Did this camera save the film industry?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 end

carlitos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · Did this camera save the film industry?

Agreed

Nov 26, 2012 at 05:31 PM

dasrocket
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · Did this camera save the film industry?

michael49 wrote:
luminosity wrote:
It's nonsense to say that there's no visible difference between film and digital. I use film because of how it looks, not because I like the process more.

+1

An interesting study that was done two years ago through photography students of a local University (Ryerson), showcased young talent shooting in digital and film, all the work framed and exhibited in large(er) scale prints; the general consensus after a two week viewing was that in most cases the results were too close to tell.

You gents must have pretty impressive perception; my hat is off to you.

Nov 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM

dasrocket
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · Did this camera save the film industry?

rattymouse wrote:
dasrocket wrote:
I think by this point the withering debate between film and digital is for the sake of argument. The visible difference between the two is negligible if any and the debate is romanticism at best and more importantly about the process not the outcome..

The late interest in Lomography is a result mainly of hipster culture and arguably the hipstamatic app. Is it selling? Sure it is but as a fad not a movement and as such its longevity is questionable. Just like the movement by many DJs back to vinyl brought a surge in production on the indie music level but that has also subsided...

Longevity in question? Lomography just turned 20 years old.

The film store where I buy my film has half the store devoted to Holga's and Lomo. The manager says that sales of that gear has never been better.

In Toronto, we have a dedicated Lomo Store and according to the sales folks, the marketing is geared toward a lifestyle device and business is pretty good. But this store (or the fashion outlets that sell Lomos here) did not exist a few years back, nor did the demand; my comment was on what brought the late popularity in Lomo's and whether it will be sustained, not how long the company has been around.
If one compares the amount of hipstamatic images generated, to the actual film Lomo photos taken it's hard to argue the numbers and where the customer base lies.

The difference between it and digital used to be pretty evident a few years back, but now it is very subjective IMHO..

Nov 26, 2012 at 06:33 PM

dasrocket
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Did this camera save the film industry?

redisburning wrote:
...the trend in record sales says otherwise. things have improved year over year for the last handful of years..."

So did the sales for walkmans, discmans, and more specific to the film industry (for those of us old enough to have been there), the 110 format, the Kodak Disc format, the 24x18 half frame format and so on.

Ascending short term sales are not a marker on product longevity.

Nov 26, 2012 at 06:41 PM

redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · Did this camera save the film industry?

how is a few years short term?

a few years is a few years longer than a good economic forecaster can accurately predict, lol.

at any rate, vinyl records aren't comparable to film cameras; I can play my nice copy of Respighi's Birds at least a few hundred times if not indefinitely with care. It doesn't matter that they haven't printed a copy in 25 years, I should be able to enjoy it for the rest of my life and at worst I may need to find another copy at some point.

however, once Fuji finally pulls the rug out from under Acros I will be living on borrowed time with that one =/

Nov 27, 2012 at 12:12 AM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #6 · Did this camera save the film industry?

dasrocket wrote:
michael49 wrote:
luminosity wrote:
It's nonsense to say that there's no visible difference between film and digital. I use film because of how it looks, not because I like the process more.

+1

An interesting study that was done two years ago through photography students of a local University (Ryerson), showcased young talent shooting in digital and film, all the work framed and exhibited in large(er) scale prints; the general consensus after a two week viewing was that in most cases the results were too close to tell.

You gents must have pretty impressive perception; my hat is off to you.

I'm sorry, but I can clearly see the difference between my film and digital images. There is an obvious difference in most cases, at least to my eyes.....

Here's a few examples......

Sony NEX 5N....

This image is copyrighted by the owner

35mm Portra 160...

This image is copyrighted by the owner

NEX....

35mm Portra 160...

This image is copyrighted by the owner

5d2....

Portra 160....

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Portra 160 again....

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 27, 2012 at 01:29 AM

JimUe
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · Did this camera save the film industry?

oh second thought, my ektar 100 shots came out very "digital" looking, which to me was not very interesting.

my favourite film was portra 160nc.

Nov 27, 2012 at 02:32 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · Did this camera save the film industry?

michael49 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can clearly see the difference between my film and digital images. There is an obvious difference in most cases, at least to my eyes.....

Here's a few examples......

yes, those look different and i love the look of portra 160 too, but i really don't think it would be too difficult for somebody who was so inclined to make very similar looking images from your raw digital files. it's not quite as easy as making a film preset – there needs to be some tweaking on the individual image basis, but in the vast majority of cases the look of film can be pretty closely matched on digital. the question for me is whether it's worth the time and if film has other advantages (it does for me).

Nov 27, 2012 at 04:26 AM

Xtobolic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · Did this camera save the film industry?

I think the difference is more visible in medium format film than 35mm.

Nov 27, 2012 at 07:21 PM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · Did this camera save the film industry?

Xtobolic wrote:
I think the difference is more visible in medium format film than 35mm.

I agree with that. I mostly shoot 6x7 medium format these days, and I would never mistake one of my own images for a digital image.

Nov 27, 2012 at 08:36 PM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Did this camera save the film industry?

far less effort, skill and materials goes into a photo than a hand crafted original piece of art.

Baloney

Maybe thats why your stuff isnt that good.

