[rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film" debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers

  • From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:57:47 -0800

No problem. I have been using digital more and more. It is simply more
convenient. If I need to get a higher shutter speed, I up the ISO. I am sold
on digital although I do still shoot film.

As to negatives, I think like any other media they will be there for years
to come. If someone takes care of their digital images they will survive for
years to come. They will simply be like family videos, you transfer them
from one media to the newer media and they will survive.

Peter K

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Douglas Nygren <dnygr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The question whether a future generation will be interested in negatives
> from today can't be answered yes or no. I know I have more interest now in
> my parents' and grandparents' photos than I did 40 years ago. Younger people
> aren't that interested in their parents and grandparents until they are
> older, if I may make a generalization. At least with negatives, people can
> access the past if they so chose. Digital material will be much harder to
> view, regretably.
>
> My wife has all of her late father's slides, which she treasures. She is
> able to access them. Had they been digital, she wouldn't have. He stored
> some of her research from the early 80s, however, on his computer. That work
> is as good as non-existant.
>
> Don't get me wrong about digital photography. I own an M8 and a Canon 5D. I
> use them, but I know that the down side is that what I do won't be as
> accessible in the future as I would like.
>
> Peter, I think you noted how you have a wide range of film speeds digitally
> and I was a bit of a jerk in my responce and said "so what." That was rash
> of me. There is a lot to say for such flexibility, provided the higher
> speeds don't come with big noise problems. When shooting film AND when
> shooting digitally, one maxim I follow is to try to make life easier when I
> print the photos. Care in exposures and in development of film makes life
> easier in the darkroom. The same can be said for digital images. We want to
> make our work in Photoshop easier. The time we spend on an image should be
> directed towards creating what we want rather than fixing our mistakes.
>
> Whether I am using film or a digital camera, I generally use only one lens.
> I tend to use only one film and to shoot at only one speed digitally. That
> suits what I do. If I were to shoot something else, I might vary film or
> digital speed.
>
> Best--Doug
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Thor Legvold wrote:
>
>  Will your children, grandchildren do this for you? Will your pictures be
>> of interest to them, or just something else to clean out when your gone?
>> Would a box of negatives/transparencies be treated differently than
>> grandpa's PC (or stack of DVD backups)...?
>>
>> Thor
>>
>> On 14. jan.. 2009, at 03.41, Douglas Nygren wrote:
>>
>>  I'm sure you do this every day.
>>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Peter K. wrote:
>>>
>>>  You would transfer the images to a newer media. Simple. Few retain imags
>>>> in DVD these days anyway.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Shannon Hong <triode12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The other problem with Digital data is storage.
>>>>> Computer storage technology keeps evolving, standards/formats keep
>>>>> changing. CDs and DVDs don't last forever especially the recordable kind
>>>>> (Dyes fade, storage devices fail/become obsolete). HDD spindles wear out 
>>>>> and
>>>>> fail over time. Even digital data is prone to corruption. Multiple copies
>>>>> should be made and stored on separate sets of media to ensure that you 
>>>>> have
>>>>> redundancy.
>>>>>
>>>>> One has to keep transferring the data to newer storage mediums and if
>>>>> you have a lot of data this may or may not be a PITA. While one needs to
>>>>> store film well, once you have done so, you don't have to do the above 
>>>>> every
>>>>> 5 yrs or so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:47:51 -0800
>>>>> From: genej2ster@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: age old "digital vs film"
>>>>> debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On reflection, there ARE a lot of ways in which digital cameras have
>>>>> become superior to film cameras.  Convenience and operating cost are 2.  
>>>>> No
>>>>> way I could provide my local ballet company with 1000 exposures of a
>>>>> performance on film.  Neither they nor I could afford it.  And the
>>>>> resolution and total visual information on a good 10-plus Mpixel camera 
>>>>> can
>>>>> be very high.  I did a 40 inch tall poster that looked really nice. I am
>>>>> probably going to buy a 5D Mk2 here pretty soon because it is such a
>>>>> powerful tool for these kinds of things.  I will not be giving up my film
>>>>> cameras though; and it is not just because I am so sentimental about the
>>>>> medium.  I really do find the response curve of digital sensors to be
>>>>> significantly inferior to film as of my Rebel Xsi or my buddy's 5D.  Not
>>>>> even close really.  The transition to shadow or highlight is so much
>>>>> smoother and more beautiful on film to my eye. Everyone who looks at the
>>>>> prints notices it. The 5d MK2 is supposed to be better.  I will reserve
>>>>> judgement.  In any case, I have no doubt, the gap will continue to narrow,
>>>>> and one day I WILL be using film because I just love working with it and 
>>>>> my
>>>>> old cameras, enlargers, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Frank Dernie <
>>>>> Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On the contrary, Frank, I believe both statements to be true. In all
>>>>>> my recent experience digital -is- in all practical ways superior to film.
>>>>>> OTOH it is a matter of personal choice so if somebody wants to use film 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is fine by me :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13 Jan, 2009, at 16:46, Eric Goldstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Frank, glad to read this much more reasonable and modest statement
>>>>>>> about digital's capabilities, and your own personal abilities and
>>>>>>> tastes, in contrast to this earlier statement:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  In all practical ways digital has exceeded the capability of film
>>>>>>>> for some time. Certainly if there is an
>>>>>>>> effect which one wishes to achieve, using a vintage LF lens for
>>>>>>>> example, film may have to be the
>>>>>>>> choice but that does not make film better, just an appropriate
>>>>>>>> choice in some circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric Goldstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Frank Dernie
>>>>>>> <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I quite agree, a matter of personal choice. I get p*ssed off when
>>>>>>>> people say
>>>>>>>> it meeds 67, or choose any other number, megapixels for digital to
>>>>>>>> match
>>>>>>>> film which is patently ridiculous. Which film? what other parameter
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> resolution?
>>>>>>>> I get better dynamic range, a smoother look and plenty of resolution
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> digital. My prints look more 3 dimensional and real - particularly
>>>>>>>> skin
>>>>>>>> tones. I still like the look of B&W film for portraits, actually,
>>>>>>>> but not
>>>>>>>> for anything else.
>>>>>>>> Some photographers prefer film so for them it is better, obviously.
>>>>>>>> best regards,
>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13 Jan, 2009, at 13:56, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  But that doesn't mitigate that the other works "better" for others,
>>>>>>>>> and no
>>>>>>>>> amount of discussion is going to change that.  Even if it is as
>>>>>>>>> simple as
>>>>>>>>> someone likes to use a particular camera, that's good enough IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Rollei List
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>>>>>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>>>>>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
>>>>>>> www.freelists.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>>>>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Rollei List
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in
>>>>>> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe'
>>>>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>>>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Be Just and Fear Not
>>>>>
>>>>> Download free emoticons today! Holiday cheer from Messenger.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter K
>>>> Ó¿Õ¬
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Rollei List
>>>
>>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>>
>>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>>
>>>
>> ---
>> Rollei List
>>
>> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
>> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
>> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>>
>> - Online, searchable archives are available at
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>>
>>
>>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the
> subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in
> the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>


-- 
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬

Other related posts: