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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey wrote:
Victor wrote: The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol film camera ever was. Indeed. And since that recent EU ruling worldwide that mandates that each person must only possess one and only one camera, or suffer the death penalty, it certainly would be the wisest choice. -- Ian Tindale |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
David Fouchey wrote:
Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence. I guess you'll be surprised then to find to what advanced degree institutions having large archives (and adding lots to them on a daily basis) have already switched to digital documents and digital archives. It improves availability, reducing both time spent retrieving and replacing documents (whether on fiche or paper). And it reduces the quite considerable space the archive occupies. The archival issue is one of time: how much time can you spend (regularly) to copy your archive, perhaps reformatting to different format and/or substrate at the same time. With computers doing the work mostly autonomously, it's not (!) a big issue. We poor photographers having to copy our CDs, one by one, all by ourselves... well, that's a different matter. ;-) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
As far as I am concerned (and others with better credentials than me,
including pros) the winner at this moment in time (and, presumably, for some time to come) is MF/LF plus a good scanner in the Nikon 8000/9000 league, or something like Imacon. So, if you want to enjoy your hobby, you must persuade the wife that in addition to the price of MF and film, you should invest in a scanner as above. (Of course, purchasing also Photoshop CS is a must). A good prosumer printer of the Cannon i9950 or Epson variety would then do justice to your images. The irony is that thanks to the scanner, the superlative quality of inkjet printers, and Photoshop, digital has not killed film, on the contrary, it gave it a new lease of life (for those for whom photography is more than recognising aunt Mary in her red dress on a 6 x7 inch photo). Another aspect of the problem is that pictures taken with a digital camera do have significantly less noise and are shaper than film, and for some this is the winning factor. But there are no free lunches. The "cleaner" or "neater" image given by the digital camera suffers from lack of detail, a somewhat clinical and artificial look and inferior tonality, which may not be pleasing to others. Its final size is also generally limited (of course, depending on the subject). For a more natural look, which admittedly does have more noise, and might be less "crisp", and for size (which you generally need, in particular for cropping) you still cannot beat a MF/LF image obtained from a negative (eg. Reala), scanned with a good, what am I saying, very good scanner. as you americans, say, my 2cents' worth. In article , Victor writes I consider myself an amature photographer. I used 35mm SLRs for many years. About four years ago I became intrigued with medium format cameras after a friend of mine showed me some photographs he had taken with a 645 camera. The results were incredible. Soon after that I bought a MF camera. At the time it seemed like the right move for me, but now I'm not so sure this was a good move. Here is why: I got married about three years ago and became a parent soon after that. The family life was so demanding that I decided to put my hobby on hold for a couple of years. About a month ago I spoke with my wife about taking up my hobby again. She was thrilled. First thing I did before my come back was to read up on the latest advances. After a week or so of investigation I realized that digital photography had taken off. I had read about it during my three years away, but had no idea how far it had gone. Yesterday I went to visit a few friends of mine that work at local photography shops in town. I wanted to find out from them if everything I read was true. Every opinion I heard sounded like I should get rid of my MF camera. This shocked me beacuse some of these friends were really into MF format. The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. I thought this trend only affected the 35mm market, but interestingly enough I found out that it was also affecting the MF market. The trend among professional photographers seems to be away from MF and towards high end digital cameras. I didn't feel to bad when I heard this news because I thought they were probably sacrifising quality for convenience. However, after seeing some enlarged images taken with high end digital cameras, I wasn't sure this was the case. Still, what really got me worried was when I heard most shops in town were planning to do away with film materials (chemicals, film, etc.) within the next four to five years. I beleive that film will be in for a long time. My concern is at what price and inconvenience? Also, where is the nitch for MF camera? I would like to hear your opinion. -- nobody |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
David Fouchey wrote in message . ..
