Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66

Thread: Film is dead?

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Originally posted by reignman77



    guess if one can shoot a picture that looks like digital, he have master the "REAL" skill in photography...
    what do u mean by this...
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    323

    Default

    I think it is all depends on individual preferences and priorities. Can't blame anyone I guess.

    I don't understand why someone worried about the processing fee that cost alittle while spending thousand of dollars of equipments in the first place. It is like having a bigger cars and willing to queue for 30 min. just to gain of 5% discount on petrol.

    I think it is not about the technology but its about life.

    Well there is no argument about digital or film. Use what you have and get out there and just shoot.

    Cheers.

  3. #23

    Default

    Originally posted by suhaimig
    I think it is all depends on individual preferences and priorities. Can't blame anyone I guess.

    I don't understand why someone worried about the processing fee that cost alittle while spending thousand of dollars of equipments in the first place. It is like having a bigger cars and willing to queue for 30 min. just to gain of 5% discount on petrol.

    I think it is not about the technology but its about life.

    Well there is no argument about digital or film. Use what you have and get out there and just shoot.

    Cheers.
    Well articulated.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Film is dead... absolutely

    Originally posted by sriram

    The original owner paid $1500 for it. I got it for $450 after it was used for 8 months. When I sold it, I got $100, including batteries, charger, CF reader, etc.

    OTOH I purchased an EOS-630 for $275 (with a lens and flash), and sold it after a couple of years for $250 (without lens), when I upgraded. I can live with this kind of a loss.

    well, maybe u want to keep this sharing to urself to avoid future misunderstanding

    though it's nothing wrong to buy something 2ndhand and sell off either to gain or to minimise the lost

    maybe there's someone who's ur previous buyer didnt noe abt ur usual practice...

    just a bit of advice, hope u dun mind



  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Zimbabwe
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Digital may be higher definition now, but I cannot afford it and I seldom enlarge photos to 8R or above. I still feel like the weak link is me and not the format. And somehow digital photography does not seem like the photography I used to know. It's a bit more like "videography" to me. Photography is painting with light to me. Digital photography seems more like painting on a PC/photoshop program. Sorts of kills the suspense in wondering how the photos will turn out, at least for weekend/fortnightly hobbyist like me. At the moment, film is more than good enough for me.
    Last edited by Gunjack; 26th January 2003 at 03:10 AM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    i love Michael Reichmann's postscript...

    "Ps: If you'd like to write to me about this test and my conclusions, that's fine. But please don't write and simply say that you don't agree. Your opinion carries no weight unless you do a similar side-by-side comparison with the equipment of your choice and make a real-world determination yourself. Don't spout numbers and formula. Theory alone doesn't tell you what's going on. What actually happens in the real world is what photographers need to know."

    i'm just waiting now to see what Nikon announces @ PMA in March and how the Kodak DCS 14-n compares in terms of performance and image quality with the 1Ds.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Under your skin
    Posts
    533

    Default

    try lugging your DC on a 42-day overland trek from Nepal to Tibet.

  8. #28

    Default

    Originally posted by sljm
    jus my own opnion...

    My opinion is that one should be able to understand what makes a good picture and try to take that picture the first time round. Learn to look at how to compose and not jus shoot away happily. With film exposure becomes more important especially slides since they hav little tolerance, for digital u can edit happily away that will probably improve ur photoshop skills but probably won't cultivate the habit of using the right exposure.

    this is where a good and true photographer will come from and with the value of photography.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Originally posted by rochkoh
    try lugging your DC on a 42-day overland trek from Nepal to Tibet.
    This is the only reason that a FM2 set is on top of my purchase list

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Film vs digital
    Soon or later digital will rule, but film will never die.

    Today's pro slowly going toward digital due to reasons such as:
    - Faster/efficient workflow. Applicable to photojournalist, and others who require fast turn-around time.
    - Lower operational cost. Applicable to those who shoot thousands of frames a year, so that they can defray the higher investment of digital, and selling their services at lower cost.
    - Public perception. General public (who know nuts about photography), perceive digital as "state-of-the art" technology, thus they tend to respect more toward photographers who use digital.

