Good bye- too much OT and rants

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Don Stauffer, Aug 9, 2005.

  1. Don Stauffer

    Don Stauffer Guest

    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.
     
    Don Stauffer, Aug 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Don Stauffer

    Mark² Guest

    All you need do is use a newsreader that groups by thread, and then block
    noisy threads.
    Bing!
     
    Mark², Aug 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Don Stauffer

    Colin D Guest

    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.
     
    Colin D, Aug 10, 2005
    #3
  4. 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>)
     
    Ken Nadvornick, Aug 10, 2005
    #4

  5. 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...
     
    Chris Loffredo, Aug 10, 2005
    #5
  6. Don Stauffer

    Colin D Guest

    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.
     
    Colin D, Aug 10, 2005
    #6
  7. Don Stauffer

    Rox-off Guest

    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.
     
    Rox-off, Aug 10, 2005
    #7
  8. Don Stauffer

    Bob Hickey Guest

    When you start buying them up, save me at least one Rollei F.
    Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Aug 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Don Stauffer

    ian lincoln Guest

    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.
     
    ian lincoln, Aug 10, 2005
    #9
  10. 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
     
    Chris Loffredo, Aug 10, 2005
    #10
  11. Don Stauffer

    Mark Guest

    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
     
    Mark, Aug 10, 2005
    #11
  12. Don Stauffer

    Bandicoot Guest


    Mmmm, Rollei Tele...

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


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Aug 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Don Stauffer

    Bandicoot Guest

    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
     
    Bandicoot, Aug 10, 2005
    #13
  14. Don Stauffer

    Bandicoot Guest

    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
     
    Bandicoot, Aug 10, 2005
    #14
  15. Don Stauffer

    Gordon Moat Guest

    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. ;-)
     
    Gordon Moat, Aug 10, 2005
    #15
  16. Don Stauffer

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Aug 10, 2005
    #16
  17. Don Stauffer

    ian lincoln Guest

    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.
     
    ian lincoln, Aug 10, 2005
    #17
  18. Don Stauffer

    JimKramer Guest

    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
     
    JimKramer, Aug 10, 2005
    #18
  19. Don Stauffer

    Bandicoot Guest

    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
     
    Bandicoot, Aug 11, 2005
    #19
  20. Don Stauffer

    Bandicoot Guest

    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
     
    Bandicoot, Aug 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.