The Reason for Film and Vintage Cameras

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by keenmaster486, Feb 5, 2018.

  1. I did not choose film over digital. I used digital cameras when I programmed the science platform for Voyager I & II, well before any of you. I continued to use film for myself. I never choose to shoot digital for myself. Therefore I have always used film for myself. For work I used the tools that I was directed to use.
     
  2. blockend

    blockend Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,757
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    northern eng
    Shooter:
    35mm
    That's what I've been doing. Please try and keep up. There are only so many ways of saying one prefers knobs and dials that are made of brass with milled ridges. The pictures won't be any different to a camera with an LCD readout and a plastic wheel with 12 different functions. The experience of using them will obviously be different, but the viewfinder in where the magic happens.
     
  3. 4season

    4season Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2015
    Shooter:
    Plastic Cameras
    If this were 1982, we might be having this discussion via a dialup connection, preferably via a local phone #. No IP networking for regular folks back in those days! In the days of dialup BBSes, the expense of calling outside of one's area code meant that most discussions were with people within in your area code. In those days, you'd also have found software being distributed in print form, either as printed text or some sort of optical data format.
     
  4. faberryman

    faberryman Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,443
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Location:
    Nashville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I was responding to keenmaster486's posts.
     
  5. Theo Sulphate

    Theo Sulphate Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    5,351
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    Gig Harbor & Palm Springs
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    When I'm printing or looking at my images, then the equipment I used doesn't matter at all.

    But when I'm walking about, making photos, I enjoy both finding something worth photographing plus using a camera with minimal controls. I can use an F4 manually just as well as an F, but knowing that the F has just basically 3 controls is more enjoyable to me than using my F4 and ignoring all the other stuff on it.
     
  6. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    25,088
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    paswonquitte
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    you don't even need to use film or a box camera if you want to take it to an extreme
    when i am making the exposures, processing and printing none of it matters
    i couldn't care less what camera i use or what film is in it &c
    i just use it, put it on B take the exposure, close it again
    then process the film and print it in the one developer i use
    too much emphasis is put on the gear in photography forums, and
    it is a huge waste of energy. everyone loves what they use
    for whatever reasons ( real or imagined ) they have.
    its just a distraction, and it really doesn't matter what is is as long as you
    are comfortable using it. the point is to use it, steal time, make the print in whatever way you want.
     
  7. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    23,350
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    My only training in programming involved punch cards.
    Dial up was way newer.
     
  8. Theo Sulphate

    Theo Sulphate Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    5,351
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    Gig Harbor & Palm Springs
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    5.25 inch floppy was very common in 1982
     
  9. Europan

    Europan Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    411
    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Basel, Switzerland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It isn’t. If it were, chemical development couldn’t take place. The beauty of some films lays exactly in the depth of the coating(s). Digital sensors are 2-dimensional, at least the data gathered from them can only be made to represent two dimensions.
     
  10. blockend

    blockend Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,757
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    northern eng
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hmm. That would mean some wavelengths being out of focus. The depth would be perceptible. To all intents film, even slide film, is flat.
     
  11. mdarnton

    mdarnton Member

    Messages:
    460
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    For me it boils down to a couple of issues; solve those, and I"ll go digital:
    --cost: film equipment is cheap as dirt and doesn't become obsolete. I can't buy a new digital Leica, but old film ones are plentiful and functonal
    --dynamic range: relatively huge with film, and I use all of it
    --image storage permanence: my 60 year old negs are still readable with no attention in the duration; my 20 year old digital files got lost in standards changes of the media.
    --bulk and convenience: still waiting for a small full frame digital camera that doesn't run on batteries. :tongue:

    A lot of people seem philosophically opposed to digital, but I'm not one of them. Just give me something I can use AND afford.
     
  12. Europan

    Europan Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    411
    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Basel, Switzerland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Wrong again. Lens makers can leave a rest of longitudinal chromatic aberration up to the films, foremost colo(u)r films that have the different record and filter layers arranged in the order blue sensitive on top, green sensitive in the middle, and red sensitive deepest. It is not wrong to assume a thou package thickness, perhaps a tad less. Thing is, the package becomes thicker relative to the image area with decreasing formats, 8mm films being just the limit to it. Ektachrome actually had a too thick package, Kodachrome did better. KM had double layers for each colour. Thing is also how one works with lenses. Diaphragm wide open makes for better resolution but shallower depth of field, smaller stops yield stronger middle focus, green. Human eyes in general are most sensitive to greens. We can also see more different hues of green than different blues or reds. Evolution.

