35mm film VS digital

"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote:
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?

Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format,

Don't get snotty!

Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy for
digital to trounce it.

yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.

Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new films
are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro negative films
(120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4 years, by now.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote:
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm format,
Don't get snotty!

Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy for
digital to trounce it.

Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them
a note.

yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.

Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new films
are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro negative films
(120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4 years, by now.)

Around here (living in the sticks) I have to order it at least a week in
advance and a minimum of a 5 pak. Or drive into the city. Yeah. Right.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

That80sGuy wrote:

I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
generation from a negative or slide.

Or from a digital.

A proper point, but a poor comparison. A digital sensor is much more
perfectly flat than film. There is no dimensional grain in a digital
sensor (there is noise in dynamic, but its always within the bounds of
the pixel).

Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
(1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp.
The highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
crap.).

Ahem. You zoom into the area of detail of interest. But again, that's
not the same as viewing a print which cannot have the dynamic range of
the image in any case. Never mind the 100 dpi or so of a typical
monitor v. the 300 dpi of a typical print. (Even your drool-monitor
above is somewhat less than 300 dpi.)

So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
resolution.

Hmm. Odd you mention that now...


Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
out a scan, which is a second generation again.

Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
Yikes.

So, my point it this,
does it really matter?
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files

Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.

Pfft yourself. A monitor is on the order of 100 dpi and a print on the
order of 300 dpi. So yes, in editing you have to zoom in for critical
detail.

And yes, you display it resized to see the entire image for overall
effect. And so what? This has absolutely nothing to do with film v
digital. Once you've digitized film, it is no different in this sense
than a digital original.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote:
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm
format,
Don't get snotty!

Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy
for digital to trounce it.

Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them a
note.

People keep telling how wonderful NG is, but I'm rarely impressed with the
photography therein. In the last issue I bought, the photography didn't do
anything for me (lots of underexposed bogus moody shots) and there were two
articles on places I happen to know something about; both were serious BS.
In particular, they recyled standard stereotypes that don't have anything to
do with the reality of life in the countries in question.

And the last I heard, NG had gone digital.

yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.

Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new
films are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro
negative films (120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4
years, by now.)

Around here (living in the sticks) I have to order it at least a week in
advance and a minimum of a 5 pak. Or drive into the city. Yeah. Right.

My condolences. If I wanted inconvenience and the need to own a car, I'd
live in the sticks too. Here, I can hop on a train and be out in the
countryside in an hour. But I walk to the supermarket for grocery shopping,
and the local pro lab is even closer than the supermarket.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote:
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm
format,
Don't get snotty!
Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy
for digital to trounce it.
Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them a
note.

People keep telling how wonderful NG is, but I'm rarely impressed with the
photography therein. In the last issue I bought, the photography didn't do
anything for me (lots of underexposed bogus moody shots) and there were two
articles on places I happen to know something about; both were serious BS.

Hmm. I guess you're in the minority. Certainly not every shot is an
absolute beauty, but they produce fantastic photography in any case.
Even secondary magazines they produce of photography not used in the
journal is stunning (and larger format).

In particular, they recyled standard stereotypes that don't have anything to
do with the reality of life in the countries in question.

A gross exaggeration. I'm sure they make errors like everyone, but on
the whole...

And the last I heard, NG had gone digital.

Certainly. But, they did not have that luxury before. Nor did its
absence harm them.

yes you can get 35mm film too... easier than 120 for that matter.
Around here, 120 is available everywhere that sells film, and more new
films are coming out in 120 than 35mm. (Well, the four new Fuji pro
negative films (120 only) are getting to be somewhat old news, 3 or 4
years, by now.)
Around here (living in the sticks) I have to order it at least a week in
advance and a minimum of a 5 pak. Or drive into the city. Yeah. Right.

My condolences. If I wanted inconvenience and the need to own a car, I'd
live in the sticks too. Here, I can hop on a train and be out in the
countryside in an hour. But I walk to the supermarket for grocery shopping,
and the local pro lab is even closer than the supermarket.

That's living in Japan. The province I live in is 10x larger than Japan
with less than 1/10 the population. Now certainly I don't travel all
over the province (and to do so would be horribly expensive) but the
fact remains that we are not very train oriented. A photographer I know
(a Pentax 67 kind of dude last I saw) does travel all over this
province, however, and no train has ever gone there ... and likely never
will.

