Finder
Veteran
If they are different, how can they be the same?
Because you cannot. Just in the same way you cannot make an ink jet print look like a dye transfer or getting the same from a panoramic camera than from stitching.
I don't shoot film, I'm not rich enough...
- Thread starter DabCan10
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 258
- Views 21K
If they are different, how can they be the same?
Because you cannot. Just in the same way you cannot make an ink jet print look like a dye transfer or getting the same from a panoramic camera than from stitching.
Finder
Veteran
Where in my post did I say digital was inferior?
TareqPhoto
The Survivor
Sorry, what is this thread about? It is so long to read all the pages.
Anyway, i am not rich, but i could afforded many "EXPENSIVE" digital gear so far, and i can do the same with film, i started with film this year, so i will see after few years what i will end up with?!!!
Photography all is expensive, digital or film doesn't matter, as long we addicted to it and shoot a lot and love it many who have money will run after many gear and upgrading and replacing and adding and so, so it will not make any big difference about what format or system they shoot with.
In my country, i can't find enough film, only 3-4 types of film which are decreased to maybe 2-3, and i am lucky we have at least 1 lab only to process our film, i process all my B&W and use that lab for color film, they cost for C-41 about $5.4 for roll, and about $8 for E-6, that from 35mm up to 4x5, 8x10 is about $21, so i am forced to pay that much per roll or sheet, and i also forced to buy film from online which is expensive naturally for films and shipping, and also scanning, i bought a scanner which is not the top best but not cheap as well, so at the end i found myself i spend on film almost same or closer of what i spend on digital, oh, i wish if i am rich... 🙁
Anyway, i am not rich, but i could afforded many "EXPENSIVE" digital gear so far, and i can do the same with film, i started with film this year, so i will see after few years what i will end up with?!!!
Photography all is expensive, digital or film doesn't matter, as long we addicted to it and shoot a lot and love it many who have money will run after many gear and upgrading and replacing and adding and so, so it will not make any big difference about what format or system they shoot with.
In my country, i can't find enough film, only 3-4 types of film which are decreased to maybe 2-3, and i am lucky we have at least 1 lab only to process our film, i process all my B&W and use that lab for color film, they cost for C-41 about $5.4 for roll, and about $8 for E-6, that from 35mm up to 4x5, 8x10 is about $21, so i am forced to pay that much per roll or sheet, and i also forced to buy film from online which is expensive naturally for films and shipping, and also scanning, i bought a scanner which is not the top best but not cheap as well, so at the end i found myself i spend on film almost same or closer of what i spend on digital, oh, i wish if i am rich... 🙁
jsrockit
Moderator
Perhaps I jumped to conclusions, but... "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."
Edward C. Zimmermann
Nerd
Yes. There are differences in the lp/mm (measure of resolution), grain size and sharpness (a bit more complicated) between films. With microfilms and suitable optics we can get with pictorial tonality--- through suitable soft (under-)development--- to beyond 200 lp/mm to film. See for example: The Modern slow speed ... by Erwin Puts. Putting that in digital perspective.. not that pixel count and lp/mm are really comparable.. but that 200 number--- and were done the tests so its real--- is with a 24x36mm sensor about.. trying desperately to make a digital comparison.. 70 Mpixel. But also the film is sharper.. (OK, sharpness is complicated and derived in part from grain and their distribution, e.g. finer or more uniform grain means less sharper images). Some people will say.. Hey.. that's some fancy optics.. But again.. Even if one could build a 70 Mpixel full-frame sensor one would need the same kind of fancy optics...
For comparison again.. Using a film such as Agfa APX-100 (and I like and have a fridge full of APX-100) one is lucky to get 65 lp/mm to film (the film itself can't resolve more than 130 lp/mm). This too is not bad when one considers that a print with 8 lp/mm is considered what the eye can detect. That's why APX-100 is perfectly fine for 8x10" prints...
Mister E
Well-known
Pal, it's all part of my overall backup strategy which includes offsite backups using two different locations. I'm not new to IT and I don't need your advice, thanks.
Edward C. Zimmermann
Nerd
Nice for you but how many people who shoot digital have the expertise, technology, infrastructure or budget to purchase the service lacking such? And what happens should there be gaps in the system or at some point its not maintained? With digital it could mean total loss. Most people in this forum would like to assume that a writable DVD backup is good insurance.. The label on the "Gold DVD" says 300 years right? The problem is that organic dyes are used and these have some problems much similar to looking at old color prints from the 1950s and 1960s... except that the loss of color results in loss of data. Throw in that the bacteria and something quite similar to "vinegar syndrome" also attack CDs and DVDs and we have....
With negatives? Photographs and negatives have for the most part survived amazingly well in shoe boxes..... Sure there are foes.. such as bacteria and "vinegar syndrome" but they generally result in deterioration of image but not complete loss.
Personally.. I have my own multi-site network (physically two locations in Munich) and multi-homed network (multiple lines) with additional server nodes located at two remote locations in Europe. I own enough computers to render any of the next Pixar films.. and for the long range storage of my photographs I'd rather trust a shoebox!
raid
Dad Photographer
I will use film and also will use a digital camera when I travel.
Locally, I am not using any digital camera. It is not worth the loss of enjoyment.
Locally, I am not using any digital camera. It is not worth the loss of enjoyment.
Vincent.G
Well-known
I second that, Raid. When I travel with my family, my main intention is to enjoy every single minute with them. I tend to spend more time and energy talking, eating and playing with them instead of taking photos. For such random fun shots, digital P&S or iPhone usually will suffice for me although I will use film whenever the opportunity presents itself.
wgerrard
Veteran
Professionals probably ought to invest in multiple offsite storage options for their digital work, but it's more than overkill for amateurs and hobbyists. As with any digital files you want to protect, duplicating them on another physical device is the way to go. It's better if that device is located somewhere else, just in case your house burns down. But, a remote drive in a closet that does regular backup is better than nothing.
Buying space at some remote site can be prohibitively expensive if you need to store many image files. Few have the will, the cash, or the expertise to setup and manage their own backup hardware at another location.
Long-term storage of digital data is an issue that affects many people, not just photographers. Until a reasonable solution is available commercially, backing up data to a removable drive and periodically stashing those drives somewhere else seems to me a decent alternative for serious amateurs. If you want the data to last for several decades or longer, then be prepared to transfer the data to new hardware as technology obsoletes what you own.
Buying space at some remote site can be prohibitively expensive if you need to store many image files. Few have the will, the cash, or the expertise to setup and manage their own backup hardware at another location.
Long-term storage of digital data is an issue that affects many people, not just photographers. Until a reasonable solution is available commercially, backing up data to a removable drive and periodically stashing those drives somewhere else seems to me a decent alternative for serious amateurs. If you want the data to last for several decades or longer, then be prepared to transfer the data to new hardware as technology obsoletes what you own.
flip
良かったね！
When I shoot color, it is often in the Pen FV. 72 shots, baby. Outdated Fuji film. That's like $0.08 a shot after development. Tell me when my investment intersects with the digital pen and I'll tell you the day when that digital pen is worth $10.
Pen FV + Okonomiyaki beats Pen EP-1 + Monjayaki
Pen FV + Okonomiyaki beats Pen EP-1 + Monjayaki
Last edited:
Luna
Well-known
I've seen all kinds of shoe boxes crap out too. And I own enough shoe boxes to house everyone at the Walt Disney Company shoe's.
Edward C. Zimmermann
Nerd
Sure but I'd not underestimate the archival quality of old shoe boxes. While many negatives have not survived do to damage caused by heat, moisture, water and other environmental effects many have survived their forgotten places in attics. A greater threat is posed, I think, to such photographic artifacts by being simply tossed into the rubbish than by environmental conditions. The problems and efforts start with film materials when one wants or needs to keep loss to an absolute minimum. Its that last bit that demands all the effort and costs--- see, for example: Care, handling.... library of congress.
I hope you mean just the animators at the Burbank studio--- the whole Burbank complex which is more than just animation has a staff still of around 500 and the whole of the Disney Company has nearly 150,000 employees..... that's more shoe boxes than to fill the entire yearly production of dress shoes in New England....
Finder
Veteran
Which means they are not the same. Kind of like I cannot get the same look in Levi's as in Calvin Klein.
Luna
Well-known
wotalegend
Well-known
So if digital is so much cheaper than film, how many pros reduced their prices when they went digital?
wgerrard
Veteran
Pros don't set prices based solely on the cost of film.
I'm flummoxed by the number of people who seem to deny the recurring costs of using film. If I buy a film camera for $1000 and a digital for $1000, all I need to buy for the digital is one memory card. In my part of the world, buying a roll of C-41 and getting it processed costs about $15; a roll of E6 and processing will cost about $20. Add five dollars to those numbers if I send the film out. So, if I shoot just one roll of C-41 or E6 per week, that is a $750-$1000 annual cost for using film that the digital user does not have. Two rolls per week, obviously, gets you to at least $1500-$2000 per year.
The recurring costs of film are obvious and undeniable.
Brian Puccio
Well-known
Sure, but I can get a used M6 for just over $1000. Where can I get an M9 for that price? Oh, you wait, you mean I'd have to spend 6 years worth of film costs to get the M9 now?
OK, I'll stop shooting film for 6 years and then I'll have saved up for an M9.
The staggering upfront cost to get a full frame digital rangefinder is obvious and undeniable. Not all of us hobbiests can drop that kind of money all at once.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
In my lazy lurking on this thread, this is what I have been thinking the whole time. Thanks for putting it into words. Full frame is very important to me, since I like shallow depth of field and true wide-angle lenses.
wotalegend
Well-known
1. So what do pros base their prices on? There is obviously a cost in their time also, but isn't there less time involved in digital? Or are they simply charging what the market will bear?
2. Have you compared current equivalent prices and features of film and digital cameras? A good $500 film SLR body is equivalent to a $5,000 DSLR body. How much film could I buy for the difference in prices? And what if I choose to work in medium format? I can buy a film back for my MF SLR for about $100. How much for an MF digital back? That difference would buy film for several years.
3. I agree that purchasing and processing C41 or E6 is now expensive and, some might say, inferior to digital. But if I buy B&W film in bulk from the cheapest world source and process it myself I can get even more for the difference between film and digital camera purchase prices.
4. Yes, the recurring cost of film is obvious and undeniable, but the recurring cost of digital is not so obvious, and ignored by many - depreciation and obsolescence. In three or five years time my film bodies will still be as current as they are now and probably worth not much less. How many current digital bodies will still be state-of-the-art (although I don't deny that a well-made one will still be capable of what it does now)?
I am not anti-digital. I have two DSLR's which I use when appropriate. Although the newer of the two is six years old which makes it anti-deluvian by digital standards it still does what it did when new. However it is my choice to use film for B&W and MF.
Similar threads
- Article
