Will we all go digital?

raid said:
Chris:

I have rediscovered how wonderful Pentax lenses can be, and I bought a few lenses recently. Now, I have SMC lenses covering 17mm/28mm/35mm/50mm (including a macro lens)/85mm/135mm. The 85mm lens is awesome for portraits. I use it on a Canon T90 via an adapter.

Raid
Click to expand...


Wonderful! Have you used them on a digital body at all? I'm interested in your opinion on how the digital capture effects the lens character.
 
sometimes i dont know why we discusss film vs digital etc... if the image is amazing all that is secondary...... in my humble opinion
so ignore whats in your hand to an extent look at whats in front of the lens
 
I think the real question is not if we all go digital or when.
The real question is: can we afford staying out of digital? In few years having a film developed or buying a roll would not be as cheap as is today. I think it will be allot expensive. Ok, those of you that have a darkroom may think different.
But when i stated that +90% of our fotos will be digital i was thinking on the costs of shooting film, not because quality or something else....
 
Here's an article titled, "First Digital Camera That's Better Than Film"
http://www.zonezero.com/magazine/articles/popularp/index.html


"According to tests done by Popular Photography, Canon's new 16.7 megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark II took better pictures than a regular SLR camera (Canon's EOS 3) shooting high-quality ISO 100 film.

This is where I laugh in the face of the digiphiles. No $275 digital point-n-shoot touches a regular 35mm film camera, like my 30 year old $40 Yashica GSN or 30 year old $90 Konica Auto S3, or my $15 1990 Cosina/Vivitar 3000s . According to these tests, to match or "beat" a 35mm film camera - with resolution as the only measure, ( this article brags "Yeah, digital finally beats film". This is a laughably "pro digital" article) I need to spring for a $6500 camera.

Wow, what a bargain (rolls eyes). So to "beat" my 17 year old, $100 new, K-mart special, Cosina-made Vivitar (which looks and works as new by the way), I need to spring for a $6500 DSLR.

Except in this pro digital article, it kinda doesn't. The article rationalizes:

The Gold 100 film captured 3,000 lines in all directions when shot using the test lab's daylight-balanced HMI lights.

• Using daylight-balanced Elinchrom 1200S flash units, film delivered 2,700 lines in all directions.

• These results compared to 2,400 lines captured by the older ISO 100 film and to the EOS 1Ds Mark II's 2760 Vertical x 2810 Horizontal x 2220 Diagonal lines.

So, while ISO 100 color negative film may capture slightly more detail than the 1Ds Mark II under ideal lighting conditions, with a great lens, and on a supersteady tripod, for its better color and lower noise, the "Color Image Quality" award goes to Canon's digital SLR, hands down
--------------

Huh??????????????????????????

Even if I spend $6500 on a DSLR, film is still capable of higher resolution. That is, 35mm film is capable of 3000 lines of resolution, and digital simply can't capture this kind of resolution - no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT! And the biased authors trot out the laughable "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but there's no grain in the digital image, s-s-s-s-s-s-so it's better, see? Nyah, nyah..."

This article is pretty funny in how it rationalizes its test results in favor of digital. Okay pal, you "win". Your $6500 camera beats my 40 year old $50 fixed lens rangefinder. Yeah, the differential in cost between the two will be made up in "film and film processing costs" in the "long term" (rolls eyes...)

You keep tellin' yourself that, Sport, to rationalize the ($6500) in your bank account. I'll buy my next 35mm camera with change found underneath the sofa pads. Oh - and lets not even get in to medium format.
 
Last edited:
If you put a similar lens on the 1Dmk2, sure, it might be comparable to your point and shoots with the negatives scanned on an Imacon that costs 3 times as much as the Canon... If either lens edges the other out, that will make more difference in enlargement ability at that point.

But to make a fair comparison of resolution possibility, you have to use the same lenses... in which case, you could just take a manual focus Contax body and a 21mm 2.8 distagon or 85mm 1.4 anniversary edition and compare it to the digital with the same lens on an adapter.

Or a $50 Canon Rebel K2 that can mount all the same EOS lenses as the 1Ds2.

I'm looking forward to the point where sensors are mature enough that we can have the same sensor in a pocket sized compact and an all-out pro SLR, with most of the extra cost going toward the body, like what's available in film cameras. Sigma has the right idea with their DP1 and SD14, but the sensor isn't quite there...
 
Edward Felcher said:
Yes, maybe for you.

But for me, for your children, and to 90% of the people on earth now, using a computer and a digital camera is as easy as breathing.

If you enjoy the craft of film, then shoot it. Lots of people like reviving old processes, like salt prints. I recently went to an exhibit of modern "old prints". It was superb.

But don't poo-poo the new because of your preferences or inability to mutate/evolve/roll with the times.
Click to expand...
I work in Africa.
I just came back from Gabon. People don't even have computers or digital cameras there. SO I think your 90 percent should be diminished to about 45%.
Ethnocentricity is a bad habit.
 
Last edited:
Toyota , interesting comments. I think most of the world doesn't know that it's possible to produce a quality print in a large format over 20". Yesterday I went to a pro-studio that specialized in event photography to pick up some film from them at 50 cents a roll, which they were clearing out. They have moved entirely to digital photos.

The wedding pictures in their gallery were inkjet prints of approximately 30" x 22" on watercolour paper. They looked like images done by Georges Seurat....

I asked the photographer how these new style (read B&W) prints were being accepted in the market. Their answer was people loved it. When I asked if they had negative feedback on the pixelation in the images I was told people didn't seem to care or notice.

What I guess I'm getting at is people aren't getting a choice. There are few MF film users left. They've all gone digital, so the consumer doesn't even see a film based image with it's superior defiinition for large prints.

It's tough to argue when people don't know or understand the possibilities.
BTW I bought all of their film... ;- )
 
So should I give up rangefinders and go medium or large format with studio lighting?
 
ChrisN said:
Wonderful! Have you used them on a digital body at all? I'm interested in your opinion on how the digital capture effects the lens character.
Click to expand...


Hi Chris: I do not own any digital camera ... yet. I will most likely get such a camera when film based photography will be a pain in the butt due to shortages in inexpensive film and film developing. I am not looking forward to those times, but I am being realistic.

I am sure that the digital camera's sensor is the most important when it comes to capturing on a chip what a lens captures on film.

Cheers,

Raid
 
Chris101 said:
I went digital 8 years ago. Didn't touch film for a very long time. Now I've gone back to film. Although I still have and use digital cameras, I shoot with them rarely. I don't find the look nor the process of digital imaging to be any where near as pleasing as film photography.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I have a couple of digital cameras but I find myself using film more and more, largely because I get more creative satisfaction from the whole process.

I would also add that my 'hit-rate' for good photographs tends to be a bit better with my old film cameras than it is with digital largely, I suspect, because with manual focus, manual exposure and fixed focal length, one has to give more thought to the whole process, rather than simply rattling off hundreds of frames in the hope that some will be good.

Having said that, digital imaging has been great for photography as whole. As I mentioned, I greatly enjoy the whole process of creating a 'just so' print from a negative, including all the dodging, burning, toning etc etc, that it might entail, but it's fantastic to be able to then scan it and reproduce it digitally as required!
 
Chuchuko said:
I work in Africa.
I just came back from Gabon. People don't even have computers or digital cameras there. SO I think your 90 percent should be diminished to about 45%.
Ethnocentricity is a bad habit.
Click to expand...

45% of the world's population? in Africa? Highly doubt it..
 
ywenz

China more likely, but not many people have mobiles, digcams etc. the only thing we have been good at is killing our nearest cousins, bombo chimps may be the latest to go, and trying to stop the gulf stream. Your butt will freeze if we stop the gulf

Noel
 
As i can see, your income comes from fotography, or at least part of it.
Thats of them you use the best you can find. Use the best labs, pay a premium for a good result, since, your customer will pay it.
Now, think about the average family. They go on vacation. They can either:

- Shoot 3/4/etc rolls of film; that in street prices in Lisbon would be €3/roll. Then they go to fnac or other lab to develop. That would be €16/roll (develop, print and cd). Each addicional copy goes €0.45, and you have to pay €1 for maipulation.

-Allready have, or buy a digicam. Shoot thousands fotos. then in the end print the ones they want: €0.15/each (optional €1 for manipulation, depending where you go).

You can argue that the results in digital would not be the same (worst), that every 2 years they must buy another digicam, etc. BUT for the avarege family, "consumer" foto user, the analog just dont make sense anymore. The average "consumer" user dont even know what slide film is anyway. They dont go to foto shops, they buy the rolls in supermarket or "fnac" (the savvy ones). They dont buy high quality film, they buy cheap ASA X film. They will never notice the "high" quality of analog VS. digital.
So they will change to digital as soon as they can. And they will buy compact super-zoom cameras. Like a friend of mine that bough something like 24-400??? and called me saying that it is wondefull and takes fantastic pictures....

So in a few years, only "pro" can pay the premium of good analog work. I know that i will not afford the premium. Right now i find difficult to pay +25€ for a good E-6 job, so i use slide now and then only....










toyotadesigner said:
No, wrong, because there are still billions of analog cameras in the world. All you see are sales charts of current cameras, but never a comparison or statistics chart of total existing analog cameras vs. digital cameras (here I mean SLR, RF MF or LF). Besides this the digital stuff is getting more expensive every year as well.

Last year Fuji invested some 100 million Euros (~ 130 million US$) into a new R&D facility in Japan, 30 million Euros (~ 40 million US$) into new film development. If they wouldn't have seen a future in film, they would have spent the investment for some nice business trips.

