Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Film is Dead!

  1. #1

    Film is Dead!

    This afternoon I did some shooting with a friend using his Hassy and the Kodak d igital back. The resulting 16mb images were so unbelieveable that I almost dropp ed deuce.

    After shooting we printed his images on an Epson 10000 at 30"x30". Let me tell a ll you digititaldoubters, these images blow away anything I have seen produced u sing wet photography.

    For this dude, film is dead. I will be selling my film cameras asap.

    Jon Adermeyer Adermeyer Photography Denver, Colorado

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    783

    Film is Dead!

    Which Kodak digital back? Are you prepared to do a head to head comparison with film and drum scan? From what I have ascertained, Kodaks best back still can't match 4x5 film but comes very close... would you agree with this?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    46

    Film is Dead!

    Can we develop a separate subsection away from the main forum for these types of posts? They seem to pop up every week or two, say basically the same thing, and fill bandwidth that could probably be put to better use.

    (Sigh.) Yes, Jon, a lot of us have seen MF digital and are choosing to stick with film, thank you very much.

    I was at Calumet about a month ago and I said to the Kodak digital sales guy, "Show me your best digital prints." He pulled out some--you guessed it--Kodak/Hassy prints, probably about 30x30, made from some enormous file size (far larger than 16mb, Jon; 48mb?), support for which would be extremely expensive for field work. I said, "They're very nice, but they look REALLY digital to me."

    Am I alone here, or are there others who can spot even the best MF digital prints from a couple of feet away? (i.e., no loupe needed--they just look, well, digital) Every photographer has different standards, I know, but I can't get over the low quality that many digital proponents call "better than film."

    Will the day come when digital equals film in both quality and economy for the majority of LF shooters? Probably. Is that day here yet? Not from any evidence I've seen--not even close.

    So sure, dude, go do your gnarly digital stuff. If you're running a studio, it probably makes economic sense (for many photo businesses it already did a couple of years ago; some catalog guys I know have been shooting digital for almost a decade now).

    But please don't assume that those on this forum who stick with film haven't seen the light; it might just be that they can see things that you cannot.

  4. #4

    Film is Dead!

    Well, Film isn't dead yet. The Fat Lady hasn't sung, but I swear I can hear her clearing her throat!

    I've spent the better part of the last 20 years trying to become proficient in large format photography, and presently use 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 formats.

    I'll be keeping my Wisner and Deardorff equipment and using it for the rest of my life (I hope), but for me and my business to survive I've made the plunge into digital and can't believe the results I'm getting (D30 using stair interpolation for up-res-ing).

    That being said, I also think there's an inherient "depth" to a fine black and white print that digital can't (yet) match, so when I need to express something photographically in which that "look" or "depth" is important, it's back to the analog (film) capture methods.

    But for most everything I do to put bread on the table, the new digital world offers too big an advantage to ignore.

    I see it as another tool in the box, to be used when called for.

    Just my two cents.

  5. #5

    Film is Dead!

    I like the digital process and will be happy to use it when it becomes economically feasible for me, and as long as I am satisfied with the quality (no 30x40" prints from a 640x480-pixel file). Also, I like being able to make simple corrections and changes in Photoshop.

    One of the reasons that I often prefer film-based prints is that, in my opinion, the image quality degrades gracefully; if the film does not have great detail it will look soft and fuzzy, whereas a digital print will have hard edges that may look pixelated. This may not be the case all of the time, but I've seen it often. My preference may be due to that fact that I have seen film-based prints my entire life, and digital ones only in the last several years. Had their positions been reversed, I may well have felt more comfortable with digital prints.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    105

    Film is Dead!

    I hate digital. It's Monday so I hate everything today. I'm also a film hugging Neanderthal who hasn't seen the light and doesn't want to. When (as if!) film ever dies, I have the chemical formulas. I can make my own paper negatives (it's called Kalitype or Nickelodian or sumpthin). Us uneddicated Luddites cain't spel none too gud neither. Better yet, I will buy all that nasty yucky smelly film as scrap, a few dollars per ton and cram it in the freezer. Sell us all your bad bad bad wet photo cameras too... Just dry them off first. Whatever I can't use up will go on EBay at ridiculous prices to collectors. I'll be a rich guy.

  7. #7
    Old School Wayne
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    1,255

    Film is Dead!

    I find it odd that in order for something (digital imaging) to be considered good or worthwhile or good enough, that it has to be compared with something (photography) that already exists and is readily available and is already quite good enough. Its amusing for me to watch digital try to be something it never quite will be. It will always be trying to be as good as, or better than, and compared against, photography. Maybe someday it will find its own self, but its looking in the wrong place, trying to be an imitation. If photography had stayed on that route, imitating painting, we never would have seen a Weston, or an Adams, or a Cunningham...

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    114

    Film is Dead!

    Geez, when I finish shooting I just love the feel of negatives in my hand as I load them onto reels or into tanks. The pyro sloshing around my fingers, slowly seeping into my skin through small pores. The smeel of fixer and stop in the morning goes with my coffee like bacon goes with eggs.

    Silicon is like a waffle soaked in syrup for hours. Yuch!

  9. #9

    Film is Dead!

    It sort of bothers me to contribute to a troll post, but oh well....

    If you are an audio enthusiast, then you might remember the analog/digital flame wars that heralded the debut of CDs. Go read some back issues of "The Absolute Sound" or "Stereophile". Same stuff.

    My point? I don't know that we can draw perfect parallels, but twenty years after CDs "killed" vinyl, you can still buy records. Not as full a selection as before, but you can still get them. Some still say a good vinyl pressing is better than a CD. Others claim (more accurately, IMHO), that vinyl is different from digital, but has it's own inherent sonic qualities. Whaddya you know, they might both be good.

    And, there may be those among us that choose to work with film even if digital really is "better", just 'cause we want to. That's why they call it art.

    I thought about making some bumpers stickers that read, "Film isn't dead...there's plenty of it on my bathroom tile", but that's just too much to read while your're driving.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    193

    Film is Dead!

    ooohhh eyahhhhh...

    wait till the next digital back knocks your socks off..wait till the next printer back knocks your socks off.. wait till the next XYZ computer knocks your socks off... and so on....

    digital is 1 and 0... you have nothing to hang on...it's ok for commercial and that's it...

    I will stick to films...

Similar Threads

  1. if film is dead...
    By julian_4860 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 17-Apr-2006, 12:41
  2. No more "film is dead/dying/crappy" posts please
    By Emre Yildirim in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2006, 10:50
  3. Wet Darkroom not Dead?
    By Jim Rhoades in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2005, 05:11
  4. SHEET FILM IS NOT DEAD!
    By paul owen in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21-Apr-2005, 12:55
  5. Contax Not Dead Yet
    By Scott Fleming in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5-Mar-2005, 15:47

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
  •