The "Herd Mentality"

"Jeremy" wrote in message
nk.net...
Are photographers "upgrading" from film to digital and getting better
images, or are they just following the crowd, which has continually heard
the "film is dead" argument for several years?

I wonder what percentage of former film users would argue that their
images
from digital gear are significantly "BETTER" than the ones they produced
from film?

Is there anyone asking what all the digital hoopla is about, or are we
film
users just a bunch of dogs that can't learn new tricks?

--
Unfortunately nobody can control the disruptive behavior of sociopaths who
wish to post to an unmoderated newsgroup such as this one. Informed
readers,
however, will have no trouble at all sorting the wheat from the chaff.

When I shot film exclusively, I ended up digitizing it all anyway.
While I could indeed get great detail and color through scanning slides and
negatives, it was/is a royal PITA, and VERY time-consuming, even on a small
scale.

When I return from a trip with 2000+ images, I thank my lucky stars that I'm
not scanning even a small precentage of those shots. There are still times
where I use film, and I readily admit that digital falls short in certain
types of shots and/or inteded uses, but I am increasingly pleased with
digital and am comfortably leaving my film bodies at home.

In a few years time, there will be little reason for me to continue shooting
color 35mm film.

"Jeremy" wrote in message
nk.net...
Are photographers "upgrading" from film to digital and getting better
images, or are they just following the crowd, which has continually heard
the "film is dead" argument for several years?

I wonder what percentage of former film users would argue that their
images
from digital gear are significantly "BETTER" than the ones they produced
from film?

Is there anyone asking what all the digital hoopla is about, or are we
film
users just a bunch of dogs that can't learn new tricks?

--
Unfortunately nobody can control the disruptive behavior of sociopaths who
wish to post to an unmoderated newsgroup such as this one. Informed
readers,
however, will have no trouble at all sorting the wheat from the chaff.

When I shot film exclusively, I ended up digitizing it all anyway.
While I could indeed get great detail and color through scanning slides and
negatives, it was/is a royal PITA, and VERY time-consuming, even on a small
scale.

When I return from a trip with 2000+ images, I thank my lucky stars that I'm
not scanning even a small precentage of those shots. There are still times
where I use film, and I readily admit that digital falls short in certain
types of shots and/or inteded uses, but I am increasingly pleased with
digital and am comfortably leaving my film bodies at home.

In a few years time, there will be little reason for me to continue shooting
color 35mm film.

In article . net,
Jeremy wrote:
I don't like the need to constantly be aware of power requirements, I hate
the autofocusing function, where I have to lock focus on the object in the
center of the viewfinder and then recompose, I miss the control I have with
depth-of-field on my manual focus (film) lenses, I dislike having the lens
rack down to its widest angle (38mm) every time I turn the camera on, and I
feel uncomfortable not knowing exactly what focal length I am using when I
zoom (there is a rough guide--a thermometer--on the LCD, but I cannot, for
example, shoot at exactly 50mm if I want to do so. I can only guesstimate.)

I don't see how digital is much different from film in this respect.
Nikon's D1 series is not that different from the F5/F100.

With modern SLRs (with a built-in motor drive) you have to be aware of
power requirements too.

The dynamic range of my digicam is much less than that of film, and I am
turned off by the tendency of the camera to blow out highlights. The
shutter lag, while not really a problem when shooting static subjects, is
still unsettling to someone used to an SLR.

Strange, you buy a P&S digital camera and then you complain that it
doesn't work as well as a (D)SLR.

I have to admit that blown out highlights are a problem. But that is worse
with slides, and plenty of people are using slides.

Anyway, this all raised the question in my mind of whether the folks that
left 35mm for digital had any remorse about having done so, after they saw
their images . . . ?

Make sure that you compare 35mm to a DSLR.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article . net,
Jeremy wrote:
I don't like the need to constantly be aware of power requirements, I hate
the autofocusing function, where I have to lock focus on the object in the
center of the viewfinder and then recompose, I miss the control I have with
depth-of-field on my manual focus (film) lenses, I dislike having the lens
rack down to its widest angle (38mm) every time I turn the camera on, and I
feel uncomfortable not knowing exactly what focal length I am using when I
zoom (there is a rough guide--a thermometer--on the LCD, but I cannot, for
example, shoot at exactly 50mm if I want to do so. I can only guesstimate.)

I don't see how digital is much different from film in this respect.
Nikon's D1 series is not that different from the F5/F100.

With modern SLRs (with a built-in motor drive) you have to be aware of
power requirements too.

The dynamic range of my digicam is much less than that of film, and I am
turned off by the tendency of the camera to blow out highlights. The
shutter lag, while not really a problem when shooting static subjects, is
still unsettling to someone used to an SLR.

