5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
Film is king,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Ilford 1780624 Delta 100 Professional Black-and-White Film, ISO 100, 35mm 36-Exposure (Electronics)
Ilford... my go to film for black and white. This one is very smooth and fine grain with luscious depths of tone your 500 MP digital can't match. Try film sometime if you haven't. As a photographer you have more skin in the game with a limited number of shots you must pay to have developed. It makes photography more soulful, more mindful. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, frame it right....snap! And when you nail that great shot.... nirvana.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 13, 2015 8:22:38 PM PDT
O. Ogden says:
Ok so i hope you know 500mp cameras do not exist, however if they did well 500mp worth of data would be a lot more information than is on 35mm film by far & a good digital camera has all the same controls as a film camera. Just as much art, skill and thought goes into the process & the only difference is the medium. If i had or could find a good film camera B&W film and not the color process would be the only reason. The simple facts are that 99.999% of the people out there are going to use digital cameras and get far better results from their phones than they ever got from a film camera & the entry level Nikon DSLR cameras give most people better results than they could ever get from the film cameras that cost twice as much not to mention the film & processing costs. The digital cameras are on the high end better than film cameras when used with the right software, but just as you must know how to use any camera it takes real skill in a darkroom as well as knowing how to use software. Fifteen years ago film was superior to the capabilities of digital cameras, but today that is simply not the case. Some people might prefer film but by choosing to stick with a dying media only serves to limit you in what you can do, but do not try and hand me that garbage about film having more value or requiring more skill as point and shoot cameras were film first also. The same argument was made by painters vs. the use of photography.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2015 8:51:12 PM PDT
Dr. B. P. Shumaker says:
You are missing the point, I think. The "zen" part of the description I can totally relate to! We all know the theoretical advantages of digital photography (I'm an astronomer/astrophotographer and work for NASA), but just as some people like vinyl recordings vs CD encoding, there is something special about film..
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 10, 2015 5:48:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 10, 2015 5:56:16 AM PDT
Bob Grosh says:
Actually, I don't think a 500 megapixel scanner will do justice to the resolution of this film.
If all you use is snapchat, and don't care about your images being around for your grandchildren, then go digital.
For example, Kodachrome film does fade, the yellows fade faster than the other colors. However, stored in a closet away from an outside wall in the average house, a Kodachrome slide will lose half its yellow in 980 years. It's a predictable rate, and you can correct it with a filter or scan it and adjust back to its original color qualities. Assuming that 980 years from now you won't be able to find a projector for 35mm slides, you should still be able to scan it, assuming there's still a scanner. But at least you can pick it up and look at it and see the image.
Compare that to digital.
Try reading the images taken by the original Sony Mavica camera. You'll have to find the floppy drive and you'll be searching the Internet for quite a while for the codec that can read the raw format. I've had several people bring me CDs full of pictures they want recovered. User writable CDs and DVDs begin losing data in as little as 3 years. Finding the software to read the raw images is sometimes a bigger challenge than trying to read the disk.
Technology changes every 15 years. Try viewing the VHS tape of your wedding 15 years ago to see what I mean.
Regardless of the media you write your digital pictures on, you will be extremely difficult to recover them in 30 years. In 100 years you'll be difficult even for experts like curators and archivist at libraries to recover those pictures. In 1000 years it will probably be impossible, yet people 1000 years from now will still be able to see pictures captured on Kodachrome 35mm slides.
Before you try to correct me by reminding me that there is now the M disk, (a DVD with a mineral layer that is supposed to last 1000 years). Let me ask you how you plan to read it 1000 years from now. Production of DVD players peaked 6 years ago. Their production is in decline and, in another 10 years or so, you won't be able to buy a new one. Store a DVD player, (and a TV set compatible with its output), with your M disk. The problem then, capacitors and other components in the TV and DVD player will have leaked and will not work, probably in as little as 50 years. Not even your grandkids will be able to watch them. Some people think the DVDs will be around forever, yeah I've heard that before. I heard the same thing about VHS tapes CD players cassette players and 7 inch reel to reel magnetic tape.
Can photographs last 1000 years? We can find the answer in history. During the bronze age, (roughly 3,800 years ago), a farmer drew a horse in chalk on the hillside visible from a popular trade route. This was done possibly to advertise that he had horses for sale. The chalk was exposed to the rain the sun and the weather of all sorts, yet, the horse is still visible today. (Look up Uffington horse.) If a farmer in the bronze age could figure out how to preserve a chalk drawing, then certainly we can too. However, his solution didn't involve technology, instead it involved applied social anthropology. The old farmer started with his family and friends. He created the traditions and festivals centered around his horse drawing, (his artifact).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›