Photography: June 2005 Archives

Here is an interesting thread from one on the email lists I am on about the film vs. digital argument.

To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "jeffz1065"
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:21:04 -0000
Subject: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

---Thanks, Juhani.

As for the rest of this:
Sorry, but it is a fact that few digital cameras approach film in
terms of resolution and none exceed it. Much has been written about
this in the major photo mags- it is there for the reading. Jay,you may
be satisfied with your digits, but there are issues with that
technology ranging from resolution to the limited tonal scale you
mention to the permanance of ink jet prints. You can get good results
from digital- but no better than those that can be obtained with a
Zenit, some knowledge on how to use it, film and some good Russian
glass. I can't speak to why your 35mm results are inferior to your
digital results- it could be your lab, your equipment, or you. Your
results to not mirror my own.

My very legitimate gripe is that digital technology is automatically
presented as an improvement. In many ways, it isn't. Even when this is
the case, the press jumps on digital as the wave of the future. I am
in the radio business and we are being pressured to "digitize" our
radio stations with the same highly questionable results. Digital has
become an advertising buzz word to sell new hardware and an (often)
inaccurate mark of quality.

As others point out, digital is more convienient for snap shooters,
but that is a different issue than quality. Film has indeed already
lost the snap shooter, although they may regret their move if their
prints fade into oblivion in ten years.

We are moving toward a time rapidly when film will be a niche product
if it is available at all. The article I read on the Agfa bankruptcy
stated specifically that Agfa Gavert had sold off the photo biz
because film sales dropped by 18% last year (alone) for them. They
attribute this to digital and nothing else. Who am I to argue with
them; presumably they know their business

The economics of the situation will mean a shrinking number of film
choices and brands in the future.

On a personal note, I lugged my FED 5C recently to California and my
Kiev 60 to Florida. I have not seen the kind of clarity and color in
any digital print that I see in those photos. They were taken with
Agfa Ultra 100, 120 size Agfa Optima 100 and were printed on Agfa
Prestige Paper. If these products disappear permanently, I will miss
them.

Jeff Ziesmann

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "Alexander Nickolsky"
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:02:14 -0000
Subject: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

--- In Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com, chancy g stevens
wrote:
> Problem is; your all living in the past! Lots of wishful thinking.

Ha-ha ! May be, but our past does not look so Orwellian as your
future...

>
> People today do not care about ASA or F stop / shutter
combinations; they
> want quick simple cameras

No! It's what marketing guys forced them to beleive in. Oceania from
now on has always been at war with Eurasia. People want simple
solution. Everything should be hassle-free.

>
> By the way Fuji has just come out with a 12 M pixel camera and
that's
> better that most printers anyone I know can print or afford!

Yea! We tested a camera from Fuji two days ago. Not 12, but 6.3 mp.
The best word I can say is "crap". It can not focus in darkness,
so-called "nigth shot" simply enhances brightness to the level as if
it was daylight, it has so bad optics that it would be no difference
if it had 3 mp instead of 6.
To say nothing of the fact that 12 mp on a small sensor is below the
difraction limit...
People are satisfied with their toys only until you show them a real
photo. Then they say "wow! how was it done ?" and realize that it IS
possible to make a great picture using their toys, but it is
necessary to be a true genius to do this. For mortal men they gives
too many limitations. I think even more than Zenit does.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "Josep Manuel"
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:41:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: RE: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

I guess that at the end there will be films for us,
higher price but better quality. I suppose that better
quality films will remain, because if now they give
benefits, later will do it too, because those who use
these films will use them later. The ones that will
disappear is the basic ones. But I'm sure I'll be able
to take photos for a long time.

