Is film dead?

[FujiLove]

You drove a coach and horses through that rule when you said "Digital colours jump between steps defined by the bit depth of the image. The bit depth of modern images is so large that it appears continuous...until you make edits to the image which compresses them and the steps become more obvious (banding)".

You can't have it both ways, you have to choose between general slurs or objective facts.

It wasn't a slur. I meant it literally. I have no idea what you mean about the difference between a negative and RAW file. And the RAW file being an embryo that develops. But you're right, all this digi-talk should be on DPUG.

 

[FujiLove]

Oh - Sorry, should of quoted the whole thing

I'm still waiting

 

[FujiLove]

Funny how people get so irate when you poke fun at their shiny, expensive toys! LOL

 

[blockend]

Funny how people get so irate when you poke fun at their shiny, expensive toys! LOL

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, and thought your responses were merely curmudgeonly. Now I'm sure the intention is trolling.

 

[FujiLove]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, and thought your responses were merely curmudgeonly. Now I'm sure the intention is trolling.

My intention was no more than to point out the deficiencies of the digital medium, equipment and processes as I see them, and express how I feel about how photography (among other things) has become almost entirely digital these days. Yes, I do find it funny that people get upset when you point out that their expensive new toys are no better than something that's fifty years old, cost a tenth of the price, and will outlast the shiny toy.

I can't say I appreciate being called a troll, but I've been called a lot worse! Sorry if my strong opinions have offended you.

 

[blockend]

My intention was no more than to point out the deficiencies of the digital medium, equipment and processes as I see them, and express how I feel about how photography (among other things) has become almost entirely digital these days. Yes, I do find it funny that people get upset when you point out that their expensive new toys are no better than something that's fifty years old, cost a tenth of the price, and will outlast the shiny toy.

I can't say I appreciate being called a troll, but I've been called a lot worse! Sorry if my strong opinions have offended you.

How can you point out the deficiencies of the digital medium without illustrating what they are? When someone addresses your observations, you say the response belongs on DPUG. Sorry, I'm not buying FujiLove, I think you're trolling and you will show it conclusively, sooner rather than later. Everyone here likes film photography, your opinions are nothing special. My most expensive shiny toy is a Leica film camera.

 

[FujiLove]

How can you point out the deficiencies of the digital medium without illustrating what they are? When someone addresses your observations, you say the response belongs on DPUG. Sorry, I'm not buying FujiLove, I think you're trolling and you will show it conclusively, sooner rather than later. Everyone here likes film photography, your opinions are nothing special. My most expensive shiny toy is a Leica film camera.

Blinking heck, calm down son.

Whoever said my opinions are anything special? I've said time and again that I was expressing how I feel about digital photography. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a normal thing to do on a photographic forum. No? I realise most people probably don't share my views. Great! Let's debate them. I don't understand how that's wrong or makes me a troll. I thought trolling meant writing things that are untrue deliberately to wind people up or to use abusive/foul language etc? If I've broken some forum rule here by talking about these things then I'm sorry, and I won't post anything else, but I really don't understand what the problem is.

I have no issue with you disagreeing with me. I enjoy having a debate. But I think it's very unfair to suggest I shouldn't contribute an opinion because you don't happen to like it, then use the troll label to shut me up.

 

[blockend]

Blinking heck, calm down son.

Whoever said my opinions are anything special? I've said time and again that I was expressing how I feel about digital photography. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems like a normal thing to do on a photographic forum. No? I realise most people probably don't share my views. Great! Let's debate them. I don't understand how that's wrong or makes me a troll. I thought trolling meant writing things that are untrue deliberately to wind people up or to use abusive/foul language etc? If I've broken some forum rule here by talking about these things then I'm sorry, and I won't post anything else, but I really don't understand what the problem is.

I have no issue with you disagreeing with me. I enjoy having a debate. But I think it's very unfair to suggest I shouldn't contribute an opinion because you don't happen to like it, then use the troll label to shut me up.

You not only want to control the debate, you want to control the terms of the debate. My impression is you're a person who is never wrong, and you re-write the backstory until you come out looking shiny. Your user name suggests you're a fan of the old 601 to 901 series Fujis - which makes you unusual - or a Fuji digital user - which does not.

This forum takes a dim view of film vs digital debates because they are open to precisely the kind of junk vs brilliant stereotypes you've indulged in all the way through the thread. Until you show you have more to offer the discussion, I shall continue to assume your stance is simply to provoke.

 

[FujiLove]

You not only want to control the debate, you want to control the terms of the debate. My impression is you're a person who is never wrong, and you re-write the backstory until you come out looking shiny. Your user name suggests you're a fan of the old 601 to 901 series Fujis - which makes you unusual - or a Fuji digital user - which does not.

This forum takes a dim view of film vs digital debates because they are open to precisely the kind of junk vs brilliant stereotypes you've indulged in all the way through the thread. Until you show you have more to offer the discussion, I shall continue to assume your stance is simply to provoke.

Wow.

Do you realise you're now being simultaneously argumentative, presumptive AND intolerant of other people's opinions? That's quite a combination! Some may say it amounts to trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So far you have called me:

Controlling
Never wrong
A liar
A Fuji user (offensive! LOL)
Provocative
A troll
Unusual (I'll take that as a back-handed compliment)
Someone with nothing to offer the debate

Please continue with your strange forum-based psycho analysis of me. It's thoroughly entertaining!

 

[Lee Rust]

I don't know why we take these matters so seriously, but the technical and aesthetic differences between digital and analog are undeniable and irreconcilable and therefore endlessly debatable.

In my case, I find that the expense of material, time and attention required to create and process a satisfying film-based photo generally results in a much deeper appreciation for the form and content of the finished picture than I might experience with a purely digital image. It's rather like the difference between reading a book and watching a television show.

Also for me, a mechanical film camera is much more enjoyable than an electronic device to hold in my hands, look through the finder, push the buttons, turn the knobs and listen to the sounds. I note that some of the newer 'retro' digicam designs are starting to address these unquantifiable haptic needs.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Film is dead - only if you want it to be.

 

[Ai Print]

What makes digital 'better' for those specialist applications often isn't that the final image is higher quality or more pleasing, but that it's easier. Simple as that.

OK....in terms of hours behind the camera, regardless of how old you are or how long you have been engaged in your hobby, I know for a fact that I have, as a full time working professional, exponentially more experience than you in either the film or digital medium.

So I can say with utter confidence that this is so mind boggling wrong, it has left me nearly speechless.

Even though I am 99% a black and white user in film who wet prints, I have and use a little bit of color negative and transparency film in 35mm, 120mm and 4x5 formats. I would use a **lot** more if color d_g_tal were not absolutely incredible in it's out of camera, no adjustments needed result in the printed form. We are talking anything and everything here too, magazine articles, double page ads to billboards up to 30 feet wide, some at 10 feet wide x 300 dpi as a native resolution.

You can certainly have an opinion about the other medium in photography if you like and are most welcome to it. But to bleat out the above as any kind of fact is just off...way off. Just so you know I am not anti color film, I love this guy's work on Portra, it is all he shoots and his client list & awards are legion:

Dead Link Removed

Get a grip folks, we are all in this together and more people than you realize love film and are using more of it for all kinds of reasons.

Film is not dead and digital is not junk, end of story as far as I am concerned.

 

[removed account4]

I guess that would be anyone who reads a magazine, blog, newspaper or book? Or watches TV, movies, documentaries...

no i am specifically talking about film versus digital, and all the BS entwined with the argument that one is better or easier than the other.

 

[blockend]

Please continue with your strange forum-based psycho analysis of me. It's thoroughly entertaining!

You can add attention seeking to your list.

 

[FujiLove]

You can add attention seeking to your list.

Give the name calling a rest mate, it's getting really old.

 

[FujiLove]

OK....in terms of hours behind the camera, regardless of how old you are or how long you have been engaged in your hobby, I know for a fact that I have, as a full time working professional, exponentially more experience than you in either the film or digital medium.

So I can say with utter confidence that this is so mind boggling wrong, it has left me nearly speechless.

