing
systems I consider the best.
Hoping someone will post an unbiased test or evaluation one day...

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
Scott W wrote:

Whereas I have not had a chance to try on of these I suspect it would
make manual focus far easier on the Canon cameras, at least when using
fairly fast lenses.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=11367&A=details&Q=&sku=402221&is=REG&addedT roughType=categoryNavigation

I have tried very many different cameras. My conclusion is that a truly
*great* focusing system isn't due to the screen alone - the prism itself
and various other optical components also play a key role.

I would be very interested in hearing how the screen you mention, as
well as similar ones on the market, really do compare to the MF focusing
systems I consider the best.
Hoping someone will post an unbiased test or evaluation one day...
The other part is not just how well does the focusing screen work but
how precise the optical path distance to it compared to the film/sensor
plane. Even the M8 seems to be suffering with a lack of precision
between the range finder and the film plane, on some cameras. People
are sending their cameras back to get recalibrate.

What I would really like to see is the ability to make this adjustment
for myself, regardless of the method of focusing.

Adjusting rangefinders or SLR mirrors for accuracy is something I've
done many times.
But that's a different issue from how *good* or accurate a properly
adjusted focusing system is.

Scott W wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:

Adjusting rangefinders or SLR mirrors for accuracy is something I've
done many times.
But that's a different issue from how *good* or accurate a properly
adjusted focusing system is.

I would agree, but if the focusing system is not adjusted then you are
pretty much out of luck
no matter how good the focusing system would be if it were adjusted.
And focusing
systems being out of adjustment seems to be a pretty common complaint.


I haven't heard anything about the M8 rangefinder being out of
adjustment, but if they are, it's certainly Leica's bad...

In my own experience, I think at least 50% of Soviet (or post-Soviet)
lenses are considered bad because of badly-adjusted camera RFs.
Proper focusing is pretty fundamental, whichever system is used...