Nice one Fred. Glad to know Sesame Street is still showing. How's Oscar?

By the way Fred, if digital was better, Hollywood would have already given up film, and switched to digital. Silly them. Maybe you could get in touch with all the film studios and tell them how ridiculous they are, and how much time they could save, and how much more superior their work would be. Goddammit, you're a goddammed genius. I salute you sir.
Lastly, what's your flash ratio that you use when your subject is people and they're heavily backlit by sun, maybe even 4 stops? Subject distance would be 4 metres. Ask your camera, maybe it knows.
If I get cable, I'll be on the look out for you and Fozzie Bear.

Grandass, I know what I'm talking about - and don't need to get all torpid to make my point.

not only is digital better technically, but it's better subjectively - I stand by what I said: it's in the glass, try repairing a negative, you learn more, shoot more, spend less.

proof:

1. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...shootout.shtml

2. Lichfield saved £80,000 a year going digital.

pwn

cameras = money sadly

thats why TODAY i got a milk carton and made a pin hole camera, even better, i didnt even buy the milk carton!
NAAAAE CASH OOT MA POCKET!

here are two photos from it... their pretty shit but jeeeeeeze its my first pinhole!

film/digital blah blah blah
my book has been shot on 10x8 5x4 6x6 12.5/16/22/30/39 mpixel cameras, they all print perfectly at A3 and you can't tell the what has been shot on what camera.
all this theorising is just armchair waffle
i don't know any photographer who still shoots film (advertising/design). the main reason is because of time and money. no more huddling round a polaroid, the client and photographer can see the results immediately on screen, no 2 hr wait for a film test and no waiting to strike a set because you haven't got the film back from the lab, it's more productive and is easier if you are shooting complex comps and/or have to put a quick comp together for a client, the days of cutting up polaroids to see if stuff fits together are over (TFFT)


and as for the film industry they run a digital workflow for editing/grading, do you really think they sit at a steinbeck editing desk with reels of film and sellotape? no it's all done digitally.
and as for shooting on film? check out the Red camera http://www.red.com/ that is the future of shooting movies.

thank you mrSmith. The discussion about quality was over and done with in 2003. Workflow was a no-brainer even before that. And now no-one shoots film except for nostalgia purposes. I know one lab in the UK (I'm sure there are more, but not many) where you can get film developed without it being digitised before printing. I don't know a single pro photographer shooting film any more, and I know dozens of people in the movie production business, none of whom work on actual physical film.

best regards,

Fozzie bear

Left to right: Film , Digital

haha

I'm not really clued up on cameras, but is the film/digital debate still applicable in music?
My friend records all his stuff in analogue because he says it sounds a lot 'warmer', and digital more 'tinny'. Maybe he's an exception, i'm not too sure..

some of the 'issues' are similar between music/film/photography
bit rate/digital word length
noise floor
noise/grain
headroom
clipping
dynamic range
interpolation/upsampling/downsampling
etc etc

Funny you should mention Red - I was talking to Jonaent (Jon) only this evening about Red - in the context of cost/workflow when filmmaking.

+ Agree with pretty much everything you say here. A lot of this reminds me of the analogue/digital argument with regards to music making, hoards of people making the case for one side or the other, and much of the argument for either side valid, meanwhile somewhere someone is knocking out fantastic songs oblivious and indifferent to what they are making it on.

[EDIT: just seen MrSmith and lpg's posts on the subject of Analogue/Digital music]

I TOTALLY understand that digital photography results in finer detail (obvious to the eye), has much greater immediacy (again obvious), and saves massive sums of money (again obvious).

Analogue is my choice though, because my photography is often of people, and it don't feel it necessary to see every hair so finely detailed. I prefer the less sharp image and 7 stop latitude available in a negative image (which still currently exceeds digital capabilities). But the most important attractions, are the image itself, and the process (the feeling of being in tunew ith the medium); much like the differences between single-speed cycling, and multi-geared cycling.

Glass choices are due to resolution requiremets, but are not as important to people that are more interested in the gradation from one tone to another, more than sharpness.

"Analogue photography is photochemical at each stage (at the film processing stage, and again at the printing stage - chemicals mix to create the image), and mirror-return slap causes vibration that also adds to the less sharp image compared to digital photo captures. But to say that one is better than the other, misses the point."

so mirror slap/vibration suddenly disappears when shooting digital does it?

not any more, digital is capable of producing the warmth that everyone bangs on about these days.

not so ten years ago, but now tape isn't used in 99% of commercial studios.

as tynan says, good = good, whatever format it's recorded on.

there are some great records recorded on early digital, with it's jittery bit rates and lossy compression..

a great sound source in a great room recorded with great mics through a great pre-amp by a great engineer will be great on 2" tape or 44khz digital

:irony: Tynan is talking out of his arse. i mean it's not like he works in the industry and has to deal with these issues on a daily basis and has extensive hands on knowledge of using different systems and technologies to achieve results for his clients, while at the same time having to invest in equipment with his own money so having to consider the return on his investment in the right kind of technology and the advantages it will bring to his business.
i bet he just read it on a forum somewhere and just plays with a tascam 4 track in his bedroom. :irony:

he thinks that unless you have a hassy you must be using a p&s :-)

EDIT: (I know you have a hassy!)

i don't know anyone who uses the term "glass" for a lens either. it's a term used by 50 year old yanks who own shit loads of equipment and shoot at teenage girls sports events for pleasure, post a lot on camera forums and call themselves a 'pro'.*

*we have discussed this on this forum before.

Bollocks, I've been rumbled again.

I copied the term "glass" from Fred's statement (who cares about what you use to capture the image, it's all in the glass.)

You're right though, people who talk about "glass" are often very caught up in the merits of Schneider-Kreuznach vs Carl Zeiss. True photographers I found were more interested in getting the best out of the equipment they had.

Well done CuppaT, I'm yet to try pinhole, but some of the stuff I've seen is just gorgeous.

I defer to my learned friend...

it's a shame i'm not allowed within 1 mile of teenage sports events :-(

Bollocks a double rumble.

I got my tag off by cutting my foot off, I can now enjoy concealed masturbation in the bushes of my local park.

Surely the whole point of wanking is that you're not actually IN a bush. Once in a bush, I find wanking to be no longer necessary. The only problem is getting bits of said bush stuck in teeth.

You might want to try a balaclava.

youve been caught wanking over katherine heigl

your comming with me!

After being convinced by edscoble in the names and faces thread a few weeks back, I brought up the subject of film SLRs with my dad, and he's just given me all his old kit!



Olympus OM1 (nothing automatic, can run without a battery if you don't need the light meter), plus a few prime lenses:
50mm F1.4
28mm F3.5
200mm F4

Also a few skylight filters, a spare focus screen, remote sutter release cable, flash etc. Old skool! Had a bit of a play this afternoon, will wait and see what the results are like! as long as the film isnt shafted that is - its a bit of an old one...

...oh and a vivitar x2 tele converter

ps. i had a nightmare finding this thread, as the title says "fim" instead of film!

Nice camera. I seem to recall that David Bailey used to use one.

Anyone got any tips on where to get stuff developed? I'm not in london so I'm limited, but neither boots nor jessops would let me get stuff developed straight to a CD for much less than the cost of getting prints as well (ended up paying about £7.50 for ~24 7x5's and a CD, just getting the CD would have been £7!).

Am I missing a trick here, or are all places priced like this? Makes me wish I had my own developing gear!

Poor results from the first batch of photos :(

Seems it won't expose evenly at 1/1000th; one side of the picture is dark where the shutter isnt moving fast enough. Shame. Also boots printed half my pictures on the piss - seems the machine got confused due to some of the pics being uneven and so chopped most of them in two. Went back in to complain, and the woman did everything she could to blame me for various grievances. At least they're redoing them in an hour though.

It seems a lot of my pics are quite grainy too. It's only ISO 200 film so that surprised me - it seems to be primarily on the ones that I took with massive apertures (F1.4). Is that typical? Should I be backing it off a couple of stops and taking with longer exposures?

Also (if anyone is still reading!) whats the slowest shutter I can get away with without a tripod? would 1/125 be ok?