Would you give up film if?

An affordable full frame medium format sensor would be tempting, but I very much doubt I could give up 120 film.
 
Koni Kowa said:
The image is certainly not secondary for me, Keith. I like my tools but I would throw them all away for one good pic. But you're right about the forum : most of the threads are talking gear and only gear.
Click to expand...



I'm very glad you feel that way. :)

I rode motorcycles most of my life until a few years ago and learnt to enjoy riding a three hundred dollar CB 100 Honda as much as my Harley heritage Softail when I had one ... the important part to me was motorcycling ... not what type I was travelling on.

Dave's argument is hot air IMO! :D
 
I do photography for various archival purposes almost 100%. (Archival including family and friends, location and old buildings) And I want it preserved on film - not digitally. Therefore I use film cameras almost 100%.

Roll film may eventually disappear but not in my lifetime and I am 68. If that should occur I have several sheet film cameras and even three that can use glass plates (including my Rolleiflex.)
 
Last edited:
If a) the quality came close to that of film and b) there would be a possibility of long time data archival.
 
I wonder, why is this long time data archival such a problem? Do people think that TIFF/JPEG evaporate over time? :)
 
It's not just about pictures and gear. There is some philosophy here. Right now I have a 1947 IIIc in my pocket and when I use it I think about the Gentleman who owned it before me and what it has seen and done. I am reminded about the many generations who worked hard to allow me my brief walk on this earth and about the, hopefully, future generations to come. I hope someday one of my descendents will be carrying my M6 and pause to think of who owned it and what it has seen. Our film cameras connect us to so much heritage and digital cannot do that. Yet. Joe
 
Phantomas said:
I wonder, why is this long time data archival such a problem? Do people think that TIFF/JPEG evaporate over time? :)
Click to expand...

I think some people think that at some point computers will not be able to read JPEGs or TIFFs, as software will have moved on. Personally I think this is a bit of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) as if you got one of the first personal computers ever made, like an Apple II or BBC Micro, you could still read graphics files made on that easy enough. JPEG and TIFF are open specifications, they will be readable on computers so long as there are software developers able to interpret those files.

You could argue that the physical disks themselves won't be readable, but that is what open specifications like TCP/IP and HTTP are for. You backup your files to an internet service, and that will be available pretty much forever. If you're paranoid, backup to a couple of services like Google, Dropbox, Amazon S3, Rackspace etc.

I bang the film drum as much as the next man, but as a software developer, the long term archival argument does not hold water for me. A fire in my house would destroy all my negs, but my off site backups would be fine.
 
I shoot both and enjoy shooting both for different reasons. That being said I would never stop shooting film so long as it's either A) affordable or B) available.
 
thegman said:
I bang the film drum as much as the next man, but as a software developer, the long term archival argument does not hold water for me. A fire in my house would destroy all my negs, but my off site backups would be fine.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I meant ... the IT professionals have the time, knowledge and experience for proper data storage, the "normal" people will make a back-up once, forget about it and voila ...

I have tried to get acces to simple scientific raw data from the end of the 90s, storage media unreadable, backup units broken. Simple plots on paper where still available, though ...
 
maddoc said:
Exactly what I meant ... the IT professionals have the time, knowledge and experience for proper data storage, the "normal" people will make a back-up once, forget about it and voila ...

I have tried to get acces to simple scientific raw data from the end of the 90s, storage media unreadable, backup units broken. Simple plots on paper where still available, though ...
Click to expand...

You make a very fair point, but then, how many non-pro photographers take really good care of their negs?

Negs have the advantage of being real, physical and visible with zero technology, but digital files can be backed up 1000 times, backed up from a hotel room over wifi etc.

I shoot film 100% of the time (except for eBay shots etc), but I still feel digital is safer, as on holiday I could back up my SD card to my laptop and upload to my home server. With film I've got a bag of exposed rolls I hope I don't lose, and hope the lab does not mess up. It has not happened yet, but it still scares me.
 
Keith said:
I'm very glad you feel that way. :)

I rode motorcycles most of my life until a few years ago and learnt to enjoy riding a three hundred dollar CB 100 Honda as much as my Harley heritage Softail when I had one ... the important part to me was motorcycling ... not what type I was travelling on.

Dave's argument is hot air IMO! :D
Click to expand...


No..it was a metaphor. Substitute BMW which was a much better motorcycle than all the HD's I ever rode and the answer is still the same. ;) Or Honda, or Vespa, or anything else. If I had a choice to ride either this morning instead of our sedan, I would easily have picked one of those...not a car of any type.
 
Phantomas said:
I wonder, why is this long time data archival such a problem? Do people think that TIFF/JPEG evaporate over time? :)
Click to expand...

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. But based on the photographs which I have that are 50 to over 80 years old that I can at any time view I have made the decision to stick with film.
 
Keith said:
Yes teriffic argument and reflects perfectly what this forum is generally about ... gear!

The image itself being secondary. :)
Click to expand...

Ut oh... you just didn't did you... :D

I agree though. If I wasn't making photos, I wouldn't own any gear.
 
I'm not sure. I guess if there was a an affordable digital camera that combined with software gave you output that is almost indestinguishable from film, I might do it. But, as somebody said, it is the ride.
 
No way I see myself leaving the film behind. From my point of view, digital and film are at least as different as watching the movie 'Gone with the wind' versus reading the written work. Opinions may vary, but my first pick would be the book or the ebook :)
 
I have been tempted to give up film in all formats for the past two years. Here are the reasons:

1. If you shoot colour, film does get expensive. If I add up my lab fees for the last year and the cost of the film I've spent a not insignificant amount of money.

2. Scanning ain't fun. Period.

3. This is big one. BIG. And probably controversial. I recently came to three rather important conclusions based on my experience and a lot of looking at digital images:

A: On screen, other things being equal, I doubt that most people can identify whether an image is from a film or digital source with more than 50% accuracy.

B: If film retains superiority over digital, one must pass through many hurdles in order to reveal that superiority. Most of us do not have the resources to accomplish this.

C: If you work with a hybrid workflow, your analogue capture ultimately becomes a digital file and is manipulated as such. Ergo is it a film image anymore? I'm starting to think it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom