Film crazy

[sergioofir]

Hi i am new here and i would to ask you people is it crazy ? to by today a ranfinder camera at this days that film will not be here for long time.

for me film and b&w is the world (and i love it)

Thank you

 

[Frank Granovski]

No, it's not crazy. 😎

 

[TimF]

Film will be around just so long as there is demand. Film cameras (even regular non-collectibles) still sell on e***, so obviously there is a market out there. Don't believe the digital sales patter/hype.

 

[RML]

Not crazy at all. But better not start that kind of discussion. Many here shoot both film and digital. And by now we all know digital is much better than film anyway. 😛

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Film will become niche chic.

The cameras will be on sale only online, the film will be 'Leica' brand only online and the developing (of color) will be by mail.

 

[wyk_penguin]

There will be a day that digital will take care of film. There is not doubt. Just like cellulose-based film killed silver nitrate glass plates. And when that day comes, you won't mind anymore because digital will be as good as film.
But before that day comes, using film is not such a bad idea.

 

[jrong]

Digital, someday as good as film? Oh, please.... only if you buy into the whole artifice of using a CCD/computer algorithms instead of silver-halide and good old fashioned chemistry.

But that's a debate for elsewhere.

Buy film, use it lots. Still plenty of us "dinosaurs" around. 🙂

Jin

 

[sergioofir]

Thank you all very much

Thank you all very much

Antil this day i was using the canon A1 and a bunch of lenses
for my secnofd question i have about 1,200 $ for bying a rangefinser camera

1. Hexar with 50mm lens F2 for 1,200$
2. Voigtlander R with 75mm lens and 15mm lens 950$

my fevorite shootig is street phtotgraphy

wich one to take ?
what is your opinion ?

THank you all for yuor kindly help

(in digital i have the olympus E300)

 

[markinlondon]

But that's a debate for elsewhere.

Buy film, use it lots. Still plenty of us "dinosaurs" around. 🙂

Jin

I think I know just the place for that debate, Jin. It runs daily 😉

"Jurassic" Mark

 

[TimF]

Antil this day i was using the canon A1 and a bunch of lenses
for my secnofd question i have about 1,200 $ for bying a rangefinser camera

1. Hexar with 50mm lens F2 for 1,200$
2. Voigtlander R with 75mm lens and 15mm lens 950$

my fevorite shootig is street phtotgraphy

wich one to take ?
what is your opinion ?

That's simple. The one that feels best in your hand, and most natural for you to use. No one else can make that decision.

 

[jrong]

I second that opinion. Try out both, if you can. It's a big investment and they are both very different cameras - the Hexar is a lot more automated than the Bessa R (assuming its the Bessa R you are referring to!). No one else can tell you which camera will feel better in your hands. I've made the mistake of listening to hearsay and reading reviews and ending up buying cameras I never end up using much because they don't feel "right".

Good luck. 🙂 I've heard wonderful things about the Hexar and wish I could get to play with one.... <sigh>

Jin

 

[VinceC]

>>only if you buy into the whole artifice of using a CCD/computer algorithms instead of silver-halide and good old fashioned chemistry.<<

True, but some people have never really bought into the whole artifice of silver-halide and chemistry instead of fully analog pigments and canvas of oil paintings, which have demonstrated their longevity of at least half a millenneum. The pigment-and-canvas approach also allows much more control over the final image and typically has much deeper depth of field, though the Impressionists have shown us the format's capabilities with short depth of field and soft focus.

🙂

 

[markinlondon]

I'd go with one body, one lens. Pick either a 35 or a 50 at first. The 15/75 combo would be quite a jump and require the use of an accessory finder. That's one more thing you don't need when getting used to the other differences. Hexars are nice, there's nothing in it as regards lenses between Leica, CV and Hexanon, more a question of taste. I love my Summicrons but happily use CV lenses as well.

Mark

 

[ch1]

>>only if you buy into the whole artifice of using a CCD/computer algorithms instead of silver-halide and good old fashioned chemistry.<<

True, but some people have never really bought into the whole artifice of silver-halide and chemistry instead of fully analog pigments and canvas of oil paintings, which have demonstrated their longevity of at least half a millenneum. The pigment-and-canvas approach also allows much more control over the final image and typically has much deeper depth of field, though the Impressionists have shown us the format's capabilities with short depth of field and soft focus.

🙂

More tellingly, although not often mentioned in most Art History texts, mosaic tile art, dating back several millenia is the original digital medium using discrete data points (tiles) in much the same way as today's digital sensors use pixels! 😀

 

[markinlondon]

More tellingly, although not often mentioned in most Art History texts, mosaic tile art, dating back several millenia is the original digital medium using discrete data points (tiles) in much the same way as today's digital sensors use pixels! 😀

That never occured to me before, George, but you're spot on. Wouldn't you just love to read those "burnt stick and cave wall is dead" articles 🙂

Mark

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

There will be a day that digital will take care of film. There is not doubt. Just like cellulose-based film killed silver nitrate glass plates. And when that day comes, you won't mind anymore because digital will be as good as film.
But before that day comes, using film is not such a bad idea.

This is indeed probably true. But when that day comes, I won't mind anymore not because digital will be as good as film, but because I will surely be long dead.

 

[VinceC]

Long Live Mosaic!

 

[ch1]

Unfortunately, Mosaic, ultimately floundered as an imaging media. The "sharpness" of it's flat and harsh digital renderings were hard on the eyes of viewers. Similarly, when upscaled to larger renderings it discrete data points overwhelmed the overall image. And, most tellingly, it's inability to render fine gradations of tonality and contrast because obvious as the art world moved to the analog technology of oil and canvas. 😉

 

[jrong]

>>only if you buy into the whole artifice of using a CCD/computer algorithms instead of silver-halide and good old fashioned chemistry.<<

True, but some people have never really bought into the whole artifice of silver-halide and chemistry instead of fully analog pigments and canvas of oil paintings, which have demonstrated their longevity of at least half a millenneum. 🙂

Tnis is making a rather crass assumption that photography has somehow superseded painting. Photography and painting are two different kettles of fish.
😉

Jin

 

[louis]

I still shoot lots of 35mm slide film in stereo cameras mainly because there are no stereo digital cameras available except where someone physically joins two together.

Also stereo photographs are best viewed as slides in a slide viewer and it's time consuming to convert a digital stereo pair into slides.

Functioning stereo cameras & stereo viewers can be bought cheaply on Ebay as well as stereo slide mounts.