inness wrote:
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.
Happy Holiday
Bob
I agree. I do both. I have two Canon A series cameras and some late 80's EOS bodies. And when I really want to go "retro", I use them to shoot pictures of my 88 Grand Wagoneer.
I use a great action that replicates the holga camera look. It cost me the same as a holga so i do it in photoshop.
I have toyed with using film but i cannot bring myself to tossing money away at something i can do without spending money. I can see why others would do it though.
OK, I’m in my 50’s so my perspective will be different than some of you. I started shooting seriously as a teenager in the late 60's. My Dad taught me how to work with his 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras plus 2-1/4 TLR’s. When I got older, I shot weddings for a few years, so my history was all film. A few fantastic people here at FM walked me through the process of going digital.
Yes, I still shoot film now and then because it forces me to slow down and really see the light and to stop and think about just what it is that I want to capture. Especially when looking at the overall tonality with B&W in mind.
Generally, it’s way too easy for me to just shoot a multi-frame bracket and head for Photoshop………..
I LOVE film and shoot it all the time, especially T-Max 100, Velvia and Kodachrome. Even though I shoot digital almost exclusively for commercial work, my own work is most often done with film. I could give a crap that digital is sharper when it's the mood or texture I'm going for. Just picked up a Mamiya 7 with three lenses and love it, but I'm also looking forward to the 1DsMKIII when it shows up. I also love scanning film. Anyone who complains about that is either using the wrong scanner or the wrong software. It takes a minute to mount film to the drum and usually only a few minutes to spin a scan. Having a drum scanner makes all the difference particularly when you see just how much you can extract from a piece of film.
Peter Figen wrote:
... I also love scanning film. Anyone who complains about that is either using the wrong scanner or the wrong software. It takes a minute to mount film to the drum and usually only a few minutes to spin a scan. Having a drum scanner makes all the difference particularly when you see just how much you can extract from a piece of film.
I also enjoy scanning film - up to a point. The issue is a backlog of 1000's legacy transparencies to scan.
"I also enjoy scanning film - up to a point. The issue is a backlog of 1000's legacy transparencies to scan"
I've got thirty-five years or so in filing cabinets, but there's no way that every single image needs to be scanned. I only scan the great ones. There's no point in the rest unless you just want to show people less than your best work. I do periodically go back and find images that deserve a second look or ones that might fill a specific stock need.
I only use my digital cameras for weddings, events, and studio work. Everything else (including some studio work) is film. I have a stronger preference for film. I just find digital too "sterile" and lacks the character film has, atleast not without a lot of post processing.
Why would a person want to scan every transparency they have? I would think you would scan those you may wat to print at the time, it's kinda like saying a person prints every digital image they shoot. At least with the film you have a hard copy for safe keeping, in 20 years digital data will be?
I'm of this school of thought. I often think film and transparencies are better than digital, but I don't really want to back to the wet darkroom, I'm glad I had one or two down through the years ~ watching the prints dev out in monochrome is a magical experience.
Colour was too much like hard work and I never could get the volumes right, I was printing better than my pro shop but wastage was extreme and it never did match the excitement of dish developing monochrome printing.
Gochugogi wrote:
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. .
I shoot film constantly, on several different bodies. There is a big divide between those that have taken up photography in the last couple of years and have no idea what film is all about and those of us that have shot for a long time. IMO, there's something special about seeing a transparency image through a loupe vs pixel peeping on a LCD. Film, of all kinds, is special, though harder to control. Did you get the shot or did you blow it? Who knows? You'll have to wait to find out....
With film, you can also have a colossal blunder every now and then like I did the other day. I was upset about something, not thinking clearly, and opened the back of a camera to get the film out. Duh! Rewind first "stoopid". I destroyed some client images (not sure how many were affected) and I'll have to make amends after the film is processed. This is a pain in the rear, as the client's work is gone and I'll have to get it back and re-shoot it. Frustration on everyone's part is the outcome.
I never completely got rid of all my film gear and have acquired more recently. I like the manual movement of the film wind lever (on some bodies) and will be shooting more Tri-X film this spring. Scanning is a pain though compared to simply dumping the image via card readers.
I guess what I have to say to the "johnny come lately" types that dominate these forums and are down on film is don't criticize what you don't understand. Film is not perfect; and after 8 years with digital, I can easily and confidently say, nor is digital. It's all hard work in the end, but with either medium, worth it.
dhphoto wrote:
With film you have one original, which can be lost, scratched, burned, damaged. With digital you have unlimited lossless copies.
I know which I think is safer
David
Well, if you think digital is safer long term, you're probably going to have a severe disappointment in the future. Digital storage is NOT safe, regardless of how many "lossless" (not sure this is really the case as bits drop) copies you make, they are all ephemeral. A disk drive can be unreadable in as little as 2 years; the same for any magnetic media, or dye based DVD, CD, etc.
Modern films are susceptible to fire, but if stored and protected properly, will last far longer than ANY digital medium we have available today. There is NO disagreement on that from any archivists that I've heard discuss the situation.
Peter Figen wrote:
"I also enjoy scanning film - up to a point. The issue is a backlog of 1000's legacy transparencies to scan"
I've got thirty-five years or so in filing cabinets, but there's no way that every single image needs to be scanned. I only scan the great ones. There's no point in the rest unless you just want to show people less than your best work. I do periodically go back and find images that deserve a second look or ones that might fill a specific stock need.
I agree, scanning everything is beyond absurd, but even scanning only the best leaves you with 1000's of images to scan if you shot film for 20-30 years.
Well, if you think digital is safer long term, you're probably going to have a severe disappointment in the future. Digital storage is NOT safe, regardless of how many "lossless" (not sure this is really the case as bits drop) copies you make, they are all ephemeral. A disk drive can be unreadable in as little as 2 years; the same for any magnetic media, or dye based DVD, CD, etc.
I've been using Macs since 1984. I still have most of my files from the 1980s. Just can't open most of them! And these are tens of thousands of music and graphics files. Original software company is long gone. Some files I was able to convert several times to arrive at a modern file type, but they often suffer bizarre misalignments and font conflicts...
I too have over 35 years of slides and negs and, I agree, you mainly want to scan your best work. EVen so, I have a long way to go...
If you go back 20-30 what the heck were people doing, just waiting for scanners to be invented
I guess I don't get the perceived "need" to scan so many images. What are you doing with them that they need them all digitized. Maybe I am just weird, but I only scan what I need to for making enlargement/prints.
>>I agree, scanning everything is beyond absurd, but even scanning only the best leaves you with 1000's of images to scan if you shot film for 20-30 years.
"If you go back 20-30 what the heck were people doing, just waiting for scanners to be invented"
Looking back, it certainly seems to be the case. There are quite a few images I've found that were passed by in the late seventies which, now, with a good drum scan and some the types of corrections Photoshop affords, are now simply stunning. There were limitations to making prints directly from film, especially Type R prints, which both didn't last very long and were too contrasty, that are gone today.
I'm amazed at how well Kodachromes reproduce today, so much so that I've gone and bought a bunch of it, even if I have to send it to Kansas for processing.
"I guess I don't get the perceived "need" to scan so many images. What are you doing with them that they need them all digitized. Maybe I am just weird, but I only scan what I need to for making enlargement/prints"
For me there is a fairly good market for stock photography and having them digitized make digital delivery that much easier. I'm not necessarily making prints of everything, but I will when someone want to buy one.
?