Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,561   Posts: 1,545,292   Online: 768
      
Page 1 of 23 123456711 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 228
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281

    Film really is superior

    Recently I was going through old Rolleiflex negs in black & white shot in the 1960's, they were still as good as the day they were processed. By comparison, much of the digi stuff shot over the past 12 years and stored on disc, while working as a press photographer has gone "corrupt". I've heard of this happening to other photographers.
    So spread the word, get more people using film; if processed and filed correctly, it will last a lifetime or more. I returned to my film cameras upon leaving newspaper work, suddenly finding myself enjoying photography once more.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,015
    Yep, film is very archival. The one caveat is that it's archival if you shoot "real" B&W film. I was rummaging through a big box of photos and negs from 12 years ago and had a very unpleasant surprise. Most of what I was shooting back then was either color film or that C41 B&W stuff. The negs had faded so much I had to throw them away. Ditto for the cheap prints Walgreens had made for me. Now I shoot nothing but Tri-X and print my work on fiber paper, so no more of that nonsense.

  3. #3
    Mark Feldstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA / BiCoastal NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    163
    As a photojournalist I've been singing that same song since nearly digital day one. I've actually developed a niche shooting film for clients rather than digital for the corruption reason, among others. I've seen or heard about it over and over. Personally, I don't trust the digital files to last. If the deadlines aren't so much a factor, as with features vs. hard news, I'm going with film.
    Mark
    _________________________________
    Without guys like John Coltrane, Count Basie and Duke Ellington, life....would be meaningless.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,278
    Images
    21
    In my experience, this is one of the reasons for using film that a lot of people understand. When I say "you can leave the negatives in a shoebox for fifty years and then someone finds them in the attic and they're still good", that makes perfect sense to almost everybody (the exceptions are the ones with an excessive faith in cloud storage).

    Pity about that C-41 exception---it's one of the reasons I don't shoot it much. I think I remember, though, PE saying that the longevity of modern C-41 materials was enormously improved; not to Kodachrome levels or anything, but enough to make a meaningful difference in terms of the transgenerational shoebox.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  5. #5
    Double Negative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New York
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    83
    Bit rot?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,032
    ... and Beta video recorders were superior to VHS. It's not always the best that survives.

  7. #7
    mweintraub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    ... and Beta video recorders were superior to VHS. It's not always the best that survives.
    Yes, but they survived and advanced even after it's death as a consumer format. BetaCam [Oxide] is the same as BetaMax and BetaCam SP was a different tape formula, but still the same idea.

  8. #8
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    In my experience, this is one of the reasons for using film that a lot of people understand. When I say "you can leave the negatives in a shoebox for fifty years and then someone finds them in the attic and they're still good", that makes perfect sense to almost everybody (the exceptions are the ones with an excessive faith in cloud storage).

    Pity about that C-41 exception---it's one of the reasons I don't shoot it much. I think I remember, though, PE saying that the longevity of modern C-41 materials was enormously improved; not to Kodachrome levels or anything, but enough to make a meaningful difference in terms of the transgenerational shoebox.

    -NT
    Agreed. The archival quality of film can be quite remarkable and to me is a nice "feature".

    IIRC, Color negs have less longevity compared to E6 materials but is the difference quite pronounced? I recall a pnet discussion about it and Ron Andrews quoted more stability on E6 compared to C41. Something about different couplers mentioned.
    RA4 paper is quoted between half a century to 200 years. There is still a huge volume of it used by photofinishing, perhaps will slowly improve is R&D is put on it.
    Well processed B&W on Polyester base seems the ultimate thing, together with proper FB.

    All will depend on storage, added to processing. Hot and Humid and it will be sooner gone.

    As of digital I too don't trust it. I lost a couple of folders (probably misplaced) and mistrust it. Operator error but I am much more careful with the physical archiving way.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,045
    A thousand years ago (1983) I shot a wolf at the San Francisco zoo (and boy were the zookeepers mad!) and to this day, I consider it one of my best ever shots. It's a color negative, probably Kodak Gold 200 IIRC, and I have, in the past few years, taken it out of its sleeve and printed it. The negative has always been treated very carefully and it was processed by a good lab, back in the day. It still prints fine. No fading that I can see. It's been my experience that color negs last just fine if they were processed correctly in the first place. I doubt my own, self-developed color negs will last, assuming everyone's dire predictions of the consequences of using that dreaded blix concoction are true.

    YMMV
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  10. #10
    omaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    362
    Images
    6
    I was having a conversation with my oldest daughter over the weekend. She is a young mother with two little kids. All of her photos are digital. I highly encouraged her to get prints made and put them in albums.

    "Its ok...I have everything on Facebook and that's secure" she said.

    "Can you still log in to your MySpace account?" I asked.

    Point taken.

    Even if, in theory, your digital files (be they cloud based or not) will be perpetually accessible, there are a thousand human factors that can get in the way. In my daughter's case, she admitted that she couldn't even recall her MySpace user name, and she no longer has the email address she had at the time, so password recovery is probably not possible.

    Print. Your. Pictures!

Page 1 of 23 123456711 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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