Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Are film cameras obsolete?

Author
Message
SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 19:53
Link
I just wanted to ask, are film cameras obsolete? Because today, we all use digital cameras, so we dont need to develop film any more, we just print off the images.

Are they used because you get a better image on the photo paper? or is there another reason? Because you can buy glossy paper for your printers that do just the same.
Back to top
Profile PM
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 19:59
Link
You need a computer for digital photography. Not everyone has a computer.


Since the other one was scaring you guys so much...
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ron Erickson
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 20:04
Link
I know a lot of people that prefer their old 35mm to their digital cameras. It all depends on your own personal preference.
Personally, I don't think printed digital images look as nice as developed film. But I still definately prefer my digital camera over my 35mm.

EZrotate! TextureMax! Enhanced Animations! (coming soon....) 3D Character Maker! (coming soon....)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bond1
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2005
Location:
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 20:14 Edited at: 2nd Feb 2007 20:15
Link
For consumers, film is pretty obsolete. Where digital still fails film, is in low light conditions where you need a high ISO. A cheapo 35mm film camera will still beat a fancy consumer digital camera in dimly lit conditions, where most digital cameras look grainy.

A digital SLR can do low light and high ISO speeds pretty good, but they are expensive for most casual shooters.

----------------------------------------
"Your mom goes to college."
My FPSC stuff at http://www.hyrumark.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email
SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 20:16
Link
The photography course I am joining asks that you bring a 35mm slr and not just a digital camera. You learn how to develop the film while on the course.

I guess if your taking photos of people who want them in frames, you would use a film camera, as I guess people like the images on photo paper.
Back to top
Profile PM
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 20:48
Link
No!

Film Photography is still used, some of the best professional Cameras are film Cameras, and some have digital counter parts. Also, don't forget, disposable cameras are still film

Did The Buddha have a Zen micro?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Alquerian
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Mar 2006
Location: Reno Nevada
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 21:46
Link
Film cameras are awesome. There are still a lot of things you can do with film that you cannot do with digital cameras. Developing the film yourself will allow you to dodge and burn, similar to how you would with photoshop, only you can achieve some interesting (and sometimes catastrophic) effects from doing it the old-fashioned way. As bond stated, film cameras are usually better for low-light situations and for moving shots.

Image quality CAN be much better using film cameras if it is done correctly, using correct lighting, film and shutter speed. You will learn most of this in your course.

Quit planning to make a game and make a game.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 2nd Feb 2007 21:46
Link
Quote: "You need a computer for digital photography. Not everyone has a computer."


No you don't. You can bring in your flash memory or whatever to most photo outlets and they'll print them off to glossy photo paper for you at cheap rates. No computer necessary.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 00:20
Link
My mom uses a digital video camera, but instead of using the computer, she uses a DVD recorder hooked up to our TV to dub the mini-discs to full discs. Removes me, the middle man, from having to do it all by hand on the PC...Phew!

Sometimes the only way over a wall is to pile up enough bodies to climb over - Dave W.
Back to top
Profile PM
SirFire
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2005
Location: North America
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 01:28
Link
Polaroid makes a comback for digital cameras:

Cool pocket printer.

I have a mid-range digital camera, with up to 16 second shutter full manual mode, and although it produces nice images, for some slow-shutter shots I prefer to use film.

_____________________
Windows Vista: Just say no.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
indi
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Earth, Brisbane, Australia
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 02:35
Link
Film still currently beats digital. However 4000 x 3000 pixels is ample for movie production and print etc..

35mm and above like 85 mm cameras can take stunning quality results. Usually reserved for high end shots for compositing or for artistic endeavors. Ive seen shots that large used for portraits and backdrops in movies etc..

35mm SLR is still used by certain photographers, but with the advent of 10 mega pixel cameras and above the quality is suitable for most industries in print & design etc..

If you have an digital Iso 1600 camera like me you can capture amazing shots in total darkness on a digital camera. It looks like twilight, very magical, no noise problem. However that is due to a high end Canon Digital SLR.

If you can remember the movie tron as well it was shot on huge cells and many layers of them, up to 50 in some scenes, when it was being procesed in korea they stuffed it up a bit by not letting the film dry and hence, light smears appeared on the film composition, so they added sounds to the movie as if it was rogue bits flying around.

My Xgf is a professional photographer and she has a few digitals but also linear film based ones. The most interesting is a very expensive massive german camera with virtually a4 sized film, the results are stunning. She has to stand under the black cloth and the results are upside down on her viewing screen. The actual film is huge and produces amazing results.

The best way to move this into a digital realm is with a drumroll scanner, but who has $100000 for a basic one and the time it takes to apply the photograph to the roll while making sure there is no bubbles between the photo / oil and clear wrapped plate.

If you process film, dodge and burn in photoshop will make a lot more sense, that said however you can get sick if you spend to much time in dark rooms with all the chemicals.

Plus its a very expensive process to sticking a memory card in your reader or attaching the camera to the computer.

Think of film as linear with no undo

It would be funny if we still called them Heliographs or Daguerreotypes. Imagine also having to sit still for minutes just to get the shot.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Torsten Sorensen
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Oct 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 09:24
Link
Their still used, I'm in a photography class now. Its awesome, because...when your in the dark-room, you can tell everyone to look up, and flip the light switch. Then there is screaming and "WTF is your problem!?", but its fun.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Manic
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Completely off my face...
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 15:46
Link
you can do much more experimental work with a 35mm camera, cross processing, IR film, various tricks in the dark room. sure, you can fake most things in photoshop, but its not really the same is it? Most things tweaked in PS look... well like they've been tweaked in PS, pictures taken on film have a nicer handmade feel to them.

I don't have a sig, live with it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Grog Grueslayer
Valued Member
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th May 2005
Playing: Green Hell
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 22:46
Link
My Dad was into photography for a long time. The only thing digital has brought us is convenience. Rather than having to buy toxic chemicals to develop film or pay somebody to do it for us. It'll take many more centuries to get rid of film. There are still people that prefer black and white and consider color to be non-artistic.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
SirFire
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2005
Location: North America
Posted: 3rd Feb 2007 22:48
Link
You can do IR with a digicam, you just remove the IR filter from the lense assempbly, and place overexposed developed negatives in it's place, it filters visible light and only lets in the IR light.

It's cool to play with, you can see through your skin and look at your blood vessels and other cool effects.

_____________________
Windows Vista: Just say no.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
LD52
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Aug 2006
Location: Internet
Posted: 4th Feb 2007 04:49
Link
Quote: "Are Film Camera's Obsolete ?"


NO! ! ! !
*Goes check what obsolete means*
Still No ! ! !
Back to top
Profile PM
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 4th Feb 2007 06:11
Link
Cameras are at the point where a 200-dollar digital camera will match in picture quality a $10-$15 toy camera, at least in good lighting. In poor lighting, film cameras are head and shoulders above digital cameras. I don't know why that is, but it's really annoying.

I recently purchased a ISO1000 Sony DSC-W3, 6 megapixel, and I was really disappointed at the low-light shots I could take. I thought the ISO-1000 would give it the extra boost for at least decent shots, but that's not the case. The results are grainy and blurry, and therefore are crap-tastic.

That's not as bad as you think you said.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
LD52
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Aug 2006
Location: Internet
Posted: 4th Feb 2007 06:37
Link
Im no expert in photography so i ask " if you buy say a 10 megapixel camera will it have nice quality pictures even in low poor lighting? "
Back to top
Profile PM
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 4th Feb 2007 16:47
Link
Well, very nice 35mm cameras have the equivalent of 18 or so megapixles. While, even so, if you want to play around with 35mm cameras and photoshop just go and buy a scanner that supports an active light matrix so you can scan the negatives into the computer.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 05:42:39
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 05:42:39