Some Reassuring News from Ilford!

[perkeleellinen]

I shoot 35mm and have no idea what resolving power means, in fact my camera doesn't take batteries, it's powered by me and I get my power from food.

 

[clayne]

Silverglow: once again you're missing the point entirely. If you think film is entirely about resolving power you're both blind and a typical digital twit at that. Go research sensiometry - perhaps it might help you get the damn pixels and sharpness nonsense out of your skull.

 

[GeoffHill]

I think silverglow has the point entirely. He uses the medium that gives him the look he wants.

What could be closer to getting the point than that.

 

[fotophox]

No, this is not BS....my Canon EOS 5D Mark II smokes my Canon EOS 1v SLR 35mm film camera in resolution, clarity, and resolved details.

Can you prove it?

 

[fotophox]

Silverglow, can you do this with your digi?

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/gallery-extreme-Enlargement.htm

The specific film you are using IS a factor, right? The way you're comparing your two *cameras* without taking the film into consideration is one reason I'm dubious about your statement. But, I agree that in general, the difference in resolving power is not the only or the most important consideration.

 

[fotch]

fotophox, the info and photos at that link is amazing. Wow.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Imagine if that was with a Leica. You could have probably gotten even clearer. Amazing!!!!!!

 

[SilverGlow]

Can you prove it?

I've proven it thousands of times. I have several 16" x 20" enlargements taken from both 35mm film and full frame digital, and the differences are massively better with those enlarged from the fullframe DSLR. The film I used was Kodak Plus-X mostly, and some other ISO 100 films from Fuji and Efke too.

The grain will get in the way, lowering the effective resolving power of film as one enlarges.

I love film no less then the next guy here, but lets not let our enthusiams for film cause delusions of grandure, and lies...at the end of the day, a 24mp full frame DSLR will smoke any and all 35mm film from any 35mm camera, period.

All over the internet this has been proven time and time again.

Still, I prefer film for it's look and that is why I shoot film 95% of the time.

 

[SilverGlow]

Silverglow: once again you're missing the point entirely. If you think film is entirely about resolving power you're both blind and a typical digital twit at that. Go research sensiometry - perhaps it might help you get the damn pixels and sharpness nonsense out of your skull.

You're the one missing the point...I never said resolving power was the deciding factor.

I prefer film for it's look and dynamic range, even if 35mm film's resolving power is a bit less then most full frame digital results.

 

[SilverGlow]

Silverglow, can you do this with your digi?

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/gallery-extreme-Enlargement.htm

The specific film you are using IS a factor, right? The way you're comparing your two *cameras* without taking the film into consideration is one reason I'm dubious about your statement. But, I agree that in general, the difference in resolving power is not the only or the most important consideration.

Yes, and a lot better. For a 24mp DSLR full frame, that example you linked to is nothing....even a 12.7mp full frame can beat that....I am not exaggerating....that example is a laugh...and do you really think that is impossible to resolve with a fullframe DSLR?!? You are kidding right?!?

 

[clayne]

Yes, and a lot better. For a 24mp DSLR full frame, that example you linked to is nothing....even a 12.7mp full frame can beat that....I am not exaggerating....that example is a laugh...and do you really think that is impossible to resolve with a fullframe DSLR?!? You are kidding right?!?

Seriously, you sound like someone who hangs out at DPR rather than someone who actually burns film on a regular basis. If you actually preferred film for it's "look" you'd probably find less time to argue about BS such as the amount of grain in film vs digital.

You're the one missing the point...I never said resolving power was the deciding factor.

I prefer film for it's look and dynamic range, even if 35mm film's resolving power is a bit less then most full frame digital results.

Then stop comparing things based off of "resolving power" dude. You contradict yourself and it's quite apparent you're a pixel peeper.

 

[2F/2F]

No medium can simply be said to "blow away" another unless you list specific criteria for what "blowing away" is.

 

[frdrx]

Can you prove it?

I think the answer is no, then.

 

[fotch]

I've proven it thousands of times. .......

Imagine that!

Can you prove you proven it thousands of times?

Where do you get all this time?

You are so funny.:rolleyes:

 

[Andy K]

I've proven it thousands of times. I have several 16" x 20" enlargements taken from both 35mm film and full frame digital, and the differences are massively better with those enlarged from the fullframe DSLR. The film I used was Kodak Plus-X mostly, and some other ISO 100 films from Fuji and Efke too.

The grain will get in the way, lowering the effective resolving power of film as one enlarges.

I love film no less then the next guy here, but lets not let our enthusiams for film cause delusions of grandure, and lies...at the end of the day, a 24mp full frame DSLR will smoke any and all 35mm film from any 35mm camera, period.

All over the internet this has been proven time and time again.

Still, I prefer film for it's look and that is why I shoot film 95% of the time.

Show us your 'proof' or STFU.

 

[Van Camper]

There are actually can be some very good business reasons.

The first in my head is understanding that if I'm doing photography as a business I probably can't do everything myself. I need to decide what work I need to be doing?

My time is the limiting factor.

Is it more profitable for me to "hire a lab so I can be out selling and promoting my work?" or to "hire a sales person and do my own processing?"

I'm going to suggest that most photographers would be more profitable if they spent more time selling themselves instead of processing their own stuff.

Another question is will I make more money if I buy a D3, lots of software, and a big laptop or if I buy 3 F100's and an advertisement in "another" wedding guide or two and let somebody like Richard Photo Lab do my back end work?

I'd suggest the latter actually makes more business sense for most people.

