Hasselblad 56x42mm 60 mpix

David J. Littleboy wrote:

It does, because it directly contradicts the statement that the
difference between film and digital is that the former is continuous.

The problem with invoking quanta in this argument is that you run the risk
of being accused of making trivial arguments, simply because you are.

?

And because, as someone already pointed out, and as you repeat below, the
discrete levels of digtal are fine enough too for it all to be considered
continuous.

You've missed my point: the naive understanding of "analog" and
"continuous" are quite wrong. An "analog" signal with 1 part in 256 of
noise, only has 256 different levels that can be discriminated. [...]

Not at all.

I'm afraid, David, that "noone" is quite right in (most) what he says in his
reply.
And there's even more to be said, but it's perhaps not necessary to say all
of it right now?

Q.G. de Bakker wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 4:43 AM:


And because, as someone already pointed out, and as you repeat below, the
discrete levels of digtal are fine enough too for it all to be considered
continuous.
You've missed my point: the naive understanding of "analog" and
"continuous" are quite wrong. An "analog" signal with 1 part in 256 of
noise, only has 256 different levels that can be discriminated. [...]

Not at all.

I'm afraid, David, that "noone" is quite right in (most) what he says in his
reply.

Oh, but don't let his "inability" to read the truth
interfere with his understanding of it:
the two are quite separate in his mind...

And there's even more to be said, but it's perhaps not necessary to say all
of it right now?


Of course not.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
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.

It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just
clips at peak white.

Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital.

Forgive us who avoid overexposure.

Obviously, it is in the best interests of the photograph to avoid overall
over-exposure. But there are many times when the portions of the scene will
be over-exposed when other portions are correctly exposed. This is where
film's "soft-clip" tolerance to over-exposure becomes an advantage.

Ken Hart1 wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
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.
It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital just
clips at peak white.
Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital.

Forgive us who avoid overexposure.

Obviously, it is in the best interests of the photograph to avoid overall
over-exposure. But there are many times when the portions of the scene will
be over-exposed when other portions are correctly exposed. This is where
film's "soft-clip" tolerance to over-exposure becomes an advantage.

I don't disagree.

However, in my experience (which ain't the end all, but still...) there
are often uncontrollable highlights which regardless of conditions will
be well above the sensor (neg film or otherwise), so it's not a real
concern ... (you can't do anything about them so the photog can only try
to minimize their impact on the composition. That's how I approach it
(and as I otherwise shoot 90% slide it amounts to pretty much the same
thing anyway)).

Certainly wedding photogs are doing entire weddings on digital (why the
Fujifilm S3 (etc) cameras are popular with some of them (per another
poster in another thread)) but such seem limited in pixel growth. Maybe
they'll stun the world with a FF sensor.

Otherwise we all see 12 Mpix cameras being wielded fearlessly by wedding
photogs and no film camera in sight ... even for the formals.

--
-- 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.

On 2008-12-28 18:05:03 -0500, "DRS" said:

"frank" wrote in message


[...]

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

Quanta.

When digital cameras function on the quantum level, I will switch.
--
Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
news:2008122920140216807-adunc79617@mypacksnet
On 2008-12-28 18:05:03 -0500, "DRS" said:
"frank" wrote in message


[...]

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

Quanta.

When digital cameras function on the quantum level, I will switch.

I don't know of any using Josephson switches so I'll not argue the point
further, but as both film and sensors are by definition photon-sensitive
they operate at the quantum level every time you use them.

Alan Browne wrote:
Ken Hart1 wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
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.
It does have a greater tolerance to over-exposure, whereas digital
just clips at peak white.
Yes that is one advantage of negative film over digital.

Forgive us who avoid overexposure.

Obviously, it is in the best interests of the photograph to avoid
overall over-exposure. But there are many times when the portions of
the scene will be over-exposed when other portions are correctly
exposed. This is where film's "soft-clip" tolerance to over-exposure
becomes an advantage.

I don't disagree.

However, in my experience (which ain't the end all, but still...) there
are often uncontrollable highlights which regardless of conditions will
be well above the sensor (neg film or otherwise), so it's not a real
concern ... (you can't do anything about them so the photog can only try
to minimize their impact on the composition. That's how I approach it
(and as I otherwise shoot 90% slide it amounts to pretty much the same
thing anyway)).

Certainly wedding photogs are doing entire weddings on digital (why the
Fujifilm S3 (etc) cameras are popular with some of them (per another
poster in another thread)) but such seem limited in pixel growth. Maybe
they'll stun the world with a FF sensor.

Otherwise we all see 12 Mpix cameras being wielded fearlessly by wedding
photogs and no film camera in sight ... even for the formals.

While I enjoy shooting with my S2, S3 and S5, there's a rising trend in high end wedding
photography, film. Google Jose Villa and Leah McCormick for example. While some may say
they're the exceptions, more and more professional shooters I talk to are starting to go
back to film, if only for special projects.

The supposed savings digital offers are just transferring film and processing costs to
post production costs. While there is truly some amazing work going on these days, the
majority of the portrait work (I am co-owner of a portrait and commercial studio) takes
just as long (and if you're paying somebody to do your post work, often costs more) as
film based workflows. The majority of the product work I do digitally (Phase One scanback
on a Sinar)needs little to no post work, one of the side benefits of having matured as a
photographer in the film era (you get it right in camera or not at all) and not typical,
from what I've heard from my clients (and their designers/graphic artists)

I can shoot weddings and the like digitally, but find I can do it more profitably using
film, for everything but the reception/candids. The classic white dress/black tux issue
rears it's head more than I'd prefer, but I know that I can expose for the black tux and
get a workable, high quality image with film, in the real world, under less than ideal
conditions. In the studio, with controlled lighting and absolute control, digital can
produce an image as good or better. Now if I could just find clients willing to get
married in my studio, I'd probably go all digital.

We may be an unusual situation, I process all film in house, we print up to 10x in house
on a Frontier, and I enjoy the technical end of it as much as the creative side, but I
don't think I'm alone. There's a place for both, and the "film must die" camp really needs
to ask themselves if having one less tool is really in everybody's best interest.


erie

erie patsellis wrote:
While I enjoy shooting with my S2, S3 and S5, there's a rising trend in
high end wedding photography, film. Google Jose Villa and Leah McCormick
for example. While some may say they're the exceptions, more and more
professional shooters I talk to are starting to go back to film, if only
for special projects.
I find it interesting to see why photographers move from one medium to
another, so I went looking for information on the two named
photographers... Are you *sure* they moved back to film from digital?
JV seems to have been a film person all his life, and I couldn't find
any references to LM going digital and returning either.

I'm not saying there aren't people going back to film, but when it comes
to actual examples, it seems to be more anecdote than information.

And it has to be said that for someone who has always shot weddings on
MF, as many do and I used to, the equivalent quality has not been
affordably available until very recently. I've certainly heard stories
from 'pro's who were silly enough to early-adopt and use technology that
was quite obviously not going to perform as well or conveniently as
film. And then surprise, surprise, they returned to film.

Yet those who wait and choose carefully, seem to do ok...
http://cliffmautner.typepad.com/
(Nikon D3/D700) Scroll down and take a look, especially at the shots in
challenging light.. Worth noting that his style is to display quite
contrasty web images, but it seems to me that he is getting more usable
dynamic range out of his Nikons than I ever could out of the best
wedding films, and of course the low-light ability of those cameras is
simply astonishing (let alone the inconvenience of having to have
separate backs/cameras loaded with high-iso film)..

The supposed savings digital offers are just transferring film and
processing costs to post production costs. While there is truly some
amazing work going on these days, the majority of the portrait work (I
am co-owner of a portrait and commercial studio) takes just as long (and
if you're paying somebody to do your post work, often costs more) as
film based workflows. The majority of the product work I do digitally
(Phase One scanback on a Sinar)needs little to no post work, one of the
side benefits of having matured as a photographer in the film era (you
get it right in camera or not at all) and not typical, from what I've
heard from my clients (and their designers/graphic artists)
No arguments there.

