# Really?



## Streets (Sep 26, 2016)

I can't comprehend why there is a thread for "FILM images".  If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from.  I enjoy copying old transparencies with my Sony A57 equipped with a Minolta 50mm macro lens but they never digitize as well as when they are seen when projected on a large screen.  Face it; you will never duplicate, with film, the image from a quality SLR that is transferred to the internet.  If I still had my Graflex XLRF with the 100mm Zeiss Planar, I would surely show you the proof of what I have stated.  I do not begrudge you your use of expensive film, but really?


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 26, 2016)

how else would  you share film images on a digital medium?
its not like the entire forum can come to  your house to see the images in print.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 26, 2016)

You will never get the quality and feel of a large format wet print with your DSLR, (or even a 35mm wet print).

You will never take quite the same image with it as the process and approaches are different.

Then the lenses are different because there is no need for retro-focus designs.

Then if you take anything with larger resolutions and reduce it for web use then you're really equalising the differences rather than exaggerating them.

Are you sure that your digital scans aren't looking the same as your digital photos because you're using the same editing methods on both and therefore reducing them to being the same?

But then if your only measure of an image is IQ that is determined by viewing from a computer monitor, one might say that your criterion for comparison is a little limited and biased anyway. There's a whole world of photography that exists beyond your computer screen.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process and the results.

35mm film scanned and resized for web, (perhaps you ain't doing it right?):


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2016)

Streets said:


> I can't comprehend why there is a thread for "FILM images".  If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from.  I enjoy copying old transparencies with my Sony A57 equipped with a Minolta 50mm macro lens but they never digitize as well as when they are seen when projected on a large screen.  Face it; you will never duplicate, with film, the image from a quality SLR that is transferred to the internet.  If I still had my Graflex XLRF with the 100mm Zeiss Planar, I would surely show you the proof of what I have stated.  I do not begrudge you your use of expensive film, but really?


----------



## Streets (Sep 26, 2016)

That is exactly my point.  You would also have to come to my house to see the 20x30 print made from an image from my 16MP Sony A57.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2016)

Streets said:


> That is exactly my point.  You would also have to come to my house to see the 20x30 print made from an image from my 16MP Sony A57.


Only if we cared enough to see the 20X30 print.  You are assuming too much.


----------



## Streets (Sep 26, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> You will never get the quality and feel of a large format wet print with your DSLR, (or even a 35mm wet print).
> 
> You will never take quite the same image with it as the process and approaches are different.
> 
> ...



If we're into Richard measuring, How's this one? Note the file size.


----------



## Streets (Sep 26, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Streets said:
> 
> 
> > That is exactly my point.  You would also have to come to my house to see the 20x30 print made from an image from my 16MP Sony A57.
> ...



Dang, that hurt. I was so hoping you'd find time for a visit.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 26, 2016)

Curator of Photographs
Smithsonian American Art Museum & Renwick Gallery
1661 Pennsylvania Ave NW 
Washington, DC 20006

Dear Sir or Madam, 

It has come to our attention that you have been and continue to digitize your vast collection of historic and rare photographs.  Please cease and desist as well as remove all the digitized images to date from your web site.  It has been pointed out that some only want to view a film image in it’s original state.  

There fore it is requested that hence forth you have all of your rare, priceless and unique images prepared for display at a moments notice to any and all people around the world.  While we realize this will be an inconvenience for the millions of people around the world using them for research, or for their own enjoyment as they do not have the means of traveling such distances, such practices of photographing and displaying such digital images on the internet should not be encouraged.  Only the original photo should be viewed.  

While you are at it please remove all digital images of all priceless works of art in any form, for they too should only be viewed in person. 

Sincerely,

Photo Film Snobs of the World



CC:    Royal Academy of Arts, London England
           Le Louvre, Paris, France
           The Acropolis Museum, Athens, Greece
           State Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia
           The British Museum, London, England
           The Prado, Madrid, Spain
           The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, New York
           The Vatican Museums, Vatican City, Italy
           The Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy
           Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, the Netherlands


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 27, 2016)

Streets said:


> If we're into Richard measuring, How's this one? Note the file size.



LOL, now I know you're just blowing smoke, cookies or none. Please note the file size of the image below, it should give you a clue about what determines file size. It is, by the way, the same size as my car photo which is bigger than your's, (if we're into 'Richard Measuring - whatever that is ).

Also of note is that your image is a typical digital one where in the quest for contrast and clarity you've pushed all the mid-tones towards the edges of the histogram:





To me it looks harsh and frankly quite flat. In fact you have blown out pixels and deep shadows in virtually every part of the image and virtually no mid-tones. It reminds me of the really low quality B&W reproductions you used to get in some books and low circulation magazines.

Film is different to digital and has a different feel to it and large format wet prints blow the socks of DSLRs. 35mm film is limited but done correctly can produce perfectly acceptable results for publication and web use.

Digital in the wrong hands looks worse than 35mm...


----------



## Streets (Sep 27, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> Streets said:
> 
> 
> > If we're into Richard measuring, How's this one? Note the file size.
> ...



Tim, you old sod, you keep missing the point.  There can be NO such thing as a film photo on any internet source.  EVERY photo on this forum is in digital form and consist of various quantities of pixels.  P.S., for a film user you are very knowledgeable about digital photography.  Thanks for the scathing appraisal of my work.  Cheers.


----------



## Streets (Sep 27, 2016)

You have to thank the moderator for changing the term "D__K measuring" to "richard measuring".  It did give me a chuckle when he did that.  I must ask for forgiveness for being so "all grown up".


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 27, 2016)

If anyone stops by my place to see my film prints, I'll provide bacon wrapped maple honey ham and all the beer you can drink.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 27, 2016)

Streets said:


> Tim, you old sod, you keep missing the point.  There can be NO such thing as a film photo on any internet source.  EVERY photo on this forum is in digital form and consist of various quantities of pixels.  P.S., for a film user you are very knowledgeable about digital photography.  Thanks for the scathing appraisal of my work.  Cheers.



Err... I thought the forum was titled "Film Discussion", not "Film Images". You might want to re-read that before you post a thread stating we're all wasting our time.


----------



## 407370 (Sep 27, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> There's a whole world of photography that exists beyond your computer screen.



So hang on, you re saying people still use actual film???? 

Well that is interesting.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 27, 2016)

To the OP.
Why does this vex you so?
Who cares if it is a digital representation of an analog print? Plus I'm sure the film photogs understand the concept of their posted photo's being digital. Their not completely out of touch with the modern world. They just dabble in prehistoric image capture techniques (sorry, had to ).

Lets just let them share their photos in peace. The last thing we need is a TPF locust swarm roaming the nation consuming all the bacon covered cookies and alcohol on the search for the next great print.


----------



## terri (Sep 27, 2016)

Streets said:


> I can't comprehend why there is a thread for "FILM images".  If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from.  I enjoy copying old transparencies with my Sony A57 equipped with a Minolta 50mm macro lens but they never digitize as well as when they are seen when projected on a large screen.  Face it; you will never duplicate, with film, the image from a quality SLR that is transferred to the internet.  If I still had my Graflex XLRF with the 100mm Zeiss Planar, I would surely show you the proof of what I have stated.  I do not begrudge you your use of expensive film, but really?


First off:   it's not a "thread for FILM images," it's another TPF forum with a couple extra sub-forums.    Most if not all images posted on TPF are found within the Galleries.   
Here is the description for this forum: 
_Questions or comments about film photography belong here! Plus, discussions and how-tos on various films, film cameras and other analog-based products.   
_
There is no mention of posting all your film images anywhere but in one of the Galleries.  

_If you convert it to a digital image it's just another digital image; unfortunately inferior to the original that it was copied from.    _This comment/position is not new, earth shattering, or even relevant - since it's so obvious.   It was been hammered to death over at APUG years ago, till folks got bored and moved on.   Obviously, the days of only showing one's work via in-person camera clubs or enthusiast groups is long past.    No analog user is going to refuse to show their work because of some bias against technology, though I appreciate there is a lot of disparaging noise thrown at analog photographers on that very point.  

Not sure why this thread has gone off topic and extended to 4 pages; perhaps a little cleanup will reduce it to the size that the pertinence of this argument deserves.


----------



## terri (Sep 27, 2016)

And here is the warning: stay on topic, or the thread will have to be closed.   

Per the TPF guidelines:  

_* No digital vs. film/traditional arguments or debates are allowed. We have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed. No provoking comments will be tolerated._


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 27, 2016)

I'm confused over the whole thread really. So thanks @terri for shedding a little light for the noob in me. After the OP and my confusion, all I read was food at someone's house and I was in... and I could comment on that in a silly, sarcastic way. Still don't get why people want to make me feel stupid for still shooting film. I was street shooting a couple weeks ago with a Holga 120 and some guy made a snide remark on my film camera, similar to OP but more insulting. I gave him a look and he lost a little color in his face and I moved on without altercation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 27, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> I shoot film because I enjoy the process and the results.





Tim Tucker said:


> Also of note is that your image is a typical digital one where in the quest for contrast and clarity you've pushed all the mid-tones towards the edges of the histogram:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with your characterization of the moto picture as contrasty and unpleasant but digital images aren't all that way and don't have to be.

You enjoy the process, as I imagine a great many film photographers do, but I see that many film images are criticized on a different curve than digital images. Images that are meaningless and impactless get an OK just because they are reasonable captured renditions of what was there except in BW.

I don't think that there should be extra credit for film in the evaluation process.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Sep 27, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> I don't disagree with your characterization of the moto picture as contrasty and unpleasant but digital images aren't all that way and don't have to be.
> 
> You enjoy the process, as I imagine a great many film photographers do, but I see that many film images are criticized on a different curve than digital images. Images that are meaningless and impactless get an OK just because they are reasonable captured renditions of what was there except in BW.
> 
> I don't think that there should be extra credit for film in the evaluation process.



No, I don't think there should be. A good critic should judge the results and not the process by which they're achieved. I don't feel my film photography should carry more weight than any digital photograph. I use it because I enjoy it and the different limitations force upon you different creative solutions.

My personal position on digital is that it's a whole lot better and offers much greater possibilities than 35mm film. There's no way that a 35mm scan will outdo a DSLR if IQ is your only metric. But film is a different medium that has different limitations which inevitably leads to a different approach and different results. Shooting film teaches you to wait for the light, it isn't instant and you can't rely on auto features to 'get it right' for you.

I was in Glen Etive a few days ago shooting one of my favourite scenes (with digital). Having checked the weather forecast it was looking good for the sun to break through the clouds and produce a more dramatic light. So I set up the camera and waited for the light to change.
Meanwhile a few people stopped with their cameras pointed them at things, pressed their shutters and left. I still waited and sure enough shafts of sunlight appeared to produce a wonderful dappled light.

It is not that one medium is better than the other, digital is wonderful. But it does seem to lead people to rely on technology to take the image, they're looking at their cameras rather than the scene. Photography is about observation, not kit.


----------



## compur (Sep 27, 2016)

What is the topic of this thread?


----------



## jcdeboever (Sep 27, 2016)

compur said:


> What is the topic of this thread?


If you shoot film,  you have to hang with pixmedic, grphonslair, ferrets, bacon, beer, a guy that pees in laundry tubs, and rubenesque woman.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 27, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> how else would  you share film images on a digital medium?
> its not like the entire forum can come to  your house to see the images in print.


It's not like you'd really want some of us to even know where you live...

Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Streets (Sep 27, 2016)

Did the Originator just say that the thread was for discussion and not posting


robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > how else would  you share film images on a digital medium?
> ...



I once had an N9518.  It didn't take long to realize that 10 kilo-pixels just didn't cut it.


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 27, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > how else would  you share film images on a digital medium?
> ...



He is giving away FREE beer !!! We need to know where he lives !!!

I can understand the point that a film image is no longer that when posted on the forum ... but I have no problem seeing these converted images on the site, but it may be because I can see the real image in my head ... I think you have to be a film shooter to get that.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 27, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > how else would  you share film images on a digital medium?
> ...


Shouldn't be hard to find... just wander around Florida 'til you find a house with a lot of empty bags of 'Boneless Weasel Chow' in the garbage.


----------



## dxqcanada (Sep 27, 2016)

He really should not imply endless free beer when there are Canadians here.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 27, 2016)

dxqcanada said:


> He really should not imply endless free beer when there are Canadians here.


True, very true.  I can see how that could be dangerous when Canadians pallets are accustomed to ..................




They will chase good beer halfway across the continent. 


As to topic, (I don't want Terri to bring out the ban hammer) this is a PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM.  That covers a pretty damn broad range.  Photography is about LIGHT!!!  Every photo made is the recording of light, be it via  silver chloride,  Bitumen of Judea- lavender oil,  silver iodide or via ccd or cmos sensors. 

Each and every medium has its good points and its bad points as well as it's uses.   The idea that the depiction of the results of one medium by another is preposterous.   Some people seemed to have forgotten what the purpose of photography is and have carved out their on little ideals of what it should or should not be, should or should do or should or should not be represented.   Just because Photography and Philosophy start with the same letter doesn't mean that they are kissing cousins. 

Photography is photography period.  If you don't like something about it then don't do it.  If it bothers you then pull on your big kid panties and ignore it.  Frankly this kind of stuff belongs in the off topic forum as it really has nothing to do with photography just personal attitudes and beliefs.


Now somebody pass me the plate of bacon wrapped chocolate pecan cookies.  I'm getting damn hungry around here.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Sep 28, 2016)

A pointless topic elicits a pointless response;

Cool story bro.

If anyone wants to feed me bacon and beer, id be more than happy to come look at your prints


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 28, 2016)

Why there's a thread for film images might be just because it's a shorter title than 'images originally shot on a roll of film' - or something along those lines... sometimes there's a simple explanation.

I never stopped shooting film, just eventually got a digital camera, and still shoot film. And Polaroids. Because that's what I like to do. And I've found since I started doing submissions to juried exhibits that unless it's specific to film or alt processes or whatever, nobody gives a rat's; I've had film and digital and Polaroid photos accepted and framed and hanging on a wall somewhere.

So, now when are we all going to Florida for drinking beer and petting ferrets? You know I always thought going to Florida was supposed to be for beaches and Disney World...


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Sep 28, 2016)

I know my wife wants to take me to her home town next summer in Florida, so ill be in the possible general area haha


----------



## Streets (Oct 1, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > He really should not imply endless free beer when there are Canadians here.
> ...



I've tried that beer and believe that should have been named for the other end of the Moose.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Oct 1, 2016)

Its called Moose Green to those who know, obviously you havent drank enough if them


----------



## table1349 (Oct 1, 2016)

OGsPhotography said:


> Its called Moose Green to those who know, obviously you havent drank enough if them


One was more than enough.  We called it Moose P!$$.  The only thing I have ever drank that was worse was Mikey's.





I don't want to say it was bad, but we used a 6 pack to strip the paint from 65 Chevelle before we repainted it.


----------



## Streets (Oct 2, 2016)

You might want to move to Texas(cept we're already full)if you ever had a bottle of Lost Gold Pale Ale from the Pale Ale brewery in Blanco, Tx.  Dang, it's goooood.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 2, 2016)

No, I like my sanity.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 7, 2016)

Shot with a Rollei 35 and scanned with a Epson V500






Fuji GW690 6X9 negative scanned with Epson V500, you would not get this shot with your Sony the dinamic range is too much probably not with a D800


----------



## table1349 (Oct 7, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Shot with a Rollei 35 and scanned with a Epson V500
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blasphemer........Spawn of Satan.........you.........you.............you politician you! 





Personally I like them.


----------



## Penny220 (Oct 18, 2016)

Bacon wrapped, chocolate covered, pecan cookies, beer and sarcasm...I may have just landed in the right place :-D


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> No, I like my sanity.


When did you get that?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 18, 2016)

tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I like my sanity.
> ...


E-bay.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 18, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > gryphonslair99 said:
> ...


Ahhhh....


----------



## table1349 (Oct 18, 2016)

tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


Doesn't everybody?


----------

