Film really is dead, especially for travel

So we had discussions about digital vs. film before.

The popularity of digital, along with the decline of film, came down to
convenience, cost, etc.

I've been happily collecting a lot of digital images of my travels for
years. Part of the explosion in popularity of digital photography is
due to tourism, which was also surging in popularity, at least until the
past year.

Anyways, I see the limitations of digital photography, particularly with
the relatively inexpensive point and shoot cameras. They've certainly
made these things small and made them easy enough to use that people
overlook their limitations.

One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to
photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors are
mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows.

The windows, if they're in any part of the frame, will overpower the
rest of the frame and the result is a shot with a bright source and dark
walls everywhere else. This page contains a picture shot with film,
which would look vastly different with most digital:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

In any event, I dug up my old 35 mm SLR and went around trying to find a
battery and some rolls of films for it, after initially searching online
for processing and scanning services (idea is to import it into my
digital photo library, properly tagged with various metadata about the
content of those photos).

Few places sell film these days and I only find one place selling the 6V
battery needed for my old Canon SLR and it's from Germany and it costs
$12.

Online it's about the same after shipping and film also runs $5-10 a
roll, then another $5-10 just for developing and then probably about $10
for scanning.

You're reduced to online options, not necessarily to save money but
because most film photo shops have disappeared. Some photo shops carry
a few rolls and that's about it.

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups. Beyond
the costs, film equipment is a lot heavier and bigger, even more bulky
than most DSLRs.

The payoff would have to be significantly better results in order to
justify lugging around the old film camera and associated gear.

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.

Never implied that it did.

But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash in a
big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but they
think they got something they'll be able to keep.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:17:24 +0000, poldy wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of decades
ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long exposures
almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.

Never implied that it did.

But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash in a
big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but they
think they got something they'll be able to keep.

Last year I spend a few days in some rooms overlooking the main harbour on
Mykonos. Every evening for several hours after dark the entire water-front
was lit up by the continuous flickering of photographic flash lights. I can't
imagine what pictures they were all taking - mainly each other I suppose.
(Here's another one of me looking stupid somewhere or other with a drink in
my hand!)

--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

poldy writes:

I don't recall film being that bad but then again, a couple of
decades ago, you used to be able to set up tripods and take long
exposures almost everywhere. These days, tripods are not only
frowned upon in interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in
many European cities.

Digital does not eliminate the need for tripods.

Never implied that it did.

But I see people taking pictures in the dark or trying to use flash
in a big space like Notre Dame. Their results won't be any good but
they think they got something they'll be able to keep.

Mind you, for a long time people have been using cameras with flash they
cannot or will not switch off. I've seen that at the Grand Canyon.

--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

"poldy" wrote in message
news
One limitation is dynamic range, which you can see if you try to
photograph the interior of a cathedral or church where the interiors are
mostly lit by daylight coming in through the windows.

That's a function of 'film speed'.

Modern digital cameras can adjust to provide the illusion of different film
speeds.

. These days, tripods are not only frowned upon in
interiors but in exterior public spaces as well in many European cities.

Erm...

No they're not...

Few places sell film these days and I only find one place selling the 6V
battery needed for my old Canon SLR and it's from Germany and it costs
$12.

Try Ebay, like everybody else...

Online it's about the same after shipping and film also runs $5-10 a
roll, then another $5-10 just for developing and then probably about $10
for scanning.

Process your own film for pennies, then buy a 35mm film scanner for about
£50 ($75, this week)

It's not difficult.

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.

Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that restrict
photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but they'd much rather
sell you their own professionally produced photographs.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.

Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that restrict
photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but they'd much rather
sell you their own professionally produced photographs.

That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras
altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of traffic
with a tripod which takes up a big footprint.

And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

Or I can at least understand that POV.

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:



And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

The bigger churches in the UK usually now charge for entry, don't allow
photography without a permit of some sort and will sell you first class
photographs and slides of just about everything within the buildings.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.

Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that
restrict photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but
they'd much rather sell you their own professionally produced
photographs.

That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras
altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of
traffic with a tripod which takes up a big footprint.

And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

Or I can at least understand that POV.

Using a tripod will probably have an eagle-eyed verger come to you and
ask, often very politely, for a small fee.

--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
"poldy" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Black" wrote:

Even if I gathered all these materials, it's not likely the places I
would like to photograph would permit tripods or long setups.

Why not?

Have you considered asking them.

The reality is that many major European places of interest that
restrict photography will sell you a license to take pictures, but
they'd much rather sell you their own professionally produced
photographs.

That is becoming more common. If they don't restrict cameras
altogether, they won't tolerate someone slowing down the flow of
traffic with a tripod which takes up a big footprint.

And in churches, they consider themselves places of worship and don't
charge for entry so they're doing you a favor and setting up anything
other than a quick snap with tripod and so on is probably abusing that
favor.

Or I can at least understand that POV.

Using a tripod will probably have an eagle-eyed verger come to you and
ask, often very politely, for a small fee.

Of course if you're at a UK National Trust property they'll bounce up and
demand a huge fee for a license to take photographs...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.