Josep

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "Martin Siegel"
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:20:13 -0000
Subject: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

Hi,
This is really an interesting discussion so I take the liberty to throw
in some thoughts.
Agfa Foto went bankrupt a very sad fact. On the other hand they made a
turnover of 700 Mio Euros (approx. 1 billion USD) so is only digital
photography to blame or is there the possibility of management mistakes?
Until recently the film market was an easy one. People just bought film
and had it developed and printed - and the market was shared by few
companies for more than 70 years.
Digital photography exists which is also a fact if we like it or not it
has it advantages and it's drawbacks, as has analog photography. (I'm
not a friend of seeing things just black or white).
The question for me is: Is the the existance of digital photography per
se the reason for the Agfa going bankrupt or is it the reaction of Agfa
(it's management) on that fact.

Film sales decrease and that's maybe more important, printing of pics
decreases. Digital snapshots are not printed in the labs in equal
numbers than analog photos were - that reduces the business with labs
and I am quite sure that is were the money is made.

Printing a digital photo at home is certainly not cheaper than having a
prints made from analog film. Glossy paper alone costs more or less the
same as a print the same size (at least here in Austria). Add the price
for the printer and of course for the ink cartridges and you end up at
a higher price.

Film will remain and when the day comes that turns all ones to zeros we
will be happy to have our negs in the drawer and our prints in the
album.

Regards
Martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "Ross Daniel"
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 10:00:33 -0000
Subject: [Zenitcamera] Digi revolution.

Gidday All,
Personally I love the digital revolution.
Before I have daggers thrown at me from around the world I'd better
explain. :-)
I do not use digital cameras at all but I have taken advantage of
all the other gear that makes my photo taking cheaper and much more
fun.
I used to be frugle with my film taking but now use up to 10 roles
of film per week.
I buy film that has just gone out of date. Usually 4 role packs of
fuji 400 for $4 each.($1 per 24 role). Because of the amount I do I
get a discount at the Foto lab and it costs me $2 per role to have
the negs processed.
I have a Epson 2400 Photo scanner and scan all my negs and store the
images on my computer. This is the fun bit, to me its similar to
developing your own film. You wonder as the scanner is working what
the image will be like and you know that you have control over the
process from this point forward.
I was talking to a guy the other day who said how much he loved his
digital camera because he can take his camera home and upload the
images to his computer and pick out which photos he wants and
deletes the rest. I said to him, that's what I do anyway, but I have
the advantage of, if I delete a pic I still have the negative if
ever I need it.
My opinion, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way,
is that the digital revolution is allowing me to use my Soviet
cameras much more than before.
I have found the quality I get from my neg scanner at 1200 dpi is
superior than the photo lab.
Finding a good printer is proving to be a problem. I bought a Canon
I 990 Photo printer last year and have had to send it back for
repair twice. My old Epson 810 prints great pics but is really
really slow. The Canon gives much more control over the image but it
just doesn't seem reliable.
Maybe I should call myself a bi photographer, (film and digital) but
some people might get the wrong idea.

Cheers Zeniteers,
Ross.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "-=Sean Smith=-"
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:17:44 +0100
Subject: Re: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

It will be a shame if we lose Agfa as well. This is my favourite colour film
due to it's brilliant colour saturation. Time to get my grubby paws on
another 200 rolls for the freezer :)

On the subject of film and digital...... I think that over time it will
become more difficult to buy 35mm film, but it will still be available. I
don't see film dying out completely.

If economics play a part (which is what it's all about), then I think you'll
see more and more film companies closing down or moving to digital media,
but somewhere along the line you'll end up with say one company (or maybe a
couple) that "specialises" in film and this company will pick up the slack
left behind by other companies that have gone.

As long as there is enough demand from people like ourselves, this one or
two companies will do ok.

With regards to digital quality compared to film quality. For normal every
day 6x4 snaps, digital does surprisingly well.

I have a Ricoh G4-wide digital camera which I think is only about 4
mega-pixels. Yet printing a photo taken on this onto 6x4 Epson Premium
quality photo paper with my Epson R200 photo printer, I could not tell the
difference between digital and film.

Ok, if you wanted to blow up the print to larger size then the differences
would become more apparant, but the majority of the people previously using
film were amateur "happy snappers" and they aren't concerned with blowing up
pictures to large sizes and aren't worried about huge resolutions.

For them a set up like my digital one, with a £150 camera, £120 printer, and
a supply of photo paper will more than satisfy their every day
happy-snapping needs. It also means that they have more flexability - only
printing the photo's they want to and not having boxes of photo's they'll
never look at.

For us this means that we are rapidly losing the bulk or majority of the
people that were the main income to the film manufacturers, and we are
rapidly becoming the minority.

It's sad to say, but I guess it's all down to technology, ease of use and
what the majority of happy snappers want.

Cheers
Sean (Who knows he needs to buy a bigger freezer in South Africa)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "Jay Y Javier"
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 00:52:17 +0800
Subject: Re: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

True there is much written about the inferiority of silicon vs silver. There are legitimate points there. Often these involve numbers. Numbers and data which we could probably compare to similar "X vs. Y" comparisons- for instance, modern AF lenses vs old school lenses. So much has been written about high resolution or MTF figures and yet in the real world, these do not necessarily mean much.

I could say the same about what has been said about those who say how inferior digital captures are in terms of resolution compared to film. Much has been written about how inferior the lenses and cameras that we love - Jupiters and Zenits- but we real users who shoot in the real world know otherwise. If I read these before I started using digicams extensively, I would have believed every word said, hook, line and sinker.

It has been said that it would take about 18 million pixels to create a sensor which would match an average slide film in terms of imaging. Perhaps when pushed to the limits of applications this would matter, but for most picture making applications, even a 6 mp sensor does much. And its not just the sensors that matter- its the circuits which process the data captured by the sensor which contributes more to quality.

I would also say that there's nothing wrong with the equipment and processes I use. I've seen and compared prints made from 35mm done with the best printing (analogue) equipment to those made from the same negatives printed on digital (Fuji Frontier) printers, and to those made from digital files. It could be said that I've been using the parallel methods for either medium: only film and sensors change. Same lenses, same situations, same printers- the digital prints do not at all show the inferiority which magazines have written so much about. And I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with me :-).

Tonality problems can indeed be serious issues. But newer sensors on cameras with newer hardware
are getting better in handling these. I've seen the difference between what my 2 year old Fuji S2 and my new Canon 350D do- it's like night and day. I am also quite happy that the latter allows me to use my Jupiters and Industars in applications which I could never have used a Zenit or any 35mm camera. Perhaps I could do the same with a Zenit 11 loaded with some fine expensive 35mm film from Kodak- and I know its possible- but I also know that I could do the same with less pain by going digital.

Permanence is another issue. Silver halide negatives have proven themselves in terms of permanence. Colour negatives, transparencies and prints have been suspect in the past in terms of longevity, but now even "archival" seems to have been redefined. Now RA4 /(type C prints for the oldtimers) are considered as "permanent" - true, if compared to the dye-ink prints made from inkjet printers.

I would still prefer film for its proven qualities. But when work where convenience, speed, and
efficiency are the prime consideration, there's no point in holding back the tide.

Jay

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com
From: "Alexander Nickolsky"
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 06:17:37 -0000
Subject: [Zenitcamera] Re: Agfa Bankruptcy

--- In Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Y Javier" wrote:

> True there is much written about the inferiority of silicon vs
silver.

Jay, may be I'm wrong, but I do not see any _technical_ inferiority.
Every tool has its limitations - you can not cut your nails with a
sledgehammer. I see the problem, but it is not in hardware. It's in
people's brains. Companies making digicams makes profit from forcing
people to buy more and to buy frequently. So the quality is inferior.
Nobody cares about quality of the picture, but only abous sales.

They are making people to beleive that understanding of the process
is unnecessary. Just press button. But this works only in perfect
conditions. Good light, moderate contrast, etc. When people are
trying to take pictures in not so perfect environment, they are
getting poor results. Then they are starting to beleive that good
pictures could be done only in good conditions.

Digital technology is good and useful, but clever marketing
can kill almost any technology.