Mister E
Well-known
A man drops two items into a fire. A page of negatives and a hard drive with 36 digital shots on it. The negatives are quickly consumed while at worst the HDD is unrecoverable it may survive the fire. It would then be possible to recover the 36 images while the negatives are gone forever. One week before this the man put all 36 of his digital images on a CD to mail to his client. His images still exist at exactly the same quality and are recoverable.
Baring TNW or an EMP digital needs more redundancy, but has more security as long as there is software to read the files, which lets face it. JPGs aren't going to be unreadable anytime soon.
Film on the other hand is unique. You can make an analog copy of it, which will not match the quality of the original slide or you can make a digital copy of it, which then takes the same pathway as a digital file from a digital camera. If the negatives and slides are destroyed, which has happened many times over the years to catalogs of many famous photographers, that's it. There's no bringing them back. There no chance of having them backed up.
Mister E
Well-known
My 6TB backup disk is rocking RAID 5 and was pretty cheap.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I can see the guy's point about not being able to afford film. I like shooting film, but I'm looking at $8-10 a roll, plus $5 for processing. that $13-15 total when shooting film, and can add up pretty quick. You don't bear those kinds of costs in shooting digital, other than the up-front cost of the (reusable) film card.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You forget the upfront cost of the very expensive camera needed for digital. Digital cameras basically cost 3 times what film cameras of equal features and build quality cost. To get a digital with the ability to match the quality I get from film, I'd need a $7000 camera like the M9 or the Nikon D3x. Thats so far beyond my means that it is not even a remote possibility. The $1500-$2000 a year I spend on film is much easier to come up with because I can buy a few rolls at a time when I have money.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Mephiloco
Well-known
I don't think of film as expensive considering the value it presents. For example, if I were to use my dslr and had nothing else, I would take far less pictures mostly due to the bulk of the digital rig, it's more invasive and you look strange going to a bar/show/hanging out with friends with a big digital with a zoom and a grip on it. Comparatively I can take my Bessa R or even my M5 out with me and they're small enough to not gain much attention, and there's less risk of them being stolen because they look like old 'toys'.
Also, I don't shoot a ton of frames. I went through a roll in a day the other day, and that was the fastest I'd gone through a roll of tri-x in a while. I pick my shots and routinely get a lot of keepers. The last two rolls I developed I got 45 keepers which I shared online, and that's considering that about 15 frames were test shots to test focus on my Industar61 and my new Ultron.
Considering all my gear is paid for, was purchased below market value, and is worth more now than when I purchased it all (which I can't say the same about with regards to my digital gear) I don't find shooting film to be expensive. Also, figure that a litre of rodinal can be had for under $20, which is enough to develop roughly 300 rolls of film (actually a little more, but still, 300 on the low side) and that Arista Premium is $2/roll, the cost is very low.
It also helps that I have my own scanner (Canon FS4000US) which I got for $70 without the trays.
All that being said, I don't think film is expensive at all, especially considering if I weren't to use one of my film cameras I would've never gotten half the shots I've gotten, unless I were to use a small point and shoot
Also, I don't shoot a ton of frames. I went through a roll in a day the other day, and that was the fastest I'd gone through a roll of tri-x in a while. I pick my shots and routinely get a lot of keepers. The last two rolls I developed I got 45 keepers which I shared online, and that's considering that about 15 frames were test shots to test focus on my Industar61 and my new Ultron.
Considering all my gear is paid for, was purchased below market value, and is worth more now than when I purchased it all (which I can't say the same about with regards to my digital gear) I don't find shooting film to be expensive. Also, figure that a litre of rodinal can be had for under $20, which is enough to develop roughly 300 rolls of film (actually a little more, but still, 300 on the low side) and that Arista Premium is $2/roll, the cost is very low.
It also helps that I have my own scanner (Canon FS4000US) which I got for $70 without the trays.
All that being said, I don't think film is expensive at all, especially considering if I weren't to use one of my film cameras I would've never gotten half the shots I've gotten, unless I were to use a small point and shoot
Chris101
summicronia
Yes, but there are smaller, high quality/large sensor digital cameras that are as small/even smaller and less obtrusive than a Bessa or M.
wgerrard
Veteran
A different film or developer isn't an upgrade, it is, as you say, just different. It may happen to better meet your specific needs, but there's no reason to think that going from Tri-X to, say, Neopan, or vice versa, is an upgrade.
People may want to buy a new camera, and that new camera may actually produce images that, technically, are better. But, if someone is satisfied with the images produced by a camera, it isn't logical that they would suddenly become dissatisfied upon the introduction of a new model. Emotionally, they may want the new toy, and that may lead them to be dissatisfied with their current pictures, but that's a different thing altogether. Being dissatisfied with your camera is not the same thing as being dissatisfied with your pictures.
Last edited:
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
A lot depends on the camera and the computer system that you intend to use. If you want an M9 with new coded lenses, a high grade computer & printer, and a substantial backup system your initial change over would be prohibitive for the average amateur, who already has an M6 and 2/3 lenses and shoots film selectively. I did discuss this with professional photographers & for me they recommended not to switch over at this time.
Luna
Well-known
Yea, ok. But like I said. Raid would be a better answer then my current external hard drive; probably any external hard drive.
keepright
matthew
Sorry to quote the whole message, but I like it all and couldn't bring myself to trim it.
I completely agree with your point, but at the same time I do enjoy the idea that my favourite film - Ektar 100 - is newer than the camera that I use it in. So in that sense, I can say that it's an 'upgrade' in that it lets me do something I couldn't do in 2006. That's hardly something I can say about my Olympus DSLR of the same vintage, and to my mind makes a film camera much more interesting. And considering what that $2500 digital investment is worth now, film is cheap.
And another way that Ektar is an upgrade: I can buy and process a 36 exposure roll for $11, instead of $17.50 for Portra 400NC, or $34 for Provia 400X. (Plus tax, developed only, and not scanned.) It's odd for me to like the cheapest option, but sometimes I get lucky.
Edward C. Zimmermann
Nerd
Of course it is. Its just so simple. You can select a totally different spectral response and resolution. You want a camera with more lp/mm (Mpixel)? With digital its a new camera.. With film.. its a higher resolving film. You want higher sensitivity? With digital you get a new camera with a larger sensor.. With film.. ugh.. your get another film.. While in digital people move to larger and larger sensors by getting new cameras.. with film one too can move to larger and larger sensors by getting a new camera.. from medium to large to ultra-large and beyond..
Film cameras don't produce images. Film does that. New analog film cameras have been about automation and not about registration or resolution.
Format: A 1934 35mm film camera took pictures ~ 24x36mm large. A 2010 35mm film camera uses the same format: ~24x36mm.
Resolution: This is a product of the optical system inclusive image capture. While there have been improvements in lens designs over the past 50 years they have been for the most part about lowering manufacturing costs and increasing light transmission. Images using a 1953 Voigtlaender Ultron (as found in the Vitessa) are not worse--- including system resolving power (e.g. lp/mm to film)--- than those one could get with any of the current offerings from Sohms.
Registration: Most of the work over the past 50 years on film registration has been to provide good performance at lower price levels using electronics instead of precision mechanics.
The upgrade path was within a given format: optics and film. The rest was about user interface and speed. That's why so many cameras from the 1950s are still being used by professionals (when they choose film) yet few pros would consider using a 5 year old digital camera, much less a 15 year old one--- if it would even still work.
wgerrard
Veteran
Edward, I'm not arguing against film. I use film. That said, I'm not sure if different brands of film offer different levels of resolution. Different formats, perhaps. It's never occurred to me wonder about a film's resolution.
Choosing a film with higher sensitivity seems to me less of an upgrade and more of a choice made for aesthetic reasons.
It all comes down to what we expect an upgrade to be. I don't count doing essentially the same thing in a slightly different way as an upgrade. So, as you say, "a totally different spectral response and resolution" is just that: different.
Actually, I don't think we've seen many real upgrades in cameras. Film technology has been a mature technology for decades. My M2 and my Oly OM-2N are old cameras, but the only real difference between them and a Nikon F6 is the automation built into the F6. I think that counts as being different, but not necessarily an upgrade, because the essential design and capabilities of all three are the same.
Likewise, I'm not sure I'd count a new DSLR with a bumped up sensor as an upgrade. Digital seems to be close to being a mature technology, and vendors are adding features like U.S. car companies used to add new chrome to each new model. Few, if any, of those features improve capabilities.
Finder
Veteran
Now you are just making sense.
Also, by the time you shoot the amount of film which would be equal to the digital camera, you also have a ton of pictures. Pictures that may bring in income at the same time.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I've seen entire RAID arrays crap out. All it takes is one thunderstorm.
If it's not in a physically separate location from the original data, it's not a real backup.
Finder
Veteran
What I get from my film cameras is priceless. I find them and film an important part of the process. I simply cannot get the same with my digital cameras no matter how much money I spend on them. For me the result is important.
(But if you think this is expensive, don't take up oil painting or sculpture.)
Now if you cannot afford a particular art/process, then you can't do it. That is economics. However, cost is not how you can judge the strengths or benefits of an art. There are intangibles that have value .
(But if you think this is expensive, don't take up oil painting or sculpture.)
Now if you cannot afford a particular art/process, then you can't do it. That is economics. However, cost is not how you can judge the strengths or benefits of an art. There are intangibles that have value .
The results are just different, so why try to make them the same... :bang:
FrankS
Registered User
Simply because I like exactly what I get from film and the traditional processes. I won't switch away from film until there is a more attractive alternative that gives me the same results. Film gives me what I want (or have been conditioned to expect) so there is no reason to switch to something else that gives different results.
I'm okay with me doing film and others doing digital. I was jsut explaining why I'm sticking with film. No need to bang your head against a wall.
sara
Well-known
*likes this comment*
Simply because I like exactly what I get from film and the traditional processes. I won't switch away from film until there is a more attractive alternative that gives me the same results. Film gives me what I want (or have been conditioned to expect) so there is no reason to switch to something else that gives different results.
I'm okay with me doing film and others doing digital. I was jsut explaining why I'm sticking with film. No need to bang your head against a wall.
That was my point... film is cool, digital is cool... they are both different processes, so why keep trying to make digital look like film. Why do they have to give the same results? That's what I'm not understanding. I love the way film looks too... but I also love digital. Your comment on conditioning is correct. I just don't really understand why people talk of digital like it is inferior, when it is just different. That's all. If that isn't what you or the other meant, I apologize.
Last edited: