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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize...
  
 
hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


Today 14 March 2013 is the 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who helps to popularize photography by giving us portable film and cheap $1 Brownies cameras.
Here is the presentation by our former CEO George MC Fisher on George Eastman the founder of Eastman Kodak.
Eastman Kodak

Even film is dying, there is still no digital sensor that can truly replace film at this moment in capturing details.
For those who said that 12MP is enough, 16 to 24MP is all they need and 36MP is way too much. Maybe after watching the following video will convince you that we are not there yet.
To truly able to represent 135 film base on research by a couple of film companies including Kodak and Fuji will need somewhere close to 300MP for Bayer format, and even that we will still not be able to duplicate its dynamic range.
Film vs Digital

If only the Board of Directors in Kodak have not opposed to the change brought to them by George Fisher, Kodak might not have been in such a drag situation.



Mar 14, 2013 at 04:20 PM
honorerdieu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


Film is not dying.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8529/8531911138_32dae16aaf_b.jpg

The above was shot with the Hasselblad 501c with a roll of the New Kodak Porta 160. I have the D3s, D800, and Fuji X100 and X-Pro1 and none of these come close to matching the the colors and tonal range of film. The New Kodak Portra 160 just has a certain look to it.



Mar 14, 2013 at 04:30 PM
hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


honorerdieu wrote:
Film is not dying.


Only those who still shoot film like us knew about it, but for those who only shoot digital without film experience will not know or agree with us.



Mar 14, 2013 at 04:35 PM
Gregstx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


I went to an estate sale this morning. It was the estate of an old photographer. There was a box of old B & W 18 x 24 photos in the bedroom. For the most part, the subject matter was good but it didn't overwhelm me. But the character of that old B & W film was fantastic and it made the photos much more appealing.


Mar 14, 2013 at 05:29 PM
Robin Casady
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


As far as I am concerned, film is as much an anachronism as daguerreotype, cyanotype, and albumen prints.

I started shooting film with a Brownie in the 1950's. Then 120 with a Yashica TLR. I cobbled together a darkroom when I was 13 from some junk enlargers a school didn't want. Then a Durst 2 1/4" followed by a Besseler. I mostly did B&W, but dabbled with Cibachrome. My first 35mm SLR was a Minolta SR-1. Then a Nikkormat and a Nikon F. In college I had a Hasselblad 500c. I currently have two 4x5, a Galvin 6x9cm view camera, a Pentax 645, and an RB67. The 4x5 only get used with a D800E mounted on the back. The others gather dust.

My D800E and Epson 7800 printer produce images I find more appealing than film ever did. B&W silver prints have a certain look it doesn't hold enough appeal to me to give up all the wonderful things digital has brought to photography. As for color, I see nothing in film that is more appealing than digital.



Mar 15, 2013 at 08:06 PM
honorerdieu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


Robin Casady wrote:
As far as I am concerned, film is as much an anachronism as daguerreotype, cyanotype, and albumen prints.

I started shooting film with a Brownie in the 1950's. Then 120 with a Yashica TLR. I cobbled together a darkroom when I was 13 from some junk enlargers a school didn't want. Then a Durst 2 1/4" followed by a Besseler. I mostly did B&W, but dabbled with Cibachrome. My first 35mm SLR was a Minolta SR-1. Then a Nikkormat and a Nikon F. In college I had a Hasselblad 500c. I currently have two 4x5, a Galvin 6x9cm view
...Show more


I think there will always room for both film and digital. I certainly know it can co-exist in my photography. While I'm not going to give up my digital cameras, there are times when I feel shooting with film forces me to slow down and be more calculating with my composition and exposure. That is one discipline I wish I had more of when I first started shooting with a film camera before making the transition to digital in 2001.

How are things in Carmel? I was born and raised in Monterey for 21 years before moving away from the area. I still visit the area often whenever I can.



Mar 15, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Bernie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


Film will be with us just as there are those resurrecting tintypes and the other methods that Robin mentioned. There will be techniques we may be able to simulate / approximate with digital that require a chemical basis.They will not be the same, just as a wood grain Formica top will never be the same as a real wood table.

Just remember that what we all enjoy about the old photos is not just the fact that they were shot on film (or glass). There is the special look of the old lenses and their bokeh -- and the fact that the photographer used an 8 x 10 negative (or larger). And sometimes the brush marks from inconsistent spreading of the chemicals adds a certain character.

I'm still trying to simulate a good gold tone in PS....



Mar 15, 2013 at 09:24 PM
michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


honorerdieu wrote:
Film is not dying.
...

The above was shot with the Hasselblad 501c with a roll of the New Kodak Porta 160. I have the D3s, D800, and Fuji X100 and X-Pro1 and none of these come close to matching the the colors and tonal range of film. The New Kodak Portra 160 just has a certain look to it.


Agreed. I just shot some Portra 400 this past week - very different look from digital.

Love the photo by the way.



Mar 15, 2013 at 11:42 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


I was developing and printing B&W about 1965. Forget color-you couldn't develop Kodachrome transparencies outside of a million dollar lab. The output was "slides" back from the lab with a hot light through a projector to illuminate a beaded screen in a dark room. You could do some slides and negative but color printing was not for the amature. You sent you color print work out and hoped.

Slides were always very high contrast. The shadows blocked in daylight. The nice light was overcast. Forget interiors at ASA 32/64, without some kind of soft lighting. On camera flash was horror. There was color negative. It had lots more dynamic range but lots more grain. I always felt I was copping out when I shot negative and you couldn't project it.

The top quality print output was a "Dye Transfer" print. Your 35mm slide was duped to a 4x5 copy negative and, to an extent, the DR of the image was tamed for print. I paid about $200 1970 dollars for a non fading 8x10. Thirty years later I scanned the same Ektachrome (shot on a soft lit overcase day) slide into photoshop and spent hours in PP to make a nice 24x32" Inkjet print. A typical digital file would have taken me 1/3 the time.

The suoer pro SLR of the '60s was a $500 Nikon F with $600 (1965 $) F36 motor drive. You had 36 shots (yes there was a hugh 250 exposure back with huger battery but I never saw one) at 2.5 fps and boy was it loud! The fast film was Tri-X @ ASA 400 which could be "pushed" to 800. ASA 800 Tri-X has an grain overlay that was/is more apparent than my D4 at ISO of 128,000/256,000.

To shoot indoors you often had to use, a manually focused, 50mm F1.4. Further degrading the keeper rate. Yes wonderful film pictures survive but what modern day digital shooters can't understand is how ponderous and expensive the process was. So many exquisite photos were never taken because the film was so slow, slides-high contrast and negative so grainy.

My friend, now over 90 years old, played the Cello in the leading classical orchestras of the world. He took B&W of the famous conducters and soloists from the pit. I scanned some of his 55 year old underexposed negatives (negatives I couldn't begin to print in a chemical darkroom) into photo shop. I came out with never before seen quality prints for his photo exhibitions.

This is why I don't miss and don't use the film equipmemt I still have on hand. The grotesque relics of the chemical darkroom have long ago been discarded. I have my very own 44" carriage printer and it thrills me to walk by it (takes a stride or two since it is 7' long).

The remants of film nostalgia are for the few captures that were possible and survive. The sorrow remains for the 1000s of images that were lost because the film process was/is so condition specific. Sports/action/dance and candid portraits (my primary work now) suffered the most. Finally, I have never failed to get a "film look," if I wanted it, out of my electronic darkroom but it's often not possible to duplicate the "digital" look out of a film negative. YMMV!



Mar 23, 2013 at 10:34 AM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


I was developing and printing B&W about 1965. Forget color-you couldn't develop Kodachrome transparencies outside of a million dollar lab. The output was "slides" back from the lab with a hot light through a projector to illuminate a beaded screen in a dark room. You could do some slides and negative but color printing was not for the amature. You sent you color print work out and hoped.

Slides were always very high contrast. The shadows blocked in daylight. The nice light was overcast. Forget interiors at ASA 32/64, without some kind of soft lighting. On camera flash was horror. There was color negative. It had lots more dynamic range but lots more grain. I always felt I was copping out when I shot negative and you couldn't project it.

