Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 84

Thread: The Future of Film Photography

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Milford Pa.
    Posts
    2,912

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    HUH? film? what is film?

    never heard of it..................
    My YouTube Channel has many interesting videos on Soft Focus Lenses and Wood Cameras. Check it out.

    My YouTube videos
    oldstyleportraits.com
    photo.net gallery

  2. #32

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    630

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    Even if I wanted to take the time and write a letter in longhand, on some nice, hand-picked paper, chances are the recipient would not even recognize the gesture, much less appreciate it and would scoff at having to decipher my handwriting.
    I've done that a million times. The response is almost always an e-mail message that begins: "Got your letter..."

  3. #33
    hacker extraordinaire
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,169

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    1. Is image quality really better with digital photography?
    Images have many qualities. Originating photographically on film is one such quality. Which quality were you asking about?

    are there real qualities to film that digital photography simply cannot replace?
    See above.

    When they make a digital 8x10 at under $1000, I will switch immediately.
    When they make a 75984 gigapixel camera that costs $10 and takes the pictures for you, I still won't care.


    What the pictures look like doesn't count in the long run. Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever.
    Thank you for understanding this. It matters little how close digital imaging can mimic photography. There's nothing it will stop at, whether it's fake film borders, fake grain, gaussian blur to appear like a lens swing, whatever. It doesn't bother me; imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Digital imaging is virtual photography. Saying that it can replace photography "when it gets good enough" is like saying that when music synthesizers get good enough, nobody will 'need to' learn to play guitar. Please, please note that I have no gripe with digital itself. In fact I have great respect for it, and I feel that if anything it comes closer to the classical painted portraits and landscapes, which can be made to the imagination. Digital can look like anything...including photography. The other side of the coin is that the medium itself doesn't actually look like anything.

  4. #34
    tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,607

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Currently it takes about 33 minutes for a 384 megapixel LF BetterLight scanning back to download 1.1G of data. On the other hand it takes but a fraction of a second for a sheet of 4x5 film to capture 1.5G.

    Which is "better"?

  5. #35
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    8,384

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by tgtaylor View Post
    Currently it takes about 33 minutes for a 384 megapixel LF BetterLight scanning back to download 1.1G of data. On the other hand it takes but a fraction of a second for a sheet of 4x5 film to capture 1.5G.

    Which is "better"?
    Your point is mainly valid but, lets compare apples and apples. You would still have to scan the film with a first rate drum scanner to get the best out of the film. Add that to the films capture time if you want to compare apples to apples. And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    "When did photography become a desk job?" Kirk Gittings 2009

    KIRK GITTINGS
    WEBSITE

    LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)

  6. #36

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
    Kirk, you're correct.

    -Betterlight user-

  7. #37
    tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,607

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    Your point is mainly valid but, lets compare apples and apples. You would still have to scan the film with a first rate drum scanner to get the best out of the film. Add that to the films capture time if you want to compare apples to apples. And where did you get that number for BL scanning backs download time? As I read it their documentation states capture time at between 100 seconds (1.5 minutes) and 2000 seconds (33 minutes) for a 1.1 GB file. Maybe Jim Collum can chime in to share his actual experience with BL backs.
    Kirk,

    A first rate scanner - or any rate scanner for that matter - can only capture what's on the negative. If it's not on the negative, then it's not going to be in the scan. If it is, then it's an artifact from the scanning process. Which begs the question: Which is capable of capturing the most truedata: the scanner or the negative?

    I interpretated the BL capture times as cited above as dependant upon the size of the chip and the amount of data captured. So to capture the max, you need to use their biggest chip (384mp) for the full 33 minutes.

    Finally, note that the capture times, weight and prices are comming down to where mere mortals such as I will be able to afford them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, keep shooting that big negative.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Currently New York
    Posts
    1,446

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Only a few years ago, there were debates on this site about whether people should even be allowed to discuss digital technology.

    Over the last year, I've been to two workshops run by a highly reputable organisation, one on lighting and one on digital printing. In both cases, the other participants, with one or two exceptions, had never used a film camera, and in both cases I was the only person shooting film.

    Marko has this right. This is like listening to people debate the merits of tube amps vs. solid state amps and vinyl vs. compact disks. Believe me, there are plenty of esoteric websites where people actually spend time debating those questions. But the debate, whether it is about the alleged merits of tube amps, vinyl records or film, is irrelevant, because the vast majority of people have moved on, and they are not going to turn back. The photographic technology that they have opted for (and in the case of just about anyone under, say, 30, the technology they have been brought up with) may be different, but it will offer its own advantages and limitations. And so the world goes.