    Quality wise? forget about that. As long as it is acceptable, there you go. (Remember the time when CD beat LP... , Transistor beat Vacuum tube... , Japanese car beat American.... etc. Those winning points were not about quality..)

    Film will still be around among amateurs, some pros and lower public. Each have their own suitable place, so I prefer to see digital and film as companion complementing each other, rather than fighting against each other.

  11. #31

    Default

    Bwahahahaha....

    The debate reges on. To reply to ckiang, no you need not be a trader, but you do want the best quality pics don't you? Try shooting with a 4 year old digicam (that's the reason I dumped my Kodak digicam... what can you do with 1MPixel?). With film, all I have to do is spend $6 on a new roll. If you love to keep shooting with a 640x480 digicam which takes 15 seconds to focus, enjoy!

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    ...Not So Far Away
    Posts
    82

    Default

    ??? Film (esp 35mm) will maintain a place in the photography mkt, but is guaranteed to be reduced to a niche role over the next decade. The current gen of teens and young photogs (urban-developed world) tend to be computer users as well, and the advantages of digital overwhelm the diminishing slight edge in pix quality, short-term cost-savings, etc film has over digicams. These kids/teens will tend to take their first pictures with a digicam. The notion of film loading and motordrives will be archaic to them, as is lugging film "ammo" to reload your camera every 36shots.

    When shops carrying 35mm film and processing labs reduce in sufficient numbers to make it inconvenient to "reload" your 35mm film cam, and digicam shot-capacity and reliability (all-weather etc) become generally better than film, 35mm will join med-format, B&W etc as niche fields practised only by enthusiasts.

    Mechanical 35mms like FM2, K1000, OM4ti, A-1 etc are great as examples of how you can still take pix reliably when you are halfway up Mt Everest, but most camera users will find the typical A40, c2040 2MP etc far more fun and economical to use... screw up a film shot with your amateur butter-fingers or simply fire off 6 shots with your digicam to ensure you get your perfect holiday shot? No contest.

    The tourist consumer is the main user and decision-maker on how fast the 35mm film mkt fades into the background. I've gradually "divested" from 35mm, selling off my AE-1,EE-10,EOS5,620,F301,35ti.... I still keep my P+S as backup... like keeping a pistol back-up to my main "laser gun"
    Last edited by cutter; 26th January 2003 at 02:03 PM.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    we have to be realistic.

    it is only a matter of time.

    digital will be the mainstream in the coming years.

  14. #34

    Default

    Don't think film will "disappear". It is still more expensive to use digital today than film especially if u factor in the cost of upgrading the digital camera every 2 to 3 years. Economics of film will allow it to stay for a while.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by sriram
    Bwahahahaha....

    The debate reges on. To reply to ckiang, no you need not be a trader, but you do want the best quality pics don't you? Try shooting with a 4 year old digicam (that's the reason I dumped my Kodak digicam... what can you do with 1MPixel?). With film, all I have to do is spend $6 on a new roll. If you love to keep shooting with a 640x480 digicam which takes 15 seconds to focus, enjoy!
    Well, I was once anti-digital. I still shoot film, but seriously consider going digital. I still like slides. But if I shoot a wedding on a Saturday and having to wait for Monday to send in my 10-15 rolls of film, and waiting another 1-2 days to get them developed and printed, then another half a day or so to sit down and sort through all of them, put them into albums (and sieve out the rejects) is just too time consuming.

    10 rolls of film and processing costs about $250. If I deliever the equivalent of 360 prints, the cost is only $185 ($0.50 per 4R + $5 handling fee). And I am no longer limited to 10 rolls.

    I am sure you've been in a situation where you go out for a shoot but shot say, 5-10 frames on a roll of 36? And that roll perhaps last you a month coz of your other commitments? And if you want to see that keeper in frame #6 and simply sent it in for processing, you waste the rest of the roll (ok, film is cheap, but doesn't mean you have to waste it like that).

