nathanlake wrote:
vince wrote:
Does anyone even bother about film any more? Even my stupid little obsolete 300D produces images that have more detail and are far easier to work with than film. Anything I get out of my 5D can figuratively and literally destroy anything shot on film from any era unless you're talking medium format Kodak TechPan shot with Schneider or Zeiss glass, and developed in Rodinal.

Think about it - is it easier to add grain to a clean digital image, or to break your head trying to remove grain from film?


While I would not argue with the "easier to use" statement, I think there is plenty of evidince that would show film can capture more detail than lower megapixel digitals. The number I have heard is that it takes at least 16-18 Mp to capture the amount of detail of most 35mm film. Even then, most film will have a greater dynamic range than digital.

I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised to hear that DSLRs of greater than 16mp are now common.

Interesting poll Nathan. My Dad taught me to develop B&W film when I was a kid in our home darkroom - & I still prefer the look of film for B&W. But, although it initially used to annoy me, I now find I prefer the more saturated hues of full-color digital (plus processing is way less messy!).

nathanlake wrote:
While I would not argue with the "easier to use" statement, I think there is plenty of evidince that would show film can capture more detail than lower megapixel digitals. The number I have heard is that it takes at least 16-18 Mp to capture the amount of detail of most 35mm film. Even then, most film will have a greater dynamic range than digital.

RDKirk wrote:
I'm sure you will be pleasantly surprised to hear that DSLRs of greater than 16mp are now common.


And you would (could?) be surprised that while 16mp are not the limit in digital, neither is 35mm in film. For the money of a >16mp digital, you can get a nice MF camera that still holds tons of more detail.

But it's a question of semantics. While I like the look of MF film, I don't remember last time I shot film. Digital is convenient, to the point of sacrificing DR and detail to instant feedback and desktop work flow.

And you would (could?) be surprised that while 16mp are not the limit in digital, neither is 35mm in film. For the money of a >16mp digital, you can get a nice MF camera that still holds tons of more detail.

I've got two Mamiya RZ67 cameras and five lenses for them (and about eight film backs) sitting on my shelf right now. I keep hoping to see a full-size 6x7 medium format back go on sale for under $5,000 one of these Christmas seasons.

RDKirk wrote:

I've got two Mamiya RZ67 cameras and five lenses for them (and about eight film backs) sitting on my shelf right now. I keep hoping to see a full-size 6x7 medium format back go on sale for under $5,000 one of these Christmas seasons.

I'm sure there are many in that same sentiment, knowing it's potential, but no being able to justify the current prices and limitations of the MF digital back offerings available, still holding on to cameras that just sit there on a shelf, only getting a glance now and then while we think "what if...."

Film if it's scanned an properly post-processed

i have to jump into the neither/both category as well. there are times when film is great and digital is great. there are times i want a film rangefinder then there are times i want a dslr. there are just too many choices including medium and large format as well.

There are some applications where film is superior. One of the big issues with sensors is IR and UV. They both cause a certain amount of bloom on digital. I live in the desert and digital does not perform as well here as it does in other locations.
I really prefer the look of film in the desert and since I shoot LF grain and rez are in films favor. Now remember we are strictly talking look and not convenience here.

I'm a 20 year-old photographer who shoots zero digital, and for many reasons.

a. Sorry I don't have the quote, but someone earlier commented on how he does not like the varying/incorrect color balances. You may be surprised to know that film comes in a variety of white balance figures, and when combined with proper use of filters (film manufacturers will let you know proper matches) there's no need to worry about proper color balance. In addition, digital post-processing or corrections made during the C-printing process will be able to compensate.

b. Image quality. Digital has overtaken 35mm, and is the king of high-sensitivity photography, but there is no way digital imaging can match medium/large format film pound for pound. I just found my friend a Mamiya 645AFd + 120/220 back + 80mm 2.8 for 625 dollars. We have access through our school to an Epson v750, but lets assume you buy it. 625 + let's say $750 for the scanner. Thats a total of $1375 for camera + scanner. I can get tens of megapixels out of my scans, at high quality even from the v750. The Mamiya DL33 is 19,999.00 from Adorama. That's slightly less resolution than I'm comfortable getting from the v750 and 645 negatives. 19,999-1,375= $18624, or about 2600 rolls of 120 film bought and developed. Sorry, film still makes sense unless we're talking about investment capital that lets us purchase MF digital equipment. Let's not even talk about 4x5 film and larger.

c. FIlm allows for c-printing. This is more of a niche, but allowing for c-printing is a big deal for anyone who has access to the technology. Anyone who has seen a well-done c-print knows what I'm talking about. Gorgeous.

d. Film has nostalgia. There's not much to expand on here, but film is f---ing beautiful. And there are so many varieties, its simply a great technique to experience.

That said, digital has such an incredible advantage over film in terms of speed and convenience, it's ludicrous to ignore it. I shoot (trying I swear to not sound pretentious) "fine art" and film makes sense. If I was still shooting sports, or pro portraits, or PJ - digital! It makes sense. I prefer the more laborious and deliberate process, the BEAUTIFUL 16x20s and larger, and the easy access to incredibly powerful camera systems.

I answered film and over 30. But, In my opinion, I much prefer Medium format film to anything. If you are purely talking about 35mm then I would say digital. Currently, I think that the larger mp 35mm cameras can produce images getting near to the look of medium format film. Not quite there yet but getting closer.

I'm i n the end of my fifth decade. I have shot film for over 40 years. I'm only doing digital now. Why a 10mp DSLR is better than an 35mm I have shot, I have 2 Leicas, 3 lenses in a cabinet. Though I love the feel, my D200 gives a better image. About 7 years ago i was working with a photographer using a 6mp Kodak DCS760, up against a Mamyia 645 the Kodak won every time, its max ISO was 400 and we never would use 400 color, TMAX 400 worked well if we needed b&w. Shifting the Kodak to b&w you had nearly the same type image, of course the b&w film had more dynamic range but all that was lost printing in catalogues.
I have been doing large format digital prints since 1999, color prints from good digital printers have been better than C-prints for a while. The current printers from Canon, Epson and HP are certainly better in b&w and color, when I moved 5 years ago I sold my darkroom equipment and bought a good digital printer. I am happy with the b&w and color and through my portfolio of prints I have been published.
Where digital doesn't work, unless you have the $ for a 40mp medium format back is against 4x5 and up. But 10mp makes good 16x20s and I have more fun. But I keep saying I'm taking my 4x5s out again.

Tom

I'm i n the end of my fifth decade. I have shot film for over 40 years. I'm only doing digital now. Why a 10mp DSLR is better than an 35mm I have shot, I have 2 Leicas, 3 lenses in a cabinet. Though I love the feel, my D200 gives a better image. About 7 years ago i was working with a photographer using a 6mp Kodak DCS760, up against a Mamyia 645 the Kodak won every time, its max ISO was 400 and we never would use 400 color, TMAX 400 worked well if we needed b&w. Shifting the Kodak to b&w you had nearly the same type image, of course the b&w film had more dynamic range but all that was lost printing in catalogues.
I have been doing large format digital prints since 1999, color prints from good digital printers have been better than C-prints for a while. The current printers from Canon, Epson and HP are certainly better in b&w and color, when I moved 5 years ago I sold my darkroom equipment and bought a good digital printer. I am happy with the b&w and color and through my portfolio of prints I have been published.
Where digital doesn't work, unless you have the $ for a 40mp medium format back is against 4x5 and up. But 10mp makes good 16x20s and I have more fun. But I keep saying I'm taking my 4x5s out again.
I saw a show about a couple of weeks ago by a photographer who switched from an 8x10 to a Nikon D3X, 24mp camera. Everything was nice, the 8x10 work was printed to 40x60 the D3X to 20x30, detail in all the prints was fantastic. Told my wife i might start looking for an $8000 camera.

Tom

skid00skid00 wrote:
I just spent 10 minutes looking at the many film images posted in one of the other threads. Aside from a gorgeous model, I was sick at seeing 'off' color, featureless highlights and shadows, a lack of contrast between same, and the grain! the grain!

I DO like the tones of faces, but that's about it.

I can understand the artistry of how film looks, but my detail-oriented mind wants to see an image with all the tiny details that I would see with my own eyes. I like seeing twigs, leaf edges, and grass blades in my landscapes...


That thread might not be the best source for judgement(eventhough it contains some nice images among not so) ...Wonder why would ppl pay $500+ per 11x14 inch unframed lanscape print taken with film?

Film has some clear advantages over todays DSLRs sensors...To name a few:

1. Lattitude (B&W and Color negative films handle up to 11-12 stops easily). No need to take multiple digital exposures to blend them (most always imperfectly) in PS to cover scenes's dynamic range..

2. Variety of emulsions which can be used simultaneously (with single camera body)depending on the subject, light and mood...with a DSLR one gets stuck with a particular sensor and its limitations forever(until a new model comes out)...

3. Most if not all of the image processing is done at picture taking and development time... No need to spend hours in PS adjusting contrast, colors, saturation, etc...only to find out that the final image that we "somewhat" like looks nothing like the in-camera generated JPEG

4. Hard to impossible to beat Velvia colors...

5. Resolution...Need a 40x60 final print - piece of cake! And no need to talk about minimal viewing distance to appreciate the level of details...
One can go as high as 8x10 with color film sheets and even higher with B&W...
A professional entry level film scanner easily extracts 3000 pixels per inch (true optical resolution). On more advanced models the number goes much higher then that. Color and tones fidelity is a top notch. So no endless PS work...Some dust cleanup, resizing and sharpening is all that properly scanned files require.
With yesterdays 12MP sensor images of landscapes hold on fine up to about 11x14.. Sure with todays 24MP one can go up to 16x20, but what the cost of upgrade? And it is still not 40x60...

6. Film usually "makes" one to think about every shot before it is taken... so no 100s and 1000s digital files after a weekend trip to wilderness only to save them all to a hard drive for a later review (which typically never happens)...

7. If the negatives large enough one can do a contact printing...


What makes DSLRs so popular? - Conveniences (LCD, Histogram, Preview, Instant feedback, instant image availability for endless twicking in PS .

Does this discussion center on film v. digital or the good old days v. progress (goo, bad and indifferent)?

I like them equally but for different reasons. That option was not included so I answered that I prefer film. I'm not sure that it is true since I shoot more digital (of course work necessitates it) but in this "digital everything" I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that there is more of a hobby aspect for me in shooting film and that is more meaningful to me than digital's speed and ease. Film and its look is starting to become unique as the whole planet dances to the digital tune. So film got my vote - but I appreciate both ways of chasing images.

I'm actually just starting to experiment with film (got an Olympus XA2 and a Yashica-Mat - haven't even developed a single roll yet), but I was attracted to film because it imparts a "look" that I like without even trying. The grain, the colors, the tonality, the skin tones... whatever it is, I like it, and I don't have to do any PS work to get those results. That's just exciting to me. With digital, I feel like every shot is a work in progress, whereas with film I can just shoot. Not to mention that the Yashica-Mat is simply a larger negative that has a look of its own.