Good reason to use film rather than dslr?

GeneV · 06-28-2010, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Actually, as others have pointed out, you still may end up dealing with during the scan or in the wet darkroom.

Actually, from my recollection of years using a dichroic head and color meter, it is not a question of "may" but "will," unless someone else does it for you.

stevebrot · 06-28-2010, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Actually, from my recollection of years using a dichroic head and color meter, it is not a question of "may" but "will," unless someone else does it for you.

Steve

pingflood · 06-29-2010, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by ytterbium

1.)Shooting film is a direct archival - with DSLR i have to write DVD's think of backup prints etc.
2.)You can get fully featured (nice 55/1.8, all functions) film gear very cheap - i use it for unsafe areas/street shooting.
3.)Fully mechanical camera, loaded with iso400 - a true ever-ready - newer runs out of batteries, bullet proof etc.
4.)For most decent film SLR's viewfinders ar better and brighter - desirable for night shooting.

At least with digital you CAN make backups quite easily. Sign up with mozy or some similar online backup service and it's entirely automated and your backups are offsite in case your house burns down or something. With film you have ONE original and that's it. I love film but there's no denying that digital while taking a little more effort is easier to preserve pretty much permanently. Once a decade or so you may need to copy over the images to a new format or something, but honestly, how long does that take? A few hours every ten years? Something to be said for that.

Otherwise, I agree with your points. Film gear is dirt cheap now, the viewfinders are great (especially on manual focus cameras since there's no half silvered mirror), and my Leica M4-2 with 400 speed b/w never needs attention.

GeneV · 06-29-2010, 08:11 AM

Yeah, the archive question is one which which I have also taken issue with posters whom I respect. I have spent too much time lately scanning faded or discolored color negatives and E-6 slides from 25+ years ago to agree that film (other than classic black and white or Kodachrome) is truly archival.

Blue · 06-29-2010, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Yeah, the archive question is one which which I have also taken issue with posters whom I respect. I have spent too much time lately scanning faded or discolored color negatives and E-6 slides from 25+ years ago to agree that film (other than classic black and white or Kodachrome) is truly archival.

I believe if you go back and look, the reason that US Posters didn't like seeing Kodachrome go was the fact that it is the only known color archival medium.

The trouble with digital is that the standards have changed over time. Plus, files get corrupted. On top of that, CD and DVD aren't as archival as the sales pitches that were made in the 80s or 90s. To make matters worse, there are the goobers that constantly want to shift computer platforms etc. every 2 years. 5+ years ago TIFF was were it was at due to quality but then jpg finally caught up and a lot of people don't do TIFF which may be a mistake given that jpg degrades if not backed up properly.

The point I'm making is that film and digital both have their issues. Saying digital is like saying film. It helps to state whether you are talking Kodachrome, color negative or DNG/PEF/TIFF/JPG. Even E6 is somewhat vague given the number of manufacturers and variations.

GeneV · 06-29-2010, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I believe if you go back and look, the reason that US Posters didn't like seeing Kodachrome go was the fact that it is the only known color archival medium.

The trouble with digital is that the standards have changed over time. Plus, files get corrupted. On top of that, CD and DVD aren't as archival as the sales pitches that were made in the 80s or 90s. To make matters worse, there are the goobers that constantly want to shift computer platforms etc. every 2 years. 5+ years ago TIFF was were it was at due to quality but then jpg finally caught up and a lot of people don't do TIFF which may be a mistake given that jpg degrades if not backed up properly.

The point I'm making is that film and digital both have their issues. Saying digital is like saying film. It helps to state whether you are talking Kodachrome, color negative or DNG/PEF/TIFF/JPG. Even E6 is somewhat vague given the number of manufacturers and variations.

Hey Blue, I don't need to go back and look about Kodachrome; I believe I've posted that myself.

I do scan to TIFF. We can screw digital up just like anything else.

Odds are barely with me being able to see this, but I would venture that the digital files of today will be in better shape in 30 years than my color negs, Agfachrome and Ektachrome from 1975-1985 are today. Maybe I'll see.

Vertex Ninja · 06-29-2010, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

At least with digital you CAN make backups quite easily. Sign up with mozy or some similar online backup service and it's entirely automated and your backups are offsite in case your house burns down or something. With film you have ONE original and that's it. I love film but there's no denying that digital while taking a little more effort is easier to preserve pretty much permanently. Once a decade or so you may need to copy over the images to a new format or something, but honestly, how long does that take? A few hours every ten years? Something to be said for that.