I can shoot weddings and the like digitally, but find I can do it more
profitably using film, for everything but the reception/candids. The
classic white dress/black tux issue rears it's head more than I'd
prefer, but I know that I can expose for the black tux and get a
workable, high quality image with film, in the real world, under less
than ideal conditions.
Admittedly, numbers don't count for that much, but it has to be said
that the better sensors are now exceeding the range of the best films..
But it also has to be said that a different approach is required, so
if you are getting what you want now, why on earth would anyone change
and go thru the pain of learning a new approach?

Until film supplies/processing services dry up...

We may be an unusual situation, I process all film in house, we print up
to 10x in house on a Frontier, and I enjoy the technical end of it as
much as the creative side, but I don't think I'm alone. There's a place
for both, and the "film must die" camp really needs to ask themselves if
having one less tool is really in everybody's best interest.
I'm not sure there *is* a 'film must die' camp, except by those who are
trolling.

Personally I find it wonderful that digital is now maturing into a
viable alternative even to MF, but I also find it a little sad to watch
how quickly the marketplace dumps on film users. I'm still smarting
over Kodachrome 25, Konica Impresa...

Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 5:37 PM:


I'm not saying there aren't people going back to film, but when it comes
to actual examples, it seems to be more anecdote than information.

Ever tried looking where the correct information
resides instead of newsgroups dedicated to scamming
digital wares?


And it has to be said that for someone who has always shot weddings on
MF, as many do and I used to, the equivalent quality has not been
affordably available until very recently.

So your claims more than three years ago that it
was available were what? The usual lies?


Until film supplies/processing services dry up...

you and I will be dead before that happens,
so stop that "film is gone" crap or you'll hear
from me every single time...



I'm not sure there *is* a 'film must die' camp, except by those who are
trolling.

Such as you?

how quickly the marketplace dumps on film users. I'm still smarting
over Kodachrome 25, Konica Impresa...

Really? Then why not open your mind to Adox CMS 20, Provia 400X,
New Velvia, Ektar 100? Of course: if you chose to live in
the past, you can't complain when the reality of the
present slaps you in the face...

In message , Noons
writes
Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 30/12/2008 5:37 PM:
Until film supplies/processing services dry up...

you and I will be dead before that happens,
so stop that "film is gone" crap or you'll hear
from me every single time...

Interesting... A recent UK Pro photographers magazine was lamenting the
fact that virtually all the professional processing places have gone. It
cited the decline in several major UK cities. Some had gone from 10
processors down to one or zero.

Whilst one is enough it also noted the overnight or 24 hour services
had gone. It appears that the demand is so low that the tend to run a
batch once a week or 10 days.

This isn't digital scanning or propaganda as the piece was written by a
35mm /MF film user. He was also commenting that whilst film was still
available the number of places stocking it, like vinyl records, saw
getting fewer. Practically speaking only specialised places and the
range carried was much smaller.

My local Calumet now stocks less than 10% of the film it used to hold 5
years ago. And the range is much smaller.

I'm not sure there *is* a 'film must die' camp, except by those who
are trolling.
Such as you?

I don't thinks so.

Film IS dying that is a fact. Usage of 35mm film is down 90%
(extrapolating the number of processing plants closed over the last few
years and the reduction in the number of places still selling film and
the amounts they sell.)

I was going to say closure of professional processing plants but my
local boots only ran the fill processing machines once a week. Now it is
once a fortnight. They are getting to the point where it is no longer
cost effective to have the machines in store. The smaller branches have
already lost the film processors all together

There is not just the demand with all the digital P&S and "reasonable"
camera-phones. The local Boots does have 10 serve yourself digital print
kiosks and a continually running 1 hour turn round bulk printer.

Whilst you may get the odd slow down in the decline in the use of film
and even the odd local small blip in usage the trend is solidly down.
It is now a minority thing and the number of new users is a drop in the
ocean compared to those moving to digital.

More to the point new photographers will not even use film at all. My
local collages find there is a zero take up for the photography courses
involving film or darkrooms. So as the current film users age and die
off the art will go with them

Film is just not dead and unlikely to be so for probably at least
another decade, perhaps 2 but I can't see any revival.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/