The top quality print output was a "Dye Transfer" print. Your 35mm slide was duped to a 4x5 copy negative and, to an extent, the DR of the image was tamed for print. I paid about $200 1970 dollars for a non fading 8x10. Thirty years later I scanned the same Ektachrome (shot on a soft lit overcase day) slide into photoshop and spent hours in PP to make a nice 24x32" Inkjet print. A typical digital file would have taken me 1/3 the time.

The suoer pro SLR of the '60s was a $500 Nikon F with $600 (1965 $) F36 motor drive. You had 36 shots (yes there was a hugh 250 exposure back with huger battery but I never saw one) at 2.5 fps and boy was it loud! The fast film was Tri-X @ ASA 400 which could be "pushed" to 800. ASA 800 Tri-X has an grain overlay that was/is more apparent than my D4 at ISO of 128,000/256,000.

To shoot indoors you often had to use, a manually focused, 50mm F1.4. Further degrading the keeper rate. Yes wonderful film pictures survive but what modern day digital shooters can't understand is how ponderous and expensive the process was. So many exquisite photos were never taken because the film was so slow, slides-high contrast and negative so grainy.

My friend, now over 90 years old, played the Cello in the leading classical orchestras of the world. He took B&W of the famous conducters and soloists from the pit. I scanned some of his 55 year old underexposed negatives (negatives I couldn't begin to print in a chemical darkroom) into photo shop. I came out with never before seen quality prints for his photo exhibitions.

This is why I don't miss and don't use the film equipmemt I still have on hand. The grotesque relics of the chemical darkroom have long ago been discarded. I have my very own 44" carriage printer and it thrills me to walk by it (takes a stride or two since it is 7' long).

The remants of film nostalgia are for the few captures that were possible and survive. The sorrow remains for the 1000s of images that were lost because the film process was/is so condition specific. Sports/action/dance and candid portraits (my primary work now) suffered the most. Finally, I have never failed to get a "film look," if I wanted it, out of my electronic darkroom but it's often not possible to duplicate the "digital" look out of a film negative. YMMV!



Mar 23, 2013 at 10:35 AM
DaveOls
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


You're never going to agree with everyone, as this post shows. Personally, I shoot mainly digital, but also shoot some film because it does slow me down.


Mar 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM
tony1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


film slows you down and makes you think !!!!!!!!!!!!!! gotta love film


Mar 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


My first camera was a Hawkeye Brownie.

However, it did not have a Nikon F mount.


EBH



Mar 23, 2013 at 01:33 PM
williamkazak
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


Different mediums. The camera artist has choices. No need for arguments. Personal opinions may or may not be verified by other artists. Just saying.


Mar 25, 2013 at 12:00 PM
hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


Gregstx wrote:
I went to an estate sale this morning. It was the estate of an old photographer. There was a box of old B & W 18 x 24 photos in the bedroom. For the most part, the subject matter was good but it didn't overwhelm me. But the character of that old B & W film was fantastic and it made the photos much more appealing.


That box of B&W photos might cost a fortune in the not too distant future.
There are people collecting old photos for the type of costumes that were no more worn or places that were no more there that were replaced by new structures.



Mar 27, 2013 at 04:52 PM
hans98ko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 81st anniversary of the passing of the man who popularize photography


For those who does not have a good feel of how it is like to shoot film, here is something that you can try without much film wastage.

Try calibrating a 135 film camera with a FF digital camera by first framing and setting up the correct exposure on the digital camera, follow by transferring the setting onto the film camera. The only thing that cannot be transfer is the WB so using the correct color temperature film is important. Bracket the shots on the film camera with +/- 3 stops in 1/3 step.
Expose the roll and send it in for processing with the instruction not to compensate for the exposure or color correction.
Choose the best matching frame between the film and digital camera and print it to a reasonable size. Compare between the two and see which one you like?
Personally I prefer film most of the time because it gives a lot more detail and with a softer look. For digital a lot of time sharpening, contrast and saturation were needed making it look artificial and plasticky. Worst of all people were requesting for blemish removal, which makes it even more unrealistic.



Mar 27, 2013 at 05:27 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password