Film revival

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Yes indeed. When you can see individual blades of grass on the GG, or tell what tree those leaves on the other shore of the river came from..... that weeny little 2 1/4"x2 1/4" screen starts to remind you of the preview screen on a DSLR.

 

[BobD]

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.

Since a computer screen has a fixed number of pixels, how do you explain that?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Since a computer screen has a fixed number of pixels, how do you explain that?

The resizing algorithms that are used to make an image fit the screen size very often introduce artifacts in the image. Only when looking at a digital image at 1:1 on a monitor can you really tell what it looks like.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Film could at that point acquire the mantle of authenticity-it reflects reality, is taken from reality, is demonstrably a real photograph.

Have you never seen some of the great in-camera masking image manipulation work that used to be the mainstay of commercial labs before digital? An image on film is no more (or less) telling the truth than a digital image. You can create fake images with either technology.

 

[lxdude]

Have you never seen some of the great in-camera masking image manipulation work that used to be the mainstay of commercial labs before digital? An image on film is no more (or less) telling the truth than a digital image. You can create fake images with either technology.

Yes, but what I said was, it could acquire the mantle of authenticity. With film it will have come from a camera, not generated in-computer without being based on anything which actually exists. It is a photograph. If computer generated digital imagery is indistinguishable from camera-captured digital imagery, could it not devalue the digital camera image? An image on film is certainly telling the truth compared to a digital image which is not a photograph, i.e., one not taken with a digital camera. The Hubble's a digital camera, but its images portray truth which a CG image of someone's notion of what things look like out there does not.
I have already experienced people thinking images of mine were either photoshopped or CGI. When I showed them the original Kodachromes, with mounts showing dates like 1977, they were amazed. Even more so when I tell them they were created in-camera, with no manipulation other than exposure.

 

[BobD]

The resizing algorithms that are used to make an image fit the screen size very often introduce artifacts in the image. Only when looking at a digital image at 1:1 on a monitor can you really tell what it looks like.

Yes. Which is why I asked the question I asked.

But, I didn't ask you, I asked PKM-25.

If it's OK with you I'd like to get an answer from PKM-25 on it. Thanks.

 

[Diapositivo]

Yes. Which is why I asked the question I asked.

But, I didn't ask you, I asked PKM-25.

If it's OK with you I'd like to get an answer from PKM-25 on it. Thanks.

Bob, I don't understand this. You pose a question to another poster in a public forum and you know the answer to this question. Somebody else answers this question, and you seem to complain that the answer, which you knew already, isn't coming from the user you asked.

I don't know your intention but the way I read it sounds as if you were going to "challenge" a user or to publicly test his knowledge or what. Isn't this just a forum? People ask questions and people answer.

Besides, the answer is that probably the downsizing algorithm has more information to work with and makes a better job downsizing a 30mp image to 1 mp than downsizing a 10mp image to 1mp (but that's not of interest to this forum).

 

[rolleiman]

Have you never seen some of the great in-camera masking image manipulation work that used to be the mainstay of commercial labs before digital? An image on film is no more (or less) telling the truth than a digital image. You can create fake images with either technology.

I think wht lxdude was getting at is not so much the fact that manipulation has gone on in both mediums, but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.

Digital images can represent cold perfection, but real life is not perfect.

 

[CGW]

I think wht lxdude was getting at is not so much the fact that manipulation has gone on in both mediums, but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.

Digital images can represent cold perfection, but real life is not perfect.

Post capture/exposure manipulation is alteration. An untouched digital file isn't necessarily more remote from reality than a negative. Either can be manipulated en route to a print.

 

[CGW]

All that being said, have any of you noticed the rise in film camera costs on Ebay? It seems just about a year or so ago I could pick up a C3 for about $5. Now you can't touch one for under $20. I guess its a good thing, which may be showing the rising interst in film agin, especially with all the pod casts out there on the subject now. Or maybe its the revival of the lomo following. Either way, I think film is here to stay.

OK, generalizations at ten paces. It depends. Collectability affects prices. Fast 35mm primes are being used widely on MILCs and video and are going for silly money sometimes. 35mm SLR film bodies? Not so much. Not seeing any stampedes on eBay.

 

[BobD]

Bob, I don't understand this. You pose a question to another poster in a public forum and you know the answer to this question. ...

No, I don't know the answer to the question I asked. That is why I asked it. Perhaps reading the posts more carefully will make it clearer to you.

