1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

demise of tradional

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by sey, Dec 22, 2004.

  1. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    why are we all bemoaning the gradual obliteration of traditional photo by
    the agressive onslaught of digital!!! can't anything be done? C-more

    seymour
     
  2. jchrisc

    jchrisc Well-Known Member

    Don't you just love loaded questions?

    Chris

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    theres plenty of life in film yet,thank gawd for that cos I could no way afford to go digitull/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    <font color=blue>I'm built for comfort, I aint built for speed!</font color=blue>
    Howlin' Wolf
     
  4. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Quite agree Larry. If Seymour wants film to be around like I do, then just go out and buy the stuff (and related bits 'n pieces!).

    Tim BSRIPN
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    oh yea, even tho I get my colour film free from Jessops, I do have to buy XP-2 for my other camera. I love that stuff, it allows me to afford b/w.

    <font color=blue>I'm built for comfort, I aint built for speed!</font color=blue>
    Howlin' Wolf
     
  6. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    why does it always have to get back to buy,buy,buy????

    seymour
     
  7. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    eh??

    well, how else you gonna ghet the film, make your own?

    <font color=blue>I'm built for comfort, I aint built for speed!</font color=blue>
    Howlin' Wolf
     
  8. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    by the way guys i'm new to this group. i use more XP2 than i eat meals & also
    have a working darkroom. i was born & weaned on FP4 & HP5 !!!
    the problem is to reeducate and go back to basics !


    seymour
     
  9. mattie

    mattie Well-Known Member

    Re: eh??

    Steal?

    I'm not following this.
     
  10. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Sadly because that's the way the world works. Film isn't "sexy" right now, so its down to those who love it to go out and demand the stores keep a decent stock - I've heard too many tales already of empty cabinets - and then ensure those stockists haave enough turnover to make it worth their while.

    Neither the film manufacturers nor the dealers are charities to put it bluntly.

    After that, the onus is on film lovers to re-spread the word to increase use among the public. Can it be done is the $5000 question.

    Tim BSRIPN
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    Re: eh??

    that makes 2 of us!
    troll?

    <font color=blue>I'm built for comfort, I aint built for speed!</font color=blue>
    Howlin' Wolf
     
  12. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Re: eh??

    "Steal?

    I'm not following this."

    Morning Mattie,

    Don't worry about it...........they aren't Pentax shooters and, well you know, we have to make compensations for that/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif.....poor guys.

    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Jack

    Life is a Photo-Op
     
  13. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    well guys thanks for the feedback, both positive & negative.
    wishing you all a traditionally MERRY XMAS!!!!!

    seymour
     
  14. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    While it would be nice to think that film will make a comeback with the masses I doubt it'll happen and it was really the mass buying of the happy snappers that kept the makers of the yellow and green boxes in the money.

    For the ordinary man in the street digital offers instant pictures in the way that Polaroid couldn't quite manage and with the proliferation of direct-from- card printing services (let alone portable 6x4 printers) I can't see any real temptation back to film in this market.

    Those of us who have this enthusiast's addiction to photography and will continue to use film are probably going to have to come to terms with the reality of it becoming a specialist market and probably available mostly by mail order which many of us already do.

    Of course this isn't going to happen overnight as there are a lot of film cameras out there and a lot of people who can't or won't be arsed with computers but I suspect the real rate determining step depends on the enthusiasm or otherwise of the manufacturers about film and film cameras. If they decide they don't wish to support film then as a popular medium I reckon it'll die pretty sharpish.

    Nigel CRIPN

    Now I'm well and truly pixellated... /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  15. thosefellows

    thosefellows Member

    Just treat them as two types of photography.

    You will never beat the quality of film and I can't see the value of digital over film except for speed of repro. It was made for the news industry, not for creative photography. Sadly it will gain popularity as its a means to an end for poor photographers who can now manipulate poor images, but these folk can never better a well composed shot.

    Film is for me, plus a neg scanner so I have the best of both worlds.

    Regards, Steve
     
  16. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Well I never really had access to or the inclination to have my own dark room. I used to shoot slides for myself and prints for the family. Once in a blue moon I would shoot an odd roll of xp 2. I have been very surprised(shocked) at the difference that access to the digital darkroom has made to my photography. Working on the 20 year back catalogue of slides with a scanner became very tedious. It was enjoyable revisiting the memories and bringing them back to life but it wasnt really taking me forward. So it was the 10D for me. For what I do....the arguments over quality just dont wash. The image from the 10D is better than the scans that I can manage:- hands down no debate. As a means of capturing the image, the 10 D is much more flexible than my 5. The ability shift ISO frame by frame and the complete lack of reprocicity mean that I can get pictures that were not possible before. But the main advantage is the simple ability to take as many pictures as I like until I get the shot the way I want it. I dont have to pay for 36 slides to end up with 5 I want to keep.
    The one thing that I do know is... that although I am a poor photographer, I am getting better, simply because of the digital technology.

    Graeme

    AGW[​IMG]
     
  17. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    Steve, that is just the point. They are two completely separate media & must be treated as such. They must live side-by-side & can be used as mixed-media
    as do the different media in the other Arts. Digital Imaging is not Photography
    & vice-versa and I think that this confusion, caused by agressive digital
    marketing spin, is what needs to be dealt with.

    The situation is that digital is thriving by crushing traditional out of
    existance instead of complementing it.

    Steve, you are the right example of how the two can live together, bravo!
    I too, after 35 years of being an "analogue" type creature, am in the
    process of marrying the two forms, but I don't & won't own a D-camera, and
    another small tachnical point is that film still remains the safest long-living storage media as opposed to the extremely short "use-by" dates of
    digital technology and equipment, which in it's madness the industry seems hell-bent on proving how quickly it can make itself obsolete with the almost daily intro. of "newer", "bigger" (or more accurately "smaller")& "better" hardware & software.

    All the best, seymour
     
  18. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    You will never beat the quality of film and I can't see the value of digital over film except for speed of repro. It was made for the news industry, not for creative photography. Sadly it will gain popularity as its a means to an end for poor photographers who can now manipulate poor images, but these folk can never better a well composed shot.

    Film is for me, plus a neg scanner so I have the best of both worlds.



    I presume you have never manipulated one of your poorer images........

    As for quality well yes film does have the edge but which film and frame size do you consider acceptable. After all it's a truism that MF is better than 35mm and that prints from LF are better yet so if quality is the issue how come we aren't all lugging round 10x8 Gandolfis?

    I have seen images printed at A2 on pro printers by pro photographers using digital cameras (SLR types granted) that are easily of the highest quality and stand up perfectly alongside wet prints.

    The film/digital debate is really over... digital is here and it's going to stay and yes I hope film keeps going too (after all what else can I stuff in my assorted old Nikons.../img/wwwthreads/smile.gif).

    Nigel CRIPN

    Now I'm well and truly pixellated... /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  19. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    ...but I don't & won't own a D-camera...

    On what grounds? Luddism? Digital photigraphy is photogaphy, it uses lenses to focus light onto a receiving medium, the fact that medium is photoelectric rather than photochemical is neither here nor there. The latent image has been written with light and how that latency is converted to actuality in post processing whether by chemical or electronic means has no bearing on the validity of the image as a photograph.

    Nigel CRIPN

    Now I'm well and truly pixellated... /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  20. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    This actually is an old debate that really is not that worthwhile...people have their own positions which are either flexible or intrenched...lets just post the images and talk about them and learn./img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Graeme

    AGW[​IMG]
     

Share This Page