These times

R

Rich Silfver

Guest
Seems like every time I go to the old photo pro shop there are more and more ads on the wall from people selling off their film equipment. I kniow things are changing..and I know the 'old days' are never coming back. Inevitable but still sad.
 
Film users are becoming a rare breed but RF users are a dying breed. :(
 
Peter, there must be enough of us around for CV and Leica to still keep making RF cams.

I pop in once in awhile to the www.dpreview.com site -- mainly for product news and the good reviews there. The forums drive me nuts. If you mention film there, you'll be attacked by the zealots of digital who tell you not that film is dying, but that film died some time ago.

I've nothing against digital (I love using my DSLR for nature and macro work), but there are many things film is better for. And film cams are far more comforting than digital cams. I keep coming back to my roots -- simple, mechanical cams that are fast, reliable and lovely to use. They have character.

I do wonder if there will be a film renaissance in the future ... If so, hang on to your RF collection. It may fund your retirement ;)

Gene
 
Gene ... I also pop onto dpreview on occasion, and the frenzy and lather that people work themselves into is truly amazing ... and sad. Me, I sold my D100, picked up a used F5 and am once again a 100% film user. The Contax G2 or M6 are with me everywhere, even at work.
 
I have had unkind words and comments when I joined local photography club group shoots! Most of the boys are using digital cameras here in Singapore and my R2 gets people's eyes rolling whenever I take it out of the camera bag! Maybe they would not do it if I am using a Leica MP? ;)
 
The over excitement, foaming at the mouth and rabid faith on the medium sound to me like over compensation. These folks are actually terribly insecure about their work and what they do, and by convincing themselves they're riding the top of the waves they are simply trying to drown their anxiety.

Professionals don't do these things. That impatience and ferocity are the sign of the new convert.

However, I wonder if, as Peter says, their attitude would change if you mentioned a Leica...

Funny... a while ago, Popular Photography published an interesting editorial about digital. No, it wasn't a bashing, but a simple truth: the proliferation of systems and software will soon render the formats and media obsolete. It's paradoxical but progress tends to feed on itself, and, just like it happened with computers, the files readable today will be unreadable tomorrow... and the best way to preserve your memories and snapshots will be by simply printing them.

Now, let's see what a digishooter can do with a 256MB card full of shots, a home-office printer and a stack of paper. Can someone "empty-out" the card and print all the photos with the same quality and resolution film prints come from the lab?

Not to run down digital; I realize it's a blessing for those who work against time, like journalists and scientists, but to pretend one system to be ineluctably better than another just because it's newer strikes me as sophomoric, sycophantic and dumb.

But heck... I'm preaching to the choir here! :)

Only one favor: let's not say we're a dying breed, and neither say that is film dying. Let's remember that film will, from now on, distinguish the artisans (or artists) from the mere practitioner, the same way a fountain pen signals a writer from a pencil pusher.

BTW, who is into fountain pens here? ;)
 
Last edited:
I saved all my photos in .jpg I do hope future computers could read them. :) By the way, I do use fountain pens when I am not in the wards.
 
fountain pens? sigh

yes, from time to time reloading is a little like reloading a Leica IIIf

people used to admire the ink on my paws
 
I use a camera obscura and use charcoal to trace the projected pictures on papyrus sheets which I make by pounding river reeds with a wooden club. No batteries and no noxious darkroom fumes!
 
SolaresLarrave said:
Now, let's see what a digishooter can do with a 256MB card full of shots, a home-office printer and a stack of paper. Can someone "empty-out" the card and print all the photos with the same quality and resolution film prints come from the lab?

Only one favor: let's not say we're a dying breed, and neither say that is film dying. Let's remember that film will, from now on, distinguish the artisans (or artists) from the mere practitioner, the same way a fountain pen signals a writer from a pencil pusher.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Hi everyone,

As a purely digital shooter (with a serious rangefinder fetish though), I think you would be surprised by the answer to the first question. Home printer technology is getting to the point where good photo printers do manage to meet and exceed the quality of lab prints in many cases.

With regard to the second point, the only factor that distinguishes the artisan from the practioner is the quality of the photographs; the medium is totally irrelevant. I find the rabid, techno-elitist denigration of film as offensive as the artistic, techno-phobic denigration of digital. Despite having never handled a film camera in my entire life, I often find myself defending film on its technical merits to digital lynch mobs. As supposed technologists, some people have such problems grasping the fact that from a dynamic range perspective, B&W film is significantly superior to any digital camera currently existence!

Having said that, I would have no technical reason to consider film if someone ever released a digital rangefinder with no crop factor and a dynamic range greater than that of B&W film (and that day will arrive).

best regards,
Hin

PS. Regarding file formats; the TIFF and JPG formats, which are the most commonplace, have been standardised for more than 10 years. The key is the adoption of a format that has been standarised by a body such as ANSI. As long as this is the case, enterprising programmers will always find a way to convert images (as a programmer myself, it's easier than you think).

The danger is with vendor-specific RAW files, which is definitely a significant concern.
 
Richard,

Speaking of film vs. digital, I took BART over to Walnut Creek today to visit my sister and brother-in-law. I had my first roll of film in my new Bessa R2. Before I could show it to him, he was showing me his new Sony DSC-F828 with a Carl Zeiss lens. Part of the reason he chose this digital was that Sony partnered with a quality lensmaker. It's an impressive camera with a manual zoom and an electronic viewfinder. I enjoyed handling it and taking a couple of shots. Then I pulled out my R2 and he was very appreciative of it. Actually I think he took a walk down memory lane. He brought out his early manual Nikon and a very nice Mamiya SLR. He told me how he learned the Zone System and used it with a 4x5 view camera when he was younger, and how digital photos cannot match the reproduction of black tones that is possible with silver-based prints. He said he pictures himself using an 8x10 view camera when he's retired. I don't know that anyone develops the same relationship with the digital process. It was an interesting visit, comparing the two ends of the photographic spectrum...
 
"The medium is totally irrelevant."

This is wrong. The medium IS relevant. I choose film based on what I'm planning to shoot. I choose a certian b/w film to achieve a certain look.

This cannot be reproduced faithfully on a computer.

The medium is part of the process.
 
Hi and welcome to the forum. Some comments on what you wrote below;

hinius said:

With regard to the second point, the only factor that distinguishes the artisan from the practioner is the quality of the photographs; the medium is totally irrelevant.

With all due respect - I completely disagree.
I consider the pens and brushes - or in our case the cameras - to be an integral part of the artistic expression. I use a non-metered Hasselblad simply because I like the way it feels and I like how it forces me to slow down and work in a more contemplative mood. I would not be able to work in the same way with my digital camera - yes I have one - as I simply don't like the feel and technical aspects of it. I work with computers and numbers five days a week. When I want to express my creative side I want to get away from LCD displays, plastic buttons - even batteries. Honestly if there were NO film and I was forced to use a digital camera I would be drawing the images. To say that the medium is totally irrelevant is to me 'totally absurd'.
There are also other 'dimension' to me enjoying film-based cameras;
- as mentioned I like not having to rely upon batteries,
- when using a classic camera such as my Leica M3 I like holding and using something that is 40 years old and that could easily live for another 40...and doesn't need any firmware updates...


hinius said:

I find the rabid, techno-elitist denigration of film as offensive as the artistic, techno-phobic denigration of digital.

Here I completely agree with you. 'Each for his own' and noone to tell anyone else what is right for them (including if they feel that the 'medium IS releant or not..') ;)

hinius said:

PS. Regarding file formats; the TIFF and JPG formats, which are the most commonplace, have been standardised for more than 10 years. The key is the adoption of a format that has been standarised by a body such as ANSI. As long as this is the case, enterprising programmers will always find a way to convert images (as a programmer myself, it's easier than you think).

The danger is with vendor-specific RAW files, which is definitely a significant concern.
Click to expand...

Another 'danger' here would be the use of JPG that is not a a lossless file format. Some files referred to as lossless JPEGs are really non-JPEG compressed files in a JFIF wrapper. There is a specification for lossless JPEG (JPEG-LS) but it has not been finalized. Hence I would recommend TIFF, RAW or GIF.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fraley, welcome to the site - and good to see another Californian here :)
 
Hi, Hinius!

Welcome to the forum!

Let me explain myself about one of the points I wanted to make in my rant: it's regarding the relevance of the medium...

In that one, I'm with Richard. The medium is relevant as the results. And a typical detail is its fragility. Film is a one shot deal: you get it right or wrong (most of the times, exposures are fine), but there's no chance to check immediately and redo. That apparently annoying detail forces you to think twice before shooting.

Now, I'm not against digital, and when I said that film would turn film users into artisans I referred to the care you must put in the exposure, due to the ethereal quality of the image and its meeting with the film emulsion. In other words, as Richard said above, the metering (whether in spots or not), the control you have over the exposure, and the fact that it's you who is deciding what to expose and what for to expose, and not a matrix meter.

Must admit, though, nothing would make a Leica even more perfect than a matrix meter! :)

In any case, as Richard said, owning a digital camera has become the sign of the times. But film isn't dead, as neither are fountain pens, orchestras, movies and telephones.

Again, welcome to the forum!! ;)
 
Rich Silfver said:
With all due respect - I completely disagree.
I consider the pens and brushes - or in our case the cameras - to be an integral part of the artistic expression.
Click to expand...

Hi Rich,

I completely agree with your point of view; an artist should use whatever tools he/she feels most comfortable with in order to best express themselves.

However (and I should have clarified this), I was actually examining the statement from the perspective of the third-party viewer. When I examine a photograph, I find the medium irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they were shot with a Leica M3, a Lomo LCA, a pinhole paint-can camera or a Canon 1DS, it's still going to fall into my broadly-defined and Hin-specific categorisation of "boring" or "not boring".

Perhaps I was being slightly over-sensitive to the term 'practitioner', but I would prefer to have my photographs stand on their own merits, regardless of whatever means I used to capture them.


best regards,
Hin
 
Some great shots there Hin - and welcome to the forum. We'll convert you to a RF user one of these days but until then your views will be greatly appreciated on discussion topics here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom