Telling film from digital ...

[Andy K]

"The painters in those days regarded photographers as competitors, they were afraid that from now on each idiot could "paint " with such a machine and tried to keep their status as the true artists. Where is the parallel to digital nowadays?"

Some of them apparently felt that way. But there was also a widespread objection to photography because it used a machine and chemistry to make pictures (rather than a pencil or brush on paper or canvas). That reliance on technology and science (such as it was at that time) made it suspect to some (and still makes it suspect to some to this day). Then it was, to some, the evil of the machine, now it is, again to some, the evil of the computer.

You still don't get it do you Sean?

Yes, partly the objection is to the computer doing all the work instead of a human being but MOSTLY the objection is that digital is destroying the availability of materials for film photography.
Those artists were objecting to competition, but they could still get the materials they needed to create their art.

Get it now?

 

[Socke]

You still don't get it do you Sean?

Yes, partly the objection is to the computer doing all the work instead of a human being but MOSTLY the objection is that digital is destroying the availability of materials for film photography.
Those artists were objecting to competition, but they could still get the materials they needed to create their art.

Get it now?

Andy, I don't think so, but I'm only a BScEcon so may be very wrong.

As a matter of fact, you can still buy electronic tubes, buggies and buggy whips.
As long as there's demand somebody will manufacture the desired good.

Many films where discontinued long befor digital photography was available, how many iterations of Kodachrome have we had since the first one? Even Tri-X has been changed. What about films from Adox and Perutz? Seen any Agfa Isopan F in the las 30 years?
What about DuPont?

On the other hand, Efke still produces Adox emulsions from the 50s, Foma makes several papers long discontinued by the inventors.

And up to now I haven't had an encounter with a Canon SWAT team trying to force me to upgrade my D60 to a newer model 🙂

 

[Kevin]

The resolution of a strong, powerful image becomes important AFTER you have taken the shot. I suppose digital camera users get quite frustrated when they capture a brilliant image, only to realize that they cannot make a very large quality print with the file.

We should remind ourselves that a medium format 6x9 camera is roughly 150 Megapixels in resolution. That is 30 times more than a 5MP digital camera.

A 18x27cm print from the 5MP camera will have the level of detail as a 100x150cm print from the 6x9. I think detail is very important and makes a strong picture even better.

If a digital camera COULD capture and store 150 Megapixels, it would take 30 times longer to store than shooting RAW with the 5MP camera. If it takes 2 seconds with a 5MP, then a 150MP digital camera would need 1 minute to store the image using current processors.

My 6x9 camera can do this 1-minute job in 2 milliseconds. You would need a quantum computer to store 450GB of binary data in 2 milliseconds, and that would cost a fortune.

Quality does matter, especially for the few (or many) good pictures you take.

 

[Socke]

My 6x9 camera can do this 1-minute job in 2 milliseconds. You would need a quantum computer to store 450GB of binary data in 2 milliseconds, and that would cost a fortune.

Quality does matter, especially for the few (or many) good pictures you take.

Kevin, that's the reason why I have my Super Technika with me all the time, nothing beats a 13x18 negative who cares for 135?

Scanning and downsizing for the web is a bit of work and the camera and tripod are a bit on the heavy side but you have to make compromises somewhere.
:angel:

 

[GeneW]

Sean, you've contributed excellent, thoughtful, and professional postings to this thread. Thanks!

Gene

 

[jrong]

Not to steer the subject back to my original question, but ...

Can anybody really tell? 🙂

Yes. 😉 😀

Cheers, Jin

 

[Andy K]

Scanning and downsizing for the web is a bit of work
:angel:

Only if your primary reason for making photographs is to show them on the web. I make photographs so that I can make prints, showing photographs on the net is of very little importance to me.
This morning I went and made eight 6x9 negs. It is guaranteed they will have superb detail. And guess what? The camera I used was smaller and lighter than a DSLR and battery pack.

 

[Kevin]

13x18 is HUGE!!! Is that not a bit impractical for daily shooting? Don't people get a bit hemmed up when you point that thing at them? Or do you use it for cityscapes? Or are you just pulling my leg again?

 

[Socke]

13x18 is HUGE!!! Is that not a bit impractical for daily shooting? Don't people get a bit hemmed up when you point that thing at them? Or do you use it for cityscapes? Or are you just pulling my leg again?

Pulling your leg, it won't fit into my Mini!

But I have one picture I took with a Canon Powershot G1 when I had it new.
I had only the supplied 8MByte CF card and a 32MByte card I bought for my Psion Organizer, so I shot medium JPG - 1024x786 - and I regret it!

 

[Kin Lau]

You still don't get it do you Sean?

Yes, partly the objection is to the computer doing all the work instead of a human being but MOSTLY the objection is that digital is destroying the availability of materials for film photography.
Those artists were objecting to competition, but they could still get the materials they needed to create their art.

Get it now?

Andy, that has not happened, and you don't KNOW that it will. You're guessing. We're simply saying you're wrong. We're guessing too. You have a right to your opinion, as we do to ours. As someone who's complained about "condescending" comments, you would do well to read your own comments.

Relax. Film will be still around, not at the prices and convenience of the past, but still alive (see Socke's comments). Otherwise, buy a freezer, and stock up. A lifetime's worth of film and paper really isn't that much. If the you're worse case scenario becomes a reality, then you'll make a killing by selling "classic film" to the same people who can still afford Leica's and Hassy's. You can't lose.

Film is going from a mass market consumer item, to a specialty item, and b&w was already a specialty market a long time ago. That's the reality, and no amount of screaming, kicking and protesting will change it. There are actually certain advantages to it being small market, one of which is that manufacturers will be more inclined to listen to it's clients, who are mostly advanced hobbiest/professionals as oppose to regular consumers.

 

[Kevin]

And guess what? The camera I used was smaller and lighter than a DSLR and battery pack.

Which 6x9 camera(s) do you use? The Fujicas are rather large I should say.

 

[Kevin]

Pulling your leg, it won't fit into my Mini!

You have an Audi, dude.

 

[Socke]

You have an Audi, dude.

I had! Now I drive a Mini convertible, hopefully more reliable.

As long as the weather is fine, I can drive with the hood down and the sky is my limit, or the next bridge 🙂

 

[Andy K]

Which 6x9 camera(s) do you use? The Fujicas are rather large I should say.

I used my old Voigtlander Bessa folder. That's a real German Voigtlander, not a modern badged Voigtlander.

 

[Kevin]

I used my old Voigtlander Bessa folder. That's a real German Voigtlander, not a modern badged Voigtlander.

And they are reliable cameras with sharp lenses? What about rangefinder focusing? I must say I know little about folders. I have an old Kodak folder from my grandfather but it is tattered and the lens doesn't look quite right.

 

[Kevin]

I had! Now I drive a Mini convertible, hopefully more reliable.

As long as the weather is fine, I can drive with the hood down and the sky is my limit, or the next bridge 🙂

Those minis are cool. Lucky you. But it is still raining today so keep your top up.

 

[Sean Reid]

Sean, you've contributed excellent, thoughtful, and professional postings to this thread. Thanks!

Gene

Thanks Gene.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean Reid]

Those minis are cool. Lucky you. But it is still raining today so keep your top up.

Way OT...

I'm headed out on tour today but your post reminded me of a little story. A couple of years ago we lead a motorcycle tour for DaimlerChrysler execs. and dealers. The head honcho on the tour was a DC VP named Tom who was a very cool guy - also bald and about 6' 5" - so a striking character all around. Everyone was on bikes except for this one couple who did the trip in a convertible. This one afternoon outside Halifax, NS it was just raining like a cow pissing on a flat rock. We're were all in this little diner having coffee, drying out a bit, etc.. The convertible driver (also a cool guy) came in to the restaurant and said to us: "Oh, man, I really feel for you guys. It's really coming down out there." Tom, without missing a beat, says: "You feel for us, huh, then put the top down".

I loved it. Cheers. Have a good weekend all.

Sean

 

[Kin Lau]

My Moskva 5 and 2 both weigh about the same as my 350D. My Baby Graphics and Busch Pressman both weigh considerably more. In fact, I don't think I have any camera that weighs more then they do.... except for the 4x5 Calumet 🙂 but that camera wasn't meant to be hand held.

OTOH, my Kodak No.1 AutoG weighs less than most of my 35mm RF's.

 

[Kevin]

Gosh I think I had better not know about all those cameras...