why do you guys still use film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Mike Henley, May 20, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Bill Hilton Guest

    But looking at Velvia trannies on a lightbox is similar to looking at RAW
    Well yes, I can scan my slides since I have a Nikon 8000 film scanner.

    But only a moron would suggest running the resulting tiffs through a RAW
    converter :)

    LOL ...
    I agree. You should learn more about digital workflows before speaking out.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, May 21, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'll damn well drink to that!
     
    Martin Francis, May 21, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Now y'are.
     
    Martin Francis, May 21, 2004
    #63
  4. :)

    I confess, I was indeed using several of my fingers.
     
    Martin Francis, May 21, 2004
    #64
  5. Mike Henley

    Nick C Guest

    ....I wasn't aware that he had died...



    I was walking in Währinger Cemetery and I heard some strange music...
    after a moment or two I recognized it as Beethoven's 9th symphony ...
    playing ... backwards....

    He was decomposing.

    And I suppose when the music ended, the roaring silence became deafening.

    LOL ....
    nick
     
    Nick C, May 21, 2004
    #65
  6. Mike Henley

    Bandicoot Guest

    Nope, Scarpitti is correct. This time.


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, May 21, 2004
    #66
  7. Mike Henley

    Bandicoot Guest

    [SNIP]
    Very useful explanation.

    This last case, though, is not the context in which the word is being used
    in this instance. Reference here is not to 'the media' as a collective, but
    to which particular medium a photographer chooses to work in. In this
    sense, the analogy is the painter who may speak of making a multi-media work
    (ink and wash, collage with impasto, whatever) or may say that they work in
    a single medium, such as pastel, oils, or watercolour.

    ie. We are using case 1. of the definition, not case 2., and it is to case
    2. that the usage explanation given in the dictionary applies (case 1.,
    being simply a plural, presumably not being regarded as requiring an
    explanation.)

    Don't take this as me disagreeing with you - just commenting.


    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, May 21, 2004
    #67
  8. WHY?

    1) Film is BETTER end quality when properly exposed, then scanned and then
    competently printed on a quality printer.

    2. If you are not a Fine Art photographer you will not appreciate the facts
    described in number one above.

    3. Storage. No fear of magnetic or DVD decay with properly developed and
    processed negatives. I have a bunch of negatives dating back to the 30s. Still
    going strong.

    3. Sorting and finding. With 20,000 plus negatives and transparances in various
    formats storned in archival suspension pages that fills four full size file
    drawers, It is easy and efficient for me to get my hands on that one page of
    images in which I'm interested .

    Digital IS quicker and it seems to appeal to the instant gratification urges
    with which some of us are afflicted. But this curse is the bane of developing
    photographic skills in such areas as in

    composition
    the elements of exposure
    and many other key areas.

    For example? Well just for instance the rather odd concept in today's digital
    mass marketing world of composing full frame images.

    Pros turn to digital becaus eof very quick turn around time delivering the
    final product. They love digital for that. So do I actually.

    Now I might change my mind if I could afford that $50.000 for that 4 x 5
    digital back for the Linhof Master Technika I want but I don't think so.

    You should see that scan of a B & W 4 x 5 negative!! It blew my socks off.

    So color me half digital. I'll stay with conventional film for image creation,
    and go totally digital on the back end --- scanning then printing. Soo much
    more flexibility and freedom to manipulate images.

    Just a personal opinion is all

    David N.
     
    David Napierkowski, May 21, 2004
    #68
  9. Mike Henley

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Are you a complete loser or a troll?
    Maybe you should first undertsand the difference between a toy and a real
    digital workflow?
     
    Sander Vesik, May 22, 2004
    #69
  10. Mike Henley

    Matt Clara Guest

    That's disgusting on many levels!
     
    Matt Clara, May 22, 2004
    #70
  11. Mike Henley

    Ted Azito Guest

    In a two-word answer, Marilyn Monroe.

