Return to film

[cdiver2]

Slides can be made from digital files.

All formats can be manipulated, changed, created etc and there are devious ways to get around "proving" the original.

Ultimately, it comes down to the integrity of the photographer displaying the image. I personally don't know many who will pass a composite (combined images like the turtle example) photo off as "original"...and certainly don't have any positive regard for those who do/would.

Everyone's definition of "manipulation" is different and usually varies from subject to subject and use to use.

We need to be aware that what we see is what we were meant to see - not necessarily what happened in the single instant while the photographer was looking through the viewfinder.

I shoot digital now, but will never part with my Nik Vs - go figure

you can make a slide from a digital file, I did not know that.
Anyone know how its done ?

 

[clive francis]

Clive, this was a F3 in an A3, as compared to D100 in a A-D100. Thus the comments about "a large, bright viewfinder" and "real wide angle". And I'm not griping or slamming digital.

All the best, James

so why is it that there are professional photographers out there taking truely amazing shots with the high end D100 and above digital cameras in and out of the water?

admitted digital is more expensive, but when you compare the cost of a high end nikon body they are about the same as the d70.

yes there is the multiplication factor with the lenses but you can get the 10 to 17mm lenses for wide angle just costs you more thats all.

 

[fpoole]

Yeah, I hear ya on the whoa factor...
My camera was in the shop, so pulled out the old Nikonas V with the close up lens/framer and was really surprised by the shots...
Although I still prefer digital over film, it was fun to use it again.. of course shot a whole roll of "National Geographic Cover Shots" (would have been for sure ;-) ) with the lens cap on.. yup, all 36...hehehheh.. so it's a "Remember Process to" but also remembered how much it cost to develope and put on CD..

Anyway, was fun to use again, but much prefer digital... no regrets here...

 

[nusspli]

James,

I could've missed it in the thread somewhere, but which digital and film cameras were you comparing?

Thanks,
Jessica

www.jessicavasale.com

After shooting exclusively digital for the last 4 or 5 years, I pulled out my old, “big iron” film cameras for our last trip to GCM. You know, Nikon bodies with sportsfinders and 20mm lenses behind huge domes. Shooting chromes, Ektachrome Pro 100G and Velvia 50.

All I can say is, OMG.

I was shocked. Vivid color saturation…impossibly smooth gradients…detail in the highlights and shadows. Incredible, tack sharp resolution, especially from the “ancient” 55mm Macro. There were other minor details, like a huge, bright viewfinder (courtesy of the sportsfinder) and real wide angle. Oh, yes, you can actually shoot toward the surface and get detail and colors in the bright areas….

It was both a revelation, and like coming home to an old friend. If all we’d ever had was digital, and someone invented this, it would be hailed as a breakthrough.

I know what’s coming next, all the comments about the (very) few camera models with huge chips, available for princely sums. After laying hands on them, my experience is that their output is film-like, not better than film. And anyway, the reason I wrote this was to express my reverse-culture-shock from returning to film.

What an experience! A return to film * shakes head * who’d have thunk it?

All the best, James

 

[nlbford]

What an experience! A return to film * shakes head * who’d have thunk it?

All the best, James

Great . . . here I was ready to package my UW film based equipment and sell it to offset some of my new investments and you come along and make me rethink a decision that was hard to reach . . . thanks alot! :11:

(joking of course)

 

[nlbford]

you can make a slide from a digital file, I did not know that.
Anyone know how its done ?

Sure . . . used to work in a place that did just that. There are a variety of machines - and more advanced ones apearing all the time. But basically what you have is a device called a film recorder that takes a digital file and exposes it through optics to a piece of film. Most widely used by business people who had to make presentations before there were things like LCD projectors attached to computers, they also have been used for more artistic purposes. Most common is (was? ) the Solitaire. A neat little device that would make servicable slides for genral presentation purposes but whose quality was not the best for higher end photography purposes. Color and detial were less an emphasis than volume and speed. Those evolved to much more sophisticated devices such as Kodaks LVT (Ligh Valve Technology as I recall) - now THAT is a cool machine. It has a laser that renders an digital image to high quality film pixel by pixel and line by line and can be finely calibrated and utilize very high resolution. That is actually the machine I used to make a great deal of my "digital dupes" after getting high-res scans on a drum scanner. The neat thing was I could take my slides, get them scanned to very high resolutions and actually get good looking 4x5 transparencies made. Now they have machines like the Lambda which take digital files and make large scale photographic prints directly rather than from a transparency or negative.

While the things like a Solitaire do a servicable job, you aren't going to get results like you would shooting a transparency in the first place, I used to get great results by going to the LVT and making 35mm size images that I then mounted by hand. Though there is a huge difference in cost.

I am sure the technology has advanced a great deal since the last time I worked with such equipment (like 6 plus years ago now), and the quality has theoretically gone up while the cost has dropped, but I suppose there is the possibility that with digital advances in the presentation and printing fields the call for such equipment has declined. I know that years ago places that did where quite common in places like LA, New York and San Fran.

 

[Diver Lori]

Ditto on what Clive said. I'll have my slides and negs for years to come. My buddy has got slides his father took 50 years ago that are still top notch. Computer gremlins scare me too, the evil ones and the legal ones. The thought of constantly having to upgrade my storage and archival needs to keep my images is just too costly and chancey. Give me a $20 slide box that holds a bazillion slides any old day.

 

[diver janet]

you can make a slide from a digital file, I did not know that.
Anyone know how its done ?

I found a company called www.iprintfromhome.com that makes slides from digital pictures....haven't tried them yet, but they seem pretty reasonable....

If anyone has used them, let me know. I found the link through Michael Aw's new Essential Guide to Digital Underwater Photography site and haven't had time to upload anything to them.

 

[ChrisM]

After shooting exclusively digital for the last 4 or 5 years, I pulled out my old, “big iron” film cameras for our last trip to GCM. You know, Nikon bodies with sportsfinders and 20mm lenses behind huge domes. Shooting chromes, Ektachrome Pro 100G and Velvia 50.

All I can say is, OMG.

I was shocked. Vivid color saturation…impossibly smooth gradients…detail in the highlights and shadows. Incredible, tack sharp resolution, especially from the “ancient” 55mm Macro. There were other minor details, like a huge, bright viewfinder (courtesy of the sportsfinder) and real wide angle. Oh, yes, you can actually shoot toward the surface and get detail and colors in the bright areas….

It was both a revelation, and like coming home to an old friend. If all we’d ever had was digital, and someone invented this, it would be hailed as a breakthrough.

I know what’s coming next, all the comments about the (very) few camera models with huge chips, available for princely sums. After laying hands on them, my experience is that their output is film-like, not better than film. And anyway, the reason I wrote this was to express my reverse-culture-shock from returning to film.

What an experience! A return to film * shakes head * who’d have thunk it?

All the best, James

Congrats on your re-discovery. I for one, would not go back to film (but I never shot anything more high end than an Auto 35.....) must be why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

Chris

 

[alemaozinho]

After shooting exclusively digital for the last 4 or 5 years, I pulled out my old, “big iron” film cameras for our last trip to GCM. You know, Nikon bodies with sportsfinders and 20mm lenses behind huge domes. Shooting chromes, Ektachrome Pro 100G and Velvia 50.

All I can say is, OMG.

I was shocked. Vivid color saturation…impossibly smooth gradients…detail in the highlights and shadows. Incredible, tack sharp resolution, especially from the “ancient” 55mm Macro. There were other minor details, like a huge, bright viewfinder (courtesy of the sportsfinder) and real wide angle. Oh, yes, you can actually shoot toward the surface and get detail and colors in the bright areas….

It was both a revelation, and like coming home to an old friend. If all we’d ever had was digital, and someone invented this, it would be hailed as a breakthrough.

I know what’s coming next, all the comments about the (very) few camera models with huge chips, available for princely sums. After laying hands on them, my experience is that their output is film-like, not better than film. And anyway, the reason I wrote this was to express my reverse-culture-shock from returning to film.

What an experience! A return to film * shakes head * who’d have thunk it?

All the best, James

should i hold on to my good old nikon f4 then?