Railfan Technology > Film revival.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/great-film-renaissance-2017?utm_medium=Email%201642162&utm_campaign=Content&utm_source=WeeklyContent%20170408&utm_content=Explora&utm_term=great-film-renaissance-2017

Funny, since the dawn of photography, film grain has been the bane of photographers. When digital came along it was noise, and now, with the high ISO performance of contemporary digital cameras that has virtually eliminated noise, photographers suddenly decide they miss film grain. I guess the saying is true, you don't miss some things until they are gone.

Personally, I don't miss film. When digital first became available in consumer cameras, I switched and never looked back. That was in 1998. That being said, I think all aspiring photographers should learn to shoot with film so this "film renaissance" may provide the means to do that. Other than that, and some special shooting situations, I don't see it making much of a comeback.

I'm not convinced that those that shoot with film are more interested in the graininess of film or that 'old-timey' look than they are the novelty of the 'challenges' of shooting film (slow ASA/ISO speeds, metering, developing, dodging/burning, printing). 

I learned photography while Chuck Berry was still making #1 hits and to a kid, film was outrageously expensive, and drugstore processing even more so.  Through the years, the cost of film and processing was always a 'restriction' on my photography.  Even making bracket exposures for night photography had me thinking $.xx per shot.  In '79 I took a 10,000 mile train 'joy ride' that included Montreal-Vancouver going on the CN (VIA Super Continental) and back on CP (the Canadian) as well as the 'last' Cardinal and a 10-day old Capitol Limited (I think that was '79, my memory is slipping).  In the Rockies alone I shot over 30 rolls of 36 exposure slides.  When I got back home, I took 51 rolls to a local processing lab.  These days, the cost of film and processing for 1836 frames of film would rival the cost of a brand new full frame DSLR!  It took WEEKS to select the keepers (about 350) using a large slide-sorter vs about 2 evenings making the first and second 'cuts' of that many digital images on my computer (I did exactly that 3 weeks ago for a 5-day church event, + 3 evenings with Lightroom editing of the 350). 

There's also a revival of vinyl records going on, too.  Why?  Because the analog sound from vinyl recordings and tube amplifiers cannot be beat.  I have an audiophile friend that proved it to me 8-9 years ago using an LP that was originally mastered on vinyl and then re-released in later years on CD.  The CD sounded quite 'tinny' in comparison.  He demonstrated with 3 different LP & CD 'pairs', to prove it wasn't a fluke.   And when he switched from the solid state amplifier to tube amp, the difference was like night and day. 

In short, vinyl and tubes are far superior to digital when it comes to audio quality.  Film cannot make a similar claim to digital.  For what it's worth, I successfully shot a candle lit ceremony, hand held, f4, 1/160th, at ISO 25,600 and got very acceptable results 2 years ago (Canon 5Diii).  Film could never achieve those kinds of results.  When I made the switch to digital about 2002, I couldn't 'unload' my cameras and lenses fast enough.  There's no way I'd ever go back to film!    

      

We can only hope VCR's and tube tv's are next!

T

eatontm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We can only hope VCR's and tube tv's are next!
>
> T

There are still some tubes being made. Meaning the internal tubes, not the whole TV.

I don't miss the many hours spent developing film and printing photos. There was a certain satisfaction to the process, to be sure, but it was a heck of a lot of work and fairly expensive as well. 

BRAtkinson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> There's also a revival of vinyl records going on,
> too.  Why?  Because the analog sound from vinyl
> recordings and tube amplifiers cannot be beat.  I
> have an audiophile friend that proved it to me 8-9
> years ago using an LP that was originally mastered
> on vinyl and then re-released in later years on
> CD.  The CD sounded quite 'tinny' in
> comparison.  He demonstrated with 3 different LP
> & CD 'pairs', to prove it wasn't a fluke.   And
> when he switched from the solid state amplifier to
> tube amp, the difference was like night and
> day. 
>
> In short, vinyl and tubes are far superior to
> digital when it comes to audio quality.  Film
> cannot make a similar claim to digital.  For what
> it's worth, I successfully shot a candle lit
> ceremony, hand held, f4, 1/160th, at ISO 25,600
> and got very acceptable results 2 years ago (Canon
> 5Diii).  Film could never achieve those kinds of
> results.  When I made the switch to digital about
> 2002, I couldn't 'unload' my cameras and lenses
> fast enough.  There's no way I'd ever go back to
> film!    
>
Another choice is to go with a tube preamp and a solid state amp.  I love the sound from vinyl records and I also hate the sound of mp3s.  If you want decent digital sound get a usb DAC (digital audio converter) and download from sites like   HDtracks.com. You should be careful at sites like that if they have the music at 44.1 mhz at 16 bit, that is the same as a cd. in that case if you have the cd rip it to your computer and save as a .wav file or a lossless format like flac.   Their is no limit on what you can spend.

Sneebly

I will go with a digitally recorded audio cd any time over analog. All this talk about the warmth of vinyl and tubes is the lack of crispness of the recording media. If you want warm throw in some reverb grunge to the playback. If you want a true concert hall experience and a chance to isolate individual instruments and voices digital is the way to go.

Look for an SACD player even if you don't have any SA media.

There are all kinds of digital "filters" which can be applied to digital images to represent any historic film grain pattern there has ever been.