One reason for the probable survival of film

[wgerrard]

'the things they think are precious I don't understand'

That reminds me. I need to take a long drive with Aja stuck in the CD.

 

[Chris101]

I think we often overlook the two biggest reasons digital is successful:

1. You don't need to buy film and pay someone to develop it.

2. You can see your pictures as soon as you take them, and then dump then onto your computer and send them around the planet.

People do not want to do the former, and very much want to do the latter. You email grandma, you don't write her a letter and stick a print in the envelope.

Except Grandma doesn't like to use the computer ("It's always beeping at me.") Then she accidentally deletes the file her granddaughter downloaded for her, and has nothing to look at.

We like to take pictures for us, not to share, except with people like us.

 

[bmattock]

That reminds me. I need to take a long drive with Aja stuck in the CD.

Having been thoroughly seduced by the Apple iPod Touch, I have alternately been falling asleep to NPR's "All songs considered" podcasts, Esperanto lesson podcasts, or one of any number of streaming stations from last.fm and similar apps. Steely Dan is on regular 'rotation', to steal a term from the past. My blip.fm stream would give you a sample of my tastes:

http://blip.fm/WigwamJones

 

[wgerrard]

Having been thoroughly seduced by the Apple iPod Touch, I have alternately been falling asleep to NPR's "All songs considered" podcasts, Esperanto lesson podcasts, or one of any number of streaming stations from last.fm and similar apps. Steely Dan is on regular 'rotation', to steal a term from the past. My blip.fm stream would give you a sample of my tastes:

http://blip.fm/WigwamJones

I'm one of the iPod-less holdouts. I've got a few streams set up on Pandora. One is jazz, one is surfing music, and on is just a hodge-podge. Pandora's surf music rotation seems to be about 20 tunes. Every once in a while one of them bleeds over into the jazz stream, which can be amusing.

Pandora's been busy annoyingly monetizing things, so maybe I'll look at blip and the other alternatives.

 

[Jamie123]

Marketing is an interesting field of endeavor. I'm no expert, but I note that Nikon's foray into consumer advertising (eg, television adverts) for their dSLR cameras concentrates on ease of use, ability to do macro, and ability to show people your photos on the back of the camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSBNqffvEOI&NR=1

Different advertising campaigns focus (no pun intended) on other aspects of dSLR cameras, for example in Canada:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_Z6-u81PY

What do they talk about? Frame rate, autofocus, megapixels, low-light, automatic flash, etc. They show the entire family of lenses/flashes to build a sense of 'system' for those perhaps more interesting in enthusiast photographer than the average Joe.

Nothing about DoF at all. I agree that they COULD emphasize the larger sensor in the dSLR and what advantage it gives, but they don't. Why not? I guess they feel that the average consumer doesn't care.

Chicken or egg? Marketers try to emphasize what they think the public cares about, or at the manufacturer's insistence, they'll push what the manufacturers think the major advantages are. I have yet to see a mainstream advertisement that lists a larger sensor or increased ability to control DoF as an advantage.

Kevin Spacey for Olympus EP-1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk5ZuAAWV4o

Pentax point-n-shoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8cRpgDxciY

Canon Rebel XSi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BQfCoqbubE

The last commercial (Canon) is very much like the old Kodak television commercials of the 1970's. They tell a story, show emotion in the form of photos, and concentrate not on the camera, but on what you do with it. Family, home, the sights, sounds, and feelings of togetherness. That's what photos do, the advert tells us; without using words to do so. You need this camera to do that, we're told. Nothing about technology; just about the photos (or movies):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68N1PuZVie0

When new technology has to be explained, they show you why you should want it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0vt_dRbd1A

So yes, they could talk about DoF if they wanted to. But they never have in the past, and there's no reason to believe they will in the future. Anything could happen, though.

I didn't say that they were advertising DoF. My point was that once there are digital FF (or near FF) compacts, the point about film and superior DoF gets moot.
I don't believe that they will ever really talk about DoF in advertising as it's too complicated and technical a point to get across. I do, however, believe that sensor size as a marketing angle has the potential to be used in advertising. The Kevin Spacey ad for the E-P1 implicitly does speak about sensor size when he presents the E-P1 as a substitute for a big DSLR. What they're basically saying is that the small camera will yield the same results as those big DSLRs.

Also, advertising is just one part of marketing. Another part is what they put out in their press sheets and what the clerk at the electronics store tells the housewife when he tries to talk her into spending $1k on a small camera.

 

[robklurfield]

all I can say is:

and

When the subject distance is the hyperfocal distance,

and

The depth of field DF − DN is

For

, the far limit of DOF is at infinity and the DOF is infinite; of course, only objects at or beyond the near limit of DOF will be recorded with acceptable sharpness.
Substituting for H and rearranging, DOF can be expressed as

so, there.

 

[user237428934]

Let's take the big market share of P&S owners who use their camera for holiday- and family-snaps. When do they say that a photo is good? My assumption: when in a holiday photo everything is visibly sharp front to back and when in a family snap the persons are sharp and the exposure is ok. So in general those users want more DoF not less DoF. Cameras with small sensors are therefore a big advantage for those kind of users.

 

[robklurfield]

one could make an interesting, appealing, aesthetically meaningful image with a sheet of 4X5 in a DIY Quaker Oats canister pinhole camera. that doesn't mean most of us would want to give up control of the process to that extent full time. plus, it would defeat the gear-geekness many of us enjoy (he says, owning up to his fair share of guilt), plus try attaching a flash to that Quaker Oats box and using it to shoot at a wedding.

 

[gb hill]

I would not be so quick to come down on the no-nothing digital happy snappers; it is from their ranks that any renewed interest in film photography will come. Chase them away at your own risk. Me, I'd welcome them in with open arms, even if you think they figuratively worship the devil for liking digital.

Oh don't get me wrong! I do welcome them & try to encourage them along & help them any way I can. I think I was wrong in assuming that all digital users are converts from film. What I'm seeing is that most wishing to give film a go are teens & twenty somethings. I tend to forget these people didn't grow up in the 70's like I did!
& I no longer think digital users figuratively worship the devil. I have come to the terms that both mediums have a purpose. To be honest Bill the reason I have not switched is that I have too much tied up in film cameras to dump them plus I like developing my own b&w. For me it's a hobby thats all! I do though like playing devils advocate for film as you & Picket do for stating that all the film manufacturers are all going to fall into the proverbial pits of hades this year or next!

 

[NickTrop]

The attached photo was taken today with an Olympus ("Four Thirds") digital reflex camera. Angle of view is roughly that of a 50mm lens on a 36 x 24 film camera, but depth of field can be seen to be that of a 25mm lens, which many still consider an extreme wide angle. With a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, f/2.8 would have isolated the dyer and his work somewhat; and an 85/90/100/105 would have been even better in that respect.

"Full frame" digital cameras and their lenses are still too expensive for many of us; and, with the possible exception of the Leica M9, they are also heavy and bulky. The ability to control depth of field will probably be one of the reasons why "old fashioned" film cameras will remain in use for some time to come. My guess is that at least a few photographers will continue to use them because the digital alternative is out of reach.

I agree with your comments in full except regarding the ability or "bokeh" keeping film alive in the consumer market. I am considering a 4/3 camera but if I can't do DOF for portraits and other situations where it makes the picture, then I'll stick with film. Thank you for this post. You may have stopped me from making a purchase I would have regretted (or returned). Excellent post, "Sloppy Pudding"

 

[payasam]

If compacts come to have 24 x 36 sensors, then of course my speculation will turn into thin air. Will that happen? If yes, when?

As for developments in photography moving towards the small, we should not forget that Leica now have a digital reflex model with a sensor larger than 35mm FF. It is not for the masses, true: but then no Leica ever was.

Thank you, NickTrop. I use my Olympus digitals for the bulk of my bread earning work, but for serious portraits I have a FED-2 mal-adjusted to correctly focus a Jupiter-9.

 

[bmattock]

I agree with your comments in full except regarding the ability or "bokeh" keeping film alive in the consumer market. I am considering a 4/3 camera but if I can't do DOF for portraits and other situations where it makes the picture, then I'll stick with film. Thank you for this post. You may have stopped me from making a purchase I would have regretted (or returned). Excellent post, "Sloppy Pudding"

I agree that I want a larger than 4/3 sensor, but I don't think it's all that bad for selective focus. I can certainly do what I want with an APS-C sensor without much problem. I imagine I could do so with a somewhat smaller sensor, although admittedly I haven't tried it.



Pentax *ist DS, 1/60, f/2.8, 105mm Spiratone lens.

 

[NickTrop]

Pentax *ist DS, 1/60, f/2.8, 105mm Spiratone lens.

@payasam - have a J9 that I adapted for an off-brand K-mount SLR. Outstanding portrait lens. I actually like the delimiter ring. Don't use it as often as I should.

@Bill - Nice shot. Actually, I'm really liking the Samsung NX10, from what I've read. That's not a 4/3 camera, though roughly the same size. Plus, it's coming with a K adapter so I can use my arsenal of K lenses with it, that 1.4 50mm Tak becomes a portrait lens, not necessarily a bad thing. Now to do some research on sensor sizes, etc... No selective focus (or very limited as shown in Payasam's shot) no deal, regardless of what forum members think. How can you not care about selective focus? It's a critical element of photography that, while not needed in every shot, most shots, is absolutely a "must have". Bills portrait would have not been nearly as good if the background wasn't blurred out.

 

[gho]

I agree that I want a larger than 4/3 sensor, but I don't think it's all that bad for selective focus. I can certainly do what I want with an APS-C sensor without much problem. I imagine I could do so with a somewhat smaller sensor, although admittedly I haven't tried it.



Pentax *ist DS, 1/60, f/2.8, 105mm Spiratone lens.

Good subject matter from a photographic point of view for my taste. From a technical point of view this would also had been possible with a digital p&s except for bokeh. I must admit I sold all my digital gear except for my canon powershot 590 IS .

 

[pawel glogowski]

Sorry, can't follow you.
DoF does depend on the size of the negative / sensor. That's the whole point here.

Ok, so just to clarify:
It's simple - Size of sensor/ frame/ crop is not a variable here.

If DoF changed, means You either:
- used different focal length
- adjusted aperture,
- changed perspective of the shot.

In this case OP had bigger DoF because he used 25mm lens instead of 50mm. Here is what makes the difference, not in sensor size. That's it, basic stuff.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Ok, so just to clarify:
It's simple - Size of sensor/ frame/ crop is not a variable here.

If DoF changed, means You either:
- used different focal length
- adjusted aperture,
- changed perspective of the shot.

In this case OP had bigger DoF because he used 25mm lens instead of 50mm. Here is what makes the difference, not in sensor size. That's it, basic stuff.

Do us a favor and read the original post...

 

[bmattock]

I'm not sure about that. Remember that it's still a 50mm focal length, just cropped--what makes a "portrait lens" a portrait lens is the difference in distortion characteristics (foreshortening, "perspective", whatever you want to call it) between ~50mm and say ~80mm. On APS-C that 50 is cropped to a 75's field of view on a 35mm camera, but its "perspective" is still the same.

(I'm putting perspective in quotes because that's what a lot of people call it, but I'm not convinced it's the right word. Doesn't matter that much in this case, just need some label for the phenomenon).

I like it for portraits, both the up-close kind and situational shots on a crop-sensor digital camera.

Pentax-A SMC 50mm f/1.7 manual focus lens on Pentax *ist DS, 1/500 f/8:




Pentax M42 SMC 50mm f/1.4 manual focus lens on Pentax *ist DS, 1/125 f/1.4:

 

[gho]

one could make an interesting, appealing, aesthetically meaningful image with a sheet of 4X5 in a DIY Quaker Oats canister pinhole camera.

Good point rob. I was thinking about that also. Just some photosensitive paper, a lighttight box, a pinhole, optoinally a scanner or digital imaging processing software and off we go. But what about DOF?

In my opinion film is not used because depth of field or bokeh.

 

[pawel glogowski]

Do us a favor and read the original post...

I've read it.
My post was a reference to your previous reply (Hence the quote i used)

 

[ampguy]

big sensor not needed for this

big sensor not needed for this

I have a ~5 year old P&S with tiny sensor (1/2.5") that takes these types of photos, and @ f2.8 constant. Might have to zoom a bit further than 100 equiv. focal length, maybe 150 ish for same effect.

The bottom line here, is that if you care about DOF control, use an APS to FF sensor, lenses that can open wide (~1.4 for most RF sizes 28-75 ish) and you can get FF film DOF and bokeh, if you know what you're doing.

Don't know about u4/3. I think that's just too small of a sensor to get near film/FF DOF looks, unless on macro mode or something.

I agree that I want a larger than 4/3 sensor, but I don't think it's all that bad for selective focus. I can certainly do what I want with an APS-C sensor without much problem. I imagine I could do so with a somewhat smaller sensor, although admittedly I haven't tried it.



Pentax *ist DS, 1/60, f/2.8, 105mm Spiratone lens.