Even though I am 99% a black and white user in film who wet prints, I have and use a little bit of color negative and transparency film in 35mm, 120mm and 4x5 formats. I would use a **lot** more if color d_g_tal were not absolutely incredible in it's out of camera, no adjustments needed result in the printed form. We are talking anything and everything here too, magazine articles, double page ads to billboards up to 30 feet wide, some at 10 feet wide x 300 dpi as a native resolution.

You can certainly have an opinion about the other medium in photography if you like and are most welcome to it. But to bleat out the above as any kind of fact is just off...way off. Just so you know I am not anti color film, I love this guy's work on Portra, it is all he shoots and his client list & awards are legion:

Dead Link Removed

Get a grip folks, we are all in this together and more people than you realize love film and are using more of it for all kinds of reasons.

Film is not dead and digital is not junk, end of story as far as I am concerned.

I think you misunderstood when I said that digital is only better for those 'specialist applications' because it's easier. I was referring to specialist uses such as CCTV or traffic cameras etc. where digital is the obvious choice and film would be really hard to implement and very costly. I said later that digital is also the obvious choice for pros. I have no argument there. I'm referring to the general use photography that most hobbyist do where I see no great advantage of digital apart from the fact that everything is very easy. It's easy to take a photo because many cameras are highly automated and it's easy to manipulate photos with software.

 

[FujiLove]

In my case, I find that the expense of material, time and attention required to create and process a satisfying film-based photo generally results in a much deeper appreciation for the form and content of the finished picture than I might experience with a purely digital image. It's rather like the difference between reading a book and watching a television show.

Also for me, a mechanical film camera is much more enjoyable than an electronic device to hold in my hands, look through the finder, push the buttons, turn the knobs and listen to the sounds. I note that some of the newer 'retro' digicam designs are starting to address these unquantifiable haptic needs.

That's a great summary of how I feel about it. The more you put in, the more you get out, even if the end result is indistinguishable to a third party.

 

[Ai Print]

I'm referring to the general use photography that most hobbyist do where I see no great advantage of digital apart from the fact that everything is very easy. It's easy to take a photo because many cameras are highly automated and it's easy to manipulate photos with software.

Even in that vein, I am not in agreement. But I care about this site's dedication and collective passion for film and related process more than I do than "enlightening" those who which I do not agree with.

So I will leave it at that.

 

[FujiLove]

Even in that vein, I am not in agreement. But I care about this site's dedication and collective passion for film and related process more than I do than "enlightening" those who which I do not agree with.

So I will leave it at that.

Don't worry, I had all the enlightenment I needed when I moved back to film.

 

[removed account4]

I'm referring to the general use photography that most hobbyist do where I see no great advantage of digital apart from the fact that everything is very easy.

if digital photography is so easy, why is it so hard to make a great digital photograph ?
maybe it is easier to share a digital image, but making them is easier ? not sure how true that is or isn't

 

[FujiLove]

if digital photography is so easy, why is it so hard to make a great digital photograph ?
maybe it is easier to share a digital image, but making them is easier ? not sure how true that is or isn't

It's a good point. Maybe it would be better to say, it's easier and faster to end up with an image that looks half decent. Definitely easier to have something that you can post online. Creating a simple photo with digital is a generally low skill, low effort, low cost job compared to doing the same thing with film. And I'm talking about general photography here, before the pros jump in and describe how they spend eight weeks creating every image. I accept that is exactly what a lot of people want.

 

[cliveh]

if digital photography is so easy, why is it so hard to make a great digital photograph ?
maybe it is easier to share a digital image, but making them is easier ? not sure how true that is or isn't

The medium is irrelevant; it’s the capture that is the difficulty.

 

[blockend]

The medium is irrelevant; it’s the capture that is the difficulty.

Indeed.

 

[FujiLove]

The medium is irrelevant; it’s the capture that is the difficulty.

I hear things like this a lot and they don't make sense to me. The medium has a huge effect on the end result partly due to the way the medium renders and partly because of the way the medium affects the picture making process (think about the type of images created by people who lug 8x10 view cameras around).

 

[pdeeh]

Nothing new is ever learned in this type of thread ... except perhaps which APUG members are worth ignoring.

So perhaps they provide some value ?