Nov 27, 2012 at 09:00 PM

redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · Did this camera save the film industry?

oh come on painting is about a million times more mechanically demanding than photography.

even if we call the aesthetic part a draw painting is still lightyears higher in it's skill requirement.

look, most of you guys are a bit older and if we played chess for equivalent periods of time it is likely we would be equally matched. however, if we were to play broodwar I would slaughter you because at 40+ it's just not possible to play at 300+ apm for 30 minutes which I can in my early 20s.

it's the same difference between racing cars and racing bicycles.

if you want proof, take your favorite photograph and paint it. even as a person whose ability to draw is quite high compared to average I struggle to control a pencil or pen to the same degree as someone with real talent.

or, you know, you can continue to live in a fantasy world where anyone can do anything.

Nov 28, 2012 at 01:02 AM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · Did this camera save the film industry?

sebboh wrote:
michael49 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can clearly see the difference between my film and digital images. There is an obvious difference in most cases, at least to my eyes.....

Here's a few examples......

yes, those look different and i love the look of portra 160 too, but i really don't think it would be too difficult for somebody who was so inclined to make very similar looking images from your raw digital files. it's not quite as easy as making a film preset – there needs to be some tweaking on the individual image basis, but in the vast majority of cases the look of film can be pretty closely matched on digital. the question for me is whether it's worth the time and if film has other advantages (it does for me).

You may be right, however I own Color Efex and although i love some of the film filters i just can't match what i can get with film - its just different.

Nov 28, 2012 at 01:13 AM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · Did this camera save the film industry?

AmbientMike wrote:
far less effort, skill and materials goes into a photo than a hand crafted original piece of art.

Baloney

Maybe thats why your stuff isnt that good.

Mike --

Nov 28, 2012 at 01:19 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · Did this camera save the film industry?

redisburning wrote:
oh come on painting is about a million times more mechanically demanding than photography.

even if we call the aesthetic part a draw painting is still lightyears higher in it's skill requirement.

look, most of you guys are a bit older and if we played chess for equivalent periods of time it is likely we would be equally matched. however, if we were to play broodwar I would slaughter you because at 40+ it's just not possible to play at 300+ apm for 30 minutes which I can in my early 20s.

it's the same difference between racing cars and racing bicycles.

if you want proof, take your favorite photograph and paint it. even as a person whose ability to draw is quite high compared to average I struggle to control a pencil or pen to the same degree as someone with real talent.

or, you know, you can continue to live in a fantasy world where anyone can do anything.

+1, though i have no idea what broodwar is? 300+ apm?

kids these days.

Nov 28, 2012 at 01:43 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · Did this camera save the film industry?

michael49 wrote:
sebboh wrote:
michael49 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can clearly see the difference between my film and digital images. There is an obvious difference in most cases, at least to my eyes.....

Here's a few examples......

yes, those look different and i love the look of portra 160 too, but i really don't think it would be too difficult for somebody who was so inclined to make very similar looking images from your raw digital files. it's not quite as easy as making a film preset – there needs to be some tweaking on the individual image basis, but in the vast majority of cases the look of film can be pretty closely matched on digital. the question for me is whether it's worth the time and if film has other advantages (it does for me).

You may be right, however I own Color Efex and although i love some of the film filters i just can't match what i can get with film - its just different.

i have never used color efex, but i believe i could get mighty close matching your images with rpp and lightroom.

Nov 28, 2012 at 01:44 AM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · Did this camera save the film industry?

Gunzorro wrote:
AmbientMike wrote:
far less effort, skill and materials goes into a photo than a hand crafted original piece of art.

Baloney

Maybe thats why your stuff isnt that good.

Mike --

I think the vast majority of humanity would agree with my assessment that fine art painting is quantitatively more expensive in time, materials, and experience. You're welcome to think what you like about my paintings, but I'm speaking about the entire subject.

I don't think you have much experience with fine art photography if you think that (as you clearly do). Where I come from, photographers spend years putting together bodies of work, sometimes using unusual materials and/or processes to do so. It's time consuming, demanding and requires a great deal of commitment and knowledge, among other things.

Nov 28, 2012 at 02:18 AM

redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · Did this camera save the film industry?

sebboh wrote:
+1, though i have no idea what broodwar is? 300+ apm?

kids these days.

apm = actions per minute

Nov 28, 2012 at 02:25 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · Did this camera save the film industry?

redisburning wrote:
if we were to play broodwar I would slaughter you because at 40+ it's just not possible to play at 300+ apm for 30 minutes which I can in my early 20s.

I have watched quite a few tournament and high-level SCII videos over time, and have come to the conclusion that about 75% of the apm is wasted on keeping the apm high, and only the rest are actually doing anything. I think an efficient 40-year old would kick the sh[t out of a typical 22-year old in this game. Unfortunately (?) 40-year olds are not usually interested in SCII.

Nov 28, 2012 at 08:19 AM

redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · Did this camera save the film industry?

yeah, that's an innacurate conclusion.

1. bw has no multiple building selection and hotkeys can only hold 12 units so the apm requirement is much higher
2. everyone in GM for SCII has over 100 anyway.

btw I don't know why you take a dig at the value of playing starcraft when you are on the part of FM with the highest number of hobbyist photographers.

Nov 28, 2012 at 01:18 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end