mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Sensible advice, and a good question. I use digital, and I use film. I use them as it suits my purpose or just as the mood takes me. I'm pleased with my results from both and others seem to like 'em as well, so I'm not completely fooling myself.iCe said:
That's all I really care about. I am so over film vs digital debates.
...Mike
jan normandale
Film is the other way
hey Valdemar... resize these photos... please? I'm scrolling up a storm just to figure out what you uploaded.
Ice.. there was an interesting thread a while back about the use of 'spray and pray' as it related to video camera use for stills. Get ready for discussions about the 'dinosaurs using DSLR's' because like you and many others point out.. progress is creeping up on dSLRs then what happens to photography?
Bottom line.. for me why should I care what someone uses to take a shot? Sometimes I'd like to know tho so I could learn, but for me it's a hobby not a profession so I get to do what ever I want within my financial resources.
That said, I'm here at RFF because it has a history as a forum for rangefinders and analog photography, hence the name. I discuss rangefinders and film here... which according to some is now a novel concept. If I want digital discussions I actually go to the sister forum DSLR exchange or one of the many other photography related forums.
Ice.. there was an interesting thread a while back about the use of 'spray and pray' as it related to video camera use for stills. Get ready for discussions about the 'dinosaurs using DSLR's' because like you and many others point out.. progress is creeping up on dSLRs then what happens to photography?
Bottom line.. for me why should I care what someone uses to take a shot? Sometimes I'd like to know tho so I could learn, but for me it's a hobby not a profession so I get to do what ever I want within my financial resources.
That said, I'm here at RFF because it has a history as a forum for rangefinders and analog photography, hence the name. I discuss rangefinders and film here... which according to some is now a novel concept. If I want digital discussions I actually go to the sister forum DSLR exchange or one of the many other photography related forums.
literiter
Well-known
M. Valdemar said:
You make an excellent point. (I must say, you sound a tad grumpy, but I understand)
I think the image is often overlooked when we converge on the newest technology or we insist on staying with the old. You are, in my mind, correct when admonishing those of us who would "evangelize" from the point of view of their choice of tools.
By the look of the excellent photographic work posted on this site we have to agree; Photographers are Artists. To an artist the image is the most important. The tool we use to produce our work is ultimately irrelevant. Use whatever tool is most appropriate. Just get the damned picture!
I do not take pictures for a living, (the world may be better for that) so I have the luxury of using the tools I'm most comfortable with. The tool I'm most comfortable at this time of my life is film. All my good cameras are film cameras and I'm not interested in starting new and buying anything else at this time. If I were to start out again from the beginning, would I choose digital? I don't really know. Does it really matter?
breathstealer
Established
toyotadesigner said:
When did anyone ever say that? The guy you're quoting even mentioned earlier that he still has a ton of film cameras and a freezer full of film. I think it'd be a stretch to call anyone in the thread a "digital guy", much less accuse anyone of attacks like that.
I also think you've mischaracterized the question about what to do with slides. Read his next post after his question was answered - he honestly didn't know the answer, was curious, and was happy that his question got answered.
Finally, why are DSLR sensors soulless, but the sensors in scanners scanning slides aren't? I bet the scanner companies are onto something. Maybe that's why the RD-1 is held in such high regard
pvdhaar
Peter
Post #52.breathstealer said:
And that was exacly what this thread started out with in the first place..iCe said:
The sad thing here is that everyone who'se expressed here that they're doing just that, is more or less told they're nuts, and slapped with the buggywhip argument.
But fact remains that some do get better results with film than with digital. Does that make them retards?
V
varjag
Guest
Toyotadesigner, looking forward to the day you switch to digital. For some reason the more fervent person a film defender, the more likely they are to do a U-turn towards digital. Seen that online (on this forum too) more than once.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I think you didn't get my point: how much is your Kodak worth today? What did you pay for it when new? How much did a Nikon FM/FE cost several years ago, how much does it cost today, after 20+ years? Will your Kodak be serviced in 20 years? But the Nikon can be serviced in 20 years.
I paid $900 for the Kodak DSLR. I will sell it for approximately the same or more when I am tired of it. I buy the trailing edge. I also have more film cameras then some small camera stores. Don't assume you have some strategic economic superiority. I've been at this a long time. I MAKE money at my hobby by buying and selling. Many film cameras have been rendered useless because the size film for them has not been made for many years. Your Nikon FE argument is a straw man argument. The production of film and processing also requires an enormous industrial infrastructure to support it.
No, the raving was different, because it was about the same technology: an emulsion on top of a carrier material, which can be glass, acetate, polyester, etc.
Nonsense, you are disturbed at a shift in the previous order. All images are caused by photons altering a photo-sensitive material or surface. Eventually, you view them or print them.
This is a Contax forum, and just because someone mentioned he returned to film there is no need to convince the rest of us with the f**cking digital stuff.
To make it clear: Contax or Contax G1 and G2 or Zeiss Ikons are film cameras, which most of the digital superguys never had in their hands.
Also nonsense. I have been shooting with a Contax since I was 14 years old. I have a large collection of Zeiss lenses. In a recent thread I just posted several portraits of an artist I know shot with a Sonnar lens, FILM, and a Contax IIA.
What I said, and what sitemistic said, is that we enjoy using all forms of photo-imaging technology. Nobody is trying to force YOU to abandon film.
It's not an "one or the other" ultimatum. I like making PICTURES. I like to use whatever technology gives me the means to that end.
I don't have to "chase" technology. We live in a consumer society. You can happily play with all you want when the "latest and greatest" is discarded by the nuts who ARE CRAZILY COMPELLED to spend like crazy to keep on the leading edge.
Use the right tool for the job. Have fun and use what you like. Your posts are hostile, cursing and angry. Clearly, there are other issues at work other than the "film vs digital" debate.
.
I paid $900 for the Kodak DSLR. I will sell it for approximately the same or more when I am tired of it. I buy the trailing edge. I also have more film cameras then some small camera stores. Don't assume you have some strategic economic superiority. I've been at this a long time. I MAKE money at my hobby by buying and selling. Many film cameras have been rendered useless because the size film for them has not been made for many years. Your Nikon FE argument is a straw man argument. The production of film and processing also requires an enormous industrial infrastructure to support it.
No, the raving was different, because it was about the same technology: an emulsion on top of a carrier material, which can be glass, acetate, polyester, etc.
Nonsense, you are disturbed at a shift in the previous order. All images are caused by photons altering a photo-sensitive material or surface. Eventually, you view them or print them.
This is a Contax forum, and just because someone mentioned he returned to film there is no need to convince the rest of us with the f**cking digital stuff.
To make it clear: Contax or Contax G1 and G2 or Zeiss Ikons are film cameras, which most of the digital superguys never had in their hands.
Also nonsense. I have been shooting with a Contax since I was 14 years old. I have a large collection of Zeiss lenses. In a recent thread I just posted several portraits of an artist I know shot with a Sonnar lens, FILM, and a Contax IIA.
What I said, and what sitemistic said, is that we enjoy using all forms of photo-imaging technology. Nobody is trying to force YOU to abandon film.
It's not an "one or the other" ultimatum. I like making PICTURES. I like to use whatever technology gives me the means to that end.
I don't have to "chase" technology. We live in a consumer society. You can happily play with all you want when the "latest and greatest" is discarded by the nuts who ARE CRAZILY COMPELLED to spend like crazy to keep on the leading edge.
Use the right tool for the job. Have fun and use what you like. Your posts are hostile, cursing and angry. Clearly, there are other issues at work other than the "film vs digital" debate.
.
Last edited:
Solinar
Analog Preferred
varjag said:
And then again, some die-hard defenders of film shoot a mix of digital and film.
Horses for courses - Keep the ISO within reason, print within the boundaries of an A4 print or smaller
and a 8 to 10 MP DSLR gets the job done for my color shots.
The digital downsides are a more complex user interface, concerns about dust and then - "the original topic of this thread" -
which is the desire to upgrade your DSLR body every three years.
Finally, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, when you can enjoy both.
I too have witnessed more than one person who had the "I will never shoot with film again." epiphany.
V
varjag
Guest
Andrew, I guess the conclusion to that is to never say never
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Rather than worrying about what your 30 year old camera is worth, you better start worrying about what your 30 year old DOLLAR is worth, which pretty soon will be nothing.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
It refers to a feeling that is not always possible to explain, and is generated in the viewer, a feeling that can be influenced greatly by how the smallest details on an image look. These are mostly related to the semi-random imperfections of an image made on film - from small dust and scratches to the grain structure itself and the light reflecting properties of a baryte print, in the end result. I do understand if you cannot see and do not care about such differences - your way of expressing your oppinion indicates that very well.
This is a common sentiment expressed by religious fanatics. They are privy to some enormously important reality which cannot be experienced by the lesser human beings who are obviously not as sensitive or enlightened as they are.
It seems you have misread everything I posted.
alternatve
Well-known
Back to topic guys.
I use both digital and film, and cannot deny that both has it's advantages. I would much rather use my old minolta autocord to take buildings with it's lovely 6x6 format and borrow my friend's DSLR to shoot sports. Granted, it's possible with a TLR too, with prefocusing and what not, but it is easier with a DSLR and the wonders of AF. I would want to continue to chase technology, so that better scanners can be made to scan in my precious negatives and better types of film are made. Anything that tries to stand still will be overtaken and disappear into history. Same here with film. Long live progress!
Samuel
I use both digital and film, and cannot deny that both has it's advantages. I would much rather use my old minolta autocord to take buildings with it's lovely 6x6 format and borrow my friend's DSLR to shoot sports. Granted, it's possible with a TLR too, with prefocusing and what not, but it is easier with a DSLR and the wonders of AF. I would want to continue to chase technology, so that better scanners can be made to scan in my precious negatives and better types of film are made. Anything that tries to stand still will be overtaken and disappear into history. Same here with film. Long live progress!
Samuel
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
M. Valdemar said:
Moderators?
M. Valdemar
Well-known
If you don't know the difference, I can't help. Fact is that film consists of a chaotic structure of the grains or color, whereas digital is a mathematical defined pattern of squares. If you don't know the difference between a chaotic and an even pattern, do some research. There should be something on the net - I don't have the time to explain the differences here.
The scanner picks up just this chaotic structure of film and doesn't divide the images into equal squares. Maybe you might contatc Nikon, Imacon or Heidelberg for more details on how a scanner works.
Or even better: since you don't know the difference just keep going, might make your life a lot easier.
The difference between you and me is that you talk about something you don't know, whereas I know a lot about both technologies. This is the reason why I still use film to capture images.
This is basically the "CD vs Vinyl" controversy, which has been raging since 1983.
There are quite a number of people who would offer counter-arguments that what you are saying is nonsense.
Again, quantifying these arguments with blind tests usually ends all the pontificating.
What sort of pattern does your optic nerve pick up? You neural interface?
The scanner picks up just this chaotic structure of film and doesn't divide the images into equal squares. Maybe you might contatc Nikon, Imacon or Heidelberg for more details on how a scanner works.
Or even better: since you don't know the difference just keep going, might make your life a lot easier.
The difference between you and me is that you talk about something you don't know, whereas I know a lot about both technologies. This is the reason why I still use film to capture images.
This is basically the "CD vs Vinyl" controversy, which has been raging since 1983.
There are quite a number of people who would offer counter-arguments that what you are saying is nonsense.
Again, quantifying these arguments with blind tests usually ends all the pontificating.
What sort of pattern does your optic nerve pick up? You neural interface?
pvdhaar
Peter
Yeah, it really went downhill when someone started that buggy wheels and diatribe thing..sitemistic said:Yah know, maybe the moderator should just delete this thread. It is getting personal and mean.
kevin m
Veteran
Excuse me, but I have to go flip the LP I'm listening to. Damned Rega doesn't do anything for you!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
sitemistic said:Yah know, maybe the moderator should just delete this thread. It is getting personal and mean.
I wanted to write "why don't you **** off", first. But i couldn't so i just wrote "get lost" instead.
Yes, it's getting personal and stupid.
Yeah valdemar, probably i'm a religious fanatic. Maybe even a terrorist. WHo knows. Very logical road you are following.
EditL you are not a lesser human being, i didn't say that.
You are just ingorant and arrogant.
"Just".
Last edited:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
Well, TD feels triumphant because I didn't look at his ID and realize that he pays Homage to Catalonia.
And I guess you're right. I'm probably "ingorant".
And I guess you're right. I'm probably "ingorant".
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I'm curious does anyone even remember what JimDE even posted? Or is this thread now totally OT.
This thread's combatants remind me of people who have been fighting so long they don't even remember why they are fighting any longer, they're just angry with the other guy ....
This thread's combatants remind me of people who have been fighting so long they don't even remember why they are fighting any longer, they're just angry with the other guy ....
Prosaic
Well-known
JimDE said:
Yes, right here.