    Allow an explanation. Marilyn (hereinafter MM) has been dead
    approximately 41 years,260 days. (I could figure it exactly but no
    matter.) She was, and perhaps still remains, the most photographed
    human being on the planet. At least a dozen first rate
    photographers-Arnold, Morath, Cartier-Bresson, Beaton, Avedon, Penn,
    Barris, Greene, Claxton, Shaw, I can name off the top of my head
    without looking-compiled extensive portfolios of her alone, plus tens
    of thousands of amateur, news, and institutional photos along with the
    miles of motion picture film and sound recordings are all we have left
    of her. Yet the vast majority of people in the United States, and
    throughout a large part of the world, could identify her from any
    reasonable photograph.

    MM is more famous, still, than Madonna, more famous than the late
    Pricesss Diana or any of several other female entertainment or
    political figures. And every single image we have today of her was
    shot on photographic film.

    Properly processed black and white negatives and prints, and
    Kodachrome transparencies and color motion pictures shot on
    three-negative processes, are essentially archival. E-6 and C-41 color
    processes (and their direct predecessors) are much less so, and these
    constitute a large percentage of the color images we have which were
    shot from approximately 1965 to the digital era.

    Now, any image we see in a magazine or book is very possibly shot
    directly with a digital camera. The percentage increases every day.
    Yet we are very rarely reminded of one important fact-there is no such
    thing as an archival digital storage medium.(With the possible
    exception of punched Mylar tape,which occupies roughly a square
    football field per gigabyte.) Mainframe nine-track magnetic tapes are
    usually considered the closest to a truly archival medium, and it's
    data life is estimated at roughly forty years in ideal conditions.

    The upshot is that MM could in a very real sense, be the last movie
    star-the last viewable reel of film in existence could well be of her.

    If you are serious about leaving images to posterity, digital is
    profoundly not the way to go at this point. Digital is great for Web
    images for blogs and selling stuff on eBay, but if you want people
    five hundred years from now to see what you saw, film is the only way.
    Even if you only want them viewable fifty-or twenty-five-years from
    now, digital is still dubious.
     
    Ted Azito, May 22, 2004
    #71
  12. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    SNIP

    I believe Nikon makes a 10mm lens for its sub-frame DSLRs. Don't know if its
    fisheye or rectilinear (or fisheye that can be converted to rrectilinear within
    a program to do this exact function). Of course I know that doesn't help you if
    you only own a Pentax DSLR ;-).
     
    Lewis Lang, May 22, 2004
    #72
  13. Mike Henley

    Bob Hickey Guest

    I keep thinking about the Cassius Clay/Sonny Liston phantom punch. That film
    was run to death. I wonder how long didital would have lasted. And I still
    didn't see it. I call a do over. Bob
    Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, May 22, 2004
    #73
  14. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    In 199, right around the same/after time his last film "Eyes Wide Shut" was
    being readied for theaters.
    I told that to John Lennon "Roll over Bethoven and tell Tchiakofsky (sp?) the
    news"... ;-)
     
    Lewis Lang, May 22, 2004
    #74
  15. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    LOL :)
     
    Lewis Lang, May 22, 2004
    #75
  16. Mike Henley

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Sander Vesik
    ?

    What an idiot ... welcome to the killfile, you won't be seeing any more replies
    from me because you just ceased to exist :)

    Plonk!
     
    Bill Hilton, May 22, 2004
    #76
  17. porn doesn't satisfy, it stimulates. not in the instant gratification class.
    I just point that out because much porn is photographs, and this newsgroup
    is about photography, so I thought you should know.
     
    William R. Watt, May 22, 2004
    #77
  18. so, should it be "multimedia" or "multimedium" ?
    (any examples I can find have the singular following the prefix)
     
    William R. Watt, May 22, 2004
    #78
  19. FWIW, the only photograph of a "movie star" I have hanging on the wall in my
    house, is a B&W photograph of Marilyn Monroe.......It is a lovely, tasteful
    photograph of her demurely looking down, with her open hand touching her
    chest. Even my wife likes it.......
     
    William Graham, May 22, 2004
    #79
  20. Maybe he's still alive, but just has his "Eyes Wide Shut"

    ;^)
     
    Tony Parkinson, May 22, 2004
    #80
    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.