...

It's a toss up, but I think film still has the edge. While a small amount of images may be easier to manage digitally, as time and size of archives increase the issue gets seriously compounded. If film is properly stored in a dark cool/cold place it should last a very long time. Color film not as much, but B&W can potentially last hundreds of years with very little user interaction. Film can also be digitally archived and is human readable.

While I agree it may not be so tough to transfer hundreds of digital images to another format, it won't be so trivial to do so with a lifetimes worth of images numbering in the thousands or hundreds of thousands(for some). It's not as simple as changing the file extension, the files need to be opened and then saved as another format. This may not be a big deal for 5mb jpegs, but what about .tiffs that weigh in at 100+ mb each. These files will only get bigger as the megapixel race continues.

If we only shoot/store Jpegs, then we've already started a chain of bit rot. We've lost information the moment the shutter was released and will continue to lose more as the file is saved to another format, particularly if it's a different lossy format. If we save them in a lossless format, how long does it take to transfer gigabytes or terrabytes of data to an online archive? Once it's there, we have two or three different places holding our files; That's 2-3x as much work when we decide to change the format 5-10-20-30 years from now. It continues to steamroll as time goes on. Bigger files, more places, more formats, different storage devices. Who's to say computers will be anything like they are today, 50 years from now. Will a hard-disk that's sat dormant in the attic 20+ years still work? Can it be plugged in and read by modern computers of the time?

That's the big problem I see with digital archiving. If we're vigilant in maintaining it and willing to pass the torch and train the next generation in maintaining it, then it can potentially last a long time. In reality, most people don't take the time to properly back-up or store their images, be it digital or film. If it's neglected, I'd say film has a better chance 50 years from now than digital. It may be faded or barely left on the film, but a great many digital images won't even exist.

Anyway, I believe like all things, there are pluses and minuses on both sides. I just feel that film has potentially more pluses with regards to archiving.

If you've got the money, check this out: salt mine vault

An interesting read, even if it's beyond the reality of what a normal photographer would be willing to do: The article and the .pdf that the article talks about.

Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 06-29-2010 at 06:33 PM.

magkelly · 06-29-2010, 10:28 AM

One more advantage of still using film occurred to me this morning when I was walking around with my Queenie (SPII) in the backyard. If I wasn't still into using film I'd have no real reason to pay with my beautiful old Pentax and I really enjoy doing that.

I just think it's a shame to let them just sit on a shelf and rot away because they're not as convenient to use in some ways as a digital and it may sound silly I like the idea that across time some other photographers and I are linked metaphorically speaking by the continued use of said camera. I'm linked back to the photographers before me and I will be also to the ones who will own Queenie after me.

Vertex Ninja · 06-29-2010, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by magkelly

...and it may sound silly I like the idea that across time some other photographers and I are linked metaphorically speaking by the continued use of said camera. I'm linked back to the photographers before me and I will be also to the ones who will own Queenie after me.

I don't think that's silly at all! People say the same things about houses, cars, antiques, etc. I'm big into technology, but sometimes I feel we've got too good at making things disposable. I'm not saying digital is less durable, just that it seems we're constantly bombarded with reasons to upgrade or throw away and replace, rather than to repair and maintain.

tuco · 06-29-2010, 02:34 PM

Give it enough time and digital images as pixels will be obsolete too. Some new tech will come along to displace it and maybe even make long-lasting archiving a breeze. Just hand waving...

Vertex Ninja · 06-29-2010, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Give it enough time and digital images as pixels will be obsolete too. Some new tech will come along to displace it and maybe even make long-lasting archiving a breeze. Just hand waving...

Wouldn't that be awesome! Then we can have film vs digital vs digital+ debates.

**ChrisPlatt** · 06-29-2010, 04:42 PM

"Smellovision wepwaces television?"

Chris

Vertex Ninja · 06-29-2010, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

"Smellovision wepwaces television?"

Chris

Who needs to look at photographs when you can smell them!

GeneV · 06-29-2010, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Vertex Ninja

I don't think that's silly at all! People say the same things about houses, cars, antiques, etc. I'm big into technology, but sometimes I feel we've got too good at making things disposable. I'm not saying digital is less durable, just that it seems we're constantly bombarded with reasons to upgrade or throw away and replace, rather than to repair and maintain.