On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote: No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now that continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I love shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now). No doubt that digital has it's place - in someone else's pocket... Ditto I carry both digital and film cameras for that very reason. Where as I have my Iskra that I carry everywhere instead. By the time I get done uploading, tweaking and printing a digital shot I can take, develope and print a roll of 120 6x6's and have more fun doing so. Your milage will vary. Dave Kodak and Fiji and the rest of the big companies will, no doubt, stop producing film sooner or later. So? As long as demand exists, someone will produce light sensitive silver coated celluloid. That's all that matters to me. William |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
just simply think about the 1.8" microdrive have 20/40Gbyte capacity now
"David Fouchey" ??? news Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence. Dave On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote: Wilt also look at how much the technology of digital has advanced in just a few short years. With pixel size falling to the sub micron level and with an array size comparable now to a 35 mm frame at a fraction of the price of just a few years ago it is approaching the detail and tonal range of film. Is it competitive with film yet? For general photo use it is fine, for fine art not there yet. But it will be and probably sooner than we think. No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now that continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I love shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now). One wonders how many digital photographs will be lost to history because they were stored with proprietary versions of RAW digital files, stored in obsolete media (it will be interesting to see how long the DVD continues to exist...just look at the 5.25" floopy, it's getting hard to find a new PC with even the 3.5" floppy!). We have silver negs over 100 years later, will be have the digital files of today accessible in 2103? This is a significant, yet ignored, issue that no one thinks about. Will future generations be able to look back and see what life was like? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
just simply think about the 1.8" microdrive have 20/40Gbyte capacity now
"David Fouchey" ??? news Wilt Archival issues are a major concern for sure. With all the advances in digital storage libraries still depend on microfiche for archival works for the very reason of medial obsolescence. Dave On 12 Sep 2004 02:44:59 GMT, (Wilt W) wrote: Wilt also look at how much the technology of digital has advanced in just a few short years. With pixel size falling to the sub micron level and with an array size comparable now to a 35 mm frame at a fraction of the price of just a few years ago it is approaching the detail and tonal range of film. Is it competitive with film yet? For general photo use it is fine, for fine art not there yet. But it will be and probably sooner than we think. No dispute that technology will prevail at some point, especially now that continued advancement of technology in film emulsions is so reduced. I love shooting with my digital, but the film camera has its place (for now). One wonders how many digital photographs will be lost to history because they were stored with proprietary versions of RAW digital files, stored in obsolete media (it will be interesting to see how long the DVD continues to exist...just look at the 5.25" floopy, it's getting hard to find a new PC with even the 3.5" floppy!). We have silver negs over 100 years later, will be have the digital files of today accessible in 2103? This is a significant, yet ignored, issue that no one thinks about. Will future generations be able to look back and see what life was like? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
i started to use MF just a couple of months, and was thinking about digital,
if and only if the film is stop production, i think the digital back for MF will be affortable for amature while. just keep going, film is more concert indeed. "Victor" ??? om ???... I consider myself an amature photographer. I used 35mm SLRs for many years. About four years ago I became intrigued with medium format cameras after a friend of mine showed me some photographs he had taken with a 645 camera. The results were incredible. Soon after that I bought a MF camera. At the time it seemed like the right move for me, but now I'm not so sure this was a good move. Here is why: I got married about three years ago and became a parent soon after that. The family life was so demanding that I decided to put my hobby on hold for a couple of years. About a month ago I spoke with my wife about taking up my hobby again. She was thrilled. First thing I did before my come back was to read up on the latest advances. After a week or so of investigation I realized that digital photography had taken off. I had read about it during my three years away, but had no idea how far it had gone. Yesterday I went to visit a few friends of mine that work at local photography shops in town. I wanted to find out from them if everything I read was true. Every opinion I heard sounded like I should get rid of my MF camera. This shocked me beacuse some of these friends were really into MF format. The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. I thought this trend only affected the 35mm market, but interestingly enough I found out that it was also affecting the MF market. The trend among professional photographers seems to be away from MF and towards high end digital cameras. I didn't feel to bad when I heard this news because I thought they were probably sacrifising quality for convenience. However, after seeing some enlarged images taken with high end digital cameras, I wasn't sure this was the case. Still, what really got me worried was when I heard most shops in town were planning to do away with film materials (chemicals, film, etc.) within the next four to five years. I beleive that film will be in for a long time. My concern is at what price and inconvenience? Also, where is the nitch for MF camera? I would like to hear your opinion. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ian Tindale wrote:
Stacey wrote: Victor wrote: The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol film camera ever was. Indeed. And since that recent EU ruling worldwide that mandates that each person must only possess one and only one camera, or suffer the death penalty, it certainly would be the wisest choice. I'm going to sell everything I have from 35mm to 8X10 so I can own one of these newest greatest things. I can't wait till I finally take some -digital quality- pictures! -- Stacey |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ian Tindale wrote:
Stacey wrote: Victor wrote: The stories I heard were all the same. Digital is in and film is out. Blah blah blah, go buy a digital camera. They are way better than any ol film camera ever was. Indeed. And since that recent EU ruling worldwide that mandates that each person must only possess one and only one camera, or suffer the death penalty, it certainly would be the wisest choice. I'm going to sell everything I have from 35mm to 8X10 so I can own one of these newest greatest things. I can't wait till I finally take some -digital quality- pictures! -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The future of 35mm | Dallas | 35mm Photo Equipment | 49 | September 1st 04 07:22 PM |
Canon A80: Will wide & tele lenses work with future cameras? | Fred B. | Digital Photography | 2 | August 31st 04 07:01 PM |
Message To America's Students: The War, The Draft, Your Future | [email protected] | Photographing People | 0 | April 11th 04 11:26 PM |