One reason for the probable survival of film

P

payasam

a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Local time
6:39 AM
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
4,445
Location
Delhi, India
View My Gallery
The attached photo was taken today with an Olympus ("Four Thirds") digital reflex camera. Angle of view is roughly that of a 50mm lens on a 36 x 24 film camera, but depth of field can be seen to be that of a 25mm lens, which many still consider an extreme wide angle. With a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, f/2.8 would have isolated the dyer and his work somewhat; and an 85/90/100/105 would have been even better in that respect.

"Full frame" digital cameras and their lenses are still too expensive for many of us; and, with the possible exception of the Leica M9, they are also heavy and bulky. The ability to control depth of field will probably be one of the reasons why "old fashioned" film cameras will remain in use for some time to come. My guess is that at least a few photographers will continue to use them because the digital alternative is out of reach.
 

Attachments

  • amd1224124.jpg
    amd1224124.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 0
Actually, outside the hallowed halls of photo enthusiast web sites, no one has the slightest interest in controlling DOF. I rarely shoot to get a specific DOF. If it's limited, it's usually a side effect of using a long lens or shooting in very low light with a lens wide open. I know how to control it, but really like everything sharp if I can get it.

Interesting thought, though.
 
I'm no longer a film user, but must say that recent exposure to 6x17 format panoramas has been an eye opener. I can't quite imagine a digital camera/sensor capable of such imagery, for quite some time yet.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Actually, outside the hallowed halls of photo enthusiast web sites, no one has the slightest interest in controlling DOF. I rarely shoot to get a specific DOF. If it's limited, it's usually a side effect of using a long lens or shooting in very low light with a lens wide open. I know how to control it, but really like everything sharp if I can get it.

Interesting thought, though.
Click to expand...

Actually....putting on my wedding photographer hat for a moment... that's not necessarily the case.

That said, I think your statement holds true because the P&S folks (and others who don't care to know or want to know about Bokeh/OOF areas) can't get the photos some can get @ f1.4 (or f1.2 for those that own such lenses) and it is exactly that "look" that separates these photographers from those of which you speak. That and composition of course.

Cheers,
Dave
 
I think Pickett is right, however much I hate he is.

IMHO, the sole reason for film to survive is that a small part of those that got interested in photography because digital was so convenient will decide they want something more challenging, and decide to start shooting film. These folks, combined with the ones that continue to shoot film will keep B&W film afloat, because that can easily be developed at home and be fun at the same time. Color and slide will gradually disappear or become as niche a product as Kodachrome.

All this provided some manufacturer commits to quality scanner production for a longer period. If not, only wet printing will remain and a very limited assortment of film to facilitate that.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Actually, outside the hallowed halls of photo enthusiast web sites, no one has the slightest interest in controlling DOF.....
Click to expand...


People don't have an awareness of DOF, but when they see a portrait with a shallow depth of field, they like it better, but may not even realize why they like it better.

For example, I've gotten some compliments on this photo, but people haven't attributed it to dof or asked how I got the background blurry.

3710254727_36dc21ee48.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ezzie said:
I'm no longer a film user, but must say that recent exposure to 6x17 format panoramas has been an eye opener. I can't quite imagine a digital camera/sensor capable of such imagery, for quite some time yet.
Click to expand...

It already exists: http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

It's a scan-back style digital camera, not a single monster chip, but, if your subject is reasonably still (1 second for the whole scan, which is pretty fast ), it'll do the trick, and for less than the cost of some cars!

For even more MP in a slower scanning back, there's the better light: http://www.betterlight.com/

A 4x5" or 6x17cm film camera and a good scanner is still a whole lot cheaper than the Seitz or Betterlight options.

Drew
 
This is a moot point regarding the survival of film as sooner or later most P&S digital cameras will have full frame sensors.
 
As I've stated before, just because technology A is better than technology B, that is no reason, or even indicator, that A will survive once B comes on the scene. It's not about which is better, it's about which the common consumer will purchase. I love film and it is better than digital. That fact does not make the slightest bit of difference.
 
ferider said:
It does though otherwise 120/220 would have long ceased to exist.

Thanks, Mukul.
Click to expand...

Betamax was better than VHS. VHS won the battle. In the end, both lost to DVD, but Beta died first. There were lots of reasons Betamax did not become the dominant format, but the fact that it was better wasn't a factor in consumer demand. It never is.
 
bmattock said:
As I've stated before, just because technology A is better than technology B, that is no reason, or even indicator, that A will survive once B comes on the scene. It's not about which is better, it's about which the common consumer will purchase. I love film and it is better than digital. That fact does not make the slightest bit of difference.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Take VHS, it got the better of Betamax, but which was better?
 
Sony Beta is alive and well. Can get new tapes on Amazon with FSSS. VHS is even more alive. Can buy new VHS decks and tapes at Walmart. I have relatives who only have VHS, no DVD. Quality is higher than DVD as well.

I'll be taping the last Conan show tonight on S-VHS, and from there, may burn a couple of optical discs.

Also, lots of hybrid technologies still exist using digial data on the magnetic mediums (1/4" to 2" audio tape recorders), ADAT, DISH Mpeg2 VHS recorders, etc.

I love picking up MIJ VHS-HiFi decks at the Salvation Army store for $6.00. It's like finding an old Nikon lens for a bargain, you can use it with whatever it can connect to, analog or digital, and chances are it's been made to a much higher quality standard than anything you can buy today.
 
Huh?

Huh?

payasam said:
The ability to control depth of field will probably be one of the reasons why "old fashioned" film cameras will remain in use for some time to come.
Click to expand...

I'm still scratching my head about this. I use a D700 for my wedding and personal work, and have used an M8 as well. Using digital sensing as a recording medium hasn't prohibited my ability to control depth of field in my pictures.
 
Can buy new VHS decks and tapes at Walmart."

I've seen a VHS deck, but haven't seen any VHS tapes at our Walmart in several years, blank or pre-recorded. Must be in the larger markets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom