Is Film Really Dead?

[tankboygreg]

Maybe not dead but dying. You've got sensors getting bigger, sensors increasing in dynamic range by varying pixel sizes, and you've got sensors that layer the pixels in RGB. Combine this with the ability Shoot, Examine and Adjust, it's only a matter of time.

 

[MarkH]

What lens is that by the way?

 

[thomjinx]

Not being limited to 36 shots per camera is the biggie! The ease of previewing, editing, and instant gratification are all nice, but being able to shoot 100-200 or more shots in 1 dive seems to be the deciding factor for many, pros and hobbyists alike.

Maybe film isn't dead, but it ain't feeing too well. <wink>
Thomjinx

 

[tankboygreg]

Last Saturday I dove the Eagle as a part of the Invade the Keys Scubaboard trip. The boat was packed so I packed my Nikonos III to save space. With some great advice from James, Mike and Chris, I also loaded the camera with B&W, my choice being T-Max in 400iso. I wanted the extra two stops, but I think 100 (the advice of my mentors) may have been a better choice. At any rate, you can see some of the pics in THIS POST which also has a link to the photobucket album with some more shots.

I would still have my Nikonos III if my parents hadn't given it away a few years ago.

I love the black and white photos by the way.

There is a GREAT ARTICLE on the Luminous-Landscape website on converting color photos to black and white in Photoshop and then using the channel mixer to get the tonalities you want.

 

[Kwbyron]

The Black and White photos are really cool...I'll have to set my cybershot to that next time I dive! LOL...ahh.. seriosly though, I did enjoy the pictures.

 

[bluesbro1982]

What time is it: I Use Digital underwater for convenience

How to make the clock:

I'm going to have to put on my asbestos underwear for this one.

A buddy of mine who started out shooting film in the bad old days before Betamax had an amazing point: Film can capture +- 2 f-stops worth of luminance and shadow more than a digital signal can without significant noise. Films are still shot on film for a reason, and there is just something about the depth of emotion you can get from a nice film negative.

Also keep in mind that as standards change and things become "higher definition," in the digital world, film is the ultimate in higher definition so long as scanning / telecine technology keeps up with the latest digital chips. If Lucas wants a new digital 2160x1440p dpi scan for the "super HiDef" release of Star Wars in 10 years, all he has to do is telecine it in off film at the new resolution and he's got it at the higher quality.

That being said... The convenience factor has made me shoot mostly on digital - and the fact that I can edit DV just by plugging in firewire to a computer - makes it a slam dunk for most consumers / prosumers to go digital. Most wedding / prosumer photographers I work with feel the same way... with the notable exception of portraits and close ups of bride and groom & black-and-white contrast shots of different things. The bride's face, bride and groom together, and some artsy B&W love shots are all on film for the nice light / dark look.

For me, Its a question of the right tool for the job: If I'm underwater and need to know if I got the shot, need to color correct in software, or just need to shoot 100+ pictures, its digital with the highest res I can find (FYI, I shoot video on DVCPRO or MiniDV depending on situation). If I'm on land and want a great portrait or am doing a B&W study of a scene, its T-Max all the way.

 

[PapaBob]

Thanks to all for the kind words.

Swank: The lense was the 15mm Nikor, an old standby and favorite.

Catherine: I did apply some contrast tweaks in Photoshop. If I pushed it any more the image quality declined and looked "overcooked". I probably could have gotten a little better contrast if I worked with the 100 iso (less grain).

---Bob

 

[Mike Veitch]

how come i can't see any images?

 

[friscuba]

at 14 bucks every time I wanted to use my camera... yikes... I'd have to give up beer, and soda pop, the occasional dinner out, and any of my other little vices, just to pretend I'm breaking even... not to mention, walking to my computer costs a lot less in gas and time than driving to Costco.

Nice picturtes by the way.

 

[MarkH]

at 14 bucks every time I wanted to use my camera... yikes... I'd have to give up beer, and soda pop, the occasional dinner out, and any of my other little vices, just to pretend I'm breaking even... not to mention, walking to my computer costs a lot less in gas and time than driving to Costco.

Nice picturtes by the way.

For me, $20 a week for processing a couple of film rolls is alot less painful than buying a new digital SLR, housing, strobes, lenses, etc. My SLR bodies cost around $50 each. My Ikelite housings cost $75-$150 each. The most I've ever paid for a strobe is $100. Old manual-focus lenses cost next to nothing. I know that If I bought a digital SLR setup, it would cancel out what I would have paid in film over several years, but how can I be sure that my huge investment would last several years?