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 News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 01 Oct 2010 (Friday) 12:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Kodak: "photogs going back to film"

 
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,496 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6096
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 02, 2010 15:58 as a reply to  @ post 11021348 |  #16

The two biggest ad agencies in New York still insist on film. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jahled
Goldmember
Avatar
1,498 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: North London
     
Oct 02, 2010 16:15 |  #17

Panda_stunter wrote in post #11021348 (external link)
there might be a fad going back to film, but its a small fad. and most of the time, people gives it up as well since its more hassle and more expensive to do so, amateurs that is. but if a person is a tried and true photographer....meanin​g they started out on film, then yeah, they will continue to do so and think its not a hassle. being in the darkroom and processing the images you have taken is somewhat of a euphoric feeling for some people. and those are the people that will stay with film.

^Quite, and cool if that's what they want to do :)

But obviously not fit for photo journalism. I can't think of any photo editors patient enough to sit out the process of the darkroom anymore; that's simply slow news at today's pace of things. I have watched photographers upload pics from laptops from work as soon as they have taken pictures on photocalls, and have had to throw my own through Photoshop as quickly as possible to meet printing deadlines from the press in order to ensure they might get published


James
Snow Leopards of Leafy London- The magic begins 5th November 20:00 hours on Animal Planet :) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Panda_stunter
Goldmember
Avatar
1,449 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Sin City
     
Oct 02, 2010 16:37 |  #18

Jahled wrote in post #11021459 (external link)
^Quite, and cool if that's what they want to do :)

But obviously not fit for photo journalism. I can't think of any photo editors patient enough to sit out the process of the darkroom anymore; that's simply slow news at today's pace of things. I have watched photographers upload pics from laptops from work as soon as they have taken pictures on photocalls, and have had to throw my own through Photoshop as quickly as possible to meet printing deadlines from the press in order to ensure they might get published

very true!


Gear List and Feedbacks MM#1909309
"Carpe DM Photography" (external link)
"The goal is to capture that certain moment that would tell its own story...no words required. Still trying." - Carpe DM photos (me)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Oct 02, 2010 17:59 |  #19

"But obviously not fit for photo journalism. I can't think of any photo editors patient enough to sit out the process of the darkroom anymore"

By all acounts editors won't even wait for the image processing in Photoshop or the like in some cases. Instead they demand jpegs straight from camera.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hpulley
Goldmember
4,390 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Oct 02, 2010 18:55 |  #20

Never left film entirely and probably never will but for most stuff I shoot digital. Still love shooting film for some things though, still can't quite make digital look like B&W, redscale or Velvia.

Was never a huge fan of the Portra films however. Not shot Kodak for a while, mostly Ilford and Fuji these days.


flickr (external link) 1DIIN 40D 1NRS 650 1.4xII EF12II Pel8 50f1.8I 28-80II 17-40L 24-70L 100-400L 177A 199A OC-E3 RS-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,304 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 715
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Oct 02, 2010 19:25 |  #21

If I'm understanding the story correctly, Kodak has phased out two previous films in favor of this single film designed only for scanning. That's not really a "resurgence" of film...that's still a retreat.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EtherealZee
Senior Member
Avatar
364 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Sydney, Aus
     
Oct 03, 2010 02:31 |  #22

Gomar wrote in post #11015136 (external link)
...but humans cant even hear the difference betweem a 160kh MP3 and a WAV...

Only if you're comparing through the speakers one would find on a netbook...

Z...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,402 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 259
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Pa
     
Oct 03, 2010 07:13 |  #23

I bought an E620 for $30.00 ... SWEET !!!!!!


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jack ­ lumber
Goldmember
Avatar
1,105 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Mar 2006
Location: southern alberta.
     
Oct 03, 2010 08:19 |  #24

Todd Lambert wrote in post #11015253 (external link)
It's dead, Jim.

Film is not dead, it just smells funny.


There is a fine line between "hobby" and "obsession"
---------------
5D-20D-7D gripped- all canon-28MM 1.8 - 50MM 1.8 -17-40 L -100MM 2.8 macro -70-200MM L F4- 100-40MM L -1X4 teleconverter-Sigma 20-40MM 2.8:D 580 EX 11 flash- manfrotto tripods and monopods.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hpulley
Goldmember
4,390 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Oct 03, 2010 09:50 |  #25

scorpio_e wrote in post #11024348 (external link)
I bought an E620 for $30.00 ... SWEET !!!!!!

Awesome find, great price!


flickr (external link) 1DIIN 40D 1NRS 650 1.4xII EF12II Pel8 50f1.8I 28-80II 17-40L 24-70L 100-400L 177A 199A OC-E3 RS-80N3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Oct 03, 2010 10:34 |  #26

Heading up to Vedauwoo with the Rolleiflex SLX and rolls of Astia 100F and Neopan Acros.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jahled
Goldmember
Avatar
1,498 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2008
Location: North London
     
Oct 03, 2010 15:45 |  #27

Lowner wrote in post #11021852 (external link)
"But obviously not fit for photo journalism. I can't think of any photo editors patient enough to sit out the process of the darkroom anymore"

By all acounts editors won't even wait for the image processing in Photoshop or the like in some cases. Instead they demand jpegs straight from camera.

Granted; but I have the luxury of having my office and work station at the zoo ;)


James
Snow Leopards of Leafy London- The magic begins 5th November 20:00 hours on Animal Planet :) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MG30D
Senior Member
821 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 03, 2010 22:19 as a reply to  @ Jahled's post |  #28

Film never went anywhere....it's not a fade & photogs are not "going back"...it's just a niche in the market. It's always ben there, just small.

Also, when you scan film...you sort of dilute the purpose of film.

Your scanner is essentially a digital camera. And, a scanner can not capture 100% of the film, with the possible exption of ridiclously expensive drum-scanners no one can afford. ;)

So, I suppose that's why Kodak is making this film, to assist in the scanning.

But, technically film needs to be printed via an enlarger to really see the beauty in film.

That is why I think it's kind of funny seeing these threads on POTN lately about...should I get a 5D or MF film camera? Well, the MF film is not a camera (assuming your end product is digital), the $2,000 Nikon Coolscan 120 film scanner is your camera in a since.

Don't get me wrong, I shoot film using my Mamiya 645E & scan it to view & share on my $200 Epson V500...but if I wanted a serious print I'd send it off to be enlarged. I just shoot film because I like it, & for experience shooting another medium of photography...but no way do I see it as a replacement to my digital gear.


https://photography-on-the.net …?p=7819436&post​count=1777

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,232 posts
Likes: 200
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Oct 04, 2010 09:01 |  #29

MG30D wrote in post #11028297 (external link)
Film never went anywhere....it's not a fade & photogs are not "going back"...it's just a niche in the market. It's always ben there, just small.

Also, when you scan film...you sort of dilute the purpose of film.

Your scanner is essentially a digital camera. And, a scanner can not capture 100% of the film, with the possible exption of ridiclously expensive drum-scanners no one can afford. ;)

So, I suppose that's why Kodak is making this film, to assist in the scanning.

But, technically film needs to be printed via an enlarger to really see the beauty in film.

That is why I think it's kind of funny seeing these threads on POTN lately about...should I get a 5D or MF film camera? Well, the MF film is not a camera (assuming your end product is digital), the $2,000 Nikon Coolscan 120 film scanner is your camera in a since.

Don't get me wrong, I shoot film using my Mamiya 645E & scan it to view & share on my $200 Epson V500...but if I wanted a serious print I'd send it off to be enlarged. I just shoot film because I like it, & for experience shooting another medium of photography...but no way do I see it as a replacement to my digital gear.

As mentioned in the MF/Full Frame thread to which you refer, my scanned 35mm black & white negatives produce a result more preferable than my digital monochrome conversions, so what is exactly funny about this?

Sure, a wet print might be even better than my scanned results on inkjet, but this is not the primary point of comparison. That is, although I might not be attaining the true beauty of film, I'm still getting something better, in my opinion, than what I would from digital in terms of grain and tonal quality…as for resolution or sharpness; not really my concern, after all, I'm using a 75-year-old lens.

Really, though, if we are going to solely focus on utmost image quality, one can argue (and several traditionalists actually do) that what is the point of photography if the photographer is going to use an inkjet printer (irrespective of the type of camera) instead of silver halide? And then there are the folks using a US$5,000 digital set up who do not even print. What rules shall we impose?

And my rangefinder, the one of which an affordable digital variant does not exist, is my camera in every since of the word, not my scanner.

I've seen with my own eyeballs scanned medium format photographs that looked pretty damn impressive considering that they were a) compressed jpeg images, and b) displayed on my roughly 100 dpi monitor…I can only imagine that the printed version would be all the more pleasing. And as I also stated on the MF/Full Frame thread, I have seen a direct comparison between a wet print and inkjet of the same large format negative; both had their advantages and disadvantages.

Again, would a wet print counterpart usually look better…probably, I'll concede this, and in general, what can beat a well-crafted platinum palladium print when it comes to lush tonal depth. But for me, the more relevant comparison would be the inkjet monochrome print from the scanned medium format negative compared with that from a digital camera, and here, the results fall into the muck of subjectivity, where debate is futile.

My point is that it is ludicrous for anyone (not necessarily you) to insinuate that film is largely a frivolous endeavor unless one only produces wet prints…especially in this day and age where many people are not even printing images from their Canon 5Ds.

Moreover, as even you noted, there are other factors (or purposes) involved rather than just image quality that might appeal to someone wanting to experiment with film, and it would be a disservice to newcomers to suggest that a darkroom, a logistically infeasible prospect for some, is a necessity.

Certainly the kids in Tokyo who are scooping up Holgas and Lomos aren't exactly in it for the fine arts appeal, now are they?

And remember, one can always use their negatives to make a wet print in the future; why this point seems to be consistently overlooked is beyond me.

That’s all for this thread, PM’s always welcome.


July 2018-July 2019 (external link)
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MG30D
Senior Member
821 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 04, 2010 18:28 as a reply to  @ sjones's post |  #30

^ True, I'm not dissing shooting film....just the notion that photogs are dropping digital for film. It's not some big movement, people always were using film...we're just noticing it more.

But your probably using a good scanner for B&Ws, right?

The nikon coolscan cost more then a 5D...& it's what most serious MF shooters use. That's what my point was...it's not a cheaper option really, just a different option. Flatbed scanners are not very sharp. My Slides are sharp, but on my flatbed scanner they're not as sharp as my dSLR pics at full size. For web viewing they're fine. So I would never consider my film as replacement to a 5D, without serious investment in scanning...before given images to a client.

There are guys to this day that shot film for weddings. But, they often do so because they like the look of film & don't like how the wedding photo industry has become about shooting 1000s of photos. They rather give their clients a handful of MF shots & some 35mm shots + Prints....but it is not about cost...the cost is pretty similar in the end. They just attract a niche of the market, that enjoys the look of film better.

Film is mostly only "cheaper" if not shot professionally.


https://photography-on-the.net …?p=7819436&post​count=1777

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

17,978 views & 0 likes for this thread
Kodak: "photogs going back to film"
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
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 DaveKennard
1153 guests, 356 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.