StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,953
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
with the edit to the post. Well said that man!
Last edited:
and help to keep the site free for all
The death of analogue photography.
- Thread starter MrDrizz
- Start date
TheBigYin
Moderator
- Messages
- 16,655
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Look, if you haven't got anything nice to say then perhaps it would be better if you said nothing at all. After all it's better to say nothing and let people think you're thick than start typing and prove it
I agree, In fact I Insist.
(threadban)
Been looking in the Forum Toycupboard, and found a way to selectively remove people from a particular thread if they're just on a wind up mission....
Last edited:
Asha
Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 11,274
- Name
- Asha
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Excellent, seems like I’m a first class poser then ! [emoji13]
I have a cloth over my head regularly, ...... absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with showing off, indeed nothing whatsoever to do with photography......
it’s simply to avoid feeling guilty when I scare the living daylights out of children with my ugly clock! [emoji23] [emoji23]
- Messages
- 104,465
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Aww I was looking forward to a good laugh
- Messages
- 7,701
- Edit My Images
- No
I wonder. Is the market that resilient? Right now, the cost of entry is still pretty low (though the prices of decent cameras have been rising over the last few years, and film is getting more expensive). A lot of the enthusiasm is coming from young people who may have limited budgets. But a modern, high quality 35mm camera (say a basic SLR) would be an expensive product to engineer from scratch. Without economies of scale, it may well cost more than a mid-range dSLR. The big traditional camera companies could still make one, but probably have enough to worry about in the mobile phone era. People have tried and (so far) not succeeded on Kickstarter (the Reflex seems to be permanently in development, and the Ihagee Elbaflex that turned out to be a tarted up Kiev never got off the ground). Back in the day, the barrier to entry used to be lower - you could source a shutter assembly as a commodity item from Copal or Seiko, or just get Cosina to lightly tweak their basic design and build the whole thing (I wonder if that's still an option, or if they've junked the tooling?). It's a pity the Lomography guys didn't get something into production in China a bit more sophisticated than the LC-A (which used to be a £30 camera in the 80s, but is now sold for the price of a decent Nikon F5). Could Seagull still make the rebadged X300 copy they licensed from Minolta?
- Messages
- 7,504
- Name
- Nige
- Edit My Images
- No
Obviously it’ll differ from person to person, but young people often have lots of disposable income. I remember being in my late teens / early twenties, before I left my parents’ house, and having hundreds of pounds a month to spend on any old crap I wanted.
Lots of the YouTube channels I watch which are made by younger photographers have them sporting Leicas, Pentax 6x7s, Contax T2s and other pricey bits of kit that I certainly can’t afford with a house to run and bills to pay.
Last edited:
There's still the Minolta AF camera mountain to get through. Whichever retailer or auction site you go on there will be a ton of these available for next to no money. All perfectly good and will take reliably better pictures than a Contax T2 or Leica M6.
Once Minolta AF cameras start getting scarce and expensive, then will be the time to worry.
Once Minolta AF cameras start getting scarce and expensive, then will be the time to worry.
- Messages
- 23
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why film?
Economics first, and being a bit of a weirdo second.
I can't afford north of £500 for a half decent DSLR in a single hit, but can afford to buy half decent 40+ year old cameras plus processing & scanning - I've seen it described somewhere in here as PAYG photography*.
I actually enjoy doing odd things outside the mainstream (!) and using film cameras fits that mould nicely thank you.
*While I've now spent well over that budget on film cameras I'm absolutely certain I'm getting more fun (and learning) out of my collection than I would out of a DSLR and a couple of lenses.
Economics first, and being a bit of a weirdo second.
I can't afford north of £500 for a half decent DSLR in a single hit, but can afford to buy half decent 40+ year old cameras plus processing & scanning - I've seen it described somewhere in here as PAYG photography*.
I actually enjoy doing odd things outside the mainstream (!) and using film cameras fits that mould nicely thank you.
*While I've now spent well over that budget on film cameras I'm absolutely certain I'm getting more fun (and learning) out of my collection than I would out of a DSLR and a couple of lenses.