I agree as well. Kodak and Fuji may someday make our film cameras disposable or just functionless antiques, but until then, using the camera connects me to history--especially my own. I get loads of fun from shooting a 1947 Crown Graphic as well. The guy I bought it from was so excited that I was buying it to use it rather than look at it.

I shoot lots of digital as well, but one of my least favorite aspects of the digital world is the camera as a computer--obsolete in just a few years.

goddo31 · 06-29-2010, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Vertex Ninja

I don't think that's silly at all! People say the same things about houses, cars, antiques, etc. I'm big into technology, but sometimes I feel we've got too good at making things disposable. I'm not saying digital is less durable, just that it seems we're constantly bombarded with reasons to upgrade or throw away and replace, rather than to repair and maintain.

Originally posted by GeneV

I agree as well. Kodak and Fuji may someday make our film cameras disposable or just functionless antiques, but until then, using the camera connects me to history--especially my own. I get loads of fun from shooting a 1947 Crown Graphic as well. The guy I bought it from was so excited that I was buying it to use it rather than look at it.

I shoot lots of digital as well, but one of my least favorite aspects of the digital world is the camera as a computer--obsolete in just a few years.

I am another with similar feelings; I think it is hard to explain the historic or nostalgic feeling to someone else, unless they themselves experience it too.
I am a bit too young to connect to my own history, although I do like using a camera that was constructed at a similar time to when I was born - I also do this with cars to some extent.
Other than that, I also have my grandmothers folding camera from the '30s. While I have only shot one completely fogged roll of film with it so far, it helps to connect to family history.

I am also hopelessly addicted to metal bodies, loud shutters, manual advance and MF metal lenses. The 'machinery' of film cameras is great IMO.

06-29-2010, 04:48 PM	#88
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt *"Smellovision wepwaces television?"* Chris Who needs to look at photographs when you can smell them! Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 06-29-2010 at 04:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K100D; Good first DSLR?	ckusnierek	Pentax DSLR Discussion	36	04-11-2010 05:10 AM
Is the K-7 a good choice for my first dslr?	Mike829	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	08-03-2009 07:58 PM
Good reason NOT to use photo sites like FLICKR	MRRiley	General Talk	37	07-07-2009 06:00 PM
Dynamic Range - Film or DSLR ?	knumbnutz	Photographic Technique	3	03-24-2009 08:42 PM
Pillow fights are a GOOD reason for weather sealed cameras	inferno10	Post Your Photos!	10	02-19-2009 12:39 PM

06-28-2010, 08:51 AM	#76
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Blue Actually, as others have pointed out, you still may end up dealing with during the scan or in the wet darkroom. Actually, from my recollection of years using a dichroic head and color meter, it is not a question of "may" but "will," unless someone else does it for you.

06-28-2010, 09:23 AM	#77
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by GeneV Actually, from my recollection of years using a dichroic head and color meter, it is not a question of "may" but "will," unless someone else does it for you. Steve

06-29-2010, 08:01 AM	#78
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by ytterbium 1.)Shooting film is a direct archival - with DSLR i have to write DVD's think of backup prints etc. 2.)You can get fully featured (nice 55/1.8, all functions) film gear very cheap - i use it for unsafe areas/street shooting. 3.)Fully mechanical camera, loaded with iso400 - a true ever-ready - newer runs out of batteries, bullet proof etc. 4.)For most decent film SLR's viewfinders ar better and brighter - desirable for night shooting. At least with digital you CAN make backups quite easily. Sign up with mozy or some similar online backup service and it's entirely automated and your backups are offsite in case your house burns down or something. With film you have ONE original and that's it. I love film but there's no denying that digital while taking a little more effort is easier to preserve pretty much permanently. Once a decade or so you may need to copy over the images to a new format or something, but honestly, how long does that take? A few hours every ten years? Something to be said for that. Otherwise, I agree with your points. Film gear is dirt cheap now, the viewfinders are great (especially on manual focus cameras since there's no half silvered mirror), and my Leica M4-2 with 400 speed b/w never needs attention.

06-29-2010, 08:11 AM	#79
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Yeah, the archive question is one which which I have also taken issue with posters whom I respect. I have spent too much time lately scanning faded or discolored color negatives and E-6 slides from 25+ years ago to agree that film (other than classic black and white or Kodachrome) is truly archival.

06-29-2010, 08:33 AM	#80
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by GeneV Yeah, the archive question is one which which I have also taken issue with posters whom I respect. I have spent too much time lately scanning faded or discolored color negatives and E-6 slides from 25+ years ago to agree that film (other than classic black and white or Kodachrome) is truly archival. I believe if you go back and look, the reason that US Posters didn't like seeing Kodachrome go was the fact that it is the only known color archival medium. The trouble with digital is that the standards have changed over time. Plus, files get corrupted. On top of that, CD and DVD aren't as archival as the sales pitches that were made in the 80s or 90s. To make matters worse, there are the goobers that constantly want to shift computer platforms etc. every 2 years. 5+ years ago TIFF was were it was at due to quality but then jpg finally caught up and a lot of people don't do TIFF which may be a mistake given that jpg degrades if not backed up properly. The point I'm making is that film and digital both have their issues. Saying digital is like saying film. It helps to state whether you are talking Kodachrome, color negative or DNG/PEF/TIFF/JPG. Even E6 is somewhat vague given the number of manufacturers and variations.

06-29-2010, 08:58 AM	#81
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Blue I believe if you go back and look, the reason that US Posters didn't like seeing Kodachrome go was the fact that it is the only known color archival medium. The trouble with digital is that the standards have changed over time. Plus, files get corrupted. On top of that, CD and DVD aren't as archival as the sales pitches that were made in the 80s or 90s. To make matters worse, there are the goobers that constantly want to shift computer platforms etc. every 2 years. 5+ years ago TIFF was were it was at due to quality but then jpg finally caught up and a lot of people don't do TIFF which may be a mistake given that jpg degrades if not backed up properly. The point I'm making is that film and digital both have their issues. Saying digital is like saying film. It helps to state whether you are talking Kodachrome, color negative or DNG/PEF/TIFF/JPG. Even E6 is somewhat vague given the number of manufacturers and variations. Hey Blue, I don't need to go back and look about Kodachrome; I believe I've posted that myself. I do scan to TIFF. We can screw digital up just like anything else. Odds are barely with me being able to see this, but I would venture that the digital files of today will be in better shape in 30 years than my color negs, Agfachrome and Ektachrome from 1975-1985 are today. Maybe I'll see.

06-29-2010, 09:39 AM	#82
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Originally posted by pingflood At least with digital you CAN make backups quite easily. Sign up with mozy or some similar online backup service and it's entirely automated and your backups are offsite in case your house burns down or something. With film you have ONE original and that's it. I love film but there's no denying that digital while taking a little more effort is easier to preserve pretty much permanently. Once a decade or so you may need to copy over the images to a new format or something, but honestly, how long does that take? A few hours every ten years? Something to be said for that. ... It's a toss up, but I think film still has the edge. While a small amount of images may be easier to manage digitally, as time and size of archives increase the issue gets seriously compounded. If film is properly stored in a dark cool/cold place it should last a very long time. Color film not as much, but B&W can potentially last hundreds of years with very little user interaction. Film can also be digitally archived and is human readable. While I agree it may not be so tough to transfer hundreds of digital images to another format, it won't be so trivial to do so with a lifetimes worth of images numbering in the thousands or hundreds of thousands(for some). It's not as simple as changing the file extension, the files need to be opened and then saved as another format. This may not be a big deal for 5mb jpegs, but what about .tiffs that weigh in at 100+ mb each. These files will only get bigger as the megapixel race continues. If we only shoot/store Jpegs, then we've already started a chain of bit rot. We've lost information the moment the shutter was released and will continue to lose more as the file is saved to another format, particularly if it's a different lossy format. If we save them in a lossless format, how long does it take to transfer gigabytes or terrabytes of data to an online archive? Once it's there, we have two or three different places holding our files; That's 2-3x as much work when we decide to change the format 5-10-20-30 years from now. It continues to steamroll as time goes on. Bigger files, more places, more formats, different storage devices. Who's to say computers will be anything like they are today, 50 years from now. Will a hard-disk that's sat dormant in the attic 20+ years still work? Can it be plugged in and read by modern computers of the time? That's the big problem I see with digital archiving. If we're vigilant in maintaining it and willing to pass the torch and train the next generation in maintaining it, then it can potentially last a long time. In reality, most people don't take the time to properly back-up or store their images, be it digital or film. If it's neglected, I'd say film has a better chance 50 years from now than digital. It may be faded or barely left on the film, but a great many digital images won't even exist. Anyway, I believe like all things, there are pluses and minuses on both sides. I just feel that film has potentially more pluses with regards to archiving. If you've got the money, check this out: salt mine vault An interesting read, even if it's beyond the reality of what a normal photographer would be willing to do: The article and the .pdf that the article talks about. Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 06-29-2010 at 06:33 PM.

