Forsaking all film for digital

Marc Jutras said:
The mannager of a local photo store (Montreal) told me that they sold more films during the 2004-05 hollidays than last year (2003-04).

A 4x5 seems to make sense while an 8x10 is very tempting but seems a bit excessive, like a Ferrari... I'm also looking for a photo club or equivalent where I could get access to a darkroom. I don't think I'd like to set one up in my appartment (although my bathroom is pretty much built for this).

I wonder if the jump in film sales can also be attributed to the feared demise of Ilford, and users simply stocking up their fridges... "just in case". Tech Pan's gone, Velvia 50's going, so there should be a run on those as well.

I'm interested in 4x5 as well, but along the lines of a Speed Graphic. Kinda like walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. Love to get a 8x10 & trace the steps of Ansel Adams, but I'll probably have to settle for a 4x5 🙂
 
Marc Jutras said:
. I'm after image quality. My 35mm rig is fine for its purpose but I want something serious for serious projects. Medium format isn't enough for my taste. A 4x5 seems to make sense while an 8x10 is very tempting but seems a bit excessive, like a Ferrari... I'm also looking for a photo club or equivalent where I could get access to a darkroom. I don't think I'd like to set one up in my appartment (although my bathroom is pretty much built for this).
Marc,
I've been at this point already. Several times. But when I started to calculate I found this is much more expensive than it looks at the first sight. And don't forget the restrictions of this format. Neverhteless I haven't made any (negative) decisions.
The look of the prints is like a drug for me 🙂 Somehow RF leads the folks in the LF direction, strange ?
Best,
Bertram
 
Well Bertram, we do live in very different worlds. The entire North American (US & Canada) market is different from the European market, but that's the reality here.... the phones are not compatible either. I guess our camera markets are also very different as well, as there's no such thing as a brand new CDN$200- film SLR here either.

As for film and ROI, I was only shooting c41 film and easily have $500/year of film & developing costs, that's why I went to B&W, so as to cut that cost. Don't know what you mean by "monkey business", but as I pointed out. It's a different medium, just use what's best for you.... you do sound rather angry and upset ("castrated?!??!") I didn't mean to offend you and apologise if I did.
 
Kin Lau -- I am not sure what you are referring to with respect to camera phones. I am in the US and have a camera phone on the Verizon network, and I have no cost per shot, I can store a bunch in the phone, and I can upload them to my computer if I wish. It costs money if I want to send them to people via the phone, but that is to be expected.

In any case, I love film but I am now digital ready. I have an R9, and I am planning on getting the DMR when it comes out. I will not stop using film, but I like have the option of high quality digital. I will certainly stick with film black and white, and I am a big fan of slides, so I will probably stick with slide film as well -- I wish digital projection was even within a million miles of slide projection...
 
Okay... I did some more checking, and I'll eat my words. Many cellphones have this ability now (didn't the last time I check, but that's my fault for not checking).
 
Kin Lau said:
Well

As for film and ROI, I was only shooting c41 film and easily have $500/year of film & developing costs, that's why I went to B&W, so as to cut that cost. Don't know what you mean by "monkey business", but as I pointed out. It's a different medium, just use what's best for you.... you do sound rather angry and upset ("castrated?!??!") I didn't mean to offend you and apologise if I did.


No reason to apologise, no fault on your side, what makes me sound upset is the issue itself, not your post.
"Castrated" = if I put a nice and expensive 2,8/24 on a DSLR it's a suddenly a 2,8/36 or even longer. That is a ridiculous restriction in my understanding, If you use the DSLR for teleshooting only the restriction may turn into an advantage because your 300 which is a 600 with an 2X extender gets a 900 mounted on a DSLR, saves a lot of money if you are a bird shooter .
But I am not shooting wildlife with tele and so there are no advantages for me at all, only deficits.
Monkey biz meant that asan amateur you hardly can get any ROI from saving film because the loss of the camera's worth eats it almost completely. If you intend to sell your 300d in 2007 , what money do you expect to get for it? More than $300 ? I dobt about it.
Even with $500 cost per year for film ( I spend 20% less) you need almost 2 years to get the difference payed = break even.

For me this would not play any role at all if I'd get something BETTER than film, technical better photographs I mean. But I get worse pics instead, worse from many reasons. What makes me upset is that the marketing lunatics in this market tell me I must buy it anyway because it is "the future" Maybe they mean it is THEIR future because they now can finally sell cameras with innovation circles of PCs ( this is an idiotic expectation) but it isn't mine anyway.

I am not anti-digital at all, work out my scans with PS too and keep that as progress but how camera manufacturers take the piss out of their customers is really impudent.

No offenense taken, no offense meant, I'm just getting started somemtimes on this annoying issue. Next time I include my whining in a "rant on-rant off".
Best,
Bertram
 
Macbeth 2003 said:
I Those, like my mom and dad, who throw away negs once they have their prints, will migrate to digital.


Interesting. My parents never threw away negatives. That's why I'm in the process now of scanning in family photos that date back to the early 1900s. The prints have, in most cases, long since disappeared. Some of the negs have been banged up some but I'm still able to get quality way beyound what I would get scanning a 70-year-old 4x6 print. I have well over 1,000 negatives to digitize so they can be passed on to our kids. Now, let's imagine for a moment that folks back in that period had digital cameras. How many of those photos would still exist today? Some, I'm sure but I still believe an original negative is easier to keep track up over a long time than digital files -- especially when technology changes so quickly. Plus, the people who switched early to digital have their memories save in low resolution files that can't be improved much. The old negs have the same resolution they had when they were produced and most could be blown up to 11 x 14 without turning to fuzz.
 
kiev4a said:
Interesting. My parents never threw away negatives.

Mine seemed to think of either prints or slides as the final stage. Thank god my dad shot about 10 rolls of Kodachrome for eveyr one roll of negatives. Still the last ten years or so they haven't bothered to keep any. My Grandfather on the other hand had his own lab, and I recentl rescued all his negatives from my grandmother who was going to toss them. I also rescued, and repaired his old ciroflex. There are now negatives scanned and save don my hd of My mom as a child, myself as a child, and my now two year old son when he was one day old, all taken with the same ciroflex.
That's what film has over digital!
 
Hi, I reread Bill's original post and had some more thoughts. One, I believe that many newspapers often write articles with a background motive of attracting advertisers. Like duh! Second, newspapers know they can influence the public (and the economy) by what they print. It's not just information "for the public's sake or welfare" or "to keep the public informed." Newspapers compete to be the one with the "scoop", or the right to say, "you saw it here first!" I believe this trend in reporting on film vs. digital is partially hype designed to get people talking, yes, but not for a positive motive. Hype the public to keep them reading our paper! And...get the camera stores to advertise with us!! I think we should take the "news information" re: film vs. digital with a grain of salt (or total disregard) and keep doing whatever we like to do, be it on digital or on film. Film manufacturers check their sales sheets, and are still making film because we keep buying! That should say something.

chris
canonetc
 
It's like the photo magazines. They are basically shills for whatever product their big advertisers want to sell. And since digital is where all the new products are appearing, that's what the photomag writers and reviewers are going to talk about. Actually, all the magazines (and newspapers, too) continue to lose subscribers because people are finding they can get more important imformation on the web -- including forums like Rangefinder
 
coming back to film from the digital world makes me glad that film is still available and a bit pleased at the rock-bottom prices for older film cameras on ebay. i got sucked into digital by the immediacy of it (i don't have to scan my negs to post them online! yippee!) but then got disappointed in the results. there are some out there who have taken to digital photography like they were born for it but i'm not one of those people.

to this day, the camera that feels like home is the one i learned to shoot first -- a minolta SRT. i still get all warm and fuzzy inside when i see that ball and needle metering. so simple but so effective! as a newbie to RF, i'm hoping to get the same warm fuzzy feelings towards my hi-matics.
 
FrankS said:
David, I agree with your earlier post! Let the great unwashed and uncultured masses migrate to digital. Digital will become the point and shoot medium of choice, while real film, especially B&W, will become the serious, arty medium, and wet darkroom alchemy will once again become a virtually unkown and mysterious knowledge passed from one practitioner to another, preserving a secret brotherhood.

hmmm.... PCs brought computing to "the great unwashed masses" and removed it from the realm of the great IBM (itty bitty minds) priesthood

it would appear that you benefited from that

can you say "luddite"?
 
I'm crushed today. My inspiration for available light wedding photography, Jeff Ascough, emailed me today and said he is currently shooting with two Canon 1D MKII cameras after several years shooting Leica. He has forsaken film for digital. Where is the nearest bridge for me to jump off.
 
wblanchard said:
I'm crushed today. My inspiration for available light wedding photography, Jeff Ascough, emailed me today and said he is currently shooting with two Canon 1D MKII cameras after several years shooting Leica. He has forsaken film for digital. Where is the nearest bridge for me to jump off.

Stay off the bridge and make him an offer for his Leica kit. 😉
 
one interesting topic i find missing from the "digital/film" discussions is the actual build and material quality of the camera's in use. in a nutshell that was the reason i have returned to shooting film primarily vs shooting digital. there are a few great digital camera's on the market yet most are VERY expensive and maybe, JUST MAYBE come close to producing what an m7 or contax g2 will provide. (actually in my opinion nothing digital i have shot on comes close.)
yes they are damn convenient and you can blow hundreds of frames for next to nothing but shutter lags, poly carbonates, 18-55mm "kit lenses", "anti shake technology", etc. don't produce anything comparable to a contax g2, 45mm f2 set-up (for considerably less money)!
i know the digital "rEvolution" is based primarily on the purchasing power of the average recreational shooter but really, has no one purchased a camera solely because its the best tool available, best build quality, best glass?
when that camera is produced in a digital format, with very high quality interchangeable primes, metal chasis/body, able to create gallery quality prints, well sealed and small enough to carry everywhere for less than $1500 then i will gladly re-consider the digital format. until then give me a hexar or leica m anyday!
or of course my trusty g2 planar 45/2 set-up!
 
this Thread Started From A Newspaper Article Dated In November 2004!!!

That's Fourteen (14) Months Ago, Folks!!!!

Has It Come Back To Life On Its Own (like Some Kind Of Vampire) Or Is It That Some People Just Have To Go On And On And On And On About This?
 
Solinar said:
Good luck getting someone to hold your hand while explaining the nuances of operating a digital camera at Walmart or Costco.

L. I tried placing one of those memory cards in my negative carrier on my Durst. Not only highlights, but even the shadows tended to block up. Maybe my camera is overexposing the memory card.

I think you're supposed to develop it before it goes in the enlarger. Try soaking the card in some D-76 solution for a few minutes, wash it and then fix it. I'm sure it will be much better. If you're new to developing digital cards, don't forget you need to do this bit in the dark. Incidentally, I am not sure if this works on camera phones. They may need to be sent to the Kodachrome lab in Switzerland. Has anyone tried developing a camera phone at home?
 
Last edited:
D76 does not work with every CF-card. Most are for C-41 and not easy to develop at home.
 
You know, it is funny that he would make the point that the number of households that own film cameras is double the number than own digital.

74 million versus 33 million. . .

Well, gotta remember, film photography has been around for a long time. Digital, really only marketable to the masses for 3 or 4 years.

The fact that digital ownership has grown to that size inside of 5 years is amazing, and says something about the market. And about people.
 
Back
Top Bottom