A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film really is dead, especially for travel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 02:18 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
poldy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 788
Default 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.
  #2  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 05:29 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

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.
  #3  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 06:10 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"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.

  #4  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 09:04 AM posted to rec.travel.europe
Gerrit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"poldy" wrote in message
news
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.


Why not just buy a good DSLR and a good light meter and take photos the old
fashioned way?
You can set the "speed" of the sensor and play around with aperture and
shutter speed to your hearts content.

I have taken photos with my DSLR in various cathedrals and churches all over
Europe using manual settings and the in-built light meter and the results
are quite good.

Was told off in no uncertain terms in San Marco, Venice, because they have a
no camera policy. Sacre Coeur in Paris also doesn't allow photography but
that has to do with the fact that they have virtually continuous services
there.

I have just the one camera with a 28 - 200 mm lens (which on a DSLR makes it
the equivalent of about a 45 - 300 lens) and this is sufficient for most
purposes. It would be nice to have a wide angle lens but then the equipment
becomes too bulky. Now if someone came out with a cheap full size (ie 35mm
equiv) sensor then I could just use the present lens on that.
My wife carries a small point and shoot so we have a bit of each.


  #5  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 02:36 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
Jack Campin - bogus address
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 779
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

[difficulty of using film these days]
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.


I do far less photography when travelling than I used to when film
was more practical - airport X-rays have largely ruled it out, and
since I mostly used specialist films (medium format transparency
film, high-speed monochrome and high-performance slide film like
Velvia) I couldn't expect to find the stuff when abroad.

I can't afford the sort of digital kit (if it exists) that would
match the resolution of my old Minolta Autocord TLR (6x6 film with
very sharp Tessar) or the shutter response time of that camera or
my 50-year-old Leica rangefinder. The kind of pictures I was good
at taking - things you don't find on postcards or Panoramio - were
close-up shots of people that required split-second timing, often
in low light with a very fast lens and ultra-fast film. I could
afford to do that with a TLR, a prewar Zeiss folder or a 50-year-old
Leica rangefinder but I can't afford a digital camera that could do
the same and I can't expect the film for the old cameras to survive
the trip. So I hardly ever take photos any more.

==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === http://www.campin.me.uk ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
  #6  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 04:00 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

Mike wrote on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:34:26 +0000:

I can't afford the sort of digital kit (if it exists) that
would match the resolution of my old Minolta Autocord TLR
(6x6 film with very sharp Tessar)


you can buy a digital hassleblad now at a price. Give it a couple of
years and big reasonably priced sensors will be there. I think that
because digital had some killer advantages (instant review. no waiting
for processing) it took over before it was fully ready.


A Hasselblad digital costs like a small car and I've not checked the
response time and how the scene is viewed. Camera reviews in magazines
are very cagey about LCD screens in bright sunlight, especially for
cameras that don't have any optical viewfinder.

By the way, take a look at your sig marker, it doesn't :-)

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

  #7  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 04:18 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

Mike wrote on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:09:13 +0000:

"James Silverton" wrote:


By the way, take a look at your sig marker, it doesn't :-)


OK


cannot find anything wrong with the sig?


Funny it worked this time:-) It's consistent and I can't see what's
wrong but your last sentence was regarded as a sig and omitted in a
reply using ONE and either of two variants of it. A mystery that's
probably not worth investigating further :-)
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

  #8  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 04:24 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

James wrote to Mike on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:18:58 GMT:

"James Silverton" wrote:


By the way, take a look at your sig marker, it doesn't :-)

OK


cannot find anything wrong with the sig?


Funny it worked this time:-) It's consistent and I can't see what's
wrong but your last sentence was regarded as a sig and omitted
in a reply using ONE and either of two variants of it. A
mystery that's probably not worth investigating further :-)


Another mystery, how did OE6 become "ONE", sorry!
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
  #9  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 07:21 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel

Mike wrote on Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:58:04 +0000:

Another mystery, how did OE6 become "ONE", sorry!


spellcheck!


Very likely and hitting the ignore button too quickly :-)

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
  #10  
Old February 23rd, 2009, 07:38 PM posted to rec.travel.europe
William Black
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,125
Default Film really is dead, especially for travel


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:40:05 +0530, "William Black"
wrote:


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


Have you found one at that price that does a good job? If so which one?


Nope.

I have a friendly professional photographer...


--
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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The ultimate travel adventure film David Smith Travel - anything else not covered 0 November 22nd, 2008 04:25 AM
film through x-ray Sylvia M. Cruises 35 August 28th, 2004 08:02 PM
Price and time for film and film processing in Japan Cyril & Sandy Alberga Asia 7 April 5th, 2004 10:18 PM
Film Carole Allen Europe 5 January 13th, 2004 07:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.