    When you're shooting and the skies turned dark. You spot your subject, and you get a reading of 1/8 @ f/2 on your ISO 200 film. You don't have any faster film. What do you do? Curse? With digital, you simply set the ISO to a higher value and get your shot.

    Film will probably stay as an alternative medium (just like LP) which appeals to the niche market (esp. for B&W), but digital will be mainstream very soon.

    Regards
    CK

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    I've managed to convince a colleague who likes to travel to convert to digicam using just one argument:
    When she asked someone to take a pic of her, she can see the results immediately. There's no need to wait for development only to realise that the composition was not the way intended.
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  17. #37

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    Well, I was once anti-digital. I still shoot film, but seriously consider going digital. I still like slides. But if I shoot a wedding on a Saturday and having to wait for Monday to send in my 10-15 rolls of film, and waiting another 1-2 days to get them developed and printed, then another half a day or so to sit down and sort through all of them, put them into albums (and sieve out the rejects) is just too time consuming.

    10 rolls of film and processing costs about $250. If I deliever the equivalent of 360 prints, the cost is only $185 ($0.50 per 4R + $5 handling fee). And I am no longer limited to 10 rolls.

    I am sure you've been in a situation where you go out for a shoot but shot say, 5-10 frames on a roll of 36? And that roll perhaps last you a month coz of your other commitments? And if you want to see that keeper in frame #6 and simply sent it in for processing, you waste the rest of the roll (ok, film is cheap, but doesn't mean you have to waste it like that).

    When you're shooting and the skies turned dark. You spot your subject, and you get a reading of 1/8 @ f/2 on your ISO 200 film. You don't have any faster film. What do you do? Curse? With digital, you simply set the ISO to a higher value and get your shot.

    Film will probably stay as an alternative medium (just like LP) which appeals to the niche market (esp. for B&W), but digital will be mainstream very soon.

    Regards
    CK
    I am also seriously considering going digital primarily because of the faster 'turnaround' time compared to film. And I can completely empathised with you on the situations that you mentioned and that is also another reason to go digital because of the greater shooting versatility of a digital camera.

    Looks like I will be poorer by some $3600 for a D60. But still I like to keep my film SLR. There is still that magical feel when viewing slides with a loupe and lightbox.

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Somewhere near Equator
    Posts
    210

    Red face

    YAWN!!

  19. #39

    Default

    Although I'm a great fan of digital (and can list the many advantages), I'm also beginning to discover the benefits of film.

    1. Shooting with care. Each shot is psychologically PRECIOUS. You don't shoot rubbish, you think before you shoot (usually resulting in a better shot), and there's so much less editing to do at the end of a roll. Sure, you could do that with digital, but will you?

    2. High ISO. Although I have yet to develop my first roll of Ilford Delta 3200 (still exposing this one frame at a time), I believe you can't get the same low-grain equivalent digitally at the moment (maybe in a coupla years). And this can easily be pushed to ISO 6400. That's why the so-called night shots on CS are all of buildings, not people. Buildings don't move. I'm interested in taking pictures of people at night, in low-light conditions.

    3. Size, weight and cost. Film cameras are usually smaller and lighter than their digital equivalents, when comparing similar picture quality. I don't expect to get the same image quality from a digicam the size of my Olympus mju II, which I got for $140 brand new. Even my film SLR, the EOS 50, is much lighter than the D30 (and a heck of a lot cheaper).

    4. Speed of operation. There's almost negligible start-up time with a film camera, as oppposed to what you find in digicams. Just flick a switch (sometimes this is not even necessary) and shoot immediately. You won't believe how many shots I have missed waiting for my digital camera to wake up, even from standby mode.

    5. Batteries. Try taking a trip to a place where you can't recharge batteries, and see how a manual film camera is superior to the best dead digital camera.

    6. Artistic cred. Somehow film users get more boasting rights than a digicam user, don't you think?

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Funny, the biggest film lover singing for digital and the biggest digi lover singing for film.

    Anyway it's just a preference, like how we cook our food. Either way, we just want something to eat comforably. Dun bother which way better. Today I want some rice, and tomorrow I want some bread. All in all, we try both! It would be boring if there is no choice at all.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •