telenous
Well-known
Too bad he couldn't convince Lucas not to put in stupid CG rodents!
Agh! The only thing that was worse were the digitally created ants. And the jungle chase sequence. And nuking the fridge.
thomasw_
Well-known
telenous
Well-known
Darren, Fred,
You 're absolutely right about the use of CGI. I still think the movie was shot at least partly on film but I could be wrong. I can't find a reference, I 'll check again just for the record. Spielberg has said in the past that he's a film fan
from http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/1999-08-12
and there is material in the Indy KoCS official website where they show cameras with film compartments filming. Perhaps Mamooth who works in the industry can tell us if he knows.
I 've seen some very heated discussions on film vs digital in threads about movies. I had no idea that the rift is present there too. (There are people there who write, in a rather familiar manner, 'Aren't you sick of the film vs digital debate'. Puts some things in perspective).
.
Last edited:
wayneb
Established
In terms of how it looks - grain is generally more interesting than pixels, chemistry generally behaves in more interesting ways than algorithms on a chip.
In terms of using it - digital can feel like plucking a frame from a video, you look at the screen and try again. Film advancing gives a sense of finality to a moment that will never happen again. If you missed it, you'll find out later and perhaps be disappointed, but you are already on to the next moment.
In terms of using it - digital can feel like plucking a frame from a video, you look at the screen and try again. Film advancing gives a sense of finality to a moment that will never happen again. If you missed it, you'll find out later and perhaps be disappointed, but you are already on to the next moment.
btgc
Veteran
Huh, I see so many have shared their passion and thoughts. As for digital technology, I again note that I'm not distracting completely. And there are some models which people buy because they are good, like Fuji low-light shooters from F-series (10, 30) or Ricoh's GR, GX series. There for sure are another good digital cameras. People like their digital RF's, just fine.
I agree to good comments about grain vs pixels, as well as color. Once you get used to, it stays. Like one feels difference between coffee brewed in cup/glass pot/presso machine/instant powder/etc - they all have case to be used, but they certainly taste different.
And then beautiful story about Lufthansas` project. This proves me another time that "cold war" of tech and upgrades driven by selling/marketing united forces against customers, makes people, at least part of them, kind of nostalgic. I believe Clifford Saimac (and many other sci-fi authors) have spoken...written about this issue many years ago.
There's also big difference if you take, say, milk in sealed paper box from anonymous shelf in large store or go to market, chat with seller from whom you buy milk for years and watch how bottle is filled ?
but you are already on to the next moment
And this is also good comment. Modern lifestyle interrupts continuity of life. I'm not even talking about "tomorrow you can be thousands of miles away from your room" but rather "do it again do it again do it again" cycle. It helps in practical aspects and automates minds. Because you can do it again do it again do it again.
I agree to good comments about grain vs pixels, as well as color. Once you get used to, it stays. Like one feels difference between coffee brewed in cup/glass pot/presso machine/instant powder/etc - they all have case to be used, but they certainly taste different.
And then beautiful story about Lufthansas` project. This proves me another time that "cold war" of tech and upgrades driven by selling/marketing united forces against customers, makes people, at least part of them, kind of nostalgic. I believe Clifford Saimac (and many other sci-fi authors) have spoken...written about this issue many years ago.
There's also big difference if you take, say, milk in sealed paper box from anonymous shelf in large store or go to market, chat with seller from whom you buy milk for years and watch how bottle is filled ?
but you are already on to the next moment
And this is also good comment. Modern lifestyle interrupts continuity of life. I'm not even talking about "tomorrow you can be thousands of miles away from your room" but rather "do it again do it again do it again" cycle. It helps in practical aspects and automates minds. Because you can do it again do it again do it again.
amateriat
We're all light!
From my experience, digital can have the "look" associated with film, but, ironically, it frequently takes too damn much work, post-shoot, to get things right, making the digital-capture workflow only moderately faster than working with film, as opposed to screamingly-faster.
But it's the cameras that ususally stop me cold, with their mediocre ergonomics. My old Minolta 9xi cameras were about as tech-heavy as I could stand, and as much as I (mostly) liked them then, I probably couldn't stand them now. Every dSLR I've used since then has struck me as worse. The sole remaining SLR in my roster is an Olympus OM-2n, which I like a lot, but still less than my RFs. (The 21-35 Sigma zoom gives it extra relevance here.) Working with my Hexars is virtually second-nature; they practically disappear when working with them.
