OMG....mama took my Kodachrome away !!

[amey01]

analog vs digital debate it sure is funny how this subject could mirror that.

It certainly does appear to be mirroring that - exactly.

I'd say we're at about 1989 now - everyone abandoning film and going to digital because it can do no wrong, just like they did with CDs. Film companies reducing their range (just like the vinyl space went smaller and smaller) and going out of the business - just like when Ortofon (et. al) went out of business around 1989.

I reckon in five or so years we'll see a "resurgence in film" because the serious photographers will start complaining that film gives them those "something" qualities that are unattainable with digital. Maybe they'll even want the "tactile" experience and the "act of love" of loading a roll of film!!

Fast forward another 10 years or so (audio equivalent of 2008) and we might even see film become a "trendy niche", with kids that have never been exposed to film thinking they're cool shooting it!!

Fashions are funny things!

 

[tonepub]

If you take pictures for a living, film just doesn't make sense, because no one is willing to wait for it to get processed, scanned and dust spotted. Everyone wants it now.

On many levels I miss film because it made you concentrate more on what you were doing, because you couldn't just shoot a million frames and pull the best one out, you had to make it count.

Because of the many years I spent shooting color transparencies, where there was no room for error, I still shoot with a digital camera like I did with a film camera, I try to make every shot count.

All a matter of perspective. But I do enjoy the convenience of digital and was happy way back in the early 90's when Photoshop came out. It allowed me to take the images I was creating for clients a lot further.

 

[JonFo]

Jeff, great write-up on the differences and advances of digital photography, I really appreciate an in-depth look (for a forum post).

What I find interesting is that even some of the analog-junkies in the crowd are willing to accept digital photography as a big step up from analog film, yet on audio, chose to hold on to the past.

Are our ears less sensitive than our eyes to the real variances and improvements available?

I think our eye-brain subsystem is much more attuned to differences and their causes than the ear-brain subsystem is, since we more heavily depend on sight for survival.
Although hearing acuity (to things like spatial relationships, or qualitative things like distortion) can be trained for (often by necessity, as in the sight-impaired), and one can learn to detect pretty subtle things.

But ultimately, could it be because we treat audio more as an artistic and emotional entertainment vehicle and therefore it’s much more about personal choices and biases than it ever is about accuracy?

Also, how come no one said ‘trust your eyes’ in the debate about film vs digital?

Just fanning the flames of debate :devil:

 

[amey01]

Interesting post Jon - and thoughts I've had all the time on this forum - relating to not only this, but other threads.

I have a chuckle to myslef when I see these mega-high end systems (myself included - I'm not having a dig) with a Samsung or some other cheap Japanese or Korean plasma! I wonder if they would ever consider a Samsung or LG audio system to go with that! As if!!

I guess we're audiophiles first and foremost and are willing to forego quality on other aspects. Go onto "filmlovers.com" and try to have this conversation and you'll probably be banned as a troll.

Different strokes for different folks.......

 

[User211]

Hm... let's not forget that digital is always trying to feign analogue i.e. to catch up with it's resolution. Music & sight is inherently analogue.

Movies at large cinemas show just what short of resolution analogue film is capable of - literally a tiny image on a film massively magnified. Blu Ray movie discs are for the most part derived from analogue film sources.

But a modern £150 camera can do what an old analogue camera could never do - i.e. shoot at 720p for around 5.5 hours onto a 16Gb stick. And the results are pretty stunning on my 46 inch TV. These days, a cheap cam is also a great camcorder. My Samsung NV24HD has effectively consigned my 3 year old Sony camcorder into the bin.

Had to delete my B&W picture post... not sure what made me post it, to be honest!

 

[Bernard]

Had to delete my B&W picture post... not sure what made me post it, to be honest!

Too bad as I always like Van de Graaf generator pictures

 

[twich54]

But ultimately, could it be because we treat audio more as an artistic and emotional entertainment vehicle and therefore it’s much more about personal choices and biases than it ever is about accuracy?

For me this why I still enjoy Film (35mm) on the big screen, I have no desire to see some actors skin imperfections, HDTV is fine (for sports, etc) but I still like my 'celluloid', not that anyone on this forum would be surprised by that !

Remember this about Kodachrome....it has stood the test of time for over seventy years, with technology changing so fast....where will photography be seventy years from now ??

 

[amey01]

Remember this about Kodachrome....it has stood the test of time for over seventy years, with technology changing so fast....

That is beautiful. It did, of course, come from a time when things were made to be the best they could be, without regard to planned obsolescence. Kodak didn't need to release a new and "greatest ever" film every year.

Probably because they sold the stuff anyway. Now with digital people can keep a camera indefinitely so they manufacturers have to make up reasons why people should keep buying upgraded models.

Just goes to show - manufacturers love to talk about "technology progressing" as an excuse to sell more and more but it's all BS! If something is made properly and fit for its purpose it does not go out of date!

 

[Craig]

This thread reminds that I have a handful of exposed rolls of film that still need to be developed. I have been storing these in refrigeration since 2003. I can't believe I've put this off for so long but this thread highlighted the need to finally get these developed. There is a reason why I didn't get them developed at the local drug store and still don't want to develop them locally. Hopefully, they are salvageable. I know there are a few photos on these rolls that I'd like to see again and most are from a vacation in the Hawaiian Islands.

A couple of questions.

1. Anyone know of any reputable mail order film developers still around that you could recommend?
2. Do you think the photos are still any good or would it be a waste to pay to have them developed at this point? I don't think I'll know this answer until I try.

Lone gone are the days of those little film drop-off booths in the strip-mall parking lots.

 

[tonepub]

They should be ok, however, take your film out and immediately put it in a ziplock bag, so most of the condensation from being in the fridge will form on the outside, minimizing the chance of spots on the film.

Otherwise you should be fine.

 

[tonepub]

That is beautiful. It did, of course, come from a time when things were made to be the best they could be, without regard to planned obsolescence. Kodak didn't need to release a new and "greatest ever" film every year.

Just goes to show - manufacturers love to talk about "technology progressing" as an excuse to sell more and more but it's all BS! If something is made properly and fit for its purpose it does not go out of date!

Actually, Kodak did upgrade the formula for Kodachrome a number of times over the films history, they just didn't make a big deal out of it. Many of the really old school photographers still claim that the original Kodachrome X was really the "best film".

As for the technology processing, the boundaries in digital sensors are as always noise, color fidelity and dynamic range. Considering few people use their digital cameras for more than posting pics to the web or printing small pictures, most cameras are better than required.

But there is still a huge gap between high megapixel DSLR's and compact cameras. Hopefully someday that gap will be bridged. The super expensive stuff is phenominal, but the consumer cameras still have a long way to go.