Guys, Go here for argument solver: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm Sure seems like a credible authority. One more thing... Three year old grandson "takes" my picture with his pretend cell phone: "Click. Do you want to see it?" Now, try and explain a good reason for film to 99 percent of the population. AZ Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! The Lookaround Book. Now an E-book. http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] RE: funeral > From: Howard <howard.leigh111@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, August 09, 2008 2:27 am > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Oh no not this old argument again! My memory suggests that all these > points have been argued over and over before. > I went digital because: > I'm not a trained darkroom technician. > I don't want to spend zillions of hours in a messy smelly darkroom. > I can produce much better prints - and more and cheaper- with digital > than I ever could with film AND with far less effort. > I can afford to be generous with the actual taking of pictures at > virtually no cost to myself. > And I do like being able to check I've got what I want rather than wait > until I've got the negatives / slides / prints available. > But if someone wants to use film then that's fine by me. It doesn't matter. > I've still got my film gear. I plan on using it (especially B&W) more > when I've retired, whenever that will be. > Either way I doubt if anyone will keep more than a fraction of my photos > when I've kicked the bucket! > Howard > Chris Telesca - TelephotoNC wrote: > > > > > > David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >> Chris Telesca - TelephotoNC wrote: > >>> I think this is a big issue. > >>> > >>> I haven't bought into digital because it's not cost-effective for me > >>> to spend 8 grand on a camera body that can shoot the same resolution > >>> imagery that I can shoot with a 20 year old Nikon. And to have two > >>> of them (one for backup) makes even less sense when they will be > >>> obsolete in 3 years. > >> > >> Measuring resolution is an interesting process. I can make bigger > >> prints from 6MP DSLR raw files than I ever managed chemically from > >> 35mm film (I mean that look satisfactory to me, of course). But I > >> can also make bigger prints from scanned film than I ever could in > >> the darkroom, too. For me, grain always limited enlargement, and > >> that's no longer the problem for landscape and scenic pictures > >> (sometimes noise does play the same limiting role in available light > >> photos). > >> > >> And I have never spent much over 1/4 of $8000 on a digital camera > >> body. If you're going for the *top* end -- then shouldn't you be > >> talking about more like $50,000? > > > > No - 35MM equivalent - Canon 1DsMkIII - $8,000 - 21 megapixels. > > And why are you making such big prints from 6MP DSLR raw files? What > > are they being used for, and what is the proper viewing distance for > > those prints? Do you have a mural size printer for your digital > > imagery? I have printed up to 20x24 in a darkroom - are you printing > > bigger than that on your own? > > > > Why would grain limit enlargement size but not the resolution of your > > sensor? If you are doing something in Photoshop to minimize the grain > > in your digital imagery, then obviously you are doing something that > > you can't do with film. > > No - when I graduated from RIT in 1984, I had different film format > > cameras (Nikon 35MM, Hasselblad 6x6, and Sinar 4x5) and I added some > > Speedotron lighting gear. I think by 1986 I had about 10 to 12 grand > > in gear that has worked well for me over the years. > >> "Obsolete" is an interesting concept. Seems to me that if they're > >> good now, they're good in three years. Possibly something *better* > >> will be available, and some people will deride your gear as obsolete > >> -- but if the way the new gear is better doesn't matter to you, you > >> should just ignore them! And remember that my $2300 Fuji S2 (late > >> 2002) came with a "lifetime supply" of free film and processing. I > >> think the money I saved on film and lab fees alone paid for that > >> camera before I sold it off. And I've made and exhibited a lot more > >> prints since going digital than I did when I had a darkroom. > >> > > No - obsolete in that editors and stock houses want files of a certain > > resolution, which increases over the years. If a stock house kept the > > same requirements they had year ago when the first Nikon D1 came out, > > they would get bombarded bombarded with tons of submissions from guys > > with point and shoot digital cameras that have higher resolution than > > the D1 had when it came out. > >>> I have every negative I have ever shot going back to when I was 14 > >>> years old. Granted some of that stuff isn't worth printing, but I > >>> also have negatives that are over 60 years old that I can do > >>> everything from print to scan. Try doing that with digital imagery > >>> that is stored on a medium that might not work in a year or more, or > >>> when it craps out you have nothing to fall back on. > >> > >> I have slides that I shot myself that have faded significantly, > >> though using digital technology I can recover much of the color. I > >> have color prints other people gave the family long ago that are > >> faded past the point that I can restore the colors (I can still get a > >> poor B&W image from them). It would last much better, of course, if > >> I stored it in controlled-humidity cold storage. But I'll bet you're > >> not storing yours that way either. > > > > Actually - close to it. At or below 70 degrees with controlled > > humidity, dark storage, archival pages. And of course you can use > > digital technology to improve > >> (The oldest of my own negatives I'm sure I can still lay hands on > >> date to 1962; I have access to considerably older photos in my > >> mother's collection.) > >> > >> You're certainly right that a digital archive must be intelligently > >> and diligently managed to stay safe. If left untended for a long > >> time, it's likely to disappear, through media