Film revival

BobD · Jul 9, 2012

I think the question is: Will digital shooters ever realize that they can't view a 25 megapixel image on their monitor without re-sizing it down to about a 1 megapixel image and figure out that they just threw away most of the MP they just paid big money to capture. Or, that a half ounce of printer ink costs more than most 35mm SLRs today.

Steve Smith · Jul 9, 2012

BobD said:
I think the question is: Will digital shooters ever realize that they can't view a 25 megapixel image on their monitor without re-sizing it down to about a 1 megapixel image

I have mentioned this before: On another forum I used to frequent, there was a question asked "How many of you print your pictures?"

Probably at least 75% of the replies stated that they never or rarely printed and only uploaded their images to websites or viewed them on their monitors yet these seemed to be the same people who always had to have the latest multi mega pixel wonder as soon as it came out.

Steve.

Diapositivo · Jul 9, 2012

It is also true that people can, and likely often do, zoom in in the image they see on the monitor, it's a very natural instinct. There is difference between a "zoomable" image and one that cannot be zoomed. And they can crop a portrait and it still maintains a "large" dimension etc.

People/Consumers are not so irrational as one think.

BobD · Jul 9, 2012

Diapositivo said:
It is also true that people can, and likely often do, zoom in in the image they see on the monitor, it's a very natural instinct. There is difference between a "zoomable" image and one that cannot be zoomed. And they can crop a portrait and it still maintains a "large" dimension etc.

People/Consumers are not so irrational as one think.

Huh?

Diapositivo · Jul 9, 2012

BobD said:
Huh?

To be clearer, if you watch pictures in your computer, when you look at an image the computer - as said in above posts - resizes the image on screen so that it can be contained within its pixel dimensions, but you can normally zoom in and see a larger portion of a less reduced image, until you arrive at seeing the image pixel by pixel (in real pixel dimensions).

If you resize your image to post it somewhere, there obviously is no benefit in zooming - if this is what raises the doubt which causes your elaborated question

rolleiman · Jul 9, 2012

Steve Smith said:
I have mentioned this before: On another forum I used to frequent, there was a question asked "How many of you print your pictures?"

Steve.

Another facet of this "wastage of images", is the fact that when I was working professionally, I noticed that photographers brought up on digi cameras constantly "machine-gun" their subjects in semi-panic mode, whereas the ones who learnt their craft on manual film cameras like myself, would concentrate on the subject and shoot a single frame at the "vital moment", when you knew instinctively everything came together and the expression was "right".

This meant I could fully cover an assignment with 30 frames or less shot, whereas the digi born & bred photographer would be wading his way through more than 200 shots, in the hope he'd got a few that were relevent and sharp.

One of the main benefits of film photography are the various formats, particularly medium format, that allow you to compose carefully and "get it right on screen". Whilst digis have live screens on the back, they are not optical, and often give a false impression of brightness etc., plus, use them too often and just watch your battery drain away.

CGW · Jul 9, 2012

rolleiman said:
Another facet of this "wastage of images", is the fact that when I was working professionally, I noticed that photographers brought up on digi cameras constantly "machine-gun" their subjects in semi-panic mode, whereas the ones who learnt their craft on manual film cameras like myself, would concentrate on the subject and shoot a single frame at the "vital moment", when you knew instinctively everything came together and the expression was "right".

This meant I could fully cover an assignment with 30 frames or less shot, whereas the digi born & bred photographer would be wading his way through more than 200 shots, in the hope he'd got a few that were relevent and sharp.

One of the main benefits of film photography are the various formats, particularly medium format, that allow you to compose carefully and "get it right on screen". Whilst digis have live screens on the back, they are not optical, and often give a false impression of brightness etc., plus, use them too often and just watch your battery drain away.

This is something of an enduring truism. For studio work, tethered shooting with an assistant at the monitor or brief review breaks minimizes "spray and pray" and mindless chimping. Digital allows fast lighting changes rather than piles of wasted polaroids and/or blown rolls and wasted time and money on reshoots. Pros I know, especially those with film experience, don't seem to do things quite the way you characterize them. They're mindful of the technologies' limitations and benefits relative to film.

BobD · Jul 9, 2012

Diapositivo said:
To be clearer, if you watch pictures in your computer, when you look at an image the computer - as said in above posts - resizes the image on screen so that it can be contained within its pixel dimensions, but you can normally zoom in and see a larger portion of a less reduced image, until you arrive at seeing the image pixel by pixel (in real pixel dimensions).

Yes, if all one wants to do is take mega-mega-pixel images and zoom in on them on one's own computer then buying the latest and greatest DSLR should be lots of fun. (Film images can be "zoomed" as well, BTW.) But, it's rather impractical to email or post such huge image files. You can print them but, as noted earlier, few people seem to do this and the printers and supplies that take advantage of such images are rather expensive. There's also some question as to whether printers can even produce any difference in print quality above certain levels of image file "resolution." Printer manufacturer's published specifications seem somewhat vague on this point.