Asha
Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 11,274
- Name
- Asha
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you choose to hang around ( hopefully you will [emoji6]) , then being and behaving a little odd garauntees you a place in the F&C section of this forum [emoji23]
- Messages
- 11,298
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Welcome to the best bit of the forum MIke.
You don't need to pay north of £500 for a half decent DSLR. There's many reasons to choose film over digital, price of the camera isn't one of them.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,768
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
..or digi over film
...my half working Canon IXus 870 IS takes VG close up shots (that's all it can do) that was given to me. And my point for newbies is:- don't waste film on mundane shots that a cheap digi can do i.e. horses for courses
- Messages
- 7,620
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
See, I’d advocate using film from the beginning. The mistakes are meaningful in that it costs money. I found learning on film made me think more, as in the back of my mind, there was a consequence to taking a crap photo, and the learning curve was steepened as a result. Surely not taking a mundane shot should probably be everyone’s objective, no?
- Messages
- 1,690
- Name
- Lloyd
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There’s a 6D in the classifieds at the moment for well under £500. That’s insane value, pair it with a cheap 50mm (or the 40mm) and you have a setup that’s perfect for most photography (and pretty much all of the stuff I do).
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
I was trying to work out my photography expenditure over nearly 30 years, and what I've had to spend on stuff to enjoy digital photography, far outweighs what I ever spent on film photography. I'm gonna need a new computer soon; that's going to be north of £3000. But I dunno; what about a pro doing dozens, hundreds even, of rolls a week? Processing, printing etc? Needing space for a darkroom, so maybe having to hire one? Lenses can be taken out of the equation, but pro SLR bodies were never cheap; an F3 was about £1300 back in 1991, I think. That's about £3000 today. Ok, so a D5 is over £5000, but then the MD4 wasn't cheap, and it's stupid to try to compare anyway. But the bottom line is that photography is far more accessible these days, and that's a good thing.
- Messages
- 11,298
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Maybe you should ask Martin Parr.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,200
- Edit My Images
- No
After more than 50 years playing this game I think that the medium is not the message and that it really doesn't matter if you use film or digital. Just take the pictures and be happy if you please yourself. Pleasing others is a bonus.
- Messages
- 11,298
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I refer my honourable friend to the statement I made some moments ago
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmmmmmmm.......
That's a very interesting statement. I think Mr McCluhan might have had something to say regarding that. I do get what you mean; that sure it should be the image that we focus on, in its own right, but then I do think the medium is important; if I look at early photographs, shot on plates etc, I can appreciate the craft and hard work that was required to realise them. So the subject matter actually almost becomes a secondary consideration. I don't think this is so much the case with more recent film photography in the context of comparison with digital, mind, but I still think consideration of the medium is important. Like; if someone is working in really low light, and all they have is 400 ISO film, it's a lot more challenging to get a good shot than it is if using a modern digital cam with 1 million ISO capability. I do also wonder why someone might choose film over digital, in certain situations where digital would be a better tool. But in short, I would say that the medium, in this context, is praps less important.
You don’t have to pay that much. You can buy a 10/12MP DSLR for <£100.
Considering a large percentage of film shots end up as 6MP ‘medium’ Noritsu scans, 12MP is plenty as a comparison.
ChrisR
I'm a well known grump...
- Messages
- 11,025
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
AAAaaarrrggghhh!
I don't want to convince anyone that film is better than digital. I find myself getting annoyed when people try to convince me (us) that digital is better than film. I really enjoy using my film cameras and taking film photos, no matter how terrible or technically inferior they are. I really enjoy chatting with folk who like and use film (and are a bunch of raving monster loonies, into the bargain!).
[/rant sorry]
I don't want to convince anyone that film is better than digital. I find myself getting annoyed when people try to convince me (us) that digital is better than film. I really enjoy using my film cameras and taking film photos, no matter how terrible or technically inferior they are. I really enjoy chatting with folk who like and use film (and are a bunch of raving monster loonies, into the bargain!).
[/rant sorry]
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,953
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I've said many times before (but not phrased it this way before):
Digital is better than film, and in a straight comparison wins hands down.
On the other hand....
Film is better than digital, and in a straight comparison wins hands down.
Both seemingly mutually exclusive statements are true - for me at least. No one has defined what is meant by "better".
To my eyes, a print from a medium or large format negative (I print at A3 or A2) looks better than a print from the Sony a7r2 that I also use. And ultimately, that's what's important to me. And that's ultimately why I'd at least attempt home made plates if film became unavailable in my lifetime.
And I realise I used the "B" word without defining it when talking about prints...
Digital is better than film, and in a straight comparison wins hands down.
On the other hand....
Film is better than digital, and in a straight comparison wins hands down.
Both seemingly mutually exclusive statements are true - for me at least. No one has defined what is meant by "better".
To my eyes, a print from a medium or large format negative (I print at A3 or A2) looks better than a print from the Sony a7r2 that I also use. And ultimately, that's what's important to me. And that's ultimately why I'd at least attempt home made plates if film became unavailable in my lifetime.
And I realise I used the "B" word without defining it when talking about prints...
Last edited:
Asha
Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 11,274
- Name
- Asha
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cameras, film, digital sensors, processing etc blah blah blah.
The most important part of any photograph comes from the person operating the camera!!
Long live film (for my sake at least) and long live digital for those who ( for some strange reason [emoji23]) enjoy it.
The most important part of any photograph comes from the person operating the camera!!
Long live film (for my sake at least) and long live digital for those who ( for some strange reason [emoji23]) enjoy it.
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,953
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Different films have different "looks" - so I've been lead to believe by various threads here on colour negative films. I haven't used much colour negative, and to all intents and purposes, my black and white films have been PanF, HP3 (sic) and FP4 Plus since the 1960s. I didn't like medium speed films, so skipped FP3, and only picked up FP4 because PanF isn't available in sheet film. I've grown to like it, and use it in 120 now when I want a fast film.
But I have used a number of different reversal films, and there's a marked difference between them in contrast, saturation and colour balance. I preferred Kodachrome to the others I've used. I'm not keen on Velvia for example, but no pitchforks please...
Getting to the point, I generally think of digital as another variation, just like different films are. Another "film type". And given that in some cases at least I can see differences between films, and prefer one look to another, it's no surprise that I prefer the look of PanF or FP4 Plus to digital. I suppose that others might have a different view.
But I have used a number of different reversal films, and there's a marked difference between them in contrast, saturation and colour balance. I preferred Kodachrome to the others I've used. I'm not keen on Velvia for example, but no pitchforks please...
Getting to the point, I generally think of digital as another variation, just like different films are. Another "film type". And given that in some cases at least I can see differences between films, and prefer one look to another, it's no surprise that I prefer the look of PanF or FP4 Plus to digital. I suppose that others might have a different view.
If you're referring to me, that's not what I'm saying at all.
I am however trying to dispel the oft repeated fallacy that film is cheaper than digital because you have to spend big on the digital camera.
I prefer film as I find it and something like a Nikon F or Canon P far more pleasurable to shoot with than a DSLR for example. To be fair, Fuji have narrowed that gap though. The X100 series are a blast to shoot with.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,768
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well there are gifted amatuers\pros and the rest, but I'm open to sugestions why I should have taken this "mundane" digi shot (to show to a shop\plumber) on film, and if a gifted amateur took the shot on film and created a master piece...I would take my hat off to him\her (well if I had one).
- Messages
- 11,298
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well said Mr R
- Messages
- 2,996
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Digital is better than film - film is better than digital is like screwdrivers are better than hammers. There cannot be any such thing as better per se. Whet are you doing? What result do you want? Excaliber's photo above is better in digital. My best selling photo of freezing fog in Lincoln was better on film - if only because my Ikoflex only takes film and it needed my Ikoflex for the 80mm Tessar lens which is not available with a digital camera.
- Messages
- 7,701
- Edit My Images
- No
I sneaked into your place earlier and created my own interpretation on Tri-X. Now I just need four more shots for my '5 Frames of copper piping with a Leica M6 and 35mm Summicron ASPH' piece at Emulsive.