 

[rolleiman]

I see your point. As I have seen a sharp rise in cameras such as the C3, there has been a huge drop in camera prices such as the N90s. Interesting.

It appears to me that the rise in prices of film cameras on E-bay, mainly relates to the totally mechanical stuff that seem to be regarded as "classics"....Electronic cameras like the N90 (F90x) in Europe, don't have quite the same cache'. That being said, the F90x is a fine camera, I've used one myself for many years, and is a bargain at current s/h prices.

I've not bought any camera gear on e-bay for ages. The desirable gear tends to go for the kind of prices that are close to what a camera dealer will charge. And with a dealer, usually comes a guarantee.

 

[rolleiman]

Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that grain in an emulsion is stacked, and has a depth to it, and the sensors on a digital camera are placed side by side? I've noticed that prints on silver often have have what appears to be depth to the image, where as digital seems to lack this.

Let me relate an incident that relates to the above. A friend, in order to demonstrate the incredible capability of the (then) new Nikon D3 of opening up the shadows in available light photography, had taken a night shot of a churchyard in which every conceivable area of darkness had been opened up to reveal every last bit of detail in the church.

There is no doubt it was a remarkable camera. However, my friend had missed the whole point about photography.
He was mainly concerned with pixels not pictures. If I'm taking a picture of a churchyard at night, then I want it to look like a night picture. I want there to be areas of darkness hiding parts of the scene, because this gives a picture atmosphere and a touch of mystery. This is what film gives me.

The word "atmosphere" is very important in a picture, yet is often ignored. Witness the wonderful examples of erotic photography by Victorian photographers, even though their lenses were "soft" compared to modern ones.
Compare these with the often cold, clinical examples of so called "glamour" studio photography today. I know which ones I prefer.

 

[Chan Tran]

speaking about night pictures, I generally don't want to see any thing in the picture that I couldn't see at the scene.

 

[CGW]

Do you think this has anything to do with the fact that grain in an emulsion is stacked, and has a depth to it, and the sensors on a digital camera are placed side by side? I've noticed that prints on silver often have have what appears to be depth to the image, where as digital seems to lack this.

Results are largely dependent on the the printer's skills and their processes and materials, far less so on capture medium. Ask a master like Bob Carnie.

 

[wblynch]

I know that Olympus film cameras and lenses have doubled or tripled in price over the past few months. Ebay is getting crazy. Very few of the items I watch end with no bids. I am constantly losing out to the snipers.

Typically, the snipers have thousands of feedbacks, indicating to me they are in the buy-and-sell business, not collectors nor users.

Who would be buying at these inflated prices if they didn't believe they would be making a profit on the resale?

Even if they were buying cameras just to get the lenses, one would expect a flood of unwanted 35mm slr bodies and I haven't seen that with Olympus.

I don't watch other brands so I can't comment on them.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The Hubble's a digital camera, but its images portray truth which a CG image of someone's notion of what things look like out there does not.

It's really a telescope that can look at the electromagnetic spectrum in different bands than the human eye can see. Shooting IR sensitive film in a film camera with an IR cutoff filter also produces an image that the eye doesn't really see; is THIS not photography?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Lets just agree on "different strokes for different folks"

but the fact that a picture taken on digital, even though technically superb, often has a "plasticky, surreal" kind of quality about it. Compare this to a black & white film image showing a little grain, but still sharp, and it's the film image that wins for me, every time.

I REALLY don't want to get into an "A" vs. "D" discussion; lets just say that skill practitioners of either technology will produce great images. Some people enjoy working in the dark with chemicals; others enjoy working with a computer. (As it happens, I (as well as many of you, I expect) enjoy working with both technologies.) If its grain or fine structure you want in a D image, companies like NIK Software have excellent tools.

Please, lets not compare images from point and shoot, drugstore consumer Dcam users to prints made by skilled users and labs; lets compare apples to apples.

IMO, film has one major advantage over digital: you can't beat it for archival purposes (what ever that term means to you). Film images are human eye readable and will last for generations.

The best way to avoid mention of D technology in the Forum is to avoid making any comparisons to it. The analog world doesn't have to justify itself vs. the digital world. Lets just agree on "different strokes for different folks".

 

[Photo-gear]

To Prof_Pixel,

What could be the average price of an Olympus OM-10 by now? And what was the same average price a year ago or two?
(I agree with you, e-Bay is invaded by professionnal re-seller, so the prices go up quickly.) On the other hand, it sends a message to the camera-makers: there is a need for film camera...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Photo-gear,

I'm sure the prices of used cameras will continue to vary based on the interest of photographers and collectors. I suspect the camera manufacturers are waiting to see what happens to the availability of film. I'm optimistic that quality films will be available for a long time; if this happens, I would expect some camera manufacturers to bring out camera (since the demand will be lower than in the past, prices will be higher).

I write articles for the Show Daily newspapers published at Photokina, and I'm trying to come up with some articles addressing what's happening to analog photography films and cameras.

 

[SafetyBob]

I believe there actually may be a film revival of sorts going on. I have noticed many of the manual focus cameras and lenses are noticeably higher than not to long ago, even some of the AF cameras are up too, slightly, but not always.

Just look at KEH these days. I know I spent every day looking at KEH at work at the beginning of the year (hope the boss isn't reading this) and there was always a flood of Nikon everything on there......not so much now. I may stand corrected but even 3 or 4 months ago there was alot more Nikon whatever on KEH and others too. Ok, the digital video guys maybe grabbing some of the MF stuff, but the choice of MF bodies is way way down too. Unless all of us have decided to buy every model of Nikon or Canon camera ever made for our own collection, somebody has got to be buying these to set on a self or they are preparing themselves for a return to film.

I doubt the first time return to film guy will buy 100 rolls of film to start out....2 or 3 rolls, sit on them while surfing the internet on how and what to take a picture of, and in a couple of months, maybe they will go out and actually take a picture......

All I know, it is getting harder and harder to get the film I want locally. Just about to start ordering it online.....don't want to, but if Kodak isn't shipping to my local guys, what else can I do?

Bob E.

 

[Diapositivo]

A friend, in order to demonstrate the incredible capability of the (then) new Nikon D3 of opening up the shadows in available light photography, had taken a night shot of a churchyard in which every conceivable area of darkness had been opened up to reveal every last bit of detail in the church.

This is something that is not due to some particular advantage of digital capture, or of that particular camera. You can adopt such an exposure with film as well, and with negative film the dynamic range will certainly be superior to any digital camera, this one mentioned included.

The "reveal all details" exposure in night photography is, I think, just as "legitimate" as the other choice, the "maintain the chiaroscuro effect" exposure. They are but two different exposure choices, which once again highlight that it is the photographer who must calculate the exposure he wants according to the desired final outcome, and not the camera, because the camera doesn't possess an aesthetic judgement, not even the 20-zones-20millions-case-BS matrix ones.

I personally like when shadows appear to be blocked but instead, looking at them, there is detail so that "nothing is lost" with the exception of the deepest recesses.

The highlights of this pictures would had been badly burned if I had taken it with a digital camera while retaining the same shadow detail (which cannot be necessarily appreciated due to the dynamic range of your monitor).

This is taken on Astia, a slide film. A negative colour film would have digged even more in the shadows and reach more in the highlights.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/balconies-of-st-peters-basilica-fabrizio-ruggeri.html

EDIT: one can click on the image to see full-resolution squares of the images. In such a situation it is basically impossible, with slides and digital, to really get all highlights and all the shadows. But the transition from detailed, to "washy", to clipped highlights is gentle and gives a pleasant effect. With digital (any) the transition is abrupt which badly underscores the zones where the highlights exceed the dynamic range of the capture technology used.

 

[BobD]

I sell vintage camera equipment at local camera shows (2 per month). Most of the items for sale at these shows are from the film era. The shows are more popular than ever with lots of young people attending, many having never used a film camera before. Some are there to hunt for legacy lenses for their digital cameras but many are there strictly for film gear. Medium format cameras are very popular, especially TLRs. The 35mm SLRs are not so popular except for AE-1s and K1000s and a few others.

 

[foc]

I own a minilab/camera shop in the northwest of Ireland, county population 64,000 approx. On the 26th June this year we sold more second hand 35mm film cameras than digital. Was it a local anomaly? Yes but what a good one.

 

[rolleiman]

I sell vintage camera equipment at local camera shows (2 per month). Most of the items for sale at these shows are from the film era. The shows are more popular than ever with lots of young people attending, many having never used a film camera before. Some are there to hunt for legacy lenses for their digital cameras but many are there strictly for film gear. Medium format cameras are very popular, especially TLRs. The 35mm SLRs are not so popular except for AE-1s and K1000s and a few others.

I'm not surprised at medium format cameras being very popular at your vintage camera shows. The superb large optical viewfinders on these cameras, must be a revelation to someone who has been limited to the pokey little non-focussing screen on their digital gear.