Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
bseng Regular Member • Posts: 222
Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

What are some reasons why someone would shoot 35mm film over a DSLR. Can you extract higher image quality from 35mm?

looper1234
looper1234 Regular Member • Posts: 314
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

being analog, film does have greater resolution when exposure correctly.

I suppose ppl will enjoy the process of taking photos with film, and developing them in  a dark room. The efficiency of digital photography is what made it mainstream.

so that leaves only only one reason ppl would use film now days, to have fun.

DenWil
DenWil Senior Member • Posts: 2,472
35mm film? I can't imagine any.

bseng wrote:

What are some reasons why someone would shoot 35mm film over a DSLR. Can you extract higher image quality from 35mm?

But then I couldn't imagine any twenty five years ago either. Before there were DSLRs.

Cailean Gallimore Veteran Member • Posts: 6,082
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?
1

I don't shoot 35mm, but I do shoot Medium Format. The reason? I enjoy it, and the results are excellent.

Biggs23 MOD Veteran Member • Posts: 4,071
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?
1

looper1234 wrote:

being analog, film does have greater resolution when exposure correctly.

Riiight.

so that leaves only only one reason ppl would use film now days, to have fun.

That's about right. Although some professionals are marketing film as a retro option and charging a premium for it, so that's another potential reason for some.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D750 Nikon D5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,120
Troll living up to his name...
4

Biggs23 wrote:

looper1234 wrote:

being analog, film does have greater resolution when exposure correctly.

Riiight.

Ignore him. He's been going gonzo making the most absurd posts, trying to get a rise out of people. Trying to prove he's a true "looper".

so that leaves only only one reason ppl would use film now days, to have fun.

That's about right. Although some professionals are marketing film as a retro option and charging a premium for it, so that's another potential reason for some.

They have to charge a premium for it. Running costs are much higher, and rising constantly. Apparently, Fuji just announced a 30% hike in film, paper, and chemistry.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
jcharding Senior Member • Posts: 2,243
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

For the fun of it, which is the reason 95% of people (if not more) take pictures for anyway.  Rarely do we make money off of it, but we do so for the sheer enjoyment of taking pictures and/or creating memories for ourselves.  We do it for the challenge of getting a shot.  If someone wants to use film as part of their own personal challenge, rock on.

-- hide signature --
 jcharding's gear list:jcharding's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Fujifilm X-Pro1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Fujifilm X-T1 +12 more
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,120
Only large format...
4

bseng wrote:

What are some reasons why someone would shoot 35mm film over a DSLR.

Low entry cost, which might offset the higher running cost, if you don't shoot much.

Higher risk, which appeals to some people, I guess.

"Retro appeal", as has already been mentioned.

Can you extract higher image quality from 35mm?

Only if you're shooting low speed B&W. Some of the 25 speed B&W emulsions, like bluefire, can outresolve anything but a D800, but the level of care you have to take is insane. Focusing cameras that simply weren't meant for that level of resolution is amazingly difficult. Back in the tech pan days, I reshimmed and recalibrated a couple of cameras for better focusing accuracy. Then you have to deal with scanning to realize that potential.

Much easier just to pick up a used 6x7 medium format or 4x5 large format.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Morris Sullivan Veteran Member • Posts: 8,025
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

looper1234 wrote:

being analog, film does have greater resolution when exposure correctly.

In a technical sense I guess there is no end to how finely you could scan the film grains, but there is a limit to how much of that information is representative of the scene.

Les Berkley
Les Berkley Senior Member • Posts: 1,360
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

bseng wrote:

What are some reasons why someone would shoot 35mm film over a DSLR. Can you extract higher image quality from 35mm?

Some people don't obsess about 'Image Quality' in the technical sense, although 35mm film was good enough for many fine photographers. When I shoot film, I do it for a particular 'look' that I find easy to get from negative film. I can get this from digital, of course, but it is time-consuming.

In a recent issue of Rangefinder, a few wedding pros indicated that they were either going back to film for some work, still shooting film, or shooting both film and digital. For some, it was the 'send it to the lab' workflow, for others, the 'look', and for others partly a financial reason.

I also love film cameras. No menus. No Fn buttons. No autofocus deciding what the 'subject' is. With DX, no chance of setting the wrong ISO. This is my view, and may not apply to anyone else. No, I don't use my F3 for sports; I have a DSLR for local soccer games, etc. Most of all, there is no pressure to 'upgrade'. Film cameras don't improve Eye-Cue when you buy a new one. No groom would look at my F4 the way they might see my D300. "What, no full-frame?" As though that meant something.

Les Berkley
Les Berkley Senior Member • Posts: 1,360
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

No Post Processing Applied

scorrpio
scorrpio Veteran Member • Posts: 3,388
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?
3

Same reason people still ride horses.

69chevy Senior Member • Posts: 1,617
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

looper1234 wrote:

being analog, film does have greater resolution when exposure correctly.

I suppose ppl will enjoy the process of taking photos with film, and developing them in  a dark room. The efficiency of digital photography is what made it mainstream.

so that leaves only only one reason ppl would use film now days, to have fun.

Being analog, means film resolution can not be measured.

A print can be measured, but the resolution depends on the printer.

A scan can be measured, but the resolution depends on the scanner.

If you mean film produces sharper images with more detail, that depends on the film, the lens, the photographer, the lighting, the exposure, and the person doing the comparison.

It also depends on the digital camera it is being compared to, as well as the other variables that go into making a sharp photo.

This topic will be debated until film is no longer with us, but many people believe that the top-end 35mm film had an equivalent resolving power of 20MP.

 69chevy's gear list:69chevy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM +1 more
olliess Senior Member • Posts: 1,069
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?
1

69chevy wrote:

Being analog, means film resolution can not be measured.

This is not quite correct. The resolution of an analog system can be defined and measured. For example, an optical lens is "analog," and its resolution can be measured (within the limits of the measurement system of course).

sshoihet Senior Member • Posts: 2,538
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?
1

bseng wrote:

What are some reasons why someone would shoot 35mm film over a DSLR. Can you extract higher image quality from 35mm?

I shoot B&W still a bit, mostly HP5+.  I like the look, I enjoy the process of developing the film, it's nice for a bit of a change sometimes. It's expensive compared to digital, it's not as practical, it's a pain/expensive to get good scans.

A good digital SLR camera is much more practical and can produce equal or better results with less work now.  There's no reason to do it unless you like film and want to shoot film, it's just another artistic medium.

 sshoihet's gear list:sshoihet's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Nikon D7100 +14 more
Dave Lively Senior Member • Posts: 1,739
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

69chevy wrote:

Being analog, means film resolution can not be measured.

Film resolution can be measured in lines/mm just like lens resolution.  Lens resolution is analog and is measured on a regular basis.

To measure film resolution you would use a sharp lens, preferably wide angle so the greater DOF would reduce the effect of the inevitable small focusing errors, stop it down to about f8 and use the same resolution target used to measure lens resolution.  You would only need the center to be sharp.

Back when I was into photography in the 70s I recall photography magazines doing film tests every so often with grain and resolution being part of the test results.

69chevy Senior Member • Posts: 1,617
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

olliess wrote:

69chevy wrote:

Being analog, means film resolution can not be measured.

This is not quite correct. The resolution of an analog system can be defined and measured. For example, an optical lens is "analog," and its resolution can be measured (within the limits of the measurement system of course).

Good catch. I meant to say cannot be measured in MP.

 69chevy's gear list:69chevy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM +1 more
69chevy Senior Member • Posts: 1,617
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?
1

Dave Lively wrote:

69chevy wrote:

Being analog, means film resolution can not be measured.

Film resolution can be measured in lines/mm just like lens resolution.  Lens resolution is analog and is measured on a regular basis.

To measure film resolution you would use a sharp lens, preferably wide angle so the greater DOF would reduce the effect of the inevitable small focusing errors, stop it down to about f8 and use the same resolution target used to measure lens resolution.  You would only need the center to be sharp.

Back when I was into photography in the 70s I recall photography magazines doing film tests every so often with grain and resolution being part of the test results.

You caught me too. I meant to say cannot be measured in MP.

 69chevy's gear list:69chevy's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM +1 more
nikkorwatcher Contributing Member • Posts: 684
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

Second time in one week for the same question, isn't it?

Anyway, film - and I'm assuming print film has the widest dynamic range - might have a high dynamic range, but is this matched by the scanning and printing process? Typical minilab equipment like the Fuji frontier I am led to believe scans the negative before electronically printing. Sounds like to get the most out of film you need a specialist or DIY processor.

Piginho Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: Any reason to shoot film nowadays?

Dave Lively wrote:

69chevy wrote:

Being analog, means film resolution can not be measured.

Film resolution can be measured in lines/mm just like lens resolution.  Lens resolution is analog and is measured on a regular basis.

To measure film resolution you would use a sharp lens, preferably wide angle so the greater DOF would reduce the effect of the inevitable small focusing errors, stop it down to about f8 and use the same resolution target used to measure lens resolution.  You would only need the center to be sharp.

Back when I was into photography in the 70s I recall photography magazines doing film tests every so often with grain and resolution being part of the test results.

And Fuji Velvia (ISO 50), according to their data sheet has 160 lines per mm at 1000:1 contrast ratio.  This gives a potential equivalent to about 22Mpixels.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads