|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-29-2010, 04:48 PM
|
| |
Who needs to look at photographs when you can smell them!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-29-2010, 04:12 PM
|
| |
Wouldn't that be awesome! Then we can have film vs digital vs digital+ debates. :D
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-29-2010, 10:38 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-29-2010, 09:39 AM
|
| |
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. |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-26-2010, 05:51 PM
|
| |
Yes... there are many! However, there are probably just as many reasons to use digital over film too.
For me,
Serious reasons:
Potentially more exposure latitude and dynamic range. Ability to make large prints from a single shot that continue to provide real detail on very close inspection (Med format digital can do this too, but at a price). Nice viewfinders. Great prices on larger format gear. Potentially smaller and lighter gear. Personal, but reasons that probably sound silly to everyone else:
Tangible things. Opening the foil wrapper on a new roll, the slight smell, the sound of the film winding or winding myself, manual controls; aperture ring, cocking the shutter on a large format lens, etc., seeing chromes on a light table, the smell of wood and bellows on a large format camera... All those little things that add up to make it an experience and not just a means to an end. The ability to physically develop the film at home.(not the same as developing a RAW file.) Cont... Pulling a freshly developed roll from the tank. Prolonged anticipation. Potentially very slow process.(sometimes a '+', sometimes a '-') A ton of variations by just switching film, developing differently, or both.
#1 reason for me... I just like it!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-25-2010, 07:30 PM
|
| |
Gotta agree with the last 4 or so posts. Even if you're scanning, color balance is a b@&*h. However, when I scan B&W the colors always seem to come out perfect! :p
|