I spent a few weeks in the s/w US recently, and trains would have been a
useless way to travel... same I suspect for a lot of areas in the world.

Inconvenience of owning a car? Nah. Buy Honda. They don't break.
Sits in the driveway. No waiting. Winter? My driveway is blown out by
the contractor before I'm awake or before I get home.

What works here may not work there, but the reverse is mostly true as
well (although I hear that budgets for building more highways or
improving them is serious ricebowl politics in Japan ... your taxes at
"work". My condolences.)

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:03:29 -0400, Bob Donahue wrote:

Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
(Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
film.)

I guess you've never seen prints from Kodak Ektar 25 color negative film
then. ISO 25. No grain. Smooth tonality. Too contrasty for normal
bright sunlight. No exposure latitude. A difficult film to work with,
but if you knew what you were doing, you could make 20 x 30 prints that
would knock your socks off. And, it came in 120 roll film, too! Too
bad, neither lasted.

Stef

"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote:
Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?
Yes. I don't know about cameras in the inferior subminiature 35mm
format,
Don't get snotty!
Get real. 35mm is a joke and always has been. That's why it was so easy
for digital to trounce it.
Hmm, guess 50+ years of National Geographic was a joke. I'll write them
a note.

People keep telling how wonderful NG is, but I'm rarely impressed with
the photography therein. In the last issue I bought, the photography
didn't do anything for me (lots of underexposed bogus moody shots) and
there were two articles on places I happen to know something about; both
were serious BS.

Hmm. I guess you're in the minority. Certainly not every shot is an
absolute beauty, but they produce fantastic photography in any case. Even
secondary magazines they produce of photography not used in the journal is
stunning (and larger format).

I wonder what you are comparing it to? My two favorites are a Japanese
bimonthly landscape magazine (8.5 x 11.5", better printing than NG and
mostly 645 and larger; seriously stunning color landscape work) and
Lenswork, which is smaller than NG (and doesn't do double page spreads) but
uses much better printing and does push the envelope of photography as art.

NG isn't close to either. So I don't get the NG hagiography.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Steve wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 19:25:25 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , Jürgen Exner
writes
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" wrote:
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files,
I repectfully disagree.

First of all you cannot view RAW sensor data.
Yes you can,. I use my RAW processor for that. I can view the RAW data
in the RAW processor. Then after I have made changes I can process it
into a JPG, TIFF PNG etc at various standards of resolution, size etc.

You're right, you can view the RAW sensor data. But it won't look
like a picture you're used to seeing. Probably the best way to view
it is just hex data. If you try to visualize it without converting it
into somethine else, you'll be very dissapointed. Your RAW processor
converts the RAW sensor data into something you can see that looks
like a picture. *THAT* is 2nd generation and different RAW processors
might make different looking images from the RAW sensor data.

One could argue a 35 mm slide is second generation, as the data is first
recorded on the film, but then has to be processed (developed) to
produce an image. You could take that argument back further and consider
the lens does processing. Hence talking of first or second generation in
this context is a bit pointless IMHO

"-hh" wrote:
"RoushPhotoOnline.com" wrote:
Stefan Patric wrote:

I guess you've never seen prints from Kodak
Ektar 25 color negative film then. ISO 25.
No grain....A difficult film to work with,
but if you knew what you were doing...

That was great film. I shot many rolls of
it as a tester for Kodak.
Those days are gone, sad.

*Almost* gone.

There's still a few rolls stashed in cold storage, although it is
becoming questionable as to how well it would be holding up after so
many years on ice.

FWIW, who would you recommend as a trustworthy C41 developer for now-
obscure emulsions such as this?


I thought that "C41" was the name of the developing process used for those
films.

If you don't mind B&W, there's gigabit film. And TMX100, which is a very
nice film regardless of grain size, is pretty close in grain size as well.
(6x7 TMX100 is the only thing I've seen that'll outresolve the 5D for
real-world images.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I like digital. I get better results for me. I will probably never use
film again and I have a Nikon F2a in pristine condition.

That said notwithstanding pixels and resolution the dynamic range of
film is better and there is not argument on that issue.

Bob Donahue wrote:
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)