Going from Digital to Analog

artobest · 02-25-2009, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by redpigeons

100% freedom and with PP you can make it look like what ever film you want and it looks like better film then a real film

If you believe that then I've got a bridge you might like to buy ...

woof · 02-25-2009, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by redpigeons

film is great especially medium format.
but digital blows my mind. 100% freedom and with PP you can make it look like what ever film you want and it looks like better film then a real film
and most importantly for the price of $0
I love my k1000 ... its fun and cool and feel great to shoot with
but other then emotional reasons there is no practical reason today to shoot film.
all the money I save on developing I invest in lenses what more can one ask

Redpigeons... nice opinion. You are entitled to it. My opinion is this:

>> (Your tag line) I am trying to teach my self (sic.) photography

1. With all due respect, you can't UNTIL you open your mind. Closing your mind to film means without a doubt that you cannot teach yourself photography. Digital has been around for 30 some odd years. Film for 145. Do you really think you can teach yourself digital photography and have the whole story?

>> but other then emotional reasons there is no practical reason today to shoot
>> film

2. How about dynamic range? Resolution? You are learning, so this is forgivable. Ignorance is not a negative term. It simply means you don't know. What would be truly be negative and a shame to boot would be if you persisted in that ignorance. See number 1., above.

3. >> but digital blows my mind. 100% freedom and with PP you can make it look like what ever film you want and it
>> looks like better film then a real film

The argument is specious at best. If you are going to make your digital look like film, then how can you criticize film? Seems to me if you are going to try to make something look like something it is not, then it is the thing that you are trying to look like that is desirable, not the thing that emulates it. A copy of something is never better than the original. It is a copy. It is a thing wishing to be something else, and it always loses something and therefore misses.

Again, just one man's opinion.

Respectfully,

woof!

**Ron Boggs** · 02-26-2009, 08:21 AM

Everyone has their "thing", and for me it's the light table. Put a 6x7 Velvia or E100VS transparency on the table, pull out the ol' Pentax APO 5.5x loupe and...well, it's almost a religious experience. I still can't analyze anything in a screen shot of a digital image (my limitation not a limitation of digital overall). What constitutes sharp enough? What constitutes good color? Give me a positive transparency--slide--and I can see exactly what I've got. Analysis is intuitive and simple.

Plus the pleasure of NOT doing post processing. "Get it correct in-camera" is something I try to do with both film and digital shooting. That way I can focus on photography not graphic design (which is what post processing is).

Digital is particularly problematic today as I'm wasting several hours on scans today. My "regular" magazine editor switched to requiring all digital submissions recently, so I can't just send slides anymore...damn!

SteveM · 02-26-2009, 09:17 AM

I picked up my ME Super a few weeks ago.....after no having used it for 15 years and really enjoyed using it. Perhaps it's just me but I do prefer some aspects over my k20d. I usually have the k20d on manual as I want to decide what the shot should look like instead of asking the camera to do that for me.
The ME Super has a much better viewfinder, and for me is much simpler to use. Picking up the ME again brought interest in film.....specifically a camera that I have always wanted, so I picked up a 67II from Ron (Thanks Ron!). I picked up some film yesterday from one of the larger camera stores here in town and had a few comments from the staff working there. Two of the staff in the camera section mentioned that digital is still a few years off from the larger format film. Apparently they are bringing in more medium format film as there has been an increase in sales over the past couple of years....presumably from digital folks being attracted to try something new.
For me it isn't an issue of being better or worse, it's just different (besides....I'll muck up the shots on both...lol). It'll be a while before the 67II gets here....then if I can not mess up too badly, I look forward to posting something scanned.

Cheers,
Steve

Ratmagiclady · 02-26-2009, 10:31 AM

Digital and medium format can make a nice combination: some of the things which made 35mm more convenient than MF, digital can give you more of, and medium format can give you *more* of that filmey goodness, depending on what you're doing.

Digital companions to the film stuff really let me nibble through film in general, and you don't have to worry about missing anything.

**Ron Boggs** · 02-26-2009, 03:07 PM

We'll see how quickly Steve gets his 67II. I shipped USPS Express which is 2 day service in the U.S. The big variable is customs which sometimes zips right through, sometimes seems like a hostage situation...

I agree with RML that medium format and digi make a nice marriage. And I like that term "nibbling" on film. I too tend to blast away a bizzillion megapixels--often on ho hum stuff, which allows me to nibble on my film stocks--presumably for the really good shots.

ericcch69 · 02-27-2009, 05:56 AM

Wow your ME Super looks great, I used to one too, now i'm using the film SLR Pentax PZ-something.....and a DSLR K100D super....but i'm still have the urge to shoot in film, I still a bunch of it....it cost much cheaper in Malaysia around USD7+ for pack of 3 rolls, but ISO 100 is mostly not in the market...

Pumalite · 03-05-2009, 06:28 PM

Sorry; I have an ME Super, but almost never use it. I hate that little button!. I prefer my Spotmatic SPII and my K1000

**gofour3** · 03-06-2009, 12:02 PM

Film may seem more expensive up front, but in the end digital is.
Look at the storage costs of digital: memory cards, external drives, CDs & DVDs.
A film camera will last for decades; you will need to replace your DSLR and PC every three to five years, if they don’t pack it in before then. On top of that you also have the printing costs of your digital images, which are included in basic film processing.

Gooshin · 03-06-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

Film may seem more expensive up front, but in the end digital is.
Look at the storage costs of digital: memory cards, external drives, CDs & DVDs.
A film camera will last for decades; you will need to replace your DSLR and PC every three to five years, if they don’t pack it in before then. On top of that you also have the printing costs of your digital images, which are included in basic film processing.

1. digital storage is cheap, a terabyte for 100 bucks,

thats equivalent to 1800 rolls of film at the current 15MB pef files of a k20d.

do the math on binders + film sleves, you'll probably run up to 100 bucks as well when you consider that you got to pack 1800 rolls in there.

2. film cameras dont last for decades, their shutter lives are just as long if not shorter than digital, a 10-20 year old camera means 10-20 year old rubber/foam seals. A film camera with 50K shots on it is going to need just as much maintenance as a New digital camera.

3. you dont need to replace your PC if you do not upgrade your programs, also PC's are reaching a point where they process faster than you can think, wait times are almost non existant. Soon there wont be a point to upgrade, unless you play video games.

also computers are not there for photography only! they serve other functions.

4. "printing is included" printing what, 6X7's? you can keep those, i dont want them even if they are free.

Film is cheaper than digital in the short run, esp when you compare to something like a D3X

Film however is not cheaper than lets say, a used 5D with a basic set of lenses.

my MZ-S cost me 500 bucks (CAD), a Nikon Coolscan 1400 bucks (CAD)

i havent even taken a single shot and i'm already almsot at the 2000K mark.

kodak ektar, 5.75 for me, plus 3 bucks to develop. after awhile it starts to add up.

and thats ektar, some people freely shoot 12-15$ slides + an average of 8-10 bucks for processing and mounting.

then time takes care of the rest.

CSoars · 03-06-2009, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

my MZ-S cost me 500 bucks (CAD), a Nikon Coolscan 1400 bucks (CAD)

Is the biggest benefit for the Coolscan the speed? Lots of flatbeds seem to have the at least the same dpi and colour depth ability, for 1/5th the price.

Just to compare, my Epson V500 does photo scans at a max of 6400 DPI, 48 bit colour, LED diode, and was $250 CAD. Of course, it would take ages to do this, but....

Gooshin · 03-06-2009, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by CSoars

Is the biggest benefit for the Coolscan the speed? Lots of flatbeds seem to have the at least the same dpi and colour depth ability, for 1/5th the price.

Just to compare, my Epson V500 does photo scans at a max of 6400 DPI, 48 bit colour, LED diode, and was $250 CAD. Of course, it would take ages to do this, but....

raw detail, it is only 4000 dpi and 16 bit, but the level of detail blows everything else out the water.

my friend with whom i split the cost of this thing, had (still has) the Epson V700, we did enough tests to show that both slides and negatives are much sharper and detailed on the Nikon.

so, draw your own conclusions.

Gooshin · 03-06-2009, 01:20 PM

here is a photo:

Paul Kounine | November 2008

underexposed and all that but if you download the original you can see the texture of the guys hat and shirt when zoomed in.

the epson was not able to reproduce this detail.

CSoars · 03-06-2009, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

here is a photo:

Paul Kounine | November 2008

underexposed and all that but if you download the original you can see the texture of the guys hat and shirt when zoomed in.

the epson was not able to reproduce this detail.

The shots in that gallery look as clean as digital. Pretty impressive. I did look at the coolscan, but had no one to split the cost with; I just needed a way to avoid paying the minilabs $0.99 a frame to scan my negs (as I don't print until I review them)

k100d · 03-06-2009, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by CSoars

The shots in that gallery look as clean as digital. Pretty impressive. I did look at the coolscan, but had no one to split the cost with; I just needed a way to avoid paying the minilabs $0.99 a frame to scan my negs (as I don't print until I review them)

wow that's way too much. can't you get it scanned at time of processing for cheaper?