Strange, you buy a P&S digital camera and then you complain that it
doesn't work as well as a (D)SLR.

I have to admit that blown out highlights are a problem. But that is worse
with slides, and plenty of people are using slides.

Anyway, this all raised the question in my mind of whether the folks that
left 35mm for digital had any remorse about having done so, after they saw
their images . . . ?

Make sure that you compare 35mm to a DSLR.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Jeremy wrote:
Are photographers "upgrading" from film to digital and getting better
images, or are they just following the crowd, which has continually heard
the "film is dead" argument for several years?

I wonder what percentage of former film users would argue that their images
from digital gear are significantly "BETTER" than the ones they produced
from film?

Is there anyone asking what all the digital hoopla is about, or are we film
users just a bunch of dogs that can't learn new tricks?


I doubt anyone will maintain that current digital quality is better, but
it's not about image quality. It's about the size of the market needed to
make film production economically viable, and the sad truth is that the
market has changed.

The vast majority of cameras are purchased by folks who just want nice pics
of their friends and family and vacations, and who might - very rarely -
consider blowing up pics to 8x10, maybe. They will never see any real
quality difference between their film P&S cameras and digital, but they will
see savings in film/processing costs, and advantages of seeing and culling
their pics as they take them. For the vast majority, digital is great.

Next come the pro's, who make their $$$'s shooting, not in the darkroom, and
who's customers also can't see much difference in quality between pro-quality
digital and film (or in the case of pics that'll appear in ink-print, can't
make any use of the increased quality). I'm not a pro, but I've heard more
than one say words to the effect of "go digital, or go out of business".

Then there are us, who hope someone will still maintain the expensive and
complex infrastructure needed to produce film and paper. I'm not optimistic
about this. My only hope is that when the time comes that I have to give up
film, Kodak DSC 14's will be considered hopelessly obsolete, and available
for a few hundred bills. That one I am optimistic about.


--
Dutchy

(but use digits)

Jeremy wrote:
Are photographers "upgrading" from film to digital and getting better
images, or are they just following the crowd, which has continually heard
the "film is dead" argument for several years?

I wonder what percentage of former film users would argue that their images
from digital gear are significantly "BETTER" than the ones they produced
from film?

Is there anyone asking what all the digital hoopla is about, or are we film
users just a bunch of dogs that can't learn new tricks?


I doubt anyone will maintain that current digital quality is better, but
it's not about image quality. It's about the size of the market needed to
make film production economically viable, and the sad truth is that the
market has changed.

The vast majority of cameras are purchased by folks who just want nice pics
of their friends and family and vacations, and who might - very rarely -
consider blowing up pics to 8x10, maybe. They will never see any real
quality difference between their film P&S cameras and digital, but they will
see savings in film/processing costs, and advantages of seeing and culling
their pics as they take them. For the vast majority, digital is great.

Next come the pro's, who make their $$$'s shooting, not in the darkroom, and
who's customers also can't see much difference in quality between pro-quality
digital and film (or in the case of pics that'll appear in ink-print, can't
make any use of the increased quality). I'm not a pro, but I've heard more
than one say words to the effect of "go digital, or go out of business".

Then there are us, who hope someone will still maintain the expensive and
complex infrastructure needed to produce film and paper. I'm not optimistic
about this. My only hope is that when the time comes that I have to give up
film, Kodak DSC 14's will be considered hopelessly obsolete, and available
for a few hundred bills. That one I am optimistic about.


--
Dutchy

(but use digits)

"Colin D" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Well, it isn't as simple as whether film images are 'better' or 'worse'
than digital images. For me, digital has some advantages that film
can't emulate. For instance, I do a bit of theater and stage
photography, usually choirs and soloists, and digital wins hands down in
that scenario. I have a Canon 300D, and the ability to shoot at 800 or
1600 ISO at will, plus the ability to program the camera white balance
for tungsten lighting just isn't possible with a film camera.
Tungsten-balanced film is not easily available - I actually don't know
if it is still made - and an 80A or 80B filter factor with daylight film
is bad news in an already marginal lighting situation. Contrary to some
belief, it is near impossible to adequately correct a daylight-balanced
film shot under tungsten, especially if the shot is marginally
underexposed.


[Not snipping the rest because I disagree with it, but only because this was
the only bit I specifically wanted to add to.]

Yes, Tungsten balanced film is still made, and in several varieties. I have
Kodak and Fuji versions in the freezer as I type. It is better than putting
an 80B on a daylight film, if only for the difference it makes to effective
speed, but that isn't the main reason I have it. Tungsten film's great
advantage for me is that it is optimised for quite long exposures, and you
can get very long exposures without reciprocity failure kicking in or
getting colour shifts. This makes it a very good film for night scenes, and
if unfiltered and when there's still some light in the sky, the very cool
rendition it gives the sky can be very attractive.

