mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #11 · To film users, a question | |
Gunzorro wrote:
I guess I'll be the wet blanket.
I like film, but I find it frustrating.
I shot film from 1979 to around 2000 exclusively, then a couple years of overlap with a D60.
I love digital imaging, and find it opens the doors that were closed to me by film for all those years.
Right away, I found digital much more versatile and responsive to my needs, and better picture accuracy, which has advanced further from film with every passing year.
I've recently tried film again, and although I'm having fun getting reacquainted, it has been an expensive and slow PITA, with lower rez results. Running test rolls in lens and film comparisons, I forget what the point was by the time it gets back (unless I take copious notes, interrupting the photography process), no exif of any kind for a clue! Not even any PP chimping of exposure data! 
I don't do any printing, either analog or digital, and don't own my own high quality scanner at this point, so I'm relying on labs to do the development and scans, adding delay and expense to the process.
There is certainly a charm about the the 35mm and 6x7 film images I've been taking, but nowhere near the detail, lack of grain, color fidelity, or color balance of full frame digital 1Ds2 or 5D2 (the 6x7 with slow neg film is close!). Still, it is fun, but more of a novelty for me right now.
My main film cameras are two Contax N1 bodies, a Canon 1N body, and Pentax 67II (with an RB 67 Pro SD system sitting idle). Even the 6x7 can't top the images from the 5D2, at least with the scanning I've been getting at a price I can afford.
On the plus side, the camera bodies are pretty cheap right now -- I got a smoking deal on eBay for the Canon 1N with Power Drive Booster E1 (battery grip) in near pristine condition for $88 shipped. The two Contax cost just over $300 total, plus shipping. But film is getting pricey, and finding decent places to develop and fast turnaround are tough even in L.A.
I'll keep at it for a bit, but feel it is about as useful as trying to maintain a Canon and Nikon system at the same time. I recently bailed out of that a couple months ago. Just too much hassle, even though Nikon is undeniably better at some things, Canon was a better fit for me.
I'm not saying "don't shoot film". Try it -- it might be a good fit for you. Follow your dreams and inclinations, but keep your eyes open and your gaze fixed on results....Show more →
I can't really disagree (although your 6x7 scans should show more detail than a 5D2, but that's most likely a scanning issue, I'd suggest picking a couple favourite negs and getting Peter to scan them for you). If you're looking for colour fidelity, no grain and colour balance, digital simply does it better. Film is about its non-linearities and grain structure, achieving a look that is difficult from digital without significant post-production skills and their application. Frankly, neither film nor digital is for everyone. Pick the one you prefer and enjoy, or shoot both as I do.
Also IMHO, most of the attraction in shooting film cameras is in the bodies which have not been duplicated for Digital, or at least not in an economic matter. In other words, classic SLR's, Rangefinders and Medium/Large format. There's very few AF bodies I'd really consider for film use for that reason, the Maxxum 7's I still use being one of the rare choices due to their compact size for the performance.
|
