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 » 35mm Photo 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
  #1  
Old June 14th 04, 12:38 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

The fling-and-pray that is darkroom work does
not compare to the precision and variety of edits that can be made by
digital.


I bet to respectfully disagree.

If you want precision then film is the only way that's ***unadulterated*** by
processing software and human edits.

Have you seen how digital captures lights in mist?

Go to usefilm and find some examples, even from the fabled $**** digital
cameras.


There is no question that digital is the most direct path from what you saw
as you looked through the viewfinder to a finished print to hang on a wall.


Direct in terms of speed?

I guess your use of the word "precision" suggests otherwise. You have a lens
and photochemically reactive film, what's more *direct* than that?

I can only suspect you're not serious.
  #2  
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



  #3  
Old June 14th 04, 02:23 PM
Sabineellen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

But
scanning is slow and tedious.


are you scanning individual prints or film strips?
  #4  
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.--

  #5  
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.--

  #6  
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



  #7  
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
  #8  
Old June 15th 04, 01:25 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mark Weaver wrote:


"Stacey" wrote in message


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.


Come on, I've scanned a BUNCH of prints and a good scanner can scan a print
right on the money 95% of the time in auto mode, plenty good enough to copy
some family snapshots.



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.


So you've never gotten "double prints"? You act like only one print can be
made from a negative or reprints are a major hassle. If these prints your
parents have are important, it couldn't take more than a night to scan them
and give them back. Then you have analog and digital copies instead of just
one type.
--

Stacey
  #9  
Old June 15th 04, 07:13 AM
MikeWhy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
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? :-)


Thank you for that. I had forgotten the moderate, reasonable view in my
haste to belittle the strongly polarized.

 




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
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner Mike Digital Photography 6 July 5th 04 07:06 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Will we always be able to buy film? Phil Glaser In The Darkroom 30 January 28th 04 06:11 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 AM.


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.