Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 93

Thread: Film to be extinct in X years ?

  1. #61

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong
    On the other hand, some are not willing to rest until every single inaccuracy is corrected, every point is countered and proven or discredited. However, this is not scientific debate, where the right or wrong can be proven through experiments or repeatable mathematical proofs, and F vs D threads can go on and on with all kinds of unhappiness created all round.

    I see high blood pressure coming along, among other things...
    I see people with amnesia coming along.

    I thought someone suggested to the Mods to close the thread because this thread is a waste of server space. And now he adds on to it!

    may be also wanted to win and have the last word?

    An ego somewhere?

  2. #62

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by yyD70S
    Exactly, just like Canon vs Nikon... as an example.

    Move on.
    If you think that this is like the Canon versus Nikon, think again.

    NOWHERE did I say film is better. I was merely trying to say that film and digital are different mediums with their different characteristics.

    NOWHERE did I say that film is better than digital.

    Please think again.

  3. #63

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave P
    Sorry but I cannot agree on this point; I do not say that the media is unimportant I say that an image should be judged on its merits, if 2 identical compositions are produced using fibre paper and inkjet and placed side by side then you can judge them by the end result, but you cannot make the same comparison if you are looking at different subject matter.

    It is the composition and idea behind the picture which is the most important part. The production and final look of the print can have a big effect; but is secondary to the idea behind the picture in the first place.

    The presentation; is a very important element and using specialist developers and papers can lift a good picture to make it exceptional: but it cannot make a mundane picture a great one!
    Of course I agree with you that the subject matter is the most important. But the power of the image presentation is dependent on the media.

    Your statement said "an image should be judges on its merits, not on the media". My point is that the image cannot be divorced from its media. To compare, we should take the same image and present it differently with different media. Not different images. Then say if the image can be judged independent of the media.

    We will disagree on this. It is OK.

  4. #64
    Senior Member yyD70S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,454

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    If you think that this is like the Canon versus Nikon, think again.

    NOWHERE did I say film is better. I was merely trying to say that film and digital are different mediums with their different characteristics.

    NOWHERE did I say that film is better than digital.

    Please think again.
    You are right... of course, don't worry. Be happy. Just think this is getting a little draggy and a little OT, that's all. No offence. We're all here to share.

  5. #65

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    hmmm...extinct or not...really overkill...besides quality, dynamic range and what not.
    other things too could determine if film be extinct or not.

    just imagine, what happens when you get a client who says they prefer
    film to digital and you only have a digital camera?
    And surprisingly, one such client is my own wife! She knew nothing
    abt photography, but she likes the 'feel' of images with film than digital.
    What's more, that was what happened when we engaged out wedding
    photographer...surprise they were.

    I got a frend who does digital video, and he bought an expensive XL1...
    but on one of his wedding assignments, the couple wanted everything to
    be as film like as possible and if possible, to be done on film itself.

    You might argue abt the market niche or watever, but ppl's taste too
    needs to be considered. As for me, when i can shoot something that i
    could take my time to process, i'd shoot with film. And if it requires fast
    processing, digital will be my choice.

    That's y...i think film is here to stay...in fact, I've seen ppl
    taking weddings with those m42 cam bodies and lenses.
    I've talked to amatures n pros who say that they are diehard analogue shooters.
    I met new photographers who just love film and do have digital cameras.

    So y these ppl love film so much??? Why why why?

    So, how can film be extinct in X years when ppl in CS are waiting patiently
    to grab good film cams. The market make us think that film is dying, but
    behind the scenes, film is still going strong!
    blog: inbloomphotos.wordpress.com

  6. #66

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by khairi
    I got a frend who does digital video, and he bought an expensive XL1...
    but on one of his wedding assignments, the couple wanted everything to
    be as film like as possible and if possible, to be done on film itself.
    Wow.. This is probably the first time I've heard people want to shoot their wedding video on film!! It will probably cost them a bomb!

  7. #67

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by khairi
    And surprisingly, one such client is my own wife! She knew nothing
    abt photography, but she likes the 'feel' of images with film than digital.
    I assume you are talking about print-outs? In that case, the "feel" that you wife felt, is most likely due to the dynamic range. Film can capture a far wider range of light than digital sensors today.