As for film: I know certain film types pretty well by now. These film types are not likely to vanish in the next week, month, or year, at the very least. The shoot beautifully, soup easily, scan with minimal fuss, require relatively little futzing around in Photoshop, and print up quite nicely.
Someone, somewhere, will offer up a digital "solution" that I'll find palatable, eventually. For the moment, nobody's remotely in the ballpark. For me, it's all about the gestalt.
Early 2001, At my agency desk. Hexar AF sacrificed for first Hexar RF body one year later.
- Barrett
But it's the cameras that ususally stop me cold, with their mediocre ergonomics. My old Minolta 9xi cameras were about as tech-heavy as I could stand, and as much as I (mostly) liked them then, I probably couldn't stand them now. Every dSLR I've used since then has struck me as worse. The sole remaining SLR in my roster is an Olympus OM-2n, which I like a lot, but still less than my RFs. (The 21-35 Sigma zoom gives it extra relevance here.) Working with my Hexars is virtually second-nature; they practically disappear when working with them.
As for film: I know certain film types pretty well by now. These film types are not likely to vanish in the next week, month, or year, at the very least. The shoot beautifully, soup easily, scan with minimal fuss, require relatively little futzing around in Photoshop, and print up quite nicely.
Someone, somewhere, will offer up a digital "solution" that I'll find palatable, eventually. For the moment, nobody's remotely in the ballpark. For me, it's all about the gestalt.
Early 2001, At my agency desk. Hexar AF sacrificed for first Hexar RF body one year later.
- Barrett
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
Ya. Cibachrome is like the Saturn V rocket that got us to the moon. They lost the plans ya know, and now it cannot be reproduced. The best technology on earth, replaced with something that works well, and does all sorts of whizzy things, but it's not the best.
I wonder if Rome was like that in the end. As goes film, so goes Rome.
I wonder if Rome was like that in the end. As goes film, so goes Rome.
kram
Well-known
I now explain why I prefer film to digital (apart from all the usual pros and cons) like this:
Digial is like a 'cup of soup' meal, fulls up up (briefly), quick, easy to prepare (just add water), easy to wash up -job done (this relates to the image on the back of the camers or downloaded on to a PC -not fine tuned and printed- 'cos the average Jo just does that).
Film is like a roast meal; lots for prep, hours to cook, lots of washing up -but it is more satisfying.
Digial is like a 'cup of soup' meal, fulls up up (briefly), quick, easy to prepare (just add water), easy to wash up -job done (this relates to the image on the back of the camers or downloaded on to a PC -not fine tuned and printed- 'cos the average Jo just does that).
Film is like a roast meal; lots for prep, hours to cook, lots of washing up -but it is more satisfying
.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Film is like a roast meal; lots for prep, hours to cook, lots of washing up -but it is more satisfying
A roast lunch is the simplest meal ever.
Just warm the oven to max and put it all in.
Go for a beer or two, and come back to your meal.
A little under one hour.
kram
Well-known
Jon, If you have a lump of meat to roast for 2 hours say, it means you can have more beers (or wine)
Sonny Boy Havidson
Established
For me the question is "why digital?". For me, a photograph is a print that just need your eyes to be seen. I spend all my week working on a computer and I dislike having to turn this on to see a specific serie of shot instead of taking the album of a shelve. If I want to do some modifications, I prefer spending time with my enlarger rather than playing with photoshop.
I donnot feel like having the need of seing instantly: I have entered my aperture and speed, I know mu DOF so if took time to chose these properly, I can expect to have what I want (with experience, of course). So 36 exposure and several rolls is sufficiant.
I hate having to browse menues and strike with buttons before being able to shot and I never managed to use an autofocus properly. I prefer to use feeling rather than programs so no, a digital camera does not suit me.
Last point, I mostly shot in B & W and I enjoy playing with the DOF or wide angles. Do these are managed properly by today sensors? I donnot think so.
I donnot feel like having the need of seing instantly: I have entered my aperture and speed, I know mu DOF so if took time to chose these properly, I can expect to have what I want (with experience, of course). So 36 exposure and several rolls is sufficiant.
I hate having to browse menues and strike with buttons before being able to shot and I never managed to use an autofocus properly. I prefer to use feeling rather than programs so no, a digital camera does not suit me.
Last point, I mostly shot in B & W and I enjoy playing with the DOF or wide angles. Do these are managed properly by today sensors? I donnot think so.
rolleistef
Well-known
Why film? Because of black and white. No digital camera has ever achieved a good b&w effect with a digital reflex : the grain, the rendition of the MF...
rolleistef
Well-known
it happens in France too... a good rôtie takes about 4h to roast! (out topic)
Chris101
summicronia
Film photography is not inherently "anti-technology". It may be a non-digital technology, but it is a very complex process. Like computers, the difficult part is hidden from the user. All the interesting chemistry takes place in the manufacture of the the film, and we have only the user interface part - adding the last few chemicals in solution form - to mess with in our darkrooms.Don't you (generic you) find a certain irony in discussing anti-technology threads on a computer? They usually start with someone sitting at a computer late at night, typing "I work all day on the computer, I sure don't want to spend my evenings sitting at one editing photos."
Unless a digital photographer has made the sensor chip, and written the software used to read it and process the picture, they have the same level of interaction. One is controlled by software, the other by wetware.
You (generically speaking) must admit, the end products of these two disparate processes are remarkably similar, although subtle differences are unique to each.
retnull
Well-known
Why film?
1__ Because film and older cameras and lenses produce unpredictable and final results. It is possible to have more happy accidents. These are unlikely to occur with digital.
2__ Because film has a long history, and film images refer to that history via their look and feel.
3__ Because it is NOT DIGITAL: film images are often clearly have something that would never come from the digital cameras EVERYONE uses in 2008. I want my images to look unusual, interesting, unique. Film images (even my crappy amateur images) exist in opposition to huge tidal wave of billions of new digital images tht appear every day.
1__ Because film and older cameras and lenses produce unpredictable and final results. It is possible to have more happy accidents. These are unlikely to occur with digital.
2__ Because film has a long history, and film images refer to that history via their look and feel.
3__ Because it is NOT DIGITAL: film images are often clearly have something that would never come from the digital cameras EVERYONE uses in 2008. I want my images to look unusual, interesting, unique. Film images (even my crappy amateur images) exist in opposition to huge tidal wave of billions of new digital images tht appear every day.
craygc
Well-known
That level of unpredictability really depends on how well you know you film (and its development), the camera and lens
Marsopa
Well-known
It's hard to explain my thougts as english is one of my "pending matters"...
As someone told in a previous thread I'm one with no photog. "vision", my best pics (at least for my taste) are just lucky shots... that fact makes me keep away from digital... too fast. If a load a roll and start shooting I've the feeling that some pics will be good enough and that lasts until I finish the roll, develop and scan it. All the time I wonder if I'll have some "10 points" pics in the roll... digital will be (is) a dissapointment every time I review the pics in the lcd.
I think I'm learning (with a very smooth learning curve) and in each roll I get more sattisfaying pics than before but every day I feel more confortable with "analogic" process.
(Please forgive the mistreat to the forum vast majority mother tongue, as with photography I'll try to improve)
As someone told in a previous thread I'm one with no photog. "vision", my best pics (at least for my taste) are just lucky shots... that fact makes me keep away from digital... too fast. If a load a roll and start shooting I've the feeling that some pics will be good enough and that lasts until I finish the roll, develop and scan it. All the time I wonder if I'll have some "10 points" pics in the roll... digital will be (is) a dissapointment every time I review the pics in the lcd.
I think I'm learning (with a very smooth learning curve) and in each roll I get more sattisfaying pics than before but every day I feel more confortable with "analogic" process.
(Please forgive the mistreat to the forum vast majority mother tongue, as with photography I'll try to improve)
kshapero
South Florida Man
I am generally not a digital person for all the reasons stated, but this newly acquired R-D1 really has a character of its own. Now the choice is not so easy.
Shot from R-D1
Shot from Zeiss Ikon
It's all good to me.
Shot from R-D1
Shot from Zeiss Ikon
It's all good to me.
btgc
Veteran
Today dropped off some rolls for souping and coming back thought that I like using my old gear. I can imagine myself using digital gear, but while it's acceptable (by time and expenses) I stick to old film stuff.
Finally, it's not about this or that piece of camera, it's about feelings like with anything else I'm using. Others can feel different which leads them feeling better with digital. And those really wiser of us are really OK with film and digital together.
Finally, it's not about this or that piece of camera, it's about feelings like with anything else I'm using. Others can feel different which leads them feeling better with digital. And those really wiser of us are really OK with film and digital together.
retnull
Well-known
That level of unpredictability really depends on how well you know you film (and its development), the camera and lens
I use my 1937 Summar because it flares. I can predict when it will flare, but I cannot predict exactly how it will flare. That's really interesting, to me. It's not related to mastery of the tools.