But, my point is as regards the usual and most common practices of the majority of DSLR shooters which appears to be to simply shoot images, re-size them down to proportions viewable on a computer monitor, thus "throwing away" the majority of the MP they paid for without realizing it, and then either emailing the pics or posting them on the web.

Such photographers seem blissfully unaware of what actually becomes of their high-priced megapixels.

They also seem to think that digital photography is "far less expensive" than film photography yet most seem to have few, if any, actual paper-printed photographs to show for their expenditures and they don't seem to be aware of how outrageously expensive inkjet ink is. Or, how much it costs to buy a new DSLR every couple years, not to mention the costs of printers and computers and internet fees, etc

Stephen Prunier · Jul 9, 2012

rolleiman said:
Another facet of this "wastage of images", is the fact that when I was working professionally, I noticed that photographers brought up on digi cameras constantly "machine-gun" their subjects in semi-panic mode, whereas the ones who learnt their craft on manual film cameras like myself, would concentrate on the subject and shoot a single frame at the "vital moment", when you knew instinctively everything came together and the expression was "right".

This meant I could fully cover an assignment with 30 frames or less shot, whereas the digi born & bred photographer would be wading his way through more than 200 shots, in the hope he'd got a few that were relevent and sharp.

One of the main benefits of film photography are the various formats, particularly medium format, that allow you to compose carefully and "get it right on screen". Whilst digis have live screens on the back, they are not optical, and often give a false impression of brightness etc., plus, use them too often and just watch your battery drain away.

When my nephew was playing hockey at his high school there was this father who took game/action shots. He was the self appointed photographer! He also knew I was a photographer who only shot film, and I always left my camera at home. On average, he would take 800 - 1000 shots at any of the events he was at and then he would upload them for the parents to view. He would never edit them first so you usually had 4-6 photos of the same image (no singles with this guy!) At every game he would always seek me out so he could say "hey Steve, I took 800 shot's, how much would that cost if it was film?" I would always respond with, "I would never shoot that much, I could get all the shots I need with 3 rolls!" To which he would say, ya but, I'm, where's the fun in that? LOL

rolleiman · Jul 9, 2012

vintagepics said:
Tell him next time just to shoot the whole thing on video, and post the frames. Whats the difference.

That's exactly where I believe digital is heading. With video increasingly available on digi still cameras......If you're going to have cameras with a 10 frames a second capability, then you might as well shoot it on video and select any frame you want from that.

Darkroom317 · Jul 9, 2012

rolleiman said:
That's exactly where I believe digital is heading. With video increasingly available on digi still cameras......If you're going to have cameras with a 10 frames a second capability, then you might as well shoot it on video and select any frame you want from that.

That would be far more work than it is worth. A football match is 90 mins. If you were to record the whole at 24 fps. That would be 129,600 frames. 30 fps would be 162,000 frames. Who is going to do the editing by the deadline for the next days distrubution.

Furthermore, why can we not just talk about the revival of film? Why must these dicussions about digital occur? Digital is here and is fesible, no reason to rehash this.

Klainmeister · Jul 9, 2012

Speaking of the revival of film, I just got back from visiting me family over the last holiday week and saw an interesting thing. I drove up to the top of a volcano and some mountain bikers just arrived. While standing around with the other tourists, they pulled out a pair of Holga 35mm and asked some folks to take their picture (quickly bewildering them). I was there with my Pentax ME and Olympus XA, and my girlfriend had her Nikon FE around her neck. Some other people started talking and the inevitable "I have one of those somewhere at home! I need to get some film and shoot it again" comments were made.

lovely stuff

Roger Cole · Jul 9, 2012

My then-fiance and I hiked to the top of the Roan Mountain balds on the TN-NC state line. The Appalachian trail cross there too. We passed several hikers who all commented approvingly on my Yashicamat. People into that sort of thing often appreciate older stuff.

PentaxBronica · Jul 11, 2012

The other thing to consider is wear on cameras.

DSLRs do wear out, and the "spray and pray" crowd will need a new camera long before those of us reared on film.

I don't see a market for a new 35mm SLR just yet as there are so many perfectly usable ones on ebay for next to nothing here. I've paid 99p for a Pentax P30 body in perfect working order before now, stuffed a roll of film in the back and a £5 50mm f2 on the front (cheap as I had to clean a load of fungus out, but it's perfect now) and had something which could match a few thousand pounds worth of pro DSLR for less than a couple of rounds of drinks in most pubs.

rolleiman · Jul 11, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
That would be far more work than it is worth. A football match is 90 mins. If you were to record the whole at 24 fps. That would be 129,600 frames. 30 fps would be 162,000 frames. Who is going to do the editing by the deadline for the next days distrubution.

Furthermore, why can we not just talk about the revival of film? Why must these dicussions about digital occur? Digital is here and is fesible, no reason to rehash this.

Increasingly this is how many sports photographers work. However they don't video the entire game, just selected snatches, which are transmitted to the picture desk to edit out into still frames.

I agree we should talk about the revival of film. However think upon this; if the current trend of incorporating more video facilities into still digi cameras continues, will it reach the point where digital cameras become primarily video? (which appeals to the consumer more anyway). If this happens, then still digital cameras could cease to exist. Then will we see a gap in the market filled by the re-introduction of high quality film cameras? It's an interesting thought.

CGW · Jul 11, 2012

I agree we should talk about the revival of film. However think upon this; if the current trend of incorporating more video facilities into still digi cameras continues, will it reach the point where digital cameras become primarily video? (which appeals to the consumer more anyway). If this happens, then still digital cameras could cease to exist. Then will we see a gap in the market filled by the re-introduction of high quality film cameras? It's an interesting thought.

What's "interesting" is that you've got it assbackwards. DSLRs capable of 1080p video at high variable frame rates with few focus glitches are putting the hurt on consumer grade camcorder sales.

lxdude · Jul 11, 2012

^^True that, CGW, but what with electronic viewfinders and all, it seems to me that it could reverse in the future, with combo video/still cameras adopting more the camcorder ergonomics.

Pumalite · Jul 11, 2012

That is no interest to us in this thread.

CGW · Jul 11, 2012

lxdude said:
^^True that, CGW, but what with electronic viewfinders and all, it seems to me that it could reverse in the future, with combo video/still cameras adopting more the camcorder ergonomics.

I think we're already there. Articulated LCDs are common on many DSLRs. The new Sony NEX cameras are mirrorless with EVFs and LCDs only on the cheaper models with menu-driven controls.

lxdude · Jul 11, 2012

My response goes to support rolleiman's suggestion that the still camera market could get left to film.

CGW · Jul 11, 2012

lxdude said:
My response goes to support rolleiman's suggestion that the still camera market could get left to film.

Unlikely since cameras are here now--and will only get better--that do both video and stills with aplomb.

But we're annoyingly OT with this sort of discussion.

lxdude · Jul 11, 2012

I really should have put it in the context of what I was thinking about: At some point, computer generated imaging will be indistinguishable from an image made with a camera. Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.

rolleiman · Jul 11, 2012

lxdude said:
I really should have put it in the context of what I was thinking about: At some point, computer generated imaging will be indistinguishable from an image made with a camera. Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.

We may be there already. My son who works in an architect's office, tells me that computer generated imaging of their newly constructed housing complexes, has removed the need to hire a specialist architectual photographer to do the job.

Another example of the changing media world; ex photo colleagues doing newspaper work, tell me they've been told
that they should consider their main function is to supply the web edition of the paper with video-clips from stories, stills for the printed version of the newspaper can be taken from the video if needed, the quality, apparently only has to be "good enough".

This seems to re-inforce the notion that photographers aiming for real quality, will probably regard medium format as their preferred medium, with systems like Hasselblad still around. There is no equal to taking your time omposing on that fabulous 6x6 screen

PKM-25 · Jul 11, 2012

CGW said:
This is something of an enduring truism. For studio work, tethered shooting with an assistant at the monitor or brief review breaks minimizes "spray and pray" and mindless chimping. Digital allows fast lighting changes rather than piles of wasted polaroids and/or blown rolls and wasted time and money on reshoots. Pros I know, especially those with film experience, don't seem to do things quite the way you characterize them. They're mindful of the technologies' limitations and benefits relative to film.

Not only that, when I have about 10 seconds to get a great image of Isreali Minister of Defense Ehud Barack or Shaun White's best run in the pipe, you can bet your shmegapixels my camera is at 10 FPS, people blink and do weird things with their mouths when talking and it is frozen in a photograph.

I also don't buy this "25MPX is a waste on a computer screen" thing either, I see a big difference between 12 and 36MP on my Apple 30" monitor when the photograph is sized to fit.

That said, if I had no 35mm film camera and I now wanted one and had the choice between a brand new $1,000 F200 or a $200 F100, you can bet I will take the cheaper and just as able used model. Since I use a darkroom to print, I don't have as much interest as I used to in 35mm instead using medium and now large format.

So the F100, FM3A, M3 and Xpan I have ought to last me a long, long time. That being said, the brilliant new technology that Chamonix brought to the 45N-2 was very much worth paying new for, especially that it was equal to the used price of most decent 4x5 field cameras....but I digress...

Roger Cole · Jul 11, 2012

rolleiman said:
This seems to re-inforce the notion that photographers aiming for real quality, will probably regard medium format as their preferred medium, with systems like Hasselblad still around. There is no equal to taking your time omposing on that fabulous 6x6 screen

There's much better - taking your time composing on an 8x10 ground glass. Even larger is better but hits diminishing returns quickly. I stop at 4x5 because of the size and difficulty of acquiring and relocating bigger enlargers.

Film revival

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency