Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,828   Posts: 1,582,143   Online: 1069
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61
  1. #11
    CHX
    CHX is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    27
    I think Ken knocks it on the head. It doesn't bother me whether people use DSLR, Digital range finders or a smartphone with attachable plastic lens blu-tacked on the end. Hey, whatever works for you, right? But I do resent that it has totally trashed the supply of film materials/equipment/services, no doubt in much the same way a lot of vinyl fans resented the rise of "soul-less, boring, samey" tape and CD, computer geeks resented the rise of "spul-less, boring, samey" Wintel clones, or in the future maybe how petrol-heads will resent those "soul-less, boring, samey" electric cars.

    If I could get Aerochrome, Kodakchrome and easy repairs or replacements for film equipment, I would doubtless geek out over all the potential tricks you could do with software, but it is indeed a zero sum game. (that said, I *do* like many of the things photoshop can do to save a mucked up negative, and I do like being able to print from scans, not having access to a dark-room of my own)
    ~ Sign the petition: We want Aerochrome! ~

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    One of the main gripes we have with digital is that it has made larger formats inaccessible, and rendered the medium and large format equipment mostly obsolete. That in itself is kind of sad, and it would be a painful day when large format sheet film is not available any longer.

  3. #13
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    934
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by dorff View Post
    One of the main gripes we have with digital is that it has made larger formats inaccessible, and rendered the medium and large format equipment mostly obsolete. That in itself is kind of sad, and it would be a painful day when large format sheet film is not available any longer.
    Inaccessible how? Decent LF cameras (new) arent far off a decent pro DSLR. Lenses also similarly priced.
    You can then choose whether the new LF uses MFDB, scanning back, 35mm DSLR or film!
    If anything, LF is more accessible!
    (not to mention the used gear around)

    MF also - at least with the Pentax digital ones?


    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    Inaccessible how? Decent LF cameras (new) arent far off a decent pro DSLR. Lenses also similarly priced.
    You can then choose whether the new LF uses MFDB, scanning back, 35mm DSLR or film!
    Inaccessible in terms of cost of large sensors, and inaccessible in terms of getting the same format size for which the equipment (especially the lens) was designed. Apart from prohibitively expensive scanning backs, I am not aware of any fixed sensor that covers the full 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 etc size. There are many alternatives in various sizes. But my point is that for the vast majority of MF and LF cameras and lenses, no feasible digital extension exists which staves off their obsoletion. Even my Mamiya 645 AFD II, which is nominally digital-ready, is hampered by lack of an affordable sensor that covers the 42x56 frame size. That is what I meant by inaccessible. Not as in "NASA can't do it" but as in "Ordinary Joe can't do it".

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    ...Digital has yet to do this and prove it can do it...
    This is a flawed assumption, 1 - the context we live in has changed, the social relevance of ALL photography has changed as has how our attention is divided. Does anyone remember when there were just three TV channels and when "everybody" talked about the same shows and news? 2 - Film and Digital systems are just tools, both fully capable of creating technically excellent work. Denying this is, IMO, simply an act of burying one's head in the sand.

    Film is relevant to me because it helps me think differently and work differently than I do with digital. It gets me away from the computer, it keeps me from chimping, keeps me focussed on the subject and the craft. The cameras are great for starting conversations too. When I hand somebody a Holga and ask them to take my picture they are generally truly amused.

    My use of film is "about me" and "about how I interact with the world", it is no longer a technical argument for me and never really should have been.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #16
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    934
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by dorff View Post
    Inaccessible in terms of cost of large sensors, and inaccessible in terms of getting the same format size for which the equipment (especially the lens) was designed. Apart from prohibitively expensive scanning backs, I am not aware of any fixed sensor that covers the full 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 etc size. There are many alternatives in various sizes. But my point is that for the vast majority of MF and LF cameras and lenses, no feasible digital extension exists which staves off their obsoletion. Even my Mamiya 645 AFD II, which is nominally digital-ready, is hampered by lack of an affordable sensor that covers the 42x56 frame size. That is what I meant by inaccessible. Not as in "NASA can't do it" but as in "Ordinary Joe can't do it".
    But, wouldnt the price of LF anyways kept it out of reach of the avg Joe? (at earlier prices I mean, pre-digital) I'd presume that pre-digital as well 4x5, 8x10 or other LF would be quite as expensive if not more?
    Even used MFs (RBs) that I heard a professional tell me he sold in 2000s didn't really go cheap -even though digital was catching up.

    I'm not sure what you mean on the obsoletion bit though - phones get obsolete every 2 years - my phone has 12 times more RAM, has 5 times faster processor than my first PC(2000) but is (kinda) obsolete now - I bought it in 2012 and it was a flagship device then.
    Are you saying LF-MF arent going through that cycle? MFDBs are - probably closer to 3-4 years.


    I'm very happy with the Digital camera entry - I doubt I would have followed into LF or MF otherwise - Digital made analog more accessible to me! (strangely enough)





    Sent from Tap-a-talk

  7. #17
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,253
    I'm not against digital per se; I just prefer film. While I wish film and equipment were easier to find without going online, and I realize this is because of the popularity of digital, it does not make me defensive. I'm used to being into things that are not always easy - so that's not a major factor to me.

    Generally, I only get "defensive" when someone (such as my brother) decides to get into a "my camera can beat up your camera" argument. When they are extolling the virtues of being popular, cooler, futuristic, megapixels, etc., it seems to me like nothing more than bragging about... umm... size. Arguments on this level are not truly about photographic meduim, and while I don't know much about film, I do know enough about computers (read, digital cameras) that I can pick people's argument’s apart on technical merit alone, since they typically spew marketing data.

    Otherwise, there is little need to get defensive - most of the digital photographers I meet anymore will just give me tips on something nearby worth photographing. It's almost as if the megapixel war ended for consumers, and now we all just want to take pictures.
    Truzi

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    But, wouldnt the price of LF anyways kept it out of reach of the avg Joe? (at earlier prices I mean, pre-digital) I'd presume that pre-digital as well 4x5, 8x10 or other LF would be quite as expensive if not more?
    Even used MFs (RBs) that I heard a professional tell me he sold in 2000s didn't really go cheap -even though digital was catching up.
    IDK what prices were in 2000, but by 2011 MF equipment had bottomed out. If anything, prices have since risen a bit, since the original predictions re the total demise of film have been proven overly pessimistic. But that wasn't my original point, which was actually that until today, affordable digital sensors for larger formats still do not exist, and the cost of entry is much higher than it ever was for film, while the available sensors do not even reach the same sizes that the original film provided. This means that photographers who chose larger sizes such as 4x5 and 5x7 field cameras for their unique properties might end up with NO equivalent option, should film disappear. Other niche but important applications for film, such as night photography, might end up in a similar situation. There is no digital camera that can do long exposures without two problems: battery drain and digital noise. LF lenses can happily sit open all night without asking to be fed electrons all the time. But you need film to catch those photons.

    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean on the obsoletion bit though - phones get obsolete every 2 years - my phone has 12 times more RAM, has 5 times faster processor than my first PC(2000) but is (kinda) obsolete now - I bought it in 2012 and it was a flagship device then.
    Are you saying LF-MF arent going through that cycle? MFDBs are - probably closer to 3-4 years.
    By obsolete I mean you cannot obtain the materials necessary to operate them any longer, to note 126 format cameras, for example. Your examples are not quite analogous, as your computer/phone will still work, although they may be infeasible to repair if they break. For film cameras, film is an important part of the ecology within which they function. Film users were used to 72 month update cycles, not the now typical 12-18 months. The cost of MFDBs puts them in a special category of their own, one where serious amateurs are not much in the picture. Same for scanning backs.

    Quote Originally Posted by analoguey View Post
    I'm very happy with the Digital camera entry - I doubt I would have followed into LF or MF otherwise - Digital made analog more accessible to me! (strangely enough)
    Yes, ironic isn't it? Like you, it has benefitted me greatly.

  9. #19
    Alan Klein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Jersey .........formerly NYC.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by hdeyong View Post
    Anyway, I tell them I like having it on paper in front of me, and then point to my package of 3B pencils. That really appals them.
    Are they the modern, high tech type with the erasers on top? Just in case you need to delete something.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,263
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    .. Digital has yet to do this and prove it can do it...
    Really???

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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