    When photography was younger chromatic aberrations correction was not yet a real subject and hardly noticed because the plates measured about palm size and bigger. Wet plates can have rather thin coatings. I hope I don’t sound too much like a professor.
     
  13. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,466
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I don't think digital cameras are as much of an issue as is method of printing, and method of printing isn't as much of an issue as viewer response.
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. michr

    michr Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    439
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I used mostly digital because I can get the results I like easily, and the turnaround time is short. I do continue to use film some of the time because I can't get the same look as easily using digital cameras and lenses I can afford. I barely use 35mm, except for the enjoyment of using a fine camera like the Kodak Retina IIIc or a workhorse like the Argus C3. But I use larger formats more, 6x6 and up. Larger formats, especially 4x5 and up allow you to get a relatively wide field of view while at the same time using a long lens. This gives a good amount of subject background separation, while still allowing you to stand at typical portrait distances (a 24mm f1.4 lens might give you the same on full frame digital, but I can't afford such things). What keeps me from using film more is that the convenience of color film is completely gone. I can't drop it off anywhere and get negatives to scan. Likewise, costs have risen and my budget of time and money has shrunk. I have 10 rolls of B&W 120 film waiting to be used since December 25th. I enjoy using the cameras, but I'd enjoy them more if I wasn't responsible for the whole develop and print process as well.
     
  16. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,466
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I would agree 100% except...except for the fact that I print hoping to stimulate viewers other than myself...somewhat more than for myself. I don't choose to call photography a "hobby" since, for me, it's a discipline and art form. Different strokes.
     
  17. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,466
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I would agree 100% except...except for the fact that I print hoping to stimulate viewers other than myself...somewhat more than for myself. I don't choose to call photography a "hobby" since, for me, it's a discipline and art form. Different strokes.
     
  18. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    25,088
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    paswonquitte
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    and they were .... floppy ... as opposed to their offspring, the 3.5" which were unfloppy, or is it a-floppy
     
  19. blockend

    blockend Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,757
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    northern eng
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Not at all, especially when using subjective values like beauty. Photography is a two dimensional medium. Are you saying photography is not two-dimensional simulacrum of three dimension space? Colours can be saturated, de-saturated, nuanced, distorted, additive or subtractive, but three dimensional? Do you mean a hologram?

    Even an uncorrected meniscus lens only shows chromatic aberration as a border of a different colour. It doesn't make the photograph 3-D.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  20. wyofilm

    wyofilm Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    281
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2017
    Location:
    Wyoming
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Film is three dimensional as has been pointed out. Thin, yes, but 3D with important physical and chemical consequences. The perceived image on film (or paper) is a 2D product, which can be heavily manipulated via lenses, focal lengths, size, time, color, what have you.

    I'm sorry if I made too much of the 3D nature of film, but I was trying to understand a previous post on the conflation of digital, brain function, and 2D film.
     
  21. Not true, the wavelengths are in focus. Film is flat but it has a finite thickness.
     
  22. blockend

    blockend Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,757
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    northern eng
    Shooter:
    35mm
    We're talking at cross purposes or this is getting into woo. Colour film is an additive or subtractive process. Early film was additive, modern films are subtractive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_color

    Take slide film. Each layer subtracts some wavelengths of light to create a full colour palate. This varies between manufacturers and differences in human perception, but creates a cohesive whole. It is monocular, that is to say it does not rely on parallax to view. If you perceived greens and reds as separate layers in the film it wouldn't hang together as an image, it would be like a blurry out of register litho print,. A lens can be poorly corrected and lead to wavelengths of light not being resolved in the same place, but that isn't three dimensional it's completely flat with an aberrant colour. You can't see colour layers in different planes in space in a subtractive photograph. If you believe you can, please provide examples I can see on my flat monitor.
     
  23. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,466
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm
    It seems that many are unaware that digital cameras record information that can be brought out unique, extra ways with appropriate software (such as NIK). Not just common visual information seen in film...not just density/color/contrast....but also entire other phenomena such as different, otherwise unseen levels/altitudes of clouds in sky...film seems to record only one level.
     
  24. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,466
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm
    "Wavelengths" don't even exist. They aren't phenomena, they are only measurements...lengths.
     
  25. Theo Sulphate

    Theo Sulphate Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    5,351
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    Gig Harbor & Palm Springs
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Wavelengths are a bourgeois concept. We perceive different wavelengths of light as color. Except for magenta. For that you need the K-14 process.
     
  26. And we all know that magenta is not a color.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.