02-25-2009, 05:42 PM	#47
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by redpigeons film is great especially medium format. but digital blows my mind. 100% freedom and with PP you can make it look like what ever film you want and it looks like better film then a real film and most importantly for the price of $0 I love my k1000 ... its fun and cool and feel great to shoot with but other then emotional reasons there is no practical reason today to shoot film. all the money I save on developing I invest in lenses what more can one ask Redpigeons... nice opinion. You are entitled to it. My opinion is this: >> (Your tag line) I am trying to teach my self (sic.) photography 1. With all due respect, you can't UNTIL you open your mind. Closing your mind to film means without a doubt that you cannot teach yourself photography. Digital has been around for 30 some odd years. Film for 145. Do you really think you can teach yourself digital photography and have the whole story? >> but other then emotional reasons there is no practical reason today to shoot >> film 2. How about dynamic range? Resolution? You are learning, so this is forgivable. Ignorance is not a negative term. It simply means you don't know. What would be truly be negative and a shame to boot would be if you persisted in that ignorance. See number 1., above. 3. >> but digital blows my mind. 100% freedom and with PP you can make it look like what ever film you want and it >> looks like better film then a real film The argument is specious at best. If you are going to make your digital look like film, then how can you criticize film? Seems to me if you are going to try to make something look like something it is not, then it is the thing that you are trying to look like that is desirable, not the thing that emulates it. A copy of something is never better than the original. It is a copy. It is a thing wishing to be something else, and it always loses something and therefore misses. Again, just one man's opinion. Respectfully, woof! Last edited by woof; 02-25-2009 at 05:48 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Analog greetings from Sweden	t0mpa	Welcomes and Introductions	3	10-14-2010 01:28 PM
analog to digital	fixedfocus	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	01-19-2010 01:26 PM
I just bought... my second analog Pentax!	Erik	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	21	05-19-2009 01:35 AM
Dutch analog photographer	Barbecueboy	Welcomes and Introductions	4	02-11-2008 10:37 AM
crop factor, quality, digital to analog comparison	MichaelRD	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	10-05-2006 06:13 AM

02-25-2009, 03:21 PM	#46
artobest Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Swansea, Wales Posts: 455	Originally posted by redpigeons 100% freedom and with PP you can make it look like what ever film you want and it looks like better film then a real film If you believe that then I've got a bridge you might like to buy ...

02-26-2009, 08:21 AM	#48
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	Everyone has their "thing", and for me it's the light table. Put a 6x7 Velvia or E100VS transparency on the table, pull out the ol' Pentax APO 5.5x loupe and...well, it's almost a religious experience. I still can't analyze anything in a screen shot of a digital image (my limitation not a limitation of digital overall). What constitutes sharp enough? What constitutes good color? Give me a positive transparency--slide--and I can see exactly what I've got. Analysis is intuitive and simple. Plus the pleasure of NOT doing post processing. "Get it correct in-camera" is something I try to do with both film and digital shooting. That way I can focus on photography not graphic design (which is what post processing is). Digital is particularly problematic today as I'm wasting several hours on scans today. My "regular" magazine editor switched to requiring all digital submissions recently, so I can't just send slides anymore...damn!

02-26-2009, 09:17 AM	#49
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	I picked up my ME Super a few weeks ago.....after no having used it for 15 years and really enjoyed using it. Perhaps it's just me but I do prefer some aspects over my k20d. I usually have the k20d on manual as I want to decide what the shot should look like instead of asking the camera to do that for me. The ME Super has a much better viewfinder, and for me is much simpler to use. Picking up the ME again brought interest in film.....specifically a camera that I have always wanted, so I picked up a 67II from Ron (Thanks Ron!). I picked up some film yesterday from one of the larger camera stores here in town and had a few comments from the staff working there. Two of the staff in the camera section mentioned that digital is still a few years off from the larger format film. Apparently they are bringing in more medium format film as there has been an increase in sales over the past couple of years....presumably from digital folks being attracted to try something new. For me it isn't an issue of being better or worse, it's just different (besides....I'll muck up the shots on both...lol). It'll be a while before the 67II gets here....then if I can not mess up too badly, I look forward to posting something scanned. Cheers, Steve

02-26-2009, 10:31 AM	#50
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Digital and medium format can make a nice combination: some of the things which made 35mm more convenient than MF, digital can give you more of, and medium format can give you more of that filmey goodness, depending on what you're doing. Digital companions to the film stuff really let me nibble through film in general, and you don't have to worry about missing anything.

02-26-2009, 03:07 PM	#51
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	We'll see how quickly Steve gets his 67II. I shipped USPS Express which is 2 day service in the U.S. The big variable is customs which sometimes zips right through, sometimes seems like a hostage situation... I agree with RML that medium format and digi make a nice marriage. And I like that term "nibbling" on film. I too tend to blast away a bizzillion megapixels--often on ho hum stuff, which allows me to nibble on my film stocks--presumably for the really good shots.

