Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,976   Posts: 1,523,652   Online: 1129
      
Page 17 of 40 FirstFirst ... 71112131415161718192021222327 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 395
  1. #161

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Wasn't RVP50 discontinued due to environmental issues as well? The resulting freak out eventually getting it brought back as RVP100?

    Meanwhile, silicon wafers, cellphones, and circuit boards are being dumped into rivers in China as world-wide consumers throw away their obsolete electronics.
    Yes, and then a "new" Velvia 50 (but you already knew that). FWIW, I've shot Velvia 100 since then and haven't looked back.

    I have film cameras going back decades that still work fine and provide as much fun as when I got them, but my point and shoot d*****| camera from a few years back is already obselete (read: barely works); memory cards must be bought used, and they're few and far between. It's only a matter of time before our televisions, cameras, computers, music players, DVD players, personal files, and livelihoods all get removed from the physical world, chopped into 0s and 1s, and "resampled" as one giant centralized "thing", that we'll just throw away when THAT becomes obslete...oh wait, it's already happening... http://www.apple.com/ipad/ :rolleyes:

  2. #162

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    No, it is said that the original Velvia was discontinued because of lack of specific raw ingredient(s). After the reformulation took place, it was available again as RVP50.

  3. #163
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by guyjr View Post
    When looking at the digital landscape today (kind of looks like scorched earth!), it's clear that 35mm has been bested completely.
    I see what you are saying, and I agree that I would rather have 120 stay than 35mm (for color only, the opposite for black and white), however, you are making a strictly "on paper" technical argument, assuming that everyone wants "better" technical qualities, with no criteria named for what your definition of "better" is. It is a vapid judgment that is not based on what each of us wants from our actual photographic work, but on generalized technical definitions and specifications. No digital camera will ever look like 35mm film. Ain't gonna happen. Better on paper in a technical sense, sure (some day), but not better period. Digital will have to be the replacement, but when it is, our pictures will never look quite the same again.

    Ironically enough, the DSLRs that in my eyes looked the most like film (c. 2001 - 2004) have been replaced by four or five successive generations by this point. I have everything I need to blend film and digital work near seamlessly in the same portfolio using my Canon 10D. The addition of higher and higher ISOs is nice, however, and will be the main reason that I "upgrade", when I do (with higher resolution and a hopefully quicker and darker-usable autofocus being the two others). Other than that, I'll just say, "Someone call me when you have an affordable DSLR that matches or exceeds the dynamic range and exposure latitude of a negative, that has a sensor that is programmable to have different curves upon capture of the image (like you can with a negative), not via software after the fact, that comes in a solid, simple, and longtime-usable package like the Canon F-1 or Nikon F, and programmable grain structures and other individual film characteristics." Basically, give me everything I have with film, just make it digital.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-11-2010 at 06:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  4. #164

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    you are making a strictly "on paper" technical argument, assuming that everyone wants "better" technical qualities,
    That's why I shy away from those arguments. Too many people looking at it from a black and white perspective.

  5. #165

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    south central Missouri
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,926
    Images
    9
    It's like CD's, I'd much rather listen to my 10 inch reel system.

    Mike

  6. #166
    nsouto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    495
    Images
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by silentworld View Post
    http://www.photographyblog.com/news/...s_three_films/

    Does anyone know if this press release is real? If it is, then it is definitely not as bad as we originally thought.
    Precisely! I'd suggest folks wait for a little while before singing the usual "death of film" song.

    Precisely because of the above. The internet being the source of false information it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real story was quite different than the worst case scenario.

    Let's not panic just yet. And please go out and buy and freeze some Astia in 135 and 120 sizes! I know I'll be doing just that.
    Cheers
    Noons (Nuno Souto)
    Gallery here

  7. #167

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by marylandphoto View Post
    That's why I shy away from those arguments. Too many people looking at it from a black and white perspective.
    And I will too... I thought better of making that statement a few minutes after posting, and didn't mean to imply that digital was a 100% replacement for 35mm film (or any film for that matter). The only point I was really trying to make was, if given a choice between 35mm and 120 surviving long-term, which one would I choose?

  8. #168

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by nsouto View Post
    Precisely! I'd suggest folks wait for a little while before singing the usual "death of film" song.

    Precisely because of the above. The internet being the source of false information it is, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the real story was quite different than the worst case scenario.

    Let's not panic just yet. And please go out and buy and freeze some Astia in 135 and 120 sizes! I know I'll be doing just that.
    Amen... Fuji themselves have not posted anything official on their sites, so it is not time to panic. yet.

  9. #169
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,851
    "Someone call me when you have an affordable DSLR that matches or exceeds the dynamic range and exposure latitude of a negative, that has a sensor that is programmable to have different curves upon capture of the image, not via software after the fact (like with a negative), that comes in a package like the Canon F-1 or Nikon F, and programmable grain structures and other individual film characteristics."
    People have been saying similar things for years. First it was "call me when it has enough resolution for an 8x10" then it was "call me when it can be shot at iso 3200" then it was "call me when the cameras cost less than $800".

    For me, I simply don't care how good digital gets. It can never be anything better than fake film. I don't care how good of fake film it is, or how indistinguishable, or how just as good. When I can get an 8734megapixel camera in a package of cracker jacks, I still won't really care. Film is not a means to the end of "looking like film". If it was I would already be shooting digital and photoshopping film rebates and grain masks. Making film-based photographs is an end in itself for me, not some kind of elaborate photoshop plugin. If I can't put Tri-X in the goddamn thing, I don't want it.
    f/22 and be there.

  10. #170
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I have been saying the same since film started going way, and I mean it. If digital was ever able to give me exactly what I can get now (NOT something "better", NOT something "newer", NOT something "more advanced", NOT something "more convenient", NOT something "cheaper", NOT something "easier", but EXACTLY what I get with fim........), I would have no problem with not using film. The reason I use film is because it is superior in almost every way for the pictures I want to print.

    Color film will be gone long before "my" digital camera comes along.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-11-2010 at 06:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin