Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix

On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:07:30 -0500, Michael wrote:

About 4
years ago the digital photography newsgroups had a fairly large
number of posts from 35mm film users that proclaimed that 35mm film
SLRs were vastly superior to DSLRs and film would never die. Most
of those 35mm film chauvinists appear to have become extinct well
before film has. Either that or they've gone into lurk mode due to
their old arguments becoming more and more unsupportable.

More likely they are tired of making arguments to those who cannot
understand them.'

Said like a true zealot. And you're wrong. Closer to the truth
might be "More likely they are tired of making the same arguments to
those who are more and more able to see through their arguments."
It's perfectly all right to prefer working with film, but as the
number of film fans dwindle, the percentage of the remaining
unreasonable film chauvinists and zealots increases. Search their
wallets and purses and you'll probably find Flat Earth Society
membership cards.


I can
appreciate the different kind of craftsmanship that the hands-on
working with film provides, but working with film is much less
practical than it used to be

Actually, it is neither more nor less impractical. it is exactly the same.

No, you're clearly wrong. The amount of time and effort may be
the same, but it's less practical than the digital alternatives.
Someone working for $20/hour might easily decide to switch to
another job that offers $45/hour. When questioned by the old boss
the reason for leaving, a good answer would be "Staying in my old,
lower wage job just wasn't practical." If you were the boss, could
you say with a straight face "But you could stay here and work for
the same $20/hour, and nothing is changed. Your old job is just as
practical as it ever was." The more you distort the message's
intent, the more irrational you must become. You can defend
continuing to use film, but try to use more logical, reasonable
arguments. You clearly love working with film and don't mind the
additional costs you have to pay in hours, effort and the ever
increasing number of dollars. You don't mind paying those costs,
and as long as you can easily afford to do so, film is a "practical"
choice. For you. But it's not even close to being a practical
choice for most photographers.


Scanning negatives and making digital prints is more like a very good
proof sheet. Niether digital prints from scans nor digital prints from
digital originals equal fine optical enlargements from film. 4x6 and
5x7, I will grant you, are pretty much the same in any decent format.

That's a pretty small one-size-fits-all box you've put digital
cameras in. Do you think that their best quality is limited to 5x7
prints? If so you have much to learn. Similarly, you forget that
most of the film sold for still photography is for 35mm and smaller
sizes, much of it used in really inferior cameras. To get the
superior prints that you talk about requires a tremendous investment
(again, in more than just money) which is why MF and LF sales
continue to decline. As I said, use it while you can. If you're a
fairly young photographer, there's a good chance that you'll
eventually see all of the major manufacturers discontinue production
of film. You'll still probably be able to buy film, but it will be
more expensive than ever, of lower quality, and probably much harder
to get. When might this happen? Keep an eye on Hollywood and
Bollywood. When they abandon film for digital, the game's over.

frank wrote,on my timestamp of 27/12/2008 7:42 PM:
On Dec 26, 1:17 pm, "Ken Hart1" wrote:
"Noons" wrote in message

...
snip



LOL! Dunno about others, but I've also been enjoying 70MP on
my Arax 6X6 for years, around 50MP on the Fuji 645S, as well as
20MP on various types of sensor on my F, F2, F4 and F6.
In fact, I can now get 20MP from images taken in 1980,1970 and even
some Kodachromes from 1958. And nearly 100MP from 6X7 stuff.
Oh, and it didn't cost me the price of a small car to get all that,
most of the gear works even without batteries and I don't have problems
focusing in the dark. And every time I get dust on the sensor, I replace
it with a fresh, brand new sensor.
But of course, I'm "behind the times", I'm "old school" and
I don't know what "real photography" is all about.
Yup.
Sure.
yaaaaaawn
It's not "real photography" unless it involves a darkroom, precious metals,
and toxic chemicals...

Don't forget the cyanide...

I think you haven't had enough of it yet...

"frank" wrote in message


[...]

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that
is not how the world works.

Quanta.

frank wrote:

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that
is not how the world works. Sorry. Film will capture infinitely better
photos than digital.

This is a remarkably dumb statement. First off, the human eye cannot
perceive the difference in dynamic represented by the discrete levels
through most of the sensor dynamic range. IOW: it is too fine to matter.

For that matter, the grain in film is very perceptible and acts in a
discrete manner once it is 'turned on'.

The noise of film is in 3 dimensions, and most of that is in x,y
(grain). Digital noise is constrained to dynamic only.

The digital image remains intact from the moment it is recorded to the
many, many ways it can be used. It will not degrade over time. It will
not be scanned or enlarged via other lenses. It will not face grubby
hands, spills, scratches, and so on.

Film cannot (practically) be flat when the image is taken. The sensor
in a digital camera is much flatter than film can be, even in elaborate
vacuum backed or pressure plated cameras.

The resolution of digital sensors today is beyond the practical use of
film. It has been so for the majority of 35mm scale photographs since
they passed 12 Mpixels and likewise MF from 30 Mpixels.

Do have a friend who went back to Hassy and slides as digital didn't
cut it, he's having a hell of a time getting chemicals. B&H won't
ship to him. He's getting some out of the UK or all places. Nice to
see other side of the pond has the right attitudes. He's scanning, not
sure what he's using to scan.

I shoot Hassy / 120 film and scan it on a Nikon 9000ED. This is limited
to about 20 rolls per year. These make for magnificent photos in the
right conditions.

However, the Sony a900 comes close or better for enlargements and I'm
sure w/o a doubt that the Hasselblad's at 39 Mpix and up blow away 645
film (or 6x6 for that matter).

This does not mean there is no place for film. But to claim film is
better in every way is foolish at best. It's not even better in a few ways.

--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

frank wrote:

You've obviously never processed Kodak E-4 kits with the small plastic
bottle of cyanide you had to mix then add to the other solution, I
think it was bleach. I think there was something similar in the E-6
and C-41 kits, its been a while, I just send it out.

The E4 bleach contains Potassium ferricyanide and sodium thiocyanate.
Neither are particularly toxic despite their names.

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that
is not how the world works. Sorry. Film will capture infinitely better
photos than digital.

Every grain in film is either on or off. You get the impression
of continuous tone because there are a huge number of grains.

Peter.
--

"DRS" wrote:
"frank" wrote:
[...]

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and that
is not how the world works.

Quanta.

No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly represent the
analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough bits, which isn't
hard given how gross grain noise is.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:
Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:

Where dirt on the sensor can be easily
cleaned without risk (as the lens itself can be) and is not the issue it
currently is.

eh? Over nearly 5 years I cleaned the sensor on my 6 Mpix camera 4
times. What issue?

That often? What are you doing? Playing in the mud -- again? :-)

And how does one properly clean a good old film once dirt
gets to it?

-Wolfgang

You get out your 000 brush and your spotone and use your artistic skills to
take care of it.
Or you practice your skills and use sufficient care to avoid getting
dirt/dust on the film in the first place.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote:
"frank" wrote:
[...]

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and
that is not how the world works.

Quanta.

No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly
represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough
bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is.

My point was that what is thought of as analogue is in fact quantised, that
is, it is a series of discrete levels (albeit at such a fine level as to
appear to be continuous at the macro level). This has nothing to do with
noise. It is simply a fundamental fact about how "the world works".

"DRS" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"DRS" wrote:
"frank" wrote:
[...]

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and
that is not how the world works.

Quanta.

No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly
represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough
bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is.

My point was that what is thought of as analogue is in fact quantised,
that is, it is a series of discrete levels (albeit at such a fine level as
to appear to be continuous at the macro level). This has nothing to do
with noise. It is simply a fundamental fact about how "the world works".

But it's not relevant to the discussion and therefore doesn't make the
point.

It _is_ relevant to the discussion that digital does a better job at
representing images than analog for the very reason the film nuts claim film
is better, namely the number of distinct levels is larger in digital systems
due to the lower noise.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

There is some credence in films superiority, and in certain applications (weddings come to
mind), film's tolerance to exposure errors, and "soft clipping" of highlights can be a
lifesaver to those who have to get the shot, and failure isn't an option. (not mindlessly
argue semantics on Usenet (no offense intended, seriously)). A tool is a tool is a tool,
a phillips screwdriver does little good when used with slotted screws, there is a right
tool for each job. Color negative film has (and many say still is) the holy grail of
wedding photographers, little to no "post" work, excellent color fidelity and scannability
(My understanding is that there's a large number of shooters (mostly upper end) that have
returned to film, for precisely these reasons)

While you can "theoretically" represent an analog signal with a digital one (up to the
Nyquist limit, of course), there is still a market for film work, and in some segments,
film is clearly the winner, in other's it's a toss up.



erie

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"DRS" wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"DRS" wrote:
"frank" wrote:
[...]

Film is still superior to digital Digital has discrete levels and
that is not how the world works.
Quanta.
No, noise. Noise in analog signals means that you can exactly
represent the analog signal with digital, as long as you have enough
bits, which isn't hard given how gross grain noise is.
My point was that what is thought of as analogue is in fact quantised,
that is, it is a series of discrete levels (albeit at such a fine level as
to appear to be continuous at the macro level). This has nothing to do
with noise. It is simply a fundamental fact about how "the world works".

But it's not relevant to the discussion and therefore doesn't make the
point.

It _is_ relevant to the discussion that digital does a better job at
representing images than analog for the very reason the film nuts claim film
is better, namely the number of distinct levels is larger in digital systems
due to the lower noise.