  8. #68

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    after reading almost all the posts only then I realise: X=10

    OK, in that case, I say films BaoCee liao lah

    cocoa

  9. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    CCK, Spore
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleWolf
    My command of the English language may be limited, but I'm pretty sure what you describe is not called "science". Maybe "mysticism" would be a more suitable word.
    Woah... chill out man, I merely meant to say that there's a certain sense of, yes, fantasy involved in film that will forever captivate most, if not all, "photographers."

    The digital age cannot be denied because of it's convinience, neither can u deny the analogue for the sheer understanding it provides the user for the art.

    May peace reign once again.

    Let the future speak for itself. Who are we to say?

  10. #70

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Apart from the more limited dynamic range of digital compared to films, I find another disadvantage of digital is that sometimes, it cannot reproduce details well. Let me describe further and see if u all experience this.

    Whether this happens or not depends on the lighting. For eg, when u shoot trees and the background is the bright white sky, the edges appear somewhat fuzzy and the details in the leaves of the tress appear "smeared out", like an art painting instead of what a photo should be. I've seen works by photographers who used top DSLRs like Canon 1D series and this effect was still prominent.

    Sometimes, it's easy to identify such stuffs in newspapers and u know a digital cam has been used. I personally dun like the effect. Dun tink film has this equivalent problem.

    Anyone get what I'm trying to describe?

  11. #71

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by David
    Apart from the more limited dynamic range of digital compared to films, I find another disadvantage of digital is that sometimes, it cannot reproduce details well. Let me describe further and see if u all experience this.

    Whether this happens or not depends on the lighting. For eg, when u shoot trees and the background is the bright white sky, the edges appear somewhat fuzzy and the details in the leaves of the tress appear "smeared out", like an art painting instead of what a photo should be. I've seen works by photographers who used top DSLRs like Canon 1D series and this effect was still prominent.

    Sometimes, it's easy to identify such stuffs in newspapers and u know a digital cam has been used. I personally dun like the effect. Dun tink film has this equivalent problem.

    Anyone get what I'm trying to describe?
    There may be several explainations for this effect.

    1) In a CCD sensor, each pixel is a light sensitive charge collecting well, when the well becomes filled, the charge spills over to the adjacent well.
    2) The low pass filter is like a 'soft' filter such that if you have a very bright light, it becomes smeared because of diffraction.
    3) The demosaicing algorithm takes information from the surrounding pixels and decodes the colour, when the adjacent pixel is too bright, it doesn't know how to decode properly.
    4) The optics is dirty or not well designed.

    I think this effect can also be present in film if it is due to the optics. Only that in film it is not as convenient to zoom in until you see all these defects like it can be done with digital. I used to do a lot of printing in the darkroom up to sizes of 16" x 20" so I've seen how bad film can also be.
    Last edited by lsisaxon; 6th February 2006 at 11:38 PM.

  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon
    Wow.. This is probably the first time I've heard people want to shoot their wedding video on film!! It will probably cost them a bomb!
    Not new to me though after having been in the wedding industry for more than two decades. Have oversea clients that have been spending more than 30K to document their weddings. This amount is only for still and wedding video on film.

    In one of these weddings, one couple spent three days in Singapore and have the event held in a five-star hotel. The video photographer with his four-men crew and myself (as the official still photographer) had to spend three days covering the wedding. I had an assistant with me throughout the three days. The still photography alone cost them more than 12K for the three days. The images were all done on medium format cameras.

    ----------------------------------------
    Today wedding photographers are not getting good return for their time and skills. Perhaps what may be the most important item on the learning agenda should be in the area of business practice for commercial photography.

  13. #73

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by forward
    Not new to me though after having been in the wedding industry for more than two decades. Have oversea clients that have been spending more than 30K to document their weddings. This amount is only for still and wedding video on film.

    In one of these weddings, one couple spent three days in Singapore and have the event held in a five-star hotel. The video photographer with his four-men crew and myself (as the official still photographer) had to spend three days covering the wedding. I had an assistant with me throughout the three days. The still photography alone cost them more than 12K for the three days. The images were all done on medium format cameras.

    ----------------------------------------
    Today wedding photographers are not getting good return for their time and skills. Perhaps what may be the most important item on the learning agenda should be in the area of business practice for commercial photography.
    Wow.. that's really a bomb! What did they shoot on for the videos? 16mm or 35mm? At the end of the day, they will need to screen it with a projector?

    I think medium format for still pictures are still ok but I will not want to cover a live event with that because I don't have a medium format camera which is fast enough.

  14. #74
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Not to mention heavy....and the couple's gonna spend another bomb reprinting photographs for friends.

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon
    I think medium format for still pictures are still ok but I will not want to cover a live event with that because I don't have a medium format camera which is fast enough.

  15. #75

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Not to mention heavy....and the couple's gonna spend another bomb reprinting photographs for friends.
    DSLR the best for wedding. Don't have to worry about reaching the end of a roll during the crucial moments, can give extra shots without losing anything, plus the couple will only need to email the copy to their friends. Hahaha!

  16. #76

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    For anyone who still has film cameras, plans to keep shooting with these cameras in the future, but worrying about the availability of film in the future...do not just sit there and worry. Worrying does nothing! Show your support by still shooting films regularly.

  17. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Quote Originally Posted by khairi
    hmmm...extinct or not...really overkill...besides quality, dynamic range and what not.
    other things too could determine if film be extinct or not.

    just imagine, what happens when you get a client who says they prefer
    film to digital and you only have a digital camera?
    And surprisingly, one such client is my own wife! She knew nothing
    abt photography, but she likes the 'feel' of images with film than digital.
    What's more, that was what happened when we engaged out wedding
    photographer...surprise they were.

    I got a frend who does digital video, and he bought an expensive XL1...
    but on one of his wedding assignments, the couple wanted everything to
    be as film like as possible and if possible, to be done on film itself.

    You might argue abt the market niche or watever, but ppl's taste too
    needs to be considered. As for me, when i can shoot something that i
    could take my time to process, i'd shoot with film. And if it requires fast
    processing, digital will be my choice.

    That's y...i think film is here to stay...in fact, I've seen ppl
    taking weddings with those m42 cam bodies and lenses.
    I've talked to amatures n pros who say that they are diehard analogue shooters.
    I met new photographers who just love film and do have digital cameras.

    So y these ppl love film so much??? Why why why?

    So, how can film be extinct in X years when ppl in CS are waiting patiently
    to grab good film cams. The market make us think that film is dying, but
    behind the scenes, film is still going strong!
    Very well said! I myself do have a digital compact but seldom use it. My main cam now is my film SLR and the reason why i stuck to film is becos i still think that film has overall better quality n colour where digital doesn't come close. I've been using film since 11 years ago and haven't been disappointed with the results.

    Though there're pple around me 'psychoing' me to buy a DSLR cos of it being cheaper in the long run. Yes they're right but the problem is they don't understand the beauty of a picture on 35mm film. Shooting with films do cost more but it's satisfaction that counts ultimately.

    IMO both digital n film have their own pros and cons. There're many pros out there who publish their works on photography books or fashion magazines still using film fully. So for me it's still film.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  18. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Choa Chu Kang Central
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    many mini lab have gone into digital and forgotten the film machines... even nikon is stopping most of its film camera... sad. but me... still film user... thats because no $$ for Digital ha ha ha...

  19. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    Same here...
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  20. #80

    Default Re: Film to be extinct in X years ?

    When i got an enlarger, i finally get to realize how beautiful film was...

    Well i guess why b/w traditionalists who develop their own film and make their own prints (which i have finally been able to do at home) still love film is probably because the process of making that final print is so satisfying.

    They know that whatever appeared on that print was almost entirely due to their efforts, with minimal help from modern technology. Not to say that digital post-processing is easy, as i use photoshop and other programs as well, and it is sometimes a hard and tedious process to get good results.

    However, that feeling of total control when using film is just wonderful, and that's why i still use film today...

    Digital without a doubt is where the future is, and will head to. Unfortunately, the continuation of the production film does not lie on the passion of those still using it, but on money. So what the future of film will be, i don't know.. I'll just enjoy it while it's still here.
    if my camera is there at the right moment, click, all I have to do is accept it.
    -edouard boubat

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

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
  •