thomasw_
Well-known
Thanks for linking to the interesting article. I enjoyed reading it.
sailronin
Established
I grew up on film but there's no way I'm shooting ISO 10 or 20 just to equal a digital image. My 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras have been sitting in storage for 5 years as it's stupid expensive to find film for it.
I've made the switch to digital and will probably even sell my M6 as the M8 and D700 get all the shooting time.
I've made the switch to digital and will probably even sell my M6 as the M8 and D700 get all the shooting time.
dfoo
Well-known
50 sheets of 4x5 film is $50...
Turtle
Veteran
I shoot film because I like the prints. I shot certain films because I like them too. Others may be sharper, finer grained etc, but.... I shoot what looks good to me. Silly slow films have virtually no real world application IMO, because if using a tripod you might as well use a bigger format.
The comparison is of 'interest' but does not mean anything of practical significance. Putz does not suggest it does either.
Frankly if you cannot make a decent image of pretty well anything from a 35mm camera and 100 speed film you should give up photography. Other formats, super fine grain films have their place, but it is a small place in a big subject area and I am always very suspicious of those who use such films as their standard because it smacks of chasing technical perfection at the expense of everything else.
The comparison is of 'interest' but does not mean anything of practical significance. Putz does not suggest it does either.
Frankly if you cannot make a decent image of pretty well anything from a 35mm camera and 100 speed film you should give up photography. Other formats, super fine grain films have their place, but it is a small place in a big subject area and I am always very suspicious of those who use such films as their standard because it smacks of chasing technical perfection at the expense of everything else.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
So he compares a weird film that bugger all people would probably choose to use, to a weird camera that few people can afford to own!
This reminds me why I never go near his site ... it's got very little to do with actual photography!
This reminds me why I never go near his site ... it's got very little to do with actual photography!
tensai
Established
Who gives a ****? Seriously, use the camera you want to use. I, for one, love digital and am happy to have made the transition.
taxi38
Taxi Driver
fascinating
surely the point is that ,...after all these years of digital being the specialist in 1s and 0s ,giving it no choice but to be more "acccurate"if less interesting,........film is still in the same ballpark as digital even in this rarified realm of the perfect dot.What is true is that in the micro world the character of the dot does change the perception of the whole .So he compares a weird film that bugger all people would probably choose to use, to a weird camera that few people can afford to own!
In conclusion I do agree with you both.:angel:
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I love reading theological arguments, it's way better times than watching poker on TSN
40oz
...
I thought it was an interesting experiment. I'm familiar with Mr. Puts' writing so I wasn't surprised to see things reduced to purely technical qualities.
I'm reading a sense that people somehow think Mr. Puts shouldn't be doing this kind of test. Why shouldn't people compare the technical merits of films and digital cameras? If you are happy using digital cameras, I don't understand why you'd be upset. And if you know anything about how a digital camera works, you'd not be surprised to see that they aren't resolution kings.
I routinely shoot Pan F. I don't see an ISO 20 microfilm as "irrelevant." I see it as pretty similar to what I'm currently using.
I applaud Mr. Puts for attempting to cut through marketing and demonstrate how these tools react to reality. There's plenty of sites to see pretty pictures. If you want a cheerleading mutual appreciation society, dpreview.com is always there.
I don't know if many of you "happy shooting digital" members spend time on other forums, but there is a whole slew of "digital is best" fanatics out there. A week doesn't go by without reading this little gem: "DSLR's are now on par with or better than medium format film." It's pretty much impossible on most photo forums to not be ostracized for not preferring to use digital, or to be pigeon-holed as a Luddite for not buying the whole "digital is superior" mythos. And so I find it amusing when rational testing demonstrates their relative capabilities, the "happy shooting digital" folks get all cranky.
I'm with Juan Valdenebro, I use film because I prefer it. It's at least marginally possible that it's the technical qualities that influence my preference. I.E. I notice the difference in the way the image is created, even if only in the overall sense. Kind of like artificial flavorings - "banana flavored" doesn't taste like a banana, and I don't have to be able to say why in chemistry language to know it's true or have a preference.
I'm reading a sense that people somehow think Mr. Puts shouldn't be doing this kind of test. Why shouldn't people compare the technical merits of films and digital cameras? If you are happy using digital cameras, I don't understand why you'd be upset. And if you know anything about how a digital camera works, you'd not be surprised to see that they aren't resolution kings.
I routinely shoot Pan F. I don't see an ISO 20 microfilm as "irrelevant." I see it as pretty similar to what I'm currently using.
I applaud Mr. Puts for attempting to cut through marketing and demonstrate how these tools react to reality. There's plenty of sites to see pretty pictures. If you want a cheerleading mutual appreciation society, dpreview.com is always there.
I don't know if many of you "happy shooting digital" members spend time on other forums, but there is a whole slew of "digital is best" fanatics out there. A week doesn't go by without reading this little gem: "DSLR's are now on par with or better than medium format film." It's pretty much impossible on most photo forums to not be ostracized for not preferring to use digital, or to be pigeon-holed as a Luddite for not buying the whole "digital is superior" mythos. And so I find it amusing when rational testing demonstrates their relative capabilities, the "happy shooting digital" folks get all cranky.
I'm with Juan Valdenebro, I use film because I prefer it. It's at least marginally possible that it's the technical qualities that influence my preference. I.E. I notice the difference in the way the image is created, even if only in the overall sense. Kind of like artificial flavorings - "banana flavored" doesn't taste like a banana, and I don't have to be able to say why in chemistry language to know it's true or have a preference.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
40oz, I was surprised too when some "photographers" around considered ISO20 microfilm a rare thing... Maybe they did never use Technical pan film with pictorial development... In 2010 I use Efke25 at ISO3 under sunlight with yellow filter... It's no problem: I can shoot at 1/250 f/1.4, so it's perfect for portraits in that kind of light... The eye needs education to see how different digital and film prints look no matter the print size... Mastering film is harder than chimping and abusing photoshop... But we're all free... Anyway, if I were like them, I wouldn't understand why, if it is slower, more expensive, and requires high precision with exposure and inner vision, there are so many different pro films at best stores... ¿Could it be we are blind and haven't been as smart as to see why digital is a lot better?
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
edodo
Well-known
The actual ending of the film medium or a craze for a cheap digital way to enjoy photography at no cost, no time but a lot of computing mind numbing?
Film was there more than 100 years, my guess and it is wise to say that it will never die! But on the other hand the craze for digital photography will surely die...
Film was there more than 100 years, my guess and it is wise to say that it will never die! But on the other hand the craze for digital photography will surely die...
peterm1
Veteran
God I am so tired of these constant debates in this forum about film v digital.
It is such a non topic. Sometimes its a direct "Which is best film or digital....?" Sometimes its "I like film (or digital) because of...... Sometimes it is (as it is here) "Author X says.......what do you think? " Sometimes it is "Will film have a resurgance in future and finally eat digital for breakfast when the whole world realises the error of its ways.....?" Sometimes its something else.
But all of these posts have a common outcome and everytime theey fundamentally to us all trotting out the same old stuff each fo us trotts out when ever a similar thread is started. I.e. person A will say "film blah blah blah".......... And person B will say "Digital blah blah blah."
Now let me apologise before I say this.......Normally I would just suck it up and not complain in this way, but really there have been several of these threads in various guises over the past few weeks and now its really getting on my tit. Why do we keep doing this to ourselves. Is it like banging our heads against the wall....because it feels good when we stop?
Everyone, please, use whichever system you prefer and most of all get out and do some actual photography. 90% or more of good photography comes from good photographic technique combined with good artistic sensibility ( and a little luck) - not which photographic system you use. (or for that matter even whether you use a Leica or a Pentax Spotmatic.) Whats the old quote about the secret of good photography? I think it was "Be there and have a camera." Not "be there and have a film camera" or for that matter, "be there and have a digital camera."
It is such a non topic. Sometimes its a direct "Which is best film or digital....?" Sometimes its "I like film (or digital) because of...... Sometimes it is (as it is here) "Author X says.......what do you think? " Sometimes it is "Will film have a resurgance in future and finally eat digital for breakfast when the whole world realises the error of its ways.....?" Sometimes its something else.
But all of these posts have a common outcome and everytime theey fundamentally to us all trotting out the same old stuff each fo us trotts out when ever a similar thread is started. I.e. person A will say "film blah blah blah".......... And person B will say "Digital blah blah blah."
Now let me apologise before I say this.......Normally I would just suck it up and not complain in this way, but really there have been several of these threads in various guises over the past few weeks and now its really getting on my tit. Why do we keep doing this to ourselves. Is it like banging our heads against the wall....because it feels good when we stop?
Everyone, please, use whichever system you prefer and most of all get out and do some actual photography. 90% or more of good photography comes from good photographic technique combined with good artistic sensibility ( and a little luck) - not which photographic system you use. (or for that matter even whether you use a Leica or a Pentax Spotmatic.) Whats the old quote about the secret of good photography? I think it was "Be there and have a camera." Not "be there and have a film camera" or for that matter, "be there and have a digital camera."
Last edited:
gnarayan
Gautham Narayan
Dinosaurs were there more than 160 million years, my guess and it is wise to say that it will never die!
Oh wait.
Like your screen name.
Brian Puccio
Well-known
Ride a horse to work, or do you take one of those fancy new horseless carriages? Use an outhouse or indoor plumbing?
Sure, you can go visit some community that still likes to do things the old fashioned way, they do things like churn butter instead of going to the grocery. But the majority of people will move on when it is suitable for them and those that don't, will be looked at with curiosity.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
peterm1,
Do you really think we need your words to be able to use the cameras we like, own and use with love?
Do you really think we need to wait for your words, and just then, we can go shoot?
At least to me, your post is ridiculous... If you don't feel any interest on Erwin Puts' opinion, you could have simply stayed away from the title...
I think most of us have and use both kinds of equipment years ago, respect them and try to bring the most out of them, and any forum member can express: that's what forums are for... For that and for reading other people's opinion.
If the link has given you such an inner problem, or if you insist we have, talk to Mr. Puts or to the mods, and erase as much as your spirit needs to... It's affected you in a curious way.
Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier Bresson preferred different systems, and maybe you do...
Yet I don't think you deserve Mr. Puts, my, or any other forum member's silence. I think we don't deserve your previous post either, but you're on your right to express, even though you didn't add anything from a photographic point of view.
Cheers,
Juan
Do you really think we need your words to be able to use the cameras we like, own and use with love?
Do you really think we need to wait for your words, and just then, we can go shoot?
At least to me, your post is ridiculous... If you don't feel any interest on Erwin Puts' opinion, you could have simply stayed away from the title...
I think most of us have and use both kinds of equipment years ago, respect them and try to bring the most out of them, and any forum member can express: that's what forums are for... For that and for reading other people's opinion.
If the link has given you such an inner problem, or if you insist we have, talk to Mr. Puts or to the mods, and erase as much as your spirit needs to... It's affected you in a curious way.
Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier Bresson preferred different systems, and maybe you do...
Yet I don't think you deserve Mr. Puts, my, or any other forum member's silence. I think we don't deserve your previous post either, but you're on your right to express, even though you didn't add anything from a photographic point of view.
Cheers,
Juan
peterm1
Veteran
"Do you really think we need your words to be able to use the cameras we like, own and use with love?
Do you really think we need to wait for your words, and just then, we can go shoot?"
No, but with respect, I do think we should stop torturing ourselves constantly with these endless pointless debates about film or digital which is better?
Please understand that my post was not meant to criticise you for starting this thread but rather to comment on our collective tendency to go over and over and over this same ground. There have been 3 or 4 in the past couple of weeks. They are constantly being posted anew in various guises and its fankly tiresome.
Yes I could ignore them and usually do (or accept them with good grace) but I am making the point that I for one am fed up with seeing the same arguments trotted out every couple of days. Mostly when I see one of these threads if I do post I say the same thing - film or digital - use whatever works for you personally!
All of this sounds harsher than I mean it to be, (I am smiling ) but for goodness sake, lets focus on something productive for a change.
Do you really think we need to wait for your words, and just then, we can go shoot?"
No, but with respect, I do think we should stop torturing ourselves constantly with these endless pointless debates about film or digital which is better?
Please understand that my post was not meant to criticise you for starting this thread but rather to comment on our collective tendency to go over and over and over this same ground. There have been 3 or 4 in the past couple of weeks. They are constantly being posted anew in various guises and its fankly tiresome.
Yes I could ignore them and usually do (or accept them with good grace) but I am making the point that I for one am fed up with seeing the same arguments trotted out every couple of days. Mostly when I see one of these threads if I do post I say the same thing - film or digital - use whatever works for you personally!
All of this sounds harsher than I mean it to be, (I am smiling ) but for goodness sake, lets focus on something productive for a change.
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I respect every member, and I guess if all of them post, or discuss, maybe it's not a torture for them, and maybe they honestly think it's not pointless at all... Maybe for you everything is clear, but maybe other people are really wondering if one format offers possibilities they were not aware of... I stay most of the times away, and just like you, sometimes I get tired about public statements I consider wrong and especially those that can make a young or beginner photographer stay away from some of his/her options... Thanks for your answer, Peter!
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
40oz
...
You do know the steam engine is in widespread use today, right? It's not exatly a new technology, and the package it's in today wouldn't be recognizable to the average person of 200 years ago, but it doesn't change the fact that it still exists. As do diesel, gasoline, jet, Wankel, Miller, Otto, and many other types. Each has it's purpose. None have eliminated the others because each has advantages.
This "new technology always replaces old technology entirely and eventually" theory/worldview is silly. Quite often new technologies are integrated into older technologies, or amazingly enough, they exist solely because they do some things better than existing alternatives.
sjw617
Panoramist
The test is skewed. Microfilm is not a real choice for most photographers today. Yes. it is available but not to the general public. So why compare that to an M9? Why not use a large format camera with a scanning back? That is as rare as microfilm to the average consumer.
Why blow up the film up 100% while blowing up the digital 400% ? Why not the same? Was he afraid the test would not show his preconceived 'conclusion'?
Steve
Why blow up the film up 100% while blowing up the digital 400% ? Why not the same? Was he afraid the test would not show his preconceived 'conclusion'?
Steve