Comments on the recent FM3A thread

[olroy2044]

I decided to post this here rather than wander to far off topic in the original thread.

As most of you know, I am a dedicated film shooter, and have been known to poke fun at the "digitoy" world. The truth of the matter is that digital technology is here to stay, and as hard as it is for me to admit it, now has equaled or (dare I say it?) surpassed film in some areas.

If I were a working pro, depending on my cameras to put food on the table, you can bet the farm that I would be shooting the best DSLR I could afford. Fortunately, work photography is only an adjunct to my other duties. There is no creativity involved, but strict documentation of events, accidents, training issues, etc. Immediate results are very important, as is the ability to produce 8X10 prints.

While our on-site lab was capable of handling 110 film, my Pentax Auto 110 was what rode in my pocket all the time. Great results, entire kit fit in a very small case, company provided film, and results in an hour. When that was discontinued, the little Pentax was replaced by a digital P&S. Now that camera is the one that I always have with me.

But when I shoot for fun, the film equipment comes out. The tactile experience, the challenge, and, frankly, the fact that film is now an "oddity" all combine to make film photography enjoyable to me. I have always had an affinity for the "unusual." I campaigned a STUDEBAKER!, of all things, on the drag circuit!

As long as I can obtain film and processing, I will continue to shoot film for enjoyment. However, I am sure that somewhere down the road, a DSLR will take up residence in my home. IMHO, the two technologies complement each other, and there is no conflict between them.

That is what I enjoy most about this board, as compared to others. There is no bickering about "film v digital," like on so many other boards. Discussion, yes: bickering, no.

Rant over!

Roy

[Randy]

I would if I could, but I can't so I won't.

[Deleted]

Roy:

The Studebaker must have been a 1956 Golden Hawk.

As you all already know, virtually everything I shoot is digital nowadays. I still have some film bodies--a couple of Nikon F beaters and a display case full of FSU gear. I still love the sound of a mechanical shutter. I appreciate the craftsmanship needed to build a film camera. But I "collect" film gear and shoot digital. I think it's bee at least 18 months since I shot a roll of film. I do, however, have some Tri-X in a bulk loader and unmixed Rapid Fix and D-76 in case the film bug bites me again one of these day.

As far as I'm concerned photography is photography whether it's done with a film or digital camera. Light is projected through a lens onto a surface that is light sensitive. That image is stored so it can be recalled at a later date.

One of the aspects of the digital process I really like is you don'e have to isolate yourself from the rest of the world. In the old days I sometimes would go into the darkroom after dinner and not emerge until bedtime. Now I can do my things and still converse with my wife, dog and cat (yes I really do talk to animals).

Today, even most people shooting film are scanning their negatives and printing from a computer rather than in a "wet" darkroom, so the differences between the two techniques continue to get smaller.

Like you, one of the things I enjoy about this forum is that although it is first and foremost a FILM forum, no one puts anyone down for posting digital images.

Wayne

[mickeyobe]

Film or digital photography is still "writing with light" and it is the end product that matters.

Mickey

[olroy2044]

Wayne--The Studie was actually a 1959 Lark 4dr sedan! It came from the factory with a pretty potent V8 in it. I pulled the engine in my Dad's shop, and bench-built it to R-3 Avanti specs. N-A-S-T-Y! The epitome of "sleeper!" Had a lot of fun with that old car! Told ya I was weird! Roy

[PeterW]

As most of you probably know, I love browsing in old photo magazines, and this thread is all too familiar. A case of here we go again.

First there was the big argument about which was better, wet plates or dry plates. Each had its champions, and the letters got quite heated at times. Of course dry plates won, and at the end of the 19th century this upstart called film was starting to rear its head. But glass plates weren't ready to die just yet. They lived on for another 40 or more years. There were even a lot of glassplate amateur enthusists, as well as professionals, who wouldn't look at a film camera when I first started - more years ago now than I want to remember . But in the end film won out, as most people suspected it would.

Then, in the late 1940s came the big argument between users of medium format roll film and 35mm. Here the big talking point was grain and definition on big (10x8 inch) prints. No-one seriously doubted that a Leica or a Contax could achieve superb results if the grain could be kept fine. All sorts of magical brews for developing film appeared on the market, each claiming the ultimate in fine grain, even with 400 ASA film which normally had grain like footballs if developed in normal Metol-Quinol brew. But, again, technology in film emulsions made them all redundant.

Even so, there were still a lot of doubters about 35mm cameras lower down the price scale with triplet lenses. Masses of ink was used to discuss the pros and cons of definition in line pairs per millimetre in lenses against higher contrast which gave what was termed 'perceived sharpness'. Enter more magical brews. Developers which gave 'edge clumping' of film grains at edges of high contrast were offered, often advertised as high-definition or high acutance developers. Eventually, technological progress with emulsions made the arguments redundant, and 35mm was the clear winner for most people, though the medium format Rolleis had a lot of diehard enthusiasts.

