Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 82

Thread: Why do people still shoot with film cameras when digital is a better tool!

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clive
    f maths curve sketching now can use electronic aids? wakaoz...not fair ...

    anyway to me it doesnt make a difference actually

    now they permit graphic calculators but it is not really of much help cos they never ask u to sketch one. even if sketch, only 1 mark now, so... i guess is jus give and take.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikonian Foo
    I shot slides for the first time using Agfa Vista while in NY. Got a 3X slide viewer and I was absolutely gobsmacked when I saw the incredible colours and the "3D effect" you can never achieve with digital.

    Went to a school reunion...some girls were using film cameras...I guess their idea was "point, shoot, give to lab, receive pics of friends". So simple. No photoshop. No nonsense.
    The slide thing is the last frontier for digital. It is only a matter of time...

    As for the point and shoot, it can even be easier with a digital P&S with some preparation. They can crop, resize, adjust brightness and publish on the web before they meet their friends again. It is only a matter of experience. No need photoshop at all. There are quite a few software that does that pretty easily like that.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    This is an endless debate..film or digital is better.
    For me, I do not agree with digital is much cheaper..as some of the DSLR which quality can match with Pro-film is very much expensive than Film cameras. The set-up cost for DSLR is much more expensive and the technology will replace even the top model almost every year or so..with better CCD technology and etc...
    Digital do have pros...you can preview picture after you had just taken it (it also means that that person have 0 confidence in his skills in photography).
    Buy a cheap old Nikon camera (F, F2, FM, FM2) and you can be sure that these cameras are going to last you a long time..if you are a technology freak or an equipment freak(always like to buy new things), buy a DSLR. There is always a MILLION of excuse to change your DSLRs when a new 30 million pixels DSLR coming out of the market.
    Check the running cost for digital vs film. Ask a pro or a enthusiast. Calculate say for 5000 shots per year.

    Why must you replace? Does your existing digital camera NOT work when a new one comes out? Why must you buy the latest & greatest first-hand? Like what you said, "Millon of excuse(s)". Weak.

    Blame your own weakness, not technology.

    The same urge to upgrade can be applied to film cameras as well.
    Last edited by Watcher; 12th January 2004 at 12:38 AM.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweat100
    I think digital still have not bridged film one yet? Lets talk abt slideshow. I remebered that time i did a presentation with powerpoint. and one with a slides projector. The vibrance of slide is far superior, i was only usuing those normal slides. It is jus the tone.
    No doubt i like digital, but it does not give u the skintone imho?
    And i think ppl still prefer seeing prints.
    maybe by using film, u can do funny things such as cross processing?
    Frankly, the vibrance, color, etc is due to the fact that technology to do digital is too expensive right now (check the price of a PhaseOne H25 or Leaf Valeo 22).

    Skintones, etc are just frankly due to the lack of skill. Do tell me how often the pro/biz photography nowadays uses film vs digital? Fashion/model, sports, photojournalism are mostly digital now. Only landscape and architecture (due mostly to the lack of pixel/$ cost ratio) remain the stronghold of film...
    Last edited by Watcher; 12th January 2004 at 12:35 AM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweat100
    I remebered that time i did a presentation with powerpoint. and one with a slides projector. The vibrance of slide is far superior, i was only usuing those normal slides. It is jus the tone.
    This is a grossly unfair comparison. The projector is (tops) 1600x1200, giving you less than a 2mb picture. It's like doing a poor scan of a slide and than comparing it with a top-notch digital image and then concluding 'digital is superior'.

    (Even with a Phase1 or Valeo, the projected slide will still look VASTLY superior to the powerpoint-projected digital file at computer screen resolution.)

    Projectors are not quite there yet where high quality picture projection is concerned.
    Last edited by ST1100; 12th January 2004 at 10:19 AM.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    This is an endless debate..film or digital is better.
    For me, I do not agree with digital is much cheaper..as some of the DSLR which quality can match with Pro-film is very much expensive than Film cameras. The set-up cost for DSLR is much more expensive and the technology will replace even the top model almost every year or so..with better CCD technology and etc...
    Digital do have pros...you can preview picture after you had just taken it (it also means that that person have 0 confidence in his skills in photography).
    ....
    i agree on the startup cost and digital been easily replaced.

    But when comes to the '0 confidence' part, well i think that depends lah.
    I shoot film now and i used to own a compact digital. For starters, i will say
    use digital to build up the confidence such as knowing the basics of shutter
    speed, aperture, ISO, EV or even flash compensation. Once you are ok, you got a choice with film or DSLR. No $, go film. Got $, go digital. Nothing wrong
    in previewing your shots cos thats the strength with digital, 'the convenience'. But i really respect those who shoot film though cos they have lesser room for mistakes. Yes of course they can take 1-2 more if they want to play safe.

    My aim is to have both. Film loaded with wide angle to mid range zoom lens. For digital use those mid-higher zoom range, make use of their 1.6 crop factor.

    But in the end it really voice down to what you really want. We can talk until the cows go home and come back the next morning. We will never arrive at a conclusion. For those still making a choice, weight carefully and pick an option that suits you.

    I like a make a final statement that IMHO, film can still go for around 5+ years
    time (worst case). And digital are catching up very fast. But for now (and i say for now), you are comparing few megapixels (digital) with billions of pixels (film).
    Last edited by ashbaby; 12th January 2004 at 11:26 AM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Town of Queens doing PORT-9YOU
    Posts
    12,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    Projectors are not quite there yet where high quality picture projection is concerned.
    I would like to add, it's not there yet, unless one is willing to pay the (high) price...

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashbaby
    But i really respect those who shoot film though cos they have lesser room for mistakes. Yes of course they can take 1-2 more if they want to play safe.
    You can do the same with digital; don't review each photo then. It is a matter of discipline.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashbaby
    I like a make a final statement that IMHO, film can still go for around 5+ years
    time (worst case). And digital are catching up very fast. But for now (and i say for now), you are comparing few megapixels (digital) with billions of pixels (film).
    Not even close to 1 billion pixel (equivalent). The 35mm film is rated to be around 18Mpixels. Scan any higher, you get the grain. Even if you use a Velvia 50, you can't get even close to the order of magnitude that you mentioned. It is getting quite close now. Frankly, few uses need 18MP; photo journalists and sports photogs seems to be fine with the current MP count. It is the dynamic range and the color depth that is more in demand...

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    This is a grossly unfair comparison. The projector is (tops) 1600x1200, giving you less than a 2mb picture. It's like doing a poor scan of a slide and than comparing it with a top-notch digital image and then concluding 'digital is superior'.

    (Even with a Phase1 or Valeo, the projected slide will still look VASTLY superior to the powerpoint-projected digital file at computer screen resolution.)

    Projectors are not quite there yet where high quality picture projection is concerned.


    Precisely. Comparing an apple to a durain

    Discrete/finite vs continuous/infinite.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XXX Boy
    Buy a cheap old Nikon camera (F, F2, FM, FM2) and you can be sure that these cameras are going to last you a long time
    If you can get me a cheap Nikon F1 or F2, I will buy it from you.

    Not all film cameras are cheap.

  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Skintones, etc are just frankly due to the lack of skill. Do tell me how often the pro/biz photography nowadays uses film vs digital? Fashion/model, sports, photojournalism are mostly digital now. Only landscape and architecture (due mostly to the lack of pixel/$ cost ratio) remain the stronghold of film...
    Eh, brother.

    I think the one of the key reasons why digital photography is taken up by fashion/model, sports and photojournalism; is the ease of work flow.

    Having a digital picture will make life easier for the layout designer and content editor. They can see it "live" and adjust there and then. When slides were still in the fad for the publication industry, they have to drum scan those slides and pass it on to the printers, print it out, check and then edit (if needed).

    Digital easier for them mah.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ23
    I would like to add, it's not there yet, unless one is willing to pay the (high) price...
    Hi AJ. Just curious, what kind of resolution are we looking at at the high-end prices, and just how high is high? (i mean the $$)

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Town of Queens doing PORT-9YOU
    Posts
    12,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    Hi AJ. Just curious, what kind of resolution are we looking at at the high-end prices, and just how high is high? (i mean the $$)
    22MP? Valeo Leaf 22? PhaseOne H25? Both are more than US$30,000.

    I would not say that such digital backs match or even surpass that picture quality of tradition colour film and slides, but they are "dangerously" close IMO.

    For now, at the price of such backs, one should be able to do a lot more on film/slides. But again, you win some, you lose some.

    As quoted from a famous local photographer, "Embrace the digital revolution."

  14. #54

    Default

    It was like palm vs ppc. Palm supporter will think Palm rulez. PPC suporter will think PPC ownz.

    People always believe PPC is more advance and cheaper than Palm but why palm is still selling like hot cake? Why some or most people still prefer buy Palm?

    Simple, easy friendly.

    No matter how "hola" or advance PPC is , there will still be Palm supporters.

    No matter how solid a digital camera is, there will still be photographers who prefer film.

    There are many pros and cons about film and digital. It is presonal preference I think.

    For myself, I prefer film :

    1: I don't have to bother about calibration.
    2: Don't have to bother about correction correction(Slide is WYSIWYG). If my exposure is out, that means I suck, simple as that.
    3: I don't have to worry about storage.
    4: I prefer viewing image through a loupe rather from a monitor.

    just my 2 dimes.
    Last edited by ninelives; 12th January 2004 at 05:30 PM.
    Objection !!!

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ23
    22MP? Valeo Leaf 22? PhaseOne H25? Both are more than US$30,000.

    I would not say that such digital backs match or even surpass that picture quality of tradition colour film and slides, but they are "dangerously" close IMO.

    For now, at the price of such backs, one should be able to do a lot more on film/slides. But again, you win some, you lose some.

    As quoted from a famous local photographer, "Embrace the digital revolution."

    Erm, i was asking about the projectors, not the digital backs... as in the projectors that project a computer screen on the wall - i thot you were talking about that in your original comment.

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VincentLin
    Eh, brother.

    I think the one of the key reasons why digital photography is taken up by fashion/model, sports and photojournalism; is the ease of work flow.

    Having a digital picture will make life easier for the layout designer and content editor. They can see it "live" and adjust there and then. When slides were still in the fad for the publication industry, they have to drum scan those slides and pass it on to the printers, print it out, check and then edit (if needed).

    Digital easier for them mah.
    Ah, but you're missing my point. The person said "No doubt i like digital, but it does not give u the skintone imho?", indicating that he thinks that skintones are poor on digital. This is not true at all, instead, it depends on the understanding of digital and the skills to do it right.

    Do you think a gee whiz workflow matters if the skintones comes out like mud? Why not just look at Geoff Ang's work. Digital right? Mud? No!
    Last edited by Watcher; 12th January 2004 at 07:33 PM.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninelives
    It was like palm vs ppc. Palm supporter will think Palm rulez. PPC suporter will think PPC ownz.
    If Palm "rulez", why are they loosing market share for the past few years?

  18. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    If Palm "rulez", why are they loosing market share for the past few years?

    i tot it was simple enough for you understand.

    ok, put it this way.

    palm is loosing marketshare but we still see people using it.

    film based camera is loosing maketshare but we still see people using it?

    but if you choose or buy something because of the "market", then you are someone without own opinion.
    Last edited by ninelives; 13th January 2004 at 12:38 AM.
    Objection !!!

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Town of Queens doing PORT-9YOU
    Posts
    12,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    Erm, i was asking about the projectors, not the digital backs... as in the projectors that project a computer screen on the wall - i thot you were talking about that in your original comment.
    hoho,

    In that case, that will be in the realm of home theatre. HDTV projectors are capable of displaying stunning still pictures from computer inputs. And those that I seen and spoke of is in the price region of at least US$80k.

  20. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowstrife
    Why do people still shoot with film cameras when digital is a better tool!
    The question that started this entire thread hold a key point that answers the very question itself... the camera (digital or film) is but a TOOL!

    At the end of the day, all the camera does is to enable an image to be captured onto a storage medium, be it film or a CCD/CMOS/JFET sensor. So it all boils down to the person behind the camera and how that person utilises his tool. If the fundamental principles of taking a photograph have not be understood by the photographer it doesn't matter if that person shoots one single shot or 100 shots, the image captured will not come up to scratch - be it on film or digital.

    As for the issue of one being a better tool compared to the other, it is all very subjective. The best thing to do is to get the equipment that best suit the job... lust for equipment is another thing altogether and we won't want to open that can of worms here! I've come across many out there with the latest and most expensive equipment that only really require a simple point 'n' shoot, while on the flip side, have met quite a few professionals who still continue to use the most basic of manual SLRs to churn out their highly sort-after images - pros who many would expect to have jumped onto the digital bandwagon by now!

    On a personal note, I use both mediums and find that each have their own pros and cons. Its simply the case of deciding what is best for the type of image required and choosing the appropriate system to achieve the require end result. To be honest 80% of the time, I'd pick up my trusty SLRs as opposed to the DSLR.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •