Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

The Future Of Film
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 7:50 pm    Post subject: The Future Of Film Reply with quote

Article from a 2011 edition of Amateur Photographer magazine.







PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, a nice, upbeat article from a time when everyone seemed to be bemoaning the end of film. Things are looking even better now, so I'd be most interested in reading an update to that article.


PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would buy EOS-1 if found one at any reasonable price. Neutral


PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I own a slew of Nikons including the F4 pictured in the article. I rarely us any of then these day's, but I may if the mood ever arises. I would like to find a processing lab that still dips, I think that would motivate me a bit more to use film more often.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love using my FM2 paired with my 24/50/100 ais lenses.

But then again I'm happy to pop a Hex on the front of my Fuji X-E1 and it feels like a natural progression from film.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kansalliskalaCafe wrote:
I would buy EOS-1 if found one at any reasonable price. Neutral


The EOS 1 and 1n go for pretty cheap on eBay these days -- in the $100-150 range. The 1v, which I'd like to have, still goes for pretty good money, though. So I guess I'll wait a while.

On the more general topic of shooting with film cameras, I find that anymore these days I'm using my digitals for more utilitarian tasks and my film cameras for when I feel like stretching my artistic horizons. There's just something about film that does this for me that I just don't find myself doing with digital. I'd be lying if I told you I knew why I feel this way -- it's a bit of a mystery to me. What with all the alleged advantages of digital over film, I just don't feel as home with it. Digital just seems more -- for the lack of a better word -- clinical than film, and I guess this impression carries through with my overall feelings on the topic.

Which reminds me. Today I was at a glass shop, waiting for them to cut a few window panes for me, and I was hanging out in the waiting room. They had a hardcover book on Polynesia that was published by National Geographic -- back in 1968. The photos had faded some over the years, but there was still plenty of color left. I enjoyed looking through the book's photos, which were collected from articles on the subject(s) of the various islands in Polynesia. They were obviously 35mm for the most part, and it was kinda nice, for once looking at photos that I knew were all shot on film -- and 1968 (and earlier) film technology with 1968 (and earlier) camera tech to boot. And you know what? The book's photos looked as great as any NatGeo's photos would look. So it was kinda fun doing the reminiscing.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I always think digi people around the world are in for a shock in the future when for example the prints of all the shots of their children (or whatever) have faded and they have lost the jpgs on their hard drive or DVD. With a film neg unless you have a house fire you can always get a shot back, even my colour negs going back 50 years and although the colours have faded slightly, I can get the colours back in Photoshop and as a last resort can always get a B\W print from them. The only problem in the future would be if you could still get a print\scan off a film negative? Well IMO there will be some way.
So belt and braces if you are interested in the future.... use a digi and a film camera for important shots.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:
Well I always think digi people around the world are in for a shock in the future when for example the prints of all the shots of their children (or whatever) have faded and they have lost the jpgs on their hard drive or DVD. With a film neg unless you have a house fire you can always get a shot back, even my colour negs going back 50 years and although the colours have faded slightly, I can get the colours back in Photoshop and as a last resort can always get a B\W print from them. The only problem in the future would be if you could still get a print\scan off a film negative? Well IMO there will be some way.
So belt and braces if you are interested in the future.... use a digi and a film camera for important shots.


Something conservators are currently wrestling with - not how to archive negatives, but how to archive their digital equivalent, when the technology that produced and holds them goes into obsolescence so regularly. Can you call a digital image that has been transferred from software to software to software in order to be shown in it's digital form, an original?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Well I always think digi people around the world are in for a shock in the future when for example the prints of all the shots of their children (or whatever) have faded and they have lost the jpgs on their hard drive or DVD. With a film neg unless you have a house fire you can always get a shot back, even my colour negs going back 50 years and although the colours have faded slightly, I can get the colours back in Photoshop and as a last resort can always get a B\W print from them. The only problem in the future would be if you could still get a print\scan off a film negative? Well IMO there will be some way.
So belt and braces if you are interested in the future.... use a digi and a film camera for important shots.


Something conservators are currently wrestling with - not how to archive negatives, but how to archive their digital equivalent, when the technology that produced and holds them goes into obsolescence so regularly. Can you call a digital image that has been transferred from software to software to software in order to be shown in it's digital form, an original?


Well, I think it's both fair and accurate to call it a copy, but it should be emphasized that, if the file that was copied was still original, that is, no bytes were lost, then it should be noted that it is an exact digital copy, which means it is identical down to the last 1 or 0. So it is the functional equivalent of the original, even if it isn't technically.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Sciolist wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Well I always think digi people around the world are in for a shock in the future when for example the prints of all the shots of their children (or whatever) have faded and they have lost the jpgs on their hard drive or DVD. With a film neg unless you have a house fire you can always get a shot back, even my colour negs going back 50 years and although the colours have faded slightly, I can get the colours back in Photoshop and as a last resort can always get a B\W print from them. The only problem in the future would be if you could still get a print\scan off a film negative? Well IMO there will be some way.
So belt and braces if you are interested in the future.... use a digi and a film camera for important shots.


Something conservators are currently wrestling with - not how to archive negatives, but how to archive their digital equivalent, when the technology that produced and holds them goes into obsolescence so regularly. Can you call a digital image that has been transferred from software to software to software in order to be shown in it's digital form, an original?


Well, I think it's both fair and accurate to call it a copy, but it should be emphasized that, if the file that was copied was still original, that is, no bytes were lost, then it should be noted that it is an exact digital copy, which means it is identical down to the last 1 or 0. So it is the functional equivalent of the original, even if it isn't technically.


That's fair. Of course corruption is an issue too.