AZ6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,022
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually, returning to Mr McCluhan; when he said 'the medium is the message (or massage...), what he meant was how a message is relayed via a particular medium; with photography, it's all about the type of lens/angle of view, using DoF for effect, maybe using motion blur, use of colour or B+W to emphasise certain aspects of the subject, to lend context and meaning, to give it a particular slant, etc. That's way too simplistic and I'd really suggest reading his work, for those interested in such things.
https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/mcluhan.mediummessage.pdf
When it comes to digital v film, it's hard to argue that the particular technology is the message, because the medium is still photography. So i'd agree with Andrew Flannigan in that sense. As in Excalibu2's example above, the message is about a type of... actually what exactly is that thing? But you get the picture (ha!). It's merely to inform someone about a type of thing, whatever it is. All that is required, is a functional illustration of the subject; it needs no political or cultural context, there's no 'story' attached. But then the medium is still important, cos the most accurate depiction of the thing is required, and photography is definitely the best medium for this particular message. I think trying to explain the thing through the medium of modern dance might pose issues. And making a life size replica out of clay would take bloody ages and be a right faff. Who's going to clean up after?
It loses something, for me...
https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/mcluhan.mediummessage.pdf
When it comes to digital v film, it's hard to argue that the particular technology is the message, because the medium is still photography. So i'd agree with Andrew Flannigan in that sense. As in Excalibu2's example above, the message is about a type of... actually what exactly is that thing? But you get the picture (ha!). It's merely to inform someone about a type of thing, whatever it is. All that is required, is a functional illustration of the subject; it needs no political or cultural context, there's no 'story' attached. But then the medium is still important, cos the most accurate depiction of the thing is required, and photography is definitely the best medium for this particular message. I think trying to explain the thing through the medium of modern dance might pose issues. And making a life size replica out of clay would take bloody ages and be a right faff. Who's going to clean up after?
It loses something, for me...
- Messages
- 104,465
- Name
- The other Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Did you enjoy the process?
Not the sneaking into Brian's - each to their own on that - but the processing? I enjoy processing film, I enjoy shooting film, I could buy better photos of most things I photograph than I can produce myself and buying prints or photo books would be cheaper than either film or digital but getting the "best" photo is not why most of us do it, is it? We probably want the best we can do but that might not objectively be the best that could be done. I do it because I enjoy the endeavour, not necessarily the result, a good result is a bonus.
- Messages
- 23,498
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I was looking at the pic of the boiler as posted and thought "given better lighting & the right lens & processing (that would apply whatever photographic medium were used) that could look really good in an industrial-abstract way". I would enjoy a pleasing outcome of a good image, but photography is a form of pleasant work for me: to flip it on its head I enjoy work, but it's still work.
excalibur2
My F4's Broken...
- Messages
- 11,768
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
erm well trying to make something out of shot of the controls for an old boiler system would bore me to tears :sleep: which reminds me once of what a member said when I posted:- there was a lovely small stream winding with lovely flowers\greenery either side (actually it's in someone's garden) not far from where I live and has sunlight lighting up parts of the stream at different times of the day. Well I said "I've tried every lens I have from 24mm to 200m over the years to capture the shot that I can see with my eyes and am disappointed with the results and also said I'd be interested in the results from a pro". Well the member said something like "it could be one of those views that you can't do anything with" . Thinking probably because the eye pans the length of the stream...anyway back to the boiler it's probably also a shot that you can't do much with, but to me the picture (also in print) shows a part that a shop might still have so is important..
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, an ideal 2nd camera companion to a classic Canon EOS 35mm film SLR, such as the EOS-3 or EOS 30 and 30v, as that 6D will still work with all those classic Canon EF lenses (but neither will work with the digital crop-sensor EF-S lenses).
So anyone with a classic Canon EOS 35mm SLR can seemingly enjoy one of those new-fangled full frame Canon 6Ds for a bargain basement price, using the EF lenses they already have. Furthermore, if you wait another year then the 6D will almost certainly cost even less... unlike a prosumer spec EOS 35mm film SLR, such as the EOS-3 or the EOS 30v, for which prices continue to rise. And thereby hangs a tale! Who actually has the "insane value" kit?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,342
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I bought a 6D to replace a 40D, which I gave to my granddaughter, just so I could share lenses with my EOS 3 and 50E.