degradation or format > >> changes (the format changes don't really make it quite disappear, > >> they just increase the cost of getting it back into modern formats). > >> However, if diligently tended, a digital archive can be *eternal*; > >> something there was never any hope of for film images (other than by > >> scanning to digital form). > > > > That's just it - how often do you have to tend it and spend money > > updating your digital archive? With film, it's just there. > >> I think my digital photos are much safer, during my lifetime, than my > >> film photos are. I can manage an archive of this size myself, and > >> the timespan isn't that big a challenge to the media. > > > > I disagree. > >> And if my house burns down, or is flooded, or carried off to Oz by a > >> tornado, or whatever, I won't lose my digital photos. I'll lose all > >> my film photos except the ones I have scans of. (I really do have > >> off-site backups of my digital photos; up through about a month ago > >> currently, but I'm likely to get that updated this weekend). > > Fire proof safe. > >> > >> Look, if you're happier shooting film, and like the results better, > >> more power to you. Keep doing it that way! But try to keep your > >> claims about digital toned down to the actual truth. (Also your > >> claims about film.) There's plenty of stuff where the exact lines > >> are fuzzy; we can argue about those to our heart's content :-). > > > > My claims are the truth about film and digital - from my perspective > > If digital works for you - more power to you. But when you say that I > > need to keep my claims toned down to the actual truth, then admit that > > some lines are fuzzy, you are not making a good case that my opinions > > about film are less truthful than yours. > > I know that my cost to start processing and printing B&W film and > > prints was a lot less than having to do digital. Think about it - you > > need a digital camera, a computer and a printer. You are talking > > about thousands of dollars right there. Then you have your paper and > > inks. > > > >> > >> Have you shot with a DSLR yourself? Or seen work by good > >> photographers using that kind of equipment? It rather sounds like you > >> don't have much idea of the capabilities of current equipment. > > > > No - I do have friends who have pro DSLR equipment and I know how > > their gear compares to what I shot with now. It's simply not worth > > spending that kind of green for equipment that shoots the same > > resolution as film when I already have film gear that works fine. > >> > >>> I have pics of my grandparents and great grandparents that I can > >>> reprint if need be, or scan if I want to. If I had to shoot these > >>> pics on digital, I'd have to transfer over from one generation of > >>> storage to another every couple of years - and add to it all the new > >>> stuff I shoot. > >> > >> I've been shooting a lot of digital since 2000. I have *not once* > >> had to transfer over storage media during those 8 years. I can buy > >> brand-new drives in ordinary consumer stores to read all of it that's > >> on removable media, if necessary. > >> > >> I started having some of my film scanned in about 1993, I think. I > >> have *not once* had to transfer over storage media during those 15 > >> years. The original media are readable (as of a month ago, when I > >> last tried), plus they're on my file server (mirrored), two backup > >> disk drives, on-site optical disks, and off-site optical disks. The > >> original media for these are CDs; they can be read in all current > >> computers, and I can even write new CDs, it's by no means an obsolete > >> medium yet. > >> > >> I absolutely agree that a long-term digital archive will need to deal > >> with this issue; that plus the life-span of the media are the reason > >> that a digital archive must be diligently managed. It does not do at > >> all well on benign neglect, and that has consequences for historians > >> and archivists and future archaeologists; definitely. > >> But "every couple of years" is a gross exaggeration. > >>> > >>> Properly processed and stored silver-based imagery will last longer > >>> than CDs and DVDs. > >> > >> Are you storing yours properly? Low temperature and controlled > >> humidity, etc.? How much does it cost to store a significant > >> collection that way? And by silver-based you mean B&W, right? So, > >> short of RGB separations, no color photography in the collection? > > > > No - silver-based means color. Color negative film, color slide film > > and color prints - they all use silver. > >> > >> Even with that -- we don't know which will last longer. But I think > >> it's very likely that top-grade CD blanks written in a good drive > >> will out-last chromogenic color materials stored at room > >> temperature. I wouldn't be certain that they wouldn't out-last > >> silver-gelatine materials, but over *that* timespan changes in media > >> standards are nearly certain to be an issue as well. But the > >> lifespan of one copy of the data on a CD doesn't matter that much; a > >> digital archive isn't dependent for its integrity on one piece of media. > > > > Show me the tests. And then show me a computer that uses a floppy > > disk that you can buy today. > >> > >> Of course, in 200 years, say, you may very well not be able to find > >> an enlarger, or printing paper, or even a film scanner. Presumably > >> somebody could build or adapt something to do that job for you, since > >> of course high-resolution imaging of small areas will continue to be > >> important for science and probably art as well; but there may well > >> not be any off-the-shelf way to make prints from your B&W negatives > >> in 200 years. > > > > And there may not be any way to take the digital imagery you have on > > your discs and turn them into prints. You might not be able to find > > cables or adapters. > > But if they have a scanner, I would be able to load up my film and do > > something with it. You might not be able to take digital imagery off > > your discs and do anything with it if your discs can't communicate > > with the computers of tomorrow. > > Chris Telesca > > > >