    A question for those of you who grew up in the 60s, 70s and 80s and are fighting digital. When you were in your late teens or early 20s and putting together your obligatory killer audio system, did you buy a tube amp or a solid state amp to go with the Tannoy or B&W or Acoustic Research (or if you were really hip with dollars to spare, Quad) speakers?


    P.S. I am writing this while listening to the Edgar Meyer/Mark O'Connor/Yo Yo Ma CD Appalachia Waltz on a solid state CD player through a tube amplifier that I built to the specifications of a French sound engineer named Yves Cochet.
    Cheers!

  9. #39
    tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,607

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by tgtaylor View Post
    Kirk,

    A first rate scanner - or any rate scanner for that matter - can only capture what's on the negative. If it's not on the negative, then it's not going to be in the scan. If it is, then it's an artifact from the scanning process. Which begs the question: Which is capable of capturing the most truedata: the scanner or the negative?

    I interpretated the BL capture times as cited above as dependant upon the size of the chip and the amount of data captured. So to capture the max, you need to use their biggest chip (384mp) for the full 33 minutes.

    Finally, note that the capture times, weight and prices are comming down to where mere mortals such as I will be able to afford them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, keep shooting that big negative.
    My mistake on the capture time which can take anywhere from 100 seconds to 33 minutes for a full 1.1G scan. Below are the specs copied from the BL website. Note the "Megapixel ratings."

    Model 6000E-HS* Super 6K-HS™ Super 8K-HS™
    Native Maximum
    Resolution @ 100%
    (48 bit RGB File)
    Image Size @ 300 ppi
    6000 x 8000
    (274 MB)
    20" x 26.7"
    6000 x 8000
    (274 MB)
    20" x 26.7"
    8000 x 10600
    (488 MB)
    26.7" x 35.5"
    Megapixel Rating 144 Megapixels 216 Megapixels 384 Megapixels
    Enhanced Maximum
    Resolution @ 150%
    (48 bit RGB File)
    Image Size @ 300 ppi
    N/A
    9000 x 12000
    (618 MB)
    30" x 40"
    12000 x 15990
    (1.1 GB)
    40" x 53.3"
    Number of
    Resolution Options 8 12 18
    Internal Hard Drive
    (in Control Unit) 80 GB 80 GB 80 GB
    FAST Pre-Scan Time 4 seconds 4 seconds 6 seconds
    Minimum Scan Time
    at Full Image Size
    35 seconds
    for 274 MB scan
    53 seconds
    for 618 MB scan
    100 seconds
    for 1.1GB scan
    Adjustable ISO Range
    (1/10 f-stop increments) 100 – 1600 Daylight 200 – 3200 Daylight
    (new 2X CCD)
    125 – 2000 Daylight
    (new 2X CCD)
    Suggested User Price
    with Standard Warranty
    $9,495 U.S.
    includes 2-year warranty
    $14,995 U.S.
    includes 2-year warranty
    $17,995 U.S.
    includes 2-year warranty
    Last edited by tgtaylor; 2-Nov-2009 at 15:58. Reason: clarify

  10. #40
    tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,607

    Re: The Future of Film Photography

    Here is an interesting tidbit on the Megapixel fudge factor:

    As with other Better Light camera models, the resolution up to 100% is pure, “native” RGB pixel data. At resolution levels above 100%, the long dimension (scan direction) will remain as pure pixel information, while the narrow dimension will use minimal interpolation to complete the image. By utilizing a linear (one direction) redistribution of the original CCD pixel data, the resulting images will have more detail than is the result from resampling a smaller file in Photoshop to the same pixel dimensions. In the worst case (150% res), this technique uses data from 2 pure pixels to create 3 pixels

Similar Threads

  1. The hopeful future of film photography
    By Ed Eubanks in forum On Photography
    Replies: 414
    Last Post: 20-Feb-2011, 06:41
  2. report from Chicago
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2011, 20:07
  3. converting slides to B&W
    By Magnus W in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-Jul-2006, 04:51
  4. Color Film co - op to secure its future?
    By bglick in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19-Jan-2006, 13:47
  5. New film - Rollei R3
    By Leonard Metcalf in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2-Dec-2004, 01:26

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •