Film is dead?


Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
The Ultimate Digital vs Film shootout, from Luminous Landscape.

And now for something controversial. I have just published a comparison between high-end 35mm digital (the Canon 1Ds) and medium format film. Since I have recently sold almost all of my medium format equipment you may find the results of interest. The article is entitled — The Ultimate Shootout.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Regards
CK
 

nicky

New Member
Apr 13, 2002
414
0
0
#2
He ended his review with this :what:

" Goodbye film. Goodbye medium format "
 

#4
Originally posted by mpenza
maybe for professionals but not consumers/prosumers....
Why not? The current crop of DSLRs can already beat the crap out of 35mm film in terms of quality. I won't be surprised if something like a G3 can beat a regular P&S camera....

Regards
CK
 

mpenza

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
12,938
0
0
Singapore
www.instagram.com
#5
guess I should qualify.... costs wise, film cameras may still have an edge, especially for those who prints out all their photos. e.g. $300 P&S vs a $1000 Digicam which delivers the same quality. $700 could buy ~100 rolls of film. As costs goes down while quality continue to increase, this may not hold true any more.
 

#6
Originally posted by mpenza
guess I should qualify.... costs wise, film cameras may still have an edge, especially for those who prints out all their photos. e.g. $300 P&S vs a $1000 Digicam which delivers the same quality. $700 could buy ~100 rolls of film. As costs goes down while quality continue to increase, this may not hold true any more.
I see more and more people buying digital P&S these days. Even at the cheapest $9.90 per roll for dev/printing, $3 per roll of film, it's about $13.00 per roll of film.

On the other hand, digital is not for people who shoot 1 roll a year lar. :)

Regards
CK
 

sriram

New Member
Mar 10, 2002
1,253
0
0
#7
Not. The same old digital vs film argument again and again.

Let me give you an example. I bought a used Kodak P&S digicam about 3 yrs ago. 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. That's a 93% loss in 3+ years. Today's $1000 digicams can blow my (ex) Kodak away. I don't expect this trend to change any time soon. You lose more $$ when you upgrade your DSLR.

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.
 

May 22, 2002
272
0
0
40
S'pore
www.bengchye.com
#8
Wah... the war starting liao...!!!

the cost is always a problem... $0.35 for 4R... what about digital?? $0.45-$0.50?? i'm not quite sure about the price... but what about the printing quality?? DOES everyone know about monitor correction, printer correction and difference between YOUR correction and printing lab's correction on colour???

for me, these are the factors that i don't go into digital... if i change my P.C, i will have to spend hours to do all these...

if i use slides, i don't face all these problem... ;p... slide to print on 8RS...$8... same as Digital??? so why bother to do all the correction... if i lost 1 roll of slides, i lost 1 effort.. if i lost 1 media card... i waste WHOLE day effort... ;p
few years later, i need to do reprint, find the files in the whole of of CDs... i got to colour correction again.. sildes... find the slides, send for printing... simple as that... can the colour of DIGITAL beat the colour of slides???

what about enlargment... can DIGITAL beat large format or medium format in quality??

guess that is why digital can never "kill" negatives...

furthermore, there are more people changing from digital to convectional...
 

jesser

New Member
Dec 28, 2002
516
0
0
Serangoon
www.jesserswork.com.sg
#9
digital in commercial use.....i agree that it do help
a lot compare to film photography. Just say the cost
and time in digital, it really save a lot. i respect that.

but as a hobby and interest.....i still like to play with
films....and i believe a true photographer comes from here.
the challenge.......... take good photo just from your
very own camera.

in digital.......all i need to do is just take a shot, nice, story end.
if not.........touch up over the pc......hmmmm......how to improve
photography skill.?:( my friend use to say this is image-graphy.

i think film and digital will still have their own ways.;)
 

Dagger

New Member
Jul 17, 2002
1,151
0
0
19
Singapore
simone.clubsnap.org
#10
Originally posted by ckiang


I see more and more people buying digital P&S these days. Even at the cheapest $9.90 per roll for dev/printing, $3 per roll of film, it's about $13.00 per roll of film.

On the other hand, digital is not for people who shoot 1 roll a year lar. :)

Regards
CK
Time could have been another issue. With digital, one needn't wait for the lab and keep guessing a waiting if one has all the super shots. Digital shots can also be electronically despatched of the net for various reasons, no scanning resources required.

For the past years, I've been more of a film/slide shooter than digital. I feel that both have their pros and cons. Digital (DSLR) as a new technology compared to the conventional film (SLR)is a much more heavier investment. On the other hand, at a certain serious photography stage one normally do not print all the shots. In the conventional world, you should be using slides. Then you will be archiving your slides, like what I do at times. ON the digital side, one also may not always print all the shots but send round the web/world/to friends, etc. I would probably print a few large (A4-A3 and above) digital shots for posters, group photos, portfolios, etc. This is only occassional still.

On the personal side, I feel for that for general users it is all a matter of one's requirements and maybe wants. At the moment, Digital is little more in thing. For me, I like both, be it 35mm, 120 film, half plate or full plate or digital normal DSLR or medium format.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 

May 22, 2002
272
0
0
40
S'pore
www.bengchye.com
#11
Originally posted by jesser
digital in commercial use.....i agree that it do help
a lot compare to film photography. Just say the cost
and time in digital, it really save a lot. i respect that.

but as a hobby and interest.....i still like to play with
films....and i believe a true photographer comes from here.
the challenge.......... take good photo just from your
very own camera.

in digital.......all i need to do is just take a shot, nice, story end.
if not.........touch up over the pc......hmmmm......how to improve
photography skill.?:( my friend use to say this is image-graphy.

i think film and digital will still have their own ways.;)
High Five...

guess if one can shoot a picture that looks like digital, he have master the "REAL" skill in photography...

touching up digital after shoot, kind of wasting of time...
work face computer, after work still face computer... photography still face computer... sianz... :what:
 

#12
A lot of people forgot whether digital or film, the rules of traditional photography still applies. A bad pic is still a bad pic whether it's on film or digital, photoshop is not a cure-all. It's not a simple matter of shoot, retouch, print.

Yes, digital equipment depreciates, but are you are photographer or a trader? Sure, something like say, a Canon G1 is probably worth nothing much now, but it still takes good pictures. And cost is definitely coming down.

reignman, digital has already beat film in terms of quality. 35mm film has already been beaten, and 6x7 MF as well. Quality is no longer a concern. B&W is quite a bit harder though. With the appropriate process, digital can beat a slide to print as well. The only reason why people move from convention (not convectional) to digital is because the prosumer/consumer digicams just doesn't give enough controls and performance.

And let's not forget that with film, if you shoot 36, print 36 and find only 1 keeper, you are paying for all that. With digital, you shoot 100 and get 1 keeper, you don't waste anything. Think you got a great shot but you are at frame 10? Either you waste 35 and process it, or wait till you finish all the roll.

If you shoot for people, film and processing costs actually lowers your profits.


Regards
CK
 

denizenx

Senior Member
Feb 1, 2002
4,058
0
0
41
L2TPYSG
Visit site
#13
not everyone is in the digital flow...
bangladeshis/filipinos/chinese blue collars, from my retail experience. PC? they dun have one, so nevermind the inkjets and the photoshop.
as long film costs $100 a camera, it will reign. maybe not the pros, not the rich, not the trendy.
nothing inflammatory in my text, I hope. just what I see when I sell.
 

#15
Originally posted by denizenx
not everyone is in the digital flow...
bangladeshis/filipinos/chinese blue collars, from my retail experience. PC? they dun have one, so nevermind the inkjets and the photoshop.
as long film costs $100 a camera, it will reign. maybe not the pros, not the rich, not the trendy.
nothing inflammatory in my text, I hope. just what I see when I sell.
Nothing wrong, but the thing with digital is long term savings along with the other benefits. You invest in something which will hopefully give you savings in the long term. :)

Regards
CK
 

May 22, 2002
272
0
0
40
S'pore
www.bengchye.com
#16
Hey man... cool down...

everything here is just own prefrence.... although it takes 2 to clap... but it is not going to take 2 to change the topic...

the changes and the improvment will take place as these companies are all out to compete, improve and make money...

whether film is dead or dying... time will tell...

for B/W... its the founder... for years... people still loves B/W...
same for neg... if there are people using, companies will still continue... they still make money from there....;p
 

#17
Originally posted by reignman77
Hey man... cool down...

everything here is just own prefrence.... although it takes 2 to clap... but it is not going to take 2 to change the topic...

the changes and the improvment will take place as these companies are all out to compete, improve and make money...

whether film is dead or dying... time will tell...

for B/W... its the founder... for years... people still loves B/W...
same for neg... if there are people usng, companies will still continue... they still make money from there....;p
Cool down? Hey man, it's not even warm yet! :)

Regards
CK
 

sljm

New Member
Dec 2, 2002
308
0
0
38
Singapore
sljm.tripod.com
#18
jus my own opnion...

It is true that the photographer makes the picture. With the advance of digital one may argue that now since memory is cheap one can take lots of picture and jus selectively chose the best and u still get good picture (Imagine if u take 1000 and none are good)

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.

For me i shot both digital and film. I am usually more careful with film since it is more expensive and also i tend to think more before i shot. For digital i luv it cause it gives me the chance to jus experiment for almost free.

I don't admit i'm good but jus that what ever medium u use u should think about the picture and not the device that u use.
 

jasonpgc

New Member
Jan 20, 2002
453
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#19
If the price of Digital Cameras can go par with the film counterparts, then film is really dead. But looking at the $3800 D60 and the $750 EOS 33. I say film will survive for quite a long time since most people will still enter the SLR market via the cheaper film SLR path. The DSLR is still too expensive to justify for a newbie.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom