sojournerphoto
Veteran
Exactly. I want to just use a digital camera, but for emotional reasons I'm more engaged with film. So I continue to use both.
"Why don’t you just go digital?"
- Thread starter BobYIL
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 6K
Exactly. I want to just use a digital camera, but for emotional reasons I'm more engaged with film. So I continue to use both.
jsrockit
Moderator
I better return to film so I can be guaranteed great results! 😀 In all fairness, it IS a great time to be a film photographer as long as you buy outside of the desirable cameras and work in a wet darkroom (or have a good scanning workflow). That said, there are plenty of cheap digital cameras on the market these days that can do the job too.
brbo
Well-known
I'm not offended. I'm not even from US.
I thought that your point was that film is better than memory cards because it's immune to any postal/airport scanner treatment.
So, maybe shipping memory cards is not a great idea (if you package is unfortunate enough to get the generous radiation treatment from a USPS which may result in data corruption) but I still don't understand how shipping a film is better when, according to Fuji, same treatment will destroy images on film?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
When I was walking around Fallujah in 2004, I hated the fact that I had a giant Nikon DSLR + zoom with me that I had to use for work. It drew too much attention to me from friendly forces as well as from hostiles. I was a big slow target but I had to do my job with the gear they gave me. I also happened to have 2 Leica M bodies with me but they were small enough as to not be noticed by me (weight and storage) and they looked like not-so-serious point & shoots. If you were a local in a country such as Iraq back then, the prevailing thought was that a US military member carrying the giant black camera was taking your photo for cataloging and possible future prosecution. The Leica was a friendlier camera in the eyes of locals.
My experience, your mileage may vary.
As for the "why not just go digital" question, I often ask myself why I don't just go 100% film. It's back and forth, every few months.
Phil Forrest
literiter
Well-known
Sean Bonner wrote:
"I’m also not made of cash, so if something maintains it’s value is a very important thing for me to consider. Digital cameras do not hold their value, in fact they depreciate worse than cars. All digital technology is like that, because things keep progressing. Somethings are necessary, like computers – and you know going into it that your purchase today is going to be worthless a few years from now. Cameras are optional, and if I have the choice of spending money on something that will be obsolete technology-wise and worthless cash-wise in a few years, or something that, baring misuse on my end, be just as functional and worth just as much as today as it will be in 5, 10, 25 years – well, that’s an easy choice."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is pretty much where I stand.
If I were a photographer earning a living I'd be all digital, but I'm not a professional.
"I’m also not made of cash, so if something maintains it’s value is a very important thing for me to consider. Digital cameras do not hold their value, in fact they depreciate worse than cars. All digital technology is like that, because things keep progressing. Somethings are necessary, like computers – and you know going into it that your purchase today is going to be worthless a few years from now. Cameras are optional, and if I have the choice of spending money on something that will be obsolete technology-wise and worthless cash-wise in a few years, or something that, baring misuse on my end, be just as functional and worth just as much as today as it will be in 5, 10, 25 years – well, that’s an easy choice."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is pretty much where I stand.
If I were a photographer earning a living I'd be all digital, but I'm not a professional.
loquax ludens
Well-known
It is highly doubtful that your sources, incluiding Fuji, are correct about the danger of shipping film via the USPS. Exposed film is routinely shipped via USPS for mail-order processing all over the US. Most merchants that ship film use UPS or FedEx, but I have bought plenty of film on ebay that was shipped via USPS Priority Mail, and I've never had a problem with any of it being damaged "as if it were exposed to sunlight."
redisburning
Well-known
I don't understand the need to justify film use.
why can't it be simple? for me, when I look at the vast majority of digital photographs, I think they look awful. that is to say, if I see a great digital photograph it is a great photograph in spite of the fact that it's digital.
much like when people take good pictures with plastic cameras.
it's possible.
but I don't care to try. I struggle enough with good cameras.
why can't it be simple? for me, when I look at the vast majority of digital photographs, I think they look awful. that is to say, if I see a great digital photograph it is a great photograph in spite of the fact that it's digital.
much like when people take good pictures with plastic cameras.
it's possible.
but I don't care to try. I struggle enough with good cameras.
jsrockit
Moderator
A lot of assumptions here I would say... I'd like to get a ride in his time machine.
brbo
Well-known
Obviously, USPS isn't beaming every package, if any now. If I understand correctly, this was to prevent anthrax reaching high US officials or other prominent targets. This doesn't mean that data on memory cards (which is far less affected (if at all) by x-rays than film) is any less safe in the postal system than film as PKR is suggesting. All IMHO, of course.
Number of devices that have some sort of digital storage with pre-installed software that goes through numerous postal services is so high that this phenomena would be common problem/knowledge. Yet in reality...
loquax ludens
Well-known
Or maybe they are beaming none, since I've never heard of film being damaged by USPS radiation scans in shipping. I would say "presumably" or "apparently" rather than "obviously".
I don't have a stance on memory cards. I would think they'd fare better than film when subjected to radiation. If film were damaged by USPS radiation, that would also be common knowledge, yet it isn't.
I don't have a stance on memory cards. I would think they'd fare better than film when subjected to radiation. If film were damaged by USPS radiation, that would also be common knowledge, yet it isn't.
Sparrow
Veteran
... not on the interweb I fear, radiation is much more powerful on the interweb
Aristophanes
Well-known
Given the worsening economics of film consumption, justification is absolutely necessary or manufacturing will end, just like the mass manufacture of film cameras has ended.
brbo
Well-known
Of course!
But x-raying (which is done regularly) causing film fogging IS a common knowledge. And I provided at least two sources saying x-raying memory cards having no effect on data.
And I apologize for obviously 🙂D) wrong usage of "if any" instead of "none" and "obviously" vs. "apparently". Not a native speaker, I don't have a better excuse...
On topic, I shoot mostly film and I can come up with just as lousy pictures as with digital. Even more as I can screw it up in developing or scanning. Or inverting the negative. Some screw up are even irreversible with film. I just shoot film because I like it. I like that they come in different flavours, it's like every roll of film comes with it's own "jpg engine" and I don't have to buy a new camera to try it out. I even enjoy developing and scanning that comes with film, it a hobby within a hobby.
But I've seen many many digital shots that I really liked...
loquax ludens
Well-known
I'm adept at screwing up images, be they film-based or digital. I do prefer the film work flow though, as there are so many more interesting ways to screw up the image. 😱
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Is it? Except for checked-in baggage scanners, x-ray damage to film in recent years seems to be quite a mythical beast - the anecdotal evidence presented in threads here on the forum boiled down to urban legend class stuff, and the few first hand experiences dated back several decades.
brbo
Well-known
Statement issued less than a few decades ago (2007):
Film
More care is needed for cameras with film, by comparison, as the X-ray scanners for both checked and carry-on luggage can fog both developed and undeveloped film. ITIP has found that the X-ray scanners used for screening carry-on bags will damage high-speed film (greater than ISO 800). For lower-speed film, problems appear to be cumulative: the majority of damage has been reported on film undergoing more than five passes through X-ray machines.
Accordingly, I3A advises travelers to request hand inspection of their high-speed (greater than ISO 800) film products, which is explicitly permitted by law. Hand inspection of lower-speed film is recommended only when the film has already been subjected to five trips through X-ray scanners. Additionally, black-and-white film and motion picture film, of any speed, are vulnerable to damage even on their very first scans, so travelers with these items should always ask for hand inspection.
Note that the screening machines used to screen checked baggage and some cargo will damage all film, regardless of speed or type. Therefore, I3A and the TSA both advise travelers to carry their film with them and never to put it in checked bags.
(source)
And yes, I know they like to err on the safe side, but still... It would seem that film is not totally immune to security x-rays scanners (and memory cards pretty much are). And I really don't understand what's so "mythical" or "anecdotal" about the findings presented in the document I linked before? Any link to a document (on a similar level) saying the opposite would be very welcome in this debate, wouldn't you think?
Film
More care is needed for cameras with film, by comparison, as the X-ray scanners for both checked and carry-on luggage can fog both developed and undeveloped film. ITIP has found that the X-ray scanners used for screening carry-on bags will damage high-speed film (greater than ISO 800). For lower-speed film, problems appear to be cumulative: the majority of damage has been reported on film undergoing more than five passes through X-ray machines.
Accordingly, I3A advises travelers to request hand inspection of their high-speed (greater than ISO 800) film products, which is explicitly permitted by law. Hand inspection of lower-speed film is recommended only when the film has already been subjected to five trips through X-ray scanners. Additionally, black-and-white film and motion picture film, of any speed, are vulnerable to damage even on their very first scans, so travelers with these items should always ask for hand inspection.
Note that the screening machines used to screen checked baggage and some cargo will damage all film, regardless of speed or type. Therefore, I3A and the TSA both advise travelers to carry their film with them and never to put it in checked bags.
(source)
And yes, I know they like to err on the safe side, but still... It would seem that film is not totally immune to security x-rays scanners (and memory cards pretty much are). And I really don't understand what's so "mythical" or "anecdotal" about the findings presented in the document I linked before? Any link to a document (on a similar level) saying the opposite would be very welcome in this debate, wouldn't you think?
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
USPS does not X-ray packages.
Chris
USPS employee
Chris
USPS employee
Similar threads
- Article