Sometimes it is even useful to use Tungsten film filtered for daylight.
Interior photographers used to do this a lot. I find this technique can be
very useful in the studio if I want to use long exposures with window light.
Also, better reciprocity characteristics seem to me (ie. I don't have
scientific proof) to mean better intermittency too: which means that
filtered Tungsten film can be better than daylight film when you want to use
lots of multi-pop flash.

None of this, of course, really relates to the discussion at hand - just
wanted to say that Tungsten film is still available, and can still be useful
for someone using a "film way of doing things".



Peter

"Colin D" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Well, it isn't as simple as whether film images are 'better' or 'worse'
than digital images. For me, digital has some advantages that film
can't emulate. For instance, I do a bit of theater and stage
photography, usually choirs and soloists, and digital wins hands down in
that scenario. I have a Canon 300D, and the ability to shoot at 800 or
1600 ISO at will, plus the ability to program the camera white balance
for tungsten lighting just isn't possible with a film camera.
Tungsten-balanced film is not easily available - I actually don't know
if it is still made - and an 80A or 80B filter factor with daylight film
is bad news in an already marginal lighting situation. Contrary to some
belief, it is near impossible to adequately correct a daylight-balanced
film shot under tungsten, especially if the shot is marginally
underexposed.


[Not snipping the rest because I disagree with it, but only because this was
the only bit I specifically wanted to add to.]

Yes, Tungsten balanced film is still made, and in several varieties. I have
Kodak and Fuji versions in the freezer as I type. It is better than putting
an 80B on a daylight film, if only for the difference it makes to effective
speed, but that isn't the main reason I have it. Tungsten film's great
advantage for me is that it is optimised for quite long exposures, and you
can get very long exposures without reciprocity failure kicking in or
getting colour shifts. This makes it a very good film for night scenes, and
if unfiltered and when there's still some light in the sky, the very cool
rendition it gives the sky can be very attractive.

Sometimes it is even useful to use Tungsten film filtered for daylight.
Interior photographers used to do this a lot. I find this technique can be
very useful in the studio if I want to use long exposures with window light.
Also, better reciprocity characteristics seem to me (ie. I don't have
scientific proof) to mean better intermittency too: which means that
filtered Tungsten film can be better than daylight film when you want to use
lots of multi-pop flash.

None of this, of course, really relates to the discussion at hand - just
wanted to say that Tungsten film is still available, and can still be useful
for someone using a "film way of doing things".



Peter

"Dutchy" wrote in message
news:ftsXc.56328$X12.3457@edtnps84...
[SNIP]

Then there are us, who hope someone will still maintain the expensive and
complex infrastructure needed to produce film and paper. I'm not
optimistic
about this. My only hope is that when the time comes that I have to give
up
film, Kodak DSC 14's will be considered hopelessly obsolete, and available
for a few hundred bills. That one I am optimistic about.


My market still demands film enough that buying into digital - when price is
still falling and quality still rising - makes no sense _yet_. But I know
it will happen. My 35mm investment in lenses won't be obsoleted (horrible
fake word) but bodies will, so I'm not buying any new film bodies. In MF
I've been careful to go with systems where I hope that a digital back will
eventually be an option. An affordable digital back to fit the standard 6x9
Graflok back is what I really want - may have to wait a while for that...

So I'm not hurrying to change, but making plans to avoid as much wasted
investment as possible when I do. I already scan some of my output, so the
IT investment is (mostly) in place already.


Peter

"Dutchy" wrote in message
news:ftsXc.56328$X12.3457@edtnps84...
[SNIP]

Then there are us, who hope someone will still maintain the expensive and
complex infrastructure needed to produce film and paper. I'm not
optimistic
about this. My only hope is that when the time comes that I have to give
up
film, Kodak DSC 14's will be considered hopelessly obsolete, and available
for a few hundred bills. That one I am optimistic about.


My market still demands film enough that buying into digital - when price is
still falling and quality still rising - makes no sense _yet_. But I know
it will happen. My 35mm investment in lenses won't be obsoleted (horrible
fake word) but bodies will, so I'm not buying any new film bodies. In MF
I've been careful to go with systems where I hope that a digital back will
eventually be an option. An affordable digital back to fit the standard 6x9
Graflok back is what I really want - may have to wait a while for that...

So I'm not hurrying to change, but making plans to avoid as much wasted
investment as possible when I do. I already scan some of my output, so the
IT investment is (mostly) in place already.


Peter