The magical brews faded away leaving the old favourites - and two of the oldest developers on the market - D76 (or ID11 if Ilford made it) and Rodinal the top favourites.

Then it all started again with film versus digital. The early digital cameras couldn't live alongside film when it came to definition, but again technology caught up and now, in my opinion, digital can surpass film in many areas.

But the point of it all still remains the same as several people have pointed out. Cameras, and the medium on which they record an image is only a means to an end. Leaving aside the pleasure of using a high-precision film camera - and I'll be the first to agree it has a lot of attractions - the only thing that really matters, and always has been, is the end result ... THE PICTURE.

I suppose the next big argument will be about megapixels and image size in megabytes, or will it eventually be gigabytes with multi-core super-fast liquid-cooled computers?

Or maybe holograms? Now there's a thought.

Then it will start all over again. Why do I get the feeling of 'been there, done that, this is the T-shirt'? Perhaps I'm just coming the old soldier! .

Plus ca change etc.

PeterW

[Randy]

Maybe some day we will say..."beam me up Scotty".

[Andrew]

you can still buy dry glass plate film, and its still the best , mostly used now just for science and astrophotography

if it wasn't so hideously expensive i would use it all the time...makes beautiful contact prints (or in the enlarger) and would be fantastic in the scanner i think, ______perfectly flat________

[SidW]

Roy and Peter, I agree 100%. Nostalgia's very great fun, but life goes on.

[Deleted]

Peter:

Well said.

Wayne

[Mark Vaughan]

There's a time for everything...

I put little thought into what digital equipment I "pick up" - we always keep a Canon Digital Elph and a Nikon Coolpix 5700 around for birthday parties, ebay photos, and the occasional UFO sighting (we're in Texas). We, half-asleep, plug the camera into the charger/download cable at the end of the day and yawn through 400 different views of the kids opening ever more Polly Pocket dolls and blowing out candles from nine different angles. Those pictures get saved forever. And like another member stated - it leaves you feeling uneasy, unfulfilled. They sure are sharp though, for as little work that was put into getting them.

BUT - tell me if you don't feel the same sense of outright excitement when that one or two rolls of film from the same party shot by that one dad (myself) who lurked about focusing, looking for the best light, telling the kids "...hold right there - no - smile again, wait...got it...!" makes its way back from the lab. EVERYONE is crowded around the kitchen counter to sift through 36 prints, analysing, ooohing, ahhhing, saying things like "...oh, I want that one in a frame for my desk at work" or "...rats - your hair was in your face!". Funny thing is that those pictures also never get discarded. Rather, treasured!

I'm glad to have a hobby with real-world, family-inclusive, value added benefits.

It's the same reason I work on and drive a vintage Porsche 911 with no A/C in Texas. I'm a nut. No, really, I just enjoy the way things were and the feeling you get when you take the time to really work for something - you can't delete and try again - too costly. It must be done right the first time. The tactile 'cha-clunk' of the shutter, the ball-bearings rolling when you wind to the next frame - or the gnarly rip of an old Motor Drive. Nostalgia is a lot of fun - and it's as though the results are simply appreciated that much more.

I like digital for what it is. I carry one around for work. But I have a fancy new mini van with automatic side opening doors and a GPS too. And one thing's for sure: you wont see me bombing around town in that thing on Saturday night. I'm taking the Porshe (197,000K miles) with the Nikkormat or the old SRT in the glove box!

Oh, and the bulge in my pocket on Saturday night doesn't mean I'm happy to see you. That's my digital Elph.

Mark

[Rachel]

Hi Mark ...

Yes, I am like you. I use a digital camera regularly for what are really record shots but I can't get excited about it. I don't like to spend time fiddling with the images on the computer. I just do simple adjustments and cropping. For me there is nothing like going out with a film camera and also feeling the anticipation when I get a roll processed. I do always get a CD done at the same time so that I can easily put them on my computer.

[Deleted]

Maybe it's because I have been working with personal computers since almost the day they came out--probably developed my need for instant gratification. Up until 2007 I couldn't understand why anyone would prefer digital over film. Then I got a used Nikon D100 to take on our European adventure. I think I've shot one roll of film since. I still like the feel and the sound of my mechanical film cameras. But I also like being able to see the results right after pressing the shutter release (guess I'm getting too old to enjoy waiting several days to see the results--who knows, I might not be here to pick up the film

Still, There was a really good deal on a Nikon F2 on Craig's list the other day. I've been hoping someone would buy to to remove the temptation (I've always wanted to own an F2). If I can resist through the weekend, maybe the lust will pass.

[vintageslrs]

Finally figured out why I still prefer film over digital---Wayne your last comment made me understand.

I think I do not care for instant gratification......

I prefer delayed gratification......

Guess it is just my genetics and centuries of being from a long line of Italian Stallions!



Bob