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

Enough with all this "film will Die stuff"

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by AJUK, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    2 things happened yesterday that made reassured me that it wont. 1 I got my prints back from Ilford, Its the first set of B&W prints I have ever had that have been made the proper way and they are awesome. 2 I was watching a documentary about light and When they got to the bit about the invention of Photography they showed the guy who was making the documentary getting his photo taken the way they did it 150 years ago, he had to lean on a mantle piece to keep still because the exposure would take 30 seconds and wait also reminded me of when I watched a program called Rolf On Art when he had a painting printed in some very obsolete way, there are still people doing it.. so if there are still people out there using those obsolete method of taking photos, and printing what is to say that film should die? My guess it will become an art in itself like photography didn’t kill painting. And I guess that Fuji and Ilford will be the companies that will carry on making it in the future.
  2. taxor

    taxor Well-Known Member

    There's no reason why trad photography should die. There is enough business out there to enable 1 maybe 2 manufacturers to keep healthily afloat. With Kodak pulling out of paper production, that obviously sends more business Ilford's way. Personally, I don't have a problem with digital. It's just that I prefer to shoot on film and work in a darkroom. I also don't want to sell my hard earned kit for a pittance because some monkey tells me 'film is dead'. TAXOR
  3. DMC

    DMC New Member

    When I first saw digital images, I was amazed at how sharp, clear, contrasty and saturated they looked, compared to my 6x4 prints from bonusprint. But now I find images from cameras such as the 300D and 20D seem to grate - I dislike the artificially 'clean' look of the photos, which I don't think are as realistic as film photos. In the current issue of AP, there are several examples of what I dislike - it's getting to the point where I spot the tell-tale signs of digital photos even before I've looked at the photo. These include odd smoothing of textures (like grass) with odd, selected sharpened bits; highlights with odd colour bands around them, a flatten quality to the photo, and seemingly less colour tonality.

    Digital is a relatively new medium, and doesn't have the sophistication of film, even if we can't see it at the moment.
  4. TimF

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

    Know what you mean by that, though not all digital images are bad by any means, and it does so depend on the owner's processsing skills as much as anything.

    Its not surprising that so many people have switched though, going by the average high street print quality of yore. Even a blind yak could have done better than some places.
  5. jchrisc

    jchrisc Well-Known Member

    Trad Photography?
  6. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Sorry I missed your point with that post.
  7. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Let's stop trying to kill fim off. It will die when it is good and ready and not before. I am convinced that it will become a niche market and then carry on for many years before digital eventually reaches an equivalent quality. CDs have been around for nearly 25 years and they haven't finished of vynil yet. In fact vynil singles are enjoying a revival.

    You can dispense with the mourning clothes and get abck to taking pictures.
  8. jchrisc

    jchrisc Well-Known Member

    It is a battered and apparently lifeless stump of an old tree, without a vestige of bark and no sign of green wood - and yet growing out of the top of it is a brand spanking new and very healthy sapling.

    It illustrates how desperately difficult it is to kill off something that is deeply rooted.
  9. TimF

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

    You're a true poet, Chris. :)
  10. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Oh nice Metaphor, I have trully been "Tangoed"
  11. Blad_the_paler

    Blad_the_paler Well-Known Member

    Mmmmmm..... Interesting. this film stuff.

    If I lay out fifteen rolls of different film I am assured fifteen different types of imaging. Each film having its own personality and individuality. If I print those images onto Cibachrome they will be contrasty and vibrant. If I print onto Forte Polywarmtone in the case of mono they will exhibit a stunningly soft range of endless tones in a beautiful warm image effect.

    If I take ANY digital camera the resulting images will look just like any other digital camera with no personality or character. They are just images for the sake of convenience. I can't see any other way of explaining it. It's convenience for the sake of ease. I don't know about you but photography to me is art....... :D
  12. Blad_the_paler

    Blad_the_paler Well-Known Member

    Damn it..... you've got me started now.

    How can a piece of bogroll masquerading as Archival Matt produce anything like the image that exists on an acetate sheet of Cibachrome high gloss. When will these digital idiots realise that gloss is GLOSS and not some shiny piece of cellulose fibre. Mono artists have for years had to glaze to get a true gloss. Cibachrome is bloody awesome on its own. Christ, have you seen Fuji Velvia printed onto Cibachrome...? Get real ! Digital might reach art in another fifty or more years but at the moment it's the toy of the masses. God help true photography. It's truly exquisite.
  13. Blad_the_paler

    Blad_the_paler Well-Known Member

    By the way.....

    Vinyl sales in the UK increased by 95% during the period 2004...! :D
  14. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Err, well, no! Digital cameras differ considerably one from another in terms of the look of their files. But anyway, the scope for really changing the character of digital images lies in post-processing, and it's greater by far than the scope afforded by different film/printing options, with the exception of some more esoteric things - like IR, for instance.

    In short, almost everything you can do by choice of film you can do by post-processing a digital file, and an awful lot more besides. And the most crucial difference is that you don't have to be bound by a decision made at the time of shooting. Credit where credit's due - digital imaging may have its downsides, but lack of versatility in the 'character' of its results isn't one of them!
  15. TimF

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

    In the same vein, I recently read an article (forget where now. Story of my life) about a US News tog who shoots his regular stuff with a Canon 20D. Recently however, he's taken to carrying an old Speed Graphic around with him too. During a John Kerry rally in the US Election he shot with both. The digital images were just like everybody else's (just like you say). Everything sharp and wonderfully clear, edge to edge. Finding Kerry in the crowd was, as the article put it, a "Where's Waldo" moment. The Speed Graphic image was by contrast, of extraordinary clarity, wonderful tonality as you'd expect, but the old lens meant that the photo was pin sharp in the centre, and with a gradual softening towards the corners. The effect being to concentrate the viewers' attention on the centre of the image, just where it should be. Having modern glass with edge to edge sharpness isn't all gain.
  16. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    I met an Italian guy (younger than me) on the bus the other day, he said he hates digital cameras lol.

    BTW I want to take the same picture twice The fist on my OM-10 and the second on a Digital Compact, and then have them both blown up? Any ideas of what sort of picture will work best. BTW the reason to this is I want to make a piont to somone at work as she wants to have a picture of a flower taken on her digital compact, blown up Murial size, I have been trying to tell her that is will look like crap and even a 35mm SLR would strugle, So I thought Id take the same picture and blow it up to A4, AAARGH I can't find my digital camera. I know I had it I used it to take pictures of beer mays for eBay!

    Oh and huwevans you can do that by scanning negs /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
  17. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    I haven't got a clue what you're getting at there.
  18. Blad_the_paler

    Blad_the_paler Well-Known Member

    Try shooting on a 5 inch by four inch sheet of Fuji Velvia and then try and tell me digital has got character. Anyone who claims it has really needs to take a close look at true quality. Digital has very little and if you do the industry standard thing of dividing by 300 for a true continuous tone image you find it can't even print bigger than A4. Even then, that's being amazingly generous. A sheet of Fuji Velvia will print to massive sizes measured in metres.

    If you need an example of this true quality as opposed to virtual quality, take a look in any good mag with classy ads. Marie Claire do some amazing stuff with sheet film and it stands head and shoulders above the rest. And I still stand by my original statement on the difference between digital cameras. I sell them for a living and see hundreds of them. All very boring with one or two exceptions. :D
  19. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    You're barking up the wrong tree - Huw is an avowed LF guy. The thing is that "character" isn't the same thing as "quality" - I used to love the character of Scotch 1000, but the quality was always lacking.....

    As for the differences of character between digital cameras, well there are plenty enough between my Ixus 500 and EOS 10D, even if the differences between them and any of my Rolleis or the MPP Mk VIII are much greater - but they are there.
  20. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    As Nick says, LF is my preferred medium. Well, horses for courses really - I use digital when I find it preferable for the job in hand, and film (anything up to 10x8) when that is preferable. But my heart certainly lies with film and LF in particular.

    But now you're talking about quality (however that might be defined), and that's not the issue you were discussing in the post I replied to. I would maintain that the differences in character between different films and/or printing papers are dwarfed by the scope of differences that can be produced by competent processing of a good digital file.

    Paradoxically (as some might see it) that's actually one of the reasons I'm less enthusiastic about digital photography than about traditional film photography - the things that I have to work quite hard at, or need to draw on long years of experience and know-how in order to achieve with film, are frequently reduced to a few relatively simple procedures in software. And for me that just isn't rewarding - it's all too easy.

Share This Page