Hollywood, Bollywood shoot film. Surveillance cameras still use film. Archiving is done with film. Astrophotography is done with film (because sensors heat up too much at exposure times of 30 and more minutes, delivering nothing else but noise). China features the largest manufacturer of b&w film (Lucky, based on licenses from Kodak).

A 50 year old camera (as a matter of fact any analog camera) could be upgraded with new film emulsions, while digital is glued to the body/sensor (the capturing medium). Dead end road - no way out of that Tupper Box with a sensor.

Talking about costs: If I buy a new Rollei 6x6 or Nikon F6 it will serve me for some 20 to 50 years. Plus a scanner with software to convert the image to digital. It will run for many years to come. BTW, an Imacon sells for some US$ 10 K now. :D

On the other hand digital. The US$ 6.500 for tiny fly **** size prints (if you 'upsample' the images they turn blurry). Almost worthless after two years. A computer which must be substituted by a faster, bigger, better model every two years. Expensive software you have to upgrade every year. RAW converter 'development' software you need to get the best out of the crippled device with an annual upgrade as well. An operator to run the applications. A lot of time to tweak the pixels until they 'fit'.

We've done the calculations, compared each process in the chain. It turned out that photographs made with film cost us a fraction of the digital process.

Sure, we are not 'firing' 1.000 images at a three hour wedding or on an event assignment. But that's not necessary (read more here: http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Jun07/showpage.taf?page=48 )

I'm living in a country where film is expensive, so I'm ordering large quantities from a supplier 2.000 km away. The E-6 lab here charges almost 4 times as much as in other countries, but what the heck, the result is worth every single cent. I'm happy to support that lab, because without it we would have to mail the rolls to a remote lab which would be even more expensive. In addition I like to have other professionals at my side to work with, so it wouldn't make sense to establish our own lab just to save 10 cents per roll.

There is more in photography than price and 'instant' gratification (meaning instant review on a monitor or computer). And let's face it: if you just want to show off you prints to the world via the Internet, a 1 MP digital camera is more than sufficient. But if you talk about prints and large formats you just can't use the electronic toys.
Click to expand...
 
To answer the question that was posed at the start of this thread: the total absence and/or unaffordable prices of film will make me give up using films.

Now for some personal opinions. The debate between digital vs analog being the `better' photographic medium has been beaten to death already, perhaps both in different forums and in our minds. We are living at a time when news from one point on the earth reaches another diametrically opposite to it within minutes if not less; there is a distinct advantage of digital which by design facilitates this aspect. I would certainly not prefer a very artistic b&w capture of a spectacular goal made by some famous footballer in a critical World Cup football match if the accompanying report comes several hours or days late! I would want it to flash on my computer screen within minutes, because I'ld be following the match commentary minute by minute. Indirectly therefore, my own and surely many others' preferences are encouraging the use of digital cameras + wireless transmitters on the field. Of course I'ld be very happy to see a beautiful b&w picture of the goal in the newspaper the following day, may even cut out and preserve it for posterity, but my preferences have already affected the world by then. In part the same is true about journalism, about fashion photography, etc.

One has to remember that digital is a comparatively recent player in the game, and it is rapidly evolving. Given this, it makes sense to try to shape its evolution with constructive, and as much objective as possible, criticism, all the time keeping in mind that our preferences expressed now will shape the future. There is of course a huge consumer market for digital, and that will influence if not dominate the preferences of the companies, but I am sure there will always be people who will not be satisfied with any less than the best. And the learning curve will always point upwards, precisely because photographic medium has a no less than illustrious and rich history, and the engineers responsible for the design of the digital media will have to keep that at the forefront right at the design stage... if we as consumers do not fail to send the proper signals. The direction that digital, or for that matter any photographic medium, takes is partly our own responsibility, let's not forget that.
 
ywenz said:
45% of the world's population? in Africa? Highly doubt it..
Click to expand...
China would make 22% of the world's population pretty soon, no way for us to compete with Asia at least(considering that India has the second largest population) :D
Seriously we are about 10% of the world's population but growing faster than any other.

Film will never die, no one who has tried film photgraphy even if it was someone like me, would ever consider the digital camera as a better option, it's only a good alternative that suits today tech and the world's clock speed...
 
There are a hundred plus posts here so maybe someone has said this: dynamic range. Until they solve that problem, the serious people won't be using digital. Just try to do a B&W landscape with 7 or 8 stops digitally and see what you get. I know they have HDR software I've tried them and they look worse than just a straight conversion.
 
Although I shoot both film and digital, when I shoot for myself it is always film. I am coming to see that it may no longer be the film world that is threatened with extinction by the digital monster, but that the monster is going to consume itself. And I won't shed a tear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom