Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 31 May 2011 (Tuesday) 19:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How much longer can film last?

 
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Jun 12, 2011 17:14 |  #61

DinosaurioAllie wrote in post #12581057 (external link)
The depth you get from black and white film just can't be replicated in digital.

Are you willing to bet on that?

There are no physical limitations stopping digital sensors from matching what is possible with film.

In the same way, there is no physical limitations stopping the introduction of large-format digital backs.

In the end, film will not die away. Just getting more and more marginalized.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jun 12, 2011 17:22 |  #62

pwm2 wrote in post #12581601 (external link)
Are you willing to bet on that? There are no physical limitations stopping digital sensors from matching what is possible with film.

Sure there is - dynamic range. Digital sensors just can't compete. With film, you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital, you expose for the highlights and pray you get the shadows.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quiksquirrel
Senior Member
608 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Denmark
     
Jun 12, 2011 19:29 |  #63

pwm2 wrote in post #12581601 (external link)
Are you willing to bet on that?

There are no physical limitations stopping digital sensors from matching what is possible with film.

I'll take that bet.
Show me a digital camera that can match the ADOX CMS 20 film that I have come to love.

Some day perhaps. But not yet.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Jun 12, 2011 20:52 |  #64

Tony-S wrote in post #12581642 (external link)
Sure there is - dynamic range. Digital sensors just can't compete. With film, you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital, you expose for the highlights and pray you get the shadows.

Being irreligious, so this what I'm doing wrong!!


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chippy569
Goldmember
Avatar
1,851 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
     
Jun 12, 2011 22:03 |  #65

with digital I can take HDR that gets a far wider dynamic range than ever possible with film...


Gear List
David Nichols (external link) - Sound Designer
How to export to Youtube HD from Quicktime

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Jun 12, 2011 23:12 |  #66

Tony-S wrote in post #12581642 (external link)
Sure there is - dynamic range. Digital sensors just can't compete. With film, you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital, you expose for the highlights and pray you get the shadows.

Careful with your reading skills. Show me the physical law that makes it impossible to make a matching digital sensor. I never wrote anything about photo sensors available today.

Digital sensors that can match the dynamic range of film are already in existence and in use for other tasks. Normal photo sensors should also be able to gain much more dynamic range.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jun 13, 2011 00:29 |  #67

pwm2 wrote in post #12583184 (external link)
Careful with your reading skills. Show me the physical law that makes it impossible to make a matching digital sensor. I never wrote anything about photo sensors available today.

Digital sensors that can match the dynamic range of film are already in existence and in use for other tasks. Normal photo sensors should also be able to gain much more dynamic range.

Way to cover your backside.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Depth
Senior Member
Avatar
986 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Norcal/Socal
     
Jun 13, 2011 00:50 |  #68

Where's my digital LF? Film for me. :p


Gear List
ACCD

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Jun 13, 2011 01:01 |  #69

Tony-S wrote in post #12583442 (external link)
Way to cover your backside.

Not at all.

1) I did write "There are no physical limitations stopping digital sensors from matching what is possible with film." Pysical limitations should clearly indicate that I did not bind me to any release year. Besides light level sensors, there are sensors with multiple sensels/pixel to handle different dynamic range. And there are sensors that performs multiple AD conversions.

2) This thread is named "How much longer can film last". Not "What year was film fully matched by digital sensors." Also an indication that the timing was open.

Digital sensors can be made much better than the current ones. But there are many issues. Cost is a major issue. Especially since we want rather large, and high-resolution sensors. The question is how much time it will take to get the start of the art in dynamic range to be available in a sensor with a suitable size and with a suitable pixel count and suitable readout rate and a suitable price. But the sensor technology as available in current cameras have not reached the physical limitations.

An open issue here is that people expect noise from film. But require noise-free photos from digital sensors. That also means we always wants to push our sensors to the max - expose to the right - to minimize noise. That makes it hard for camera manufacturers to release digital sensors with a logarithmic ADC or with extra dynamic range reserved for clipping protection. Us users would compare such a sensor with existing sensors and complain about extra noise in the shadows.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jasongraaf
Senior Member
Avatar
624 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jun 13, 2011 01:06 as a reply to  @ Chippy569's post |  #70

Why do painters still use paint and canvas when they could do it better, quicker and easier on a computer (with the added benefit of an undo button)? You could get rid of all of those ugly textured brush strokes *cough-grain*. You wouldn't get paint *cough-chemicals* all over your hands. After buying an expensive computer *cough-dslr* it would be free since you don't have to pay for paint and canvas *cough-film*.....

