Good bye- too much OT and rants

With the tremendous amount of cross posting between rpe35 and rpd, it
seems the two groups are redundant. I shoot both digital and 35, so
have long subscribed to both. Now, rpd certainly has a high enough OT
content, but THIS group has gotten ridiculous lately. I guess I'll
desubscribe and just stick with rpd, and let you political and social
guys just carry on.

 

All you need do is use a newsreader that groups by thread, and then block
noisy threads.
Bing!

 

Well, one group seems to be becoming redundant, at least.

I've been noticing the reducing number of posts, particularly on-topic
posts, on this NG for sometime now. Methinks a considerable majority of
posters to this and the digital groups are embracing digital to the
exclusion of film, and only occasionally a film diehard will start a
reactionary post here. If this group was to eliminate all non-film
topics, it would be dead by now.

I'll be a bit sad to see it die, as this group was what got me into
photographic NG's, but since the acquisition of my 300D, a year or more
ago, I have not used the eos 10 film camera, and I guess my experience
is typical of erstwhile film shooters on this group. I removed the last
Fuji film from the eos 10 the other day, half used, junked it, and gave
the camera to my daughter, who is into slides and wanted a second body
for her system - another eos 10.

I still lurk and occasionally post here, mostly for old time's sake, but
for how much longer ...

Colin D.

 

Don't think so... <suppressing a grin>

Ken

(the "erstwhile film shooter" who just today took delivery of his
_brand_new_ densitometer... for use in his fully equipped darkroom... which
supports real, user film cameras from 1/2-frame 35mm up to 4x5 sheet... soon
to include 8x10 sheet... or 11x14, if he can find a good deal... and who is
enjoying traditional photography more now than at any other time in his
life... and fully realizes how difficult it must be for some to read these
words... <finally gives up trying to suppress that grin>)

 

This "erstwhile film shooter" thanks digital for making all the cameras
I always dreamed of owning become affordable.

Now off to take some photos with "reactionary & obsolete" equipment...

 

Ok, Ken there's always the exception that proves the rule {

I nearly said in my post something about film shooters who introduce MF
and LF formats, and of course, those are fields unchallenged by digital
cameras, but for the 35mm only photogs, the writing is on the wall, I
think.

Good luck with the big stuff.

Colin D.

 

I took a couple of days off work and yesterday I visited the local
Botanical gardens with my wife and youngest son. I took the old
refurbished Leica M3 with me. I really enjoyed using it and can't wait to
get the roll (Ilford XP-2) processed and printed.

Had I taken the D70 I am sure I would have not had as much enjoyment. The
more film we shoot, the more need there is for this group. This was my
first time shooting with XP-2, I usually use Kodak T-CN400.

 

When you start buying them up, save me at least one Rollei F.
Bob Hickey

 

I've always said users such as yourself are the only ones who should stay
with film. You have complete control over work. Others have to put up and
shut up with their local lab or pay alot of money for a proper lab but still
not be guaranteed satisfactory results. I would love my own wetroom but fat
chance.

 

I'd love one too! They are one of the few that don't seem to have gone
down (along with the Tele & Wide)...
: (

I'll just have to suffer with my Rollei T.
; )

Chris

 

I don't think you qualify as an 'erstwhile film shooter' if you are
still shooting film, so I believe the OP is correct

Mark

 

Mmmm, Rollei Tele...

Could you save me an Arca-Swiss F-Line 10x8 while you're at it?


Peter

 

Well, I'm not _guaranteed_ perfect results when I do it myself either, but
the lab. I use is extremely reliable and I have no complaints. Of course
digital gives people better results than they got with film when they took
thier films to Snappy Snaps (actually one of the better high street places.)
If everyone had been using quality film processed by decent lab.s from the
outset, it would have taken a lot longer for digital to be popularly
perceived as offering 'better' quality than film, even allowing for the 'new
is better' syndrome of mass marketing - but of course that was not the
situation.

Digital now actually _is_ better in some respects than film at the 35mm
end, for certain applications. But those applications aren't the mass
market ones (digital sucks at landscape or at _accurate_ colour portrayal
of fabrics, flowers etc., but none of these are mass market subjects or
concerns: it is great for smoothly flattering portraits, which is absolutely
the mass market application). Nor are the areas where digital doesn't match
film ones that matter to most consumers - colour accuracy, ability to fine
tune the colour palette, black and white, low noise in long time exposures,
subtlety of gradation without 'plasticiness'. On the other hand, the single
biggest area where digital scores over film in a big way - low noise in high
ISO _short_ exposures - is a huge plus for the mass market snap-shooter.

(Convenience of course is the other aspect, but I was making points about
quality of end result here.)

The 'bad lab. syndrome' was a huge leg up to digital taking over the mass
market as early in its life cycle as it has - but the fact that the mass
market type subjects are where its strengths help most, and its weaknesses
matter least, is surely equally relevant.


Peter

 

to get the roll (Ilford XP-2) processed and printed.

Will be interesting to hear how you compare the two - some people seem to
find them rather similar, while others say they're very different - I
haven't managed to pin down why there are such varied experiences of
comparing these two chromogenic films though...


Peter

 

Just wait till rpd and rpd-slr start crossposting to photoshop groups. I
suppose it is inevitable, since gadget freaks and computer enthusiasts
seem to represent the majority of news groups users. People with 35 mm
cameras and film might be more likely to actually be outside taking
photos . . . at least until the weather gets worse. ;-)

 

Either that, or they're waiting around for their film to be developed by
someone else...
-Or trying to catalogue negatives/slides...or figure out what settings they
shot for a particular image.
....Meanwhile, I'm reviewing and printing my digital stuff under full,
personal control...with full and exact records of every detail of how every
shot wass made.


On the other hand...I just developed 4 rolls of film yesterday.

 

Well i've paid over £10 for a simple process and mount of slides and they
still had drying marks on them. I've also had films ruined by the cheaper
ones and had ones go missing altogether with the postal ones. Incidently, i
checked with the post office and they say film envelopes are the least
likely to go astray. My thinking is that the lab bolloxed it up and then
decided denying they ever received it was the easiest way to dodge
liability.

Of course

For general use point and shoot v film point and shoot digital wins hands
down. For prints no bigger than 10x8 dslr advantages outweigh any
disadvantages. The only true claim to quality is 120 and 220 roll film and
upwards with quality gear. Cheapo seagull type stuff with their tlr jam jar
lenses won't match the more expensive dslr gear or even 35mm film but it
will do reasonably well much cheaper.

these same bad labs still produce pretty decent digital prints. They can't
screw up your original film for you.

 

I think that they are quite different. The XP-2 has much better
contrast and far better detail then the t-CN400. Not so noticeable on
4x6 prints, but quite noticeable on the larger prints from 35mm. I
suspect the film base color has much to do with it. XP-2 is almost
violet where as T-CN400 is a retched orange-brown.

Jim

 

Have you used Fuji's C41 Neopan? This is supposedly made for Fuji by
Ilford, but to Fuji's specification. From memory it has the same base as
XP2, but does seem to have a different 'character' in other respects.


Peter

 

Eek - you seriously need(ed) to find a better lab! £10 for a bad job...
nuts. my E6 processing (without mounting) costs me £80 something per twenty
rolls, and I've not had _any_ E6 messed up. A few minor problems with C41
from time to time, but always sorted - and less than I know I'd cause myself
if I did them at home. I pack the rolls myself to send off and do it
special delivery. It comes back normal parcel post (I do quite a lot in
each shipment) unless I say I'm in a hurry, in which case it goes special
delivery both ways.

For snaps the P&S point is absolutely true: this segment is all about
convenience and not having to think. However, this segment is also often
the one for people who use their cameras only occasionally, and for them
digital is actually ridiculously expensive. I've also not seen a digital
P&S that will compete with my Ricoh GR1v, never mind do what my GR21 does -
but that's a different market altogether...

Your up to 10x8 point holds well for this market, so long as you are
shooting enough for it to be cost effective. The problem with long time
exposures on digital applies at any print size, but again that doesn't
matter in this part of the market. Actually even at 5x7 I don't much like
digital for landscape unless it comes from a pretty high-end DSLR, and even
they start to suck badly as soon as one gets bigger - but again that's a
different part of the market, and applies really because of the very
different way the brain interprets a landscape compared to most other
subjects (faces it just wants to recognise; landscapes it wants to examine
in enormous detail to see there are no predators hiding in the grass - well,
that's my theory.)

Yes, this is also an easier workflow to automate and de-skill, and of course
digital printing equuipment is by definition newer and so tends to offer
more automation anyway. Where with printing on an older machine from film
the operator skill made the difference between 'great' and 'rubbish', with a
newer digital machine like a Frontier it only makes the difference between
'great' and 'really not bad'.


Peter