02-27-2009, 05:56 AM	#52
ericcch69 New Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: malaysia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8	Wow your ME Super looks great, I used to one too, now i'm using the film SLR Pentax PZ-something.....and a DSLR K100D super....but i'm still have the urge to shoot in film, I still a bunch of it....it cost much cheaper in Malaysia around USD7+ for pack of 3 rolls, but ISO 100 is mostly not in the market...

03-05-2009, 06:28 PM	#53
Pumalite Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 80	Sorry; I have an ME Super, but almost never use it. I hate that little button!. I prefer my Spotmatic SPII and my K1000

03-06-2009, 12:02 PM	#54
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Film may seem more expensive up front, but in the end digital is. Look at the storage costs of digital: memory cards, external drives, CDs & DVDs. A film camera will last for decades; you will need to replace your DSLR and PC every three to five years, if they don’t pack it in before then. On top of that you also have the printing costs of your digital images, which are included in basic film processing.

03-06-2009, 12:19 PM	#55
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by gofour3 Film may seem more expensive up front, but in the end digital is. Look at the storage costs of digital: memory cards, external drives, CDs & DVDs. A film camera will last for decades; you will need to replace your DSLR and PC every three to five years, if they don’t pack it in before then. On top of that you also have the printing costs of your digital images, which are included in basic film processing. 1. digital storage is cheap, a terabyte for 100 bucks, thats equivalent to 1800 rolls of film at the current 15MB pef files of a k20d. do the math on binders + film sleves, you'll probably run up to 100 bucks as well when you consider that you got to pack 1800 rolls in there. 2. film cameras dont last for decades, their shutter lives are just as long if not shorter than digital, a 10-20 year old camera means 10-20 year old rubber/foam seals. A film camera with 50K shots on it is going to need just as much maintenance as a New digital camera. 3. you dont need to replace your PC if you do not upgrade your programs, also PC's are reaching a point where they process faster than you can think, wait times are almost non existant. Soon there wont be a point to upgrade, unless you play video games. also computers are not there for photography only! they serve other functions. 4. "printing is included" printing what, 6X7's? you can keep those, i dont want them even if they are free. Film is cheaper than digital in the short run, esp when you compare to something like a D3X Film however is not cheaper than lets say, a used 5D with a basic set of lenses. my MZ-S cost me 500 bucks (CAD), a Nikon Coolscan 1400 bucks (CAD) i havent even taken a single shot and i'm already almsot at the 2000K mark. kodak ektar, 5.75 for me, plus 3 bucks to develop. after awhile it starts to add up. and thats ektar, some people freely shoot 12-15$ slides + an average of 8-10 bucks for processing and mounting. then time takes care of the rest.

03-06-2009, 01:10 PM	#56
CSoars Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 322	Originally posted by Gooshin my MZ-S cost me 500 bucks (CAD), a Nikon Coolscan 1400 bucks (CAD) Is the biggest benefit for the Coolscan the speed? Lots of flatbeds seem to have the at least the same dpi and colour depth ability, for 1/5th the price. Just to compare, my Epson V500 does photo scans at a max of 6400 DPI, 48 bit colour, LED diode, and was $250 CAD. Of course, it would take ages to do this, but....

03-06-2009, 01:15 PM	#57
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by CSoars Is the biggest benefit for the Coolscan the speed? Lots of flatbeds seem to have the at least the same dpi and colour depth ability, for 1/5th the price. Just to compare, my Epson V500 does photo scans at a max of 6400 DPI, 48 bit colour, LED diode, and was $250 CAD. Of course, it would take ages to do this, but.... raw detail, it is only 4000 dpi and 16 bit, but the level of detail blows everything else out the water. my friend with whom i split the cost of this thing, had (still has) the Epson V700, we did enough tests to show that both slides and negatives are much sharper and detailed on the Nikon. so, draw your own conclusions.

03-06-2009, 01:20 PM	#58
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	here is a photo: Paul Kounine \| November 2008 underexposed and all that but if you download the original you can see the texture of the guys hat and shirt when zoomed in. the epson was not able to reproduce this detail.

03-06-2009, 01:34 PM	#59
CSoars Inactive Account Join Date: May 2008 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 322	Originally posted by Gooshin here is a photo: Paul Kounine \| November 2008 underexposed and all that but if you download the original you can see the texture of the guys hat and shirt when zoomed in. the epson was not able to reproduce this detail. The shots in that gallery look as clean as digital. Pretty impressive. I did look at the coolscan, but had no one to split the cost with; I just needed a way to avoid paying the minilabs $0.99 a frame to scan my negs (as I don't print until I review them)

03-06-2009, 01:51 PM	#60
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	Originally posted by CSoars The shots in that gallery look as clean as digital. Pretty impressive. I did look at the coolscan, but had no one to split the cost with; I just needed a way to avoid paying the minilabs $0.99 a frame to scan my negs (as I don't print until I review them) wow that's way too much. can't you get it scanned at time of processing for cheaper?