kshapero
South Florida Man
Excerpts:
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Why Digital is Dying[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Now that it's been less than a month since I discovered how easy it is to get great-quality digital files directly from professional transparency film at the same time its developed, some bigots have had a problem with how great film is. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Today I can drop my Velvia at NCPS, and a few hours later, all my film is processed, scanned at higher resolution than a digital camera, and ready to use. (NCPS does mail order, too.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Bingo! I now can shoot film as fluidly as a digital camera. The big block between film and getting it scanned so we can do something useful with it has gone away. I have all the quality, artistic, economic and logistical advantages of film, and all the speed and flexibility of digital. Whoo whoo! [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It the old days (the late 1990s), all we had was film, and klunky scanners that took at least ten minutes per image to scan images slide-by-slide. We had to work exclusively with film, and pick and choose the few images we wanted scanned to digital. This was a pain, and the scans were only of so-so quality unless we wanted to send them out for $50 drum scans on $100,000 PMT scanners.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Digital SLRs replaced film for newspapers in 1999, and became popular with hobbyists starting in 2003, all for their convenience in getting your pictures immediately, not for their image quality. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Today, 99% of amateurs use DSLRs. This is because DSLRs have been the fastest and most convenient way to get digital files of moderate quality, and the immediate LCD feedback helps newcomers to the hobby see what they are doing as they do it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]DSLRs are all fine and dandy if you don't mind blowing a few grand every other year just to stay current, but DSLRs cost more in other ways. Every time a bigot sends me hate mail about how expensive film is, I also have to point out that I blew $6,000 on my desktop Mac and 30" monitor in 2006 just to look at my digital files (and do this website). With film, no computer is required, and with film, you don't shoot all the thousands of deleted rejects people do so blindly with digital cameras. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I've spent thousands of dollars more on digital gear than I've ever spent on film and film cameras.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The man is unpredictable.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Why Digital is Dying[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Now that it's been less than a month since I discovered how easy it is to get great-quality digital files directly from professional transparency film at the same time its developed, some bigots have had a problem with how great film is. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Today I can drop my Velvia at NCPS, and a few hours later, all my film is processed, scanned at higher resolution than a digital camera, and ready to use. (NCPS does mail order, too.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Bingo! I now can shoot film as fluidly as a digital camera. The big block between film and getting it scanned so we can do something useful with it has gone away. I have all the quality, artistic, economic and logistical advantages of film, and all the speed and flexibility of digital. Whoo whoo! [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]It the old days (the late 1990s), all we had was film, and klunky scanners that took at least ten minutes per image to scan images slide-by-slide. We had to work exclusively with film, and pick and choose the few images we wanted scanned to digital. This was a pain, and the scans were only of so-so quality unless we wanted to send them out for $50 drum scans on $100,000 PMT scanners.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Digital SLRs replaced film for newspapers in 1999, and became popular with hobbyists starting in 2003, all for their convenience in getting your pictures immediately, not for their image quality. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Today, 99% of amateurs use DSLRs. This is because DSLRs have been the fastest and most convenient way to get digital files of moderate quality, and the immediate LCD feedback helps newcomers to the hobby see what they are doing as they do it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]DSLRs are all fine and dandy if you don't mind blowing a few grand every other year just to stay current, but DSLRs cost more in other ways. Every time a bigot sends me hate mail about how expensive film is, I also have to point out that I blew $6,000 on my desktop Mac and 30" monitor in 2006 just to look at my digital files (and do this website). With film, no computer is required, and with film, you don't shoot all the thousands of deleted rejects people do so blindly with digital cameras. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I've spent thousands of dollars more on digital gear than I've ever spent on film and film cameras.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The man is unpredictable.
[/FONT]
Sam N
Well-known
I'm convinced he has no real points of view. He is a big prank on the photo community. I have to admit it's pretty funny at times.
If it weren't Ken, I'd say something along the lines of: "he talks about scanning film to digital being so easy and great now, and then turns around and says that you don't need an expensive computer for film".
Since it IS Ken, I'm just going to take what he says as entertainment and not devote any time or energy to thinking about it. It would be like trying to interpret a poem randomly generated by a computer.
If it weren't Ken, I'd say something along the lines of: "he talks about scanning film to digital being so easy and great now, and then turns around and says that you don't need an expensive computer for film".
Since it IS Ken, I'm just going to take what he says as entertainment and not devote any time or energy to thinking about it. It would be like trying to interpret a poem randomly generated by a computer.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
The guy certainly believes that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
/T
/T
RicardoD
Well-known
I tried NCPS scanning on some 120 provia a few weeks ago at "normal" resolution and I was not impressed with service in terms of overall color accuracy. Perhaps its different for 35mm or they pay more attention if you pay for the "high res" premium service that Ken advocates.