See where I'm going with this? I think the only difference is that many of the 'photographers' that buy the newest DSLR's and hang out here are more technicians at heart than artists.

I see film being whittled down to a single manufacturer (probably Kodak, and maybe another specializing in black and white) with a couple different lines of film like Kodak's VC and NC, both positive and negative.


Flickr (external link)
-------------

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jasongraaf
Senior Member
Avatar
624 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jun 13, 2011 01:10 |  #71

pwm2 wrote in post #12583541 (external link)
An open issue here is that people expect noise from film. But require noise-free photos from digital sensors.

That's because noise is ugly and grain is beautiful. ;)
Also see my argument about aspiring photographers in the DSLR world being technicians. Noise is just one more area to quantify who's best.


Flickr (external link)
-------------

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Jun 13, 2011 02:07 |  #72

jasongraaf wrote in post #12583557 (external link)
Why do painters still use paint and canvas when they could do it better, quicker and easier on a computer (with the added benefit of an undo button)? You could get rid of all of those ugly textured brush strokes *cough-grain*. You wouldn't get paint *cough-chemicals* all over your hands. After buying an expensive computer *cough-dslr* it would be free since you don't have to pay for paint and canvas *cough-film*.....

See where I'm going with this? I think the only difference is that many of the 'photographers' that buy the newest DSLR's and hang out here are more technicians at heart than artists.

I see film being whittled down to a single manufacturer (probably Kodak, and maybe another specializing in black and white) with a couple different lines of film like Kodak's VC and NC, both positive and negative.

Every new technology results in a split.

People continuing using the old technology. And people starting to use the new technology.

The world is full of digital artists. So your claim about painters staying with paint and canvas is only true if you limit your definition of painters to users of paint and canvas.

You have the same thing with photo. You get a split. Some will stay with film. Some will do both. Some will go full digital. It really doesn't matter what technology is better. It's enough that two technologies are "different" for people to split up and go different routes. Thas has nothing to do with being "technicians" or not.

You have the same thing with music. Using paper sheat score or using computers. Or old style recording of a full orchestra or recording of individual instruments one-by-one.

In movie making you have trade offs between easy lighting using traditional film, or lighter cameras and instant playback using digital. Both ways produces excellent results but in different ways, and interesting different people.

People will always bicker about the best computer operating system, or programming language. Which religion is best.

In the end, film will stay for a great many years. But not for technical reasons, since any technical advantages with film will go away with time. Film will stay because of people who prefer working with film.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 201
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Jun 13, 2011 08:15 |  #73

pwm2 wrote in post #12583541 (external link)
Not at all.

There's no physical reason we can't travel to Andromeda.
There's no physical reason why we can't cure cancer.
There's no physical reason why we can't have thermonuclear energy.

I could go on and on, but I think you get it.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Monito
Senior Member
Avatar
460 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Halifax, NS, ex-California
     
Jun 13, 2011 08:24 |  #74

Tony-S wrote in post #12581642 (external link)
With film, you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

Nah. That's just B&W negatives only.

For colour slides (transparencies, chromes) you expose for the center or 1/3 stop under and let the shadows and highlights go away.

For digital, you expose the Raw image to protect important highlights (EttR) and then develop (convert) the Raw to bring up the shadows. So digital is a combination of B&W film and colour slide film techniques.


Canon System: fullframe DSLRs, lenses. Tripods, Alien Bees.
Always learning and striving to make better photographs.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alt4852
Goldmember
Avatar
3,419 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Jun 13, 2011 08:39 |  #75

elfy wrote in post #12573933 (external link)
I'm pretty sure horses aren't extinct. In fact, there are three running around a field opposite my house.

pwm2 wrote in post #12574567 (external link)
I'm sad to hear that. When did the last horse die?

hahaha, some people forgot to drink their coffee this morning.

Tony-S wrote in post #12584510 (external link)
There's no physical reason why we can't have thermonuclear energy.

oh, we can have thermonuclear energy. it just looks like this right now: http://1.bp.blogspot.c​om …/s1600/hydrogen​_bomb_.jpg (external link) ;)

---

i do agree with the consensus that film isn't going to die off though. i use two film cameras regularly, and the process involved is what i cherish. they are similar to my 5D2's only in that they produce photographs.


5D4 | Z21 | 35L2 | 50L | 85L2 | 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,742 views & 0 likes for this thread
How much longer can film last?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CoolGuy5Million
1122 guests, 299 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.