robert caldarone quote , film vs digital

[ilookalot]

i happend to read this article on another photogarphy site today and thought i would share RC: On the professional level, I use film over electronic capture 95% of the time. With all the advances in digital cameras and backs over the years, I’m still amazed at how huge the visual information gap is when digital is compared to modern-day film. Today’s professional films from both Kodak and Fuji deliver more visual information than any other capture medium. And what really blows my clients’ eyes away is the finished product. I enjoy the fact that today’s professional films continue to keep offering a level of depth, color, texture, sharpness, and resolution that a digital back or camera (due to the flat-chip design of the medium itself) can never achieve. When you think about all the three-dimensionality which lies in the chemistry of film, and the way it can capture slightly different records of the same image within the ever-changing mosaic of its silver halide crystals there’s not a man-made chip now or in the future that could ever come close to what film offers today, yesterday, or in the future! Film is not going away, no matter how hard a digital camera sales person tries to make their weekly quota.

[Jim Bryant]

That's why I kept one EOS1 V HS and stored about 500 rolls of film in my downstairs freezer. In case a client wants film.

[Raoul Isidro]

50 years from now, if you want to look at a transparency image taken 30 years ago, you just hold it up in the light...
I can't say the same for RAW or JPG, if ever they would still exist by that time.

[OsmosisStudios]

This is also why I keep several film bodies (different formats) on hand and know how to use them. Film does have a very different look and feel, and a particular assignment or project may warrant it.

Film has a certain je ne sais quoi for portraits that makes digital seem silly. Unless im doing complex flash work, I'll often pick film over digital.

[voodoodude]

Film is amazing for all qualities shown above, and for my own work, I tend to use medium format if possible. Old cameras + old lenses = "real" vintage pictures. Then again, unless you've got a darkroom to process and print your pictures, you're not much better off than digital in the first place. Film loses a bit in the scanning I think.

[Aegea]

That's an interesting quote - almost made me want to get out the old FM again ...

[BigVinnie]

I picked up a Canon Rebel Ti at a yard sale a few weeks ago. I mostly wanted the lens (a 50mm 1.8) but I'm thinking about ordering some film for it.

I have been shooting Fuji Across B&W in an RB67. Might be kind of fun to take this camera out and try some in it.

I really miss Kodachrome 25.

[Sterling]

...there’s not a man-made chip now or in the future that could ever come close to what film offers today, yesterday, or in the future!

Famous last words regarding virtually every technology on the planet.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Sterling

Famous last words regarding virtually every technology on the planet.

Quite. I give it a few years, at most.

[tuxcomputers]

Film is for the mega rich or people that have honed their photography skills over the years and are at the top of their field, kinda like the person you are quoting.

I don't care that digital is currently slightly "less" than film, its attraction is the convenience and the cost per image. The more digital photos I take the more the cost per image goes down, film is a constant cost.

RAW files can be processed again and again, over and over, pushed, pulled, wadded into a ball, smashed to pieces, and you can still go at it again. Film is a once only deal, push the film that's it, your done, there are no do overs.

No contest, good night.