daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 8, 2014 3:04:49 GMT -5
I don't disagree with that, Wayne. Mind you I did take quite a number of films when I went on holiday. Usually I would have two cameras, one with slide and one with negative, early on often supplemented with cine. Later (from 1992) I had a camcorder. Okay, the early VHS-C wasn't great quality but, and it's a big but, properly synchronised sound in a small package more than made up for that.
I normally try to get in to see the local photographic society exhibition. Several years ago, when everything was "film" the enlargements were reasonable, but, in truth not really more than that. Very few had properly spotted out dust marks and suchlike. The general standard now, with digital, is much higher. That said, there was one person producing colour enlargements using analogue all the way. His prints had a quality that digital was not able to achieve. Digital, though, has come on more in these last five years. I still believe that film, in the right hands, can produce a result that is not available to digital. However, I do find that pretty much everyone is producing better quality results with digital than they ever achieved using film (as well as all the other advantages that digital offers).
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 8, 2014 4:15:44 GMT -5
Dave,
Having seen silver prints in juried exhibitions I can attest that digital has a way to go.
But not such a very long way as it once was.
I wonder if the pigments and/or papers could not be altered for digital to provide the beautiful richness of a silver print.
Mickey
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Jun 8, 2014 5:48:25 GMT -5
Mickey: Thanks for your friendly comment, it warms in my heart.
Daveh & Wayne: Digital vs film is no topic anymore. Digital wins in all aspects, so to speak. In a few years I am sure aps-c sensors will have a quality as 6x6 film camera, may be 100MP resolution. This race never stop. Good old Ansel would have gone digital, if he were here today, no doubt.
My concern is how to preserve the images for the future. In digital, the files are very fragile in many ways. Computer systems fail, also malicious software can delete or tamper with images. I could make a long list. Lets say in about thirty years from now, how many images survive on computers? When I am gone from this earth, my encrypted disks will most likely be trashed since no one cares, and so on. What is your thought on this?
I shoot mostly film, but not large amount when traveling or being at events. I try to minimize film usage, only shoot what I consider as an important memory. It works for me. Mostly I use digital when using or testing old lenses. Personally I somewhat dislike the sterile and faultless HD images. But thats me.
Creating high quality BW prints in a darkroom is not hard, you do not need the best Leitz or APO Rodenstock gear. I develop film in a way giving less quality when scanning, but high quality when printing in darkroom. This gets off topic, but the essence is: A darkroom printed image framed hanging on the wall has great value for myself, and will in most cases be taken care of after.
I would like some comment how to preserve digital images, as time passes.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 8, 2014 7:50:44 GMT -5
Preservation of digital is still a hot potato, if the file survives then all is OK, potentially they will last forever without deterioration, but in what medium?
All present mediums have a very finite life, possibly the latest types of CD-Roms are the best for amateurs. But they need careful storage, and should be transferred every so often to further media. Also the reading machinery has to be available and in good order.
As new media come along, older items can be transferred as long as you do not mind the work.
Flash memory is pretty robust, but not in the longer term, again transfer after a few years to the current media being made. The same really applies to all memory systems that are suitable for home users. There are developments coming in storage, but claims to longevity have to be taken with a pinch of salt till proven, after all Phillips claimed the CD was indestructible............till they rotted, the software was fault ridden, and handling them at all resulted in damage.
Stephen
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Jun 8, 2014 8:18:28 GMT -5
|
|
k38
Lifetime Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by k38 on Jun 8, 2014 19:59:35 GMT -5
I was thinking the other day that my old boss and I in my photographer days used to talk about having a 25-100 f2.0 lens would be the ideal. I have a 24-105 f4.0 Canon IS L lens for my 6D. Given that you can run the new digital cameras at 800 iso or better without much loss of quality so the 2.0 speed isn't as important as it once was. I know that back in the days of Kodachrome 25 or nothing (or Velvia later on) fast lenses were really important. Of course a big aperture is great for other things as well, but the viewfinders of the newer cameras are pretty bright even for my old eyes. As far as what I do the best with it's a Mamiya C220 with an f2.8 80mm and my old reliable Leitz Tiltall tripod. I have always done better with a waist level screen on a 2 1/4 camera. I have just been really lazy lately and using film has a few more steps than the digi stuff. I just bought a Nikon N90s and a Nikon 8008s for less than $100.00 for both. I am enjoying the autofocus film era quite a bit as it is cheap as dirt and a few nice lenses and a bunch of body caps lets you mess with lots of cameras.
Best
DLB
|
|