06-29-2010, 10:28 AM	#83
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	One more advantage of still using film occurred to me this morning when I was walking around with my Queenie (SPII) in the backyard. If I wasn't still into using film I'd have no real reason to pay with my beautiful old Pentax and I really enjoy doing that. I just think it's a shame to let them just sit on a shelf and rot away because they're not as convenient to use in some ways as a digital and it may sound silly I like the idea that across time some other photographers and I are linked metaphorically speaking by the continued use of said camera. I'm linked back to the photographers before me and I will be also to the ones who will own Queenie after me.

06-29-2010, 10:38 AM	#84
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Originally posted by magkelly ...and it may sound silly I like the idea that across time some other photographers and I are linked metaphorically speaking by the continued use of said camera. I'm linked back to the photographers before me and I will be also to the ones who will own Queenie after me. I don't think that's silly at all! People say the same things about houses, cars, antiques, etc. I'm big into technology, but sometimes I feel we've got too good at making things disposable. I'm not saying digital is less durable, just that it seems we're constantly bombarded with reasons to upgrade or throw away and replace, rather than to repair and maintain.

06-29-2010, 02:34 PM	#85
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Give it enough time and digital images as pixels will be obsolete too. Some new tech will come along to displace it and maybe even make long-lasting archiving a breeze. Just hand waving...

06-29-2010, 04:12 PM	#86
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Originally posted by tuco Give it enough time and digital images as pixels will be obsolete too. Some new tech will come along to displace it and maybe even make long-lasting archiving a breeze. Just hand waving... Wouldn't that be awesome! Then we can have film vs digital vs digital+ debates.

06-29-2010, 04:42 PM	#87
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,697	*"Smellovision wepwaces television?"* Chris

06-29-2010, 05:44 PM	#89
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Vertex Ninja I don't think that's silly at all! People say the same things about houses, cars, antiques, etc. I'm big into technology, but sometimes I feel we've got too good at making things disposable. I'm not saying digital is less durable, just that it seems we're constantly bombarded with reasons to upgrade or throw away and replace, rather than to repair and maintain. I agree as well. Kodak and Fuji may someday make our film cameras disposable or just functionless antiques, but until then, using the camera connects me to history--especially my own. I get loads of fun from shooting a 1947 Crown Graphic as well. The guy I bought it from was so excited that I was buying it to use it rather than look at it. I shoot lots of digital as well, but one of my least favorite aspects of the digital world is the camera as a computer--obsolete in just a few years.

06-29-2010, 09:22 PM	#90
goddo31 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,576	Originally posted by Vertex Ninja I don't think that's silly at all! People say the same things about houses, cars, antiques, etc. I'm big into technology, but sometimes I feel we've got too good at making things disposable. I'm not saying digital is less durable, just that it seems we're constantly bombarded with reasons to upgrade or throw away and replace, rather than to repair and maintain. Originally posted by GeneV I agree as well. Kodak and Fuji may someday make our film cameras disposable or just functionless antiques, but until then, using the camera connects me to history--especially my own. I get loads of fun from shooting a 1947 Crown Graphic as well. The guy I bought it from was so excited that I was buying it to use it rather than look at it. I shoot lots of digital as well, but one of my least favorite aspects of the digital world is the camera as a computer--obsolete in just a few years. I am another with similar feelings; I think it is hard to explain the historic or nostalgic feeling to someone else, unless they themselves experience it too. I am a bit too young to connect to my own history, although I do like using a camera that was constructed at a similar time to when I was born - I also do this with cars to some extent. Other than that, I also have my grandmothers folding camera from the '30s. While I have only shot one completely fogged roll of film with it so far, it helps to connect to family history. I am also hopelessly addicted to metal bodies, loud shutters, manual advance and MF metal lenses. The 'machinery' of film cameras is great IMO.