And his comment that his doesn't need a computer for film contradicts his opening paragraph about using film and then scanning. What device does he plan to view his scans with?
I like his website, his almost daily updates, but you really have to take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt.
And his comment that his doesn't need a computer for film contradicts his opening paragraph about using film and then scanning. What device does he plan to view his scans with?
I like his website, his almost daily updates, but you really have to take a lot of what he says with a grain of salt.
stuken
Established
You dont. He's' taking about getting scans from a lab. And even the cheapest computer can run any editing program you want to use nowadays.
aizan
Veteran
don't you still need a computer to "do something useful with it [digital files]"?
i'll be impressed when he gets a darkroom set up!
i'll be impressed when he gets a darkroom set up!
MichaelW
Established
In many ways he is a complete tosser & yet often he writes things that make perfect sense. His photos are dreadful but he quite happily puts them up as evidence of his expertise. It seems that most of his high profile on the 'net has come from his waffling on as an expert on what digital camera to buy but now he is heavily promoting the benefits of film photography.
Personally I'm happy to see someone 'high profile' going against the current orthodoxy that digital photography is the be all and end all. He recently had an article about the Contax G2 that made perfect sense. Whatever, he's not half as much a waste of time as the pontificator at ludicrous landscape.
Personally I'm happy to see someone 'high profile' going against the current orthodoxy that digital photography is the be all and end all. He recently had an article about the Contax G2 that made perfect sense. Whatever, he's not half as much a waste of time as the pontificator at ludicrous landscape.
shimo-kitasnap
everything is temporary..
I find his stuff easier to read than the stuff of "ludicrous landscape." For a while it seemed like he was pro digital and then changed back to pro film and I think he's back again.
He did help me do one thing besides waste my life away reading about cameras on the internet; he convinced me to ditch film. From a time and money standpoint it made perfect sense.
I'm a happier photog now.
He did help me do one thing besides waste my life away reading about cameras on the internet; he convinced me to ditch film. From a time and money standpoint it made perfect sense.
I'm a happier photog now.
shimo-kitasnap
everything is temporary..
I just realized he's into cars, very expensive ones. Mentions his wife drives a Porsche SUV that he can't afford.......I wonder if he's the stay at home dad?
Nh3
Well-known
I guess he was reading my threads. lol
itf
itchy trigger finger
Who is this guy? To do anything useful with film you need to scan it!?
Photon42
burn the box
Ken Rockwell would easily sell refrigerators to Eskimos, I believe. He's just not the guy trying to present all the pros and cons. This does not mean of course the rationale behind his articles is wrong. It's just what he's at in that particular moment rather than the full story. I still find him entertaining to read from time to time.
user237428934
User deletion pending
You can't take someone serious who writes such an inconsistent garbage.
teo
Well-known
Somewhere on his site he writes that he attended at some school for conslutants.. or something... So he should live shooting real estates and babbling something... or similar...
Lucky one...
Fred Burton
Well-known
Maybe Fuji is paying him to pimp film this month.
kevin m
Veteran
I think the saying is that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Maybe Ken's more a Walt Whitman fan: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself!
I like Rockwell; even if he's too chatty, his site is still full of useful info and his enthusiasm for whatever catches his interest that day is infectious. But does he think getting your film scanned when it's developed is some sort of new invention? Haven't most of us been doing that for years now?
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
What's the big deal? Nothing wrong with his argument to my mind. How many here shoot film and scan it? Seems like a normal working method nowadays, and if a lab is offering top level scans quickly and one prefers working with film for the look, ease of editing or for storage reasons this seems like an ideal solution for doing commercial work on film again.
teo
Well-known
I think the point here is that he's always said things like "the old days of film", "tripods are for wimps who shoots film", "a D40 is everything I need", etc (except for LF, about that he's always said is superior) and suddenly it seems he's discovering film for the first time...
(nothing against him however, he's often points, a bit too entusiast for me... Always better than the legions of dorks in DPreview forums... ;-))
(nothing against him however, he's often points, a bit too entusiast for me... Always better than the legions of dorks in DPreview forums... ;-))
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
What's wrong with flip flopping? It isn't like he is running for office.
Gid
Well-known
I like Ken Rockwell. There's some good stuff on his site and it can be very entertaining. However, the economic argument just doesn't stack up (at least for me). Here in the UK, Peak Imaging (who I have used a lot) charge just under £30 for a roll of 135 slide scans suitable for a 12x8 print. You need to add postage and the cost of the film on top of that, which brings the cost to around £36 ($48 at current rates). My 5D does better and if I shot a roll a week it would pay for itself in approx 34 weeks.