Just al little informal poll. I was going thorugh "all my bodies" including my old Minolta SRT 101 and Canon Elan IIe. I forgot how light and small they were and could not remember the last time I ran some film through them. Put my 135 on the Canon just for the full frame look and feel. I know I can get a 5D but love my MKII.
Just interested if anyone still shoots both (non professional) or it's just a preferance for the convience of digital and instant gratification that I get by digital.
I love digital (I honestly think it looks 100 times better then film) but (call me strange) ive stirred up this recent facination with holga and diana cameras which I am going to pursue come payday...which isnt till 2008 :'(
As I'm sitting here today doing color corrections on hundreds of 35mm slide scans, I can not imagine intentionally shooting film ever, AND I MEAN EVER, again!
Compared to even a 5D, the best film with the best drum scan can not compare. Not to mention the Photoshop gymnastics to get things "right".
I think there is a certain joy in just using film gear: the VF, the feel of the camera and the controls. My Nikon FM3A feels like a real camera and is so simple and direct to use compared to my 5D or 40D. It's really tiny too. Also, each type of film has it's own "look," and a look I still enjoy. I still really like Portra, NHP, Velvia and T-Max.
Compared to even a 5D, the best film with the best drum scan can not compare. Not to mention the Photoshop gymnastics to get things "right".
There's really no point in shooting film if your main goal is to scan it into digital. What a waste of time! Film belongs in the analog domain. And in this domain it looks incredible. When I view my chromes with a loupe on a light box, no amount of skillful scanning can come close to its sparkle and vividness. With that said, I do scan old Portra and NHP negs from time to time and they scan easily and only require a few minutes of tweaks to get right. Now old Kodachromes are a nightmare.
They both have their place. I still shoot film with a Nikon F90, F90x and a RZ67. I also use 2 Nikon D1's and a Nikon Coolpix 950. With film you have to crop, compose and adjust in the camera before you shoot. With digital you can sit in front of a computer and do it after you shoot. It takes a good photographer to shoot film, and it takes a good computer operator to shoot digital. And NO, I am not compareing Nikon to Canon, They are BOTH great tools.
Edited by photo1canada on Dec 24, 2007 at 10:22 PM GMT
depends greatly on output purposes and methods. for final print, especially black and white, then
film printed in darkroom>digital prints>scanned film to make digital prints.
However, the dynamic range of many negative films is incredible, and can be better than digital. But the major pain that one must go through to get those completed can make it not worth it.
Format's a big issue too. I personally shoot full frame digital and medium format film. The only time I'd ever shoot 35mm is for rangefinder street photography.
I don't think the OP had a debate in mind. He basically asked if anyone still shoots film for kicks, not if one is better. Many of of us are older hobbyists and shoot purely for fun. A nostalgic and rustic walk down film memory lane is still something many of us enjoy, not because one is better but just for the hell of it.
BurtR wrote:
Just al little informal poll. I was going thorugh "all my bodies" including my old Minolta SRT 101 and Canon Elan IIe. I forgot how light and small they were and could not remember the last time I ran some film through them. Put my 135 on the Canon just for the full frame look and feel. I know I can get a 5D but love my MKII.
Just interested if anyone still shoots both (non professional) or it's just a preferance for the convience of digital and instant gratification that I get by digital.
Happy Holidays
Burt
I still put the odd roll through my Canon A1, I will do that till they run out of film or till I die, It's a bit like still driving old cars for fun.
I shoot film sometimes... I really miss the feel of the film winding on e.t.c. There is something about it but digital is far easier & gives more control. I also run film thru an old early 60's Yashica sometime just for that manual wind feel and am wondering if my old brown box is still light tight just for something completely different, so take my comments with that in mind
BurtR wrote:
Just al little informal poll. I was going thorugh "all my bodies" including my old Minolta SRT 101 and Canon Elan IIe. I forgot how light and small they were and could not remember the last time I ran some film through them.
Just interested if anyone still shoots both (non professional) or it's just a preferance for the convience of digital and instant gratification that I get by digital.
Burt
I got away from film at the earliest opportunity - even before digital was anywhere near as good. I always hated dealing with film - never liked anything about it and I never really learned photography indepth until I switched to digital. I adore digital and take my camera with me everywhere and always have several lenses close by. Back in the film days it was always such a chore to take a photo and I had no desire to learn more and advance.
Funny, digital reminds me of my old Tri-X days with the darkroom in the bathroom. I guess it's the control thing. When I lost my darkroom and had to rely on minilabs and a lot of the fun and control disappeared (not to mention those bugger scratching the hell outta my negs & chromes). With RAW, DPP 2 and PS it's just as much work as the darkroom but a lot cleaner. Probably takes up as much space with 2 Cinema Displays and 6 external FW drives, 2 scanners and 2 printers connected to 2 Macs.
BW400CN, commercial processing for proofs and only detail scans and post processing for the fine art enlarged prints.
Yes, my Rebel G + 50/1.8 weighs in at just about 1 lb. fully loaded! Final product matches a 5D (yes, there are differences, but neither can clearly "win" when you compare final prints).
B&W dynamic range, tonal depth and high frequency data is still better from b&w film, 800 and higher ISO 5D is kind of better and 5D is smoother (and if you equate "smoothness" with "better," you will prefer the digital images).
I don't shoot much color, but when I do, I prefer the look of digital to most films. ISO 400 color films are kind of just ok whereas ISO 400 digital kind looks about as good as Velvia (of course, Velvia has a look that is very beautiful and distinctive).
I still have a brick of Agfa Ultra 50 in the freezer, for night shuttle time lapse shots. Thats about the only thing I'd even consider using film for. Since the D30 (remember that one?) I haven't touched film and don't miss it a bit, no aspect of it. And I grew up in the darkroom, color and B&W.
I recently bought a Bessa R4A rangefinder to use primarily for my street photography. the 5D just attracted too much attention. I now shoot abount 75% of the time with the film camera, while the 5D only see's certain events.