Actually, you are correct, I was responding from the point of view of the averge family person not really into the hobby and a bit hastily because in North America it is far less popular today. It is still very popular in places like China where not everyone has a computer, or can afford dslr. They may have a 35mm camera for the last 40 years that is still working perfectly, and the new updates in film keep the camera current in terms of quality. A lot of people argue about quality of 35mm film, but compare digital files to a low grade scanner. I was suprised at the quality I got from Provia 35mm film using the Nikon 9000 at 19 inch print size....and with Ektar 100 a 16x20 print I expect would be pretty much grainless (I have yet to try it). Add to this you don't need to migrate files to new digital formats (amateurs are not organized, the disks would get tossed into a closet the same as film would, but film will be good 80 yrs from now...not the case with a DVD unless you keep up with migration). When you say amatuer, most mean hobbyist I think, but a lot of people are clueless, and just want something to record a memory, and couldn't care less about photography. They are the ones who will pay the price and not have memories when the kids grow up. This group wants instant gratification (why Polaroid has come back), show pictures of the sons wedding, a party they were at, and never think in terms of it being art where you would want to store images safely).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I love film no less then the next guy here, but lets not let our enthusiams for film cause delusions of grandure, and lies...at the end of the day, a 24mp full frame DSLR will smoke any and all 35mm film from any 35mm camera, period.

Well really? What a bloody cheek to refer to often well founded, factual statements as "delusions of grandeur [note spelling please]...lies". That's bullshit. So is all this nauseating DSLR stuff that doesn't belong here. What are you talking about all digital superiority in an analogous forum? If I want superior image quality to the 35mm format in my professional work, God, I'll get a 5x4, Hassy or something else. Fact is, digital is inferior to film on gamut, linearity, fidelity, archival stability and reliability. Eyes up and learn. And pipe down about digital babbage.

 

[André E.C.]

Still, I prefer film for it's look and that is why I shoot film 95% of the time.

No, you don't prefer or shoot film 95% of the time, if you did, you wouldn't say the atrocious things you so often present us with. Avoid that topic you so much love or leave digimon, your "fish" don't sell at this marketplace, you don't belong here.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Imagine if that was with a Leica. You could have probably gotten even clearer. Amazing!!!!!!

Imagine the quality of Leica images in unskilled amateur hands then, hmm?
I've seriously panned some airy-fairy Leica-loving "pro photographers" with more money than brains for coming back with bland and unserviceable images (conceptually, technically, visually, creatively and aesthetically) even a Box Brownie wielded by a 10-year old could beat the margins off. Real photography has more to do with knowledge, skill and experience; I shake my head with disbelief when people think a $5,000 Leica in a mahogany box will make them look the pro-part. Well, here's the rub: it isn't going to put you on the podium. Geez, get real and concentrate on foundation photographic skills, not bloody fancy German monikers.

 

[railwayman3]

I've proven it thousands of times. I have several 16" x 20" enlargements taken from both 35mm film and full frame digital, and the differences are massively better with those enlarged from the fullframe DSLR. The film I used was Kodak Plus-X mostly, and some other ISO 100 films from Fuji and Efke too.
.

I presume that by "differences being massively better" (my old English teacher would have had something to say about the grammar ), you mean that the digital image would have been sharper or higher theoretical resolution?

Whether that's true or not, it's a bit like telling an artist that a pencil drawing is "massively better" because it can show more detail than an oil painting.
That obviously doesn't mean anything, because firstly it's down to the way the artist is wanting to show his particular subject, then to his skill, experience and abilities to apply his equipment and materials to produce the result he wants. For "artist" substitute "photographer"?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I suspect that LF film is going to continue to drop away more rapidly than 35mm — elsewhere in APUG there was a post about Fuji discontinuing Velvia and Provia in 5x4 quickload (?). And digimons ... well, they will not make much of an impression to artists and film-based professionals because it is confined to a narrow subset of product — SLRs. Surprise, surprise, photography as a universe is much, much bigger than that!

railwayman3, very cogent points: in essence, you are referring to conceptualisation (more pronounced in traditional artforms such as pencil/brush and mixed media) and practical application of knowledge, both too obviously second fiddle to the technology photographers hold in their hands.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I wonder if authors argue about how their stories are massively better when typed on a word processor rather than by a typewriter.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I wonder if authors argue about how their stories are massively better when typed on a word processor rather than by a typewriter.

Well, a lot easier, that's for sure!!

 

[clayne]

Well, a lot easier, that's for sure!!

Actually, this is an interesting subject with some rough parallels. I wonder how many authors, utilizing typewriters, decided to keep what sprang to mind first - rather than deal with the hassles of whiting it out, and/or correcting it on page. With a word processor this is an instant backspace/delete. That latter part is actually so easy as to remove limitation - and limitations are quite *quite* powerful tools.

On the SilverGlow front, I'm willing to cut him some slack if he would just chill out about digital, sharpness, resolution, and/or technology in cameras. It's been done -we're tired of it. We've heard it before.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Actually, this is an interesting subject with some rough parallels. I wonder how many authors, utilizing typewriters, decided to keep what sprang to mind first - rather than deal with the hassles of whiting it out, and/or correcting it on page. With a word processor this is an instant backspace/delete. That latter part is actually so easy as to remove limitation - and limitations are quite *quite* powerful tools.

On the SilverGlow front, I'm willing to cut him some slack if he would just chill out about digital, sharpness, resolution, and/or technology in cameras. It's been done -we're tired of it. We've heard it before.

Remember Colleen McCullough's novel, "The Thorn Birds"? She wrote that 30,000 page MS entirely on a manual typewriter — clack, clack, clackity clack, the limitations you speak of acting as funnels for her creative outlet: each word was considered, each sentence was measured, each patho was dealt out brilliantly. God only knows how long that took and how, probably, frustrating it might have been, but McCullough, being a trained Neuroscientist, might have characteristically taken it in her stride, as she did all the proceeding awful disabilities and tragedies that unfolded on her. I'm sure we could all learn something from her persistence and strength and joyous rejection of technology.