Why film?

For those of you still shooting in film (in addition to digital)....why? What is it about film that makes you still eager to shot with your SLR? Some claim SLR's still offer more dynamic range. Yet I've read in a recent issue of Outdoor Photographer say that DSLR's offer more "quantity and quality of data". Does that mean that DSLRs actually now offers more dyanmic range?

Thanks.

DSLR's may offer the dynamic range of slide film, but not of negatives. At least, not without trying to do an HDR process. And film just has ceertain charcteristics that are nice, different films giving different properties.

That said, I rarely shoot film anymore. I'm a digital convert for the most part. I'm willing to sacrifice those pluses for film for the convience of digital.

RickWells said:

DSLR's may offer the dynamic range of slide film, but not of
negatives. At least, not without trying to do an HDR process. And
film just has ceertain charcteristics that are nice, different films
giving different properties.

That said, I rarely shoot film anymore. I'm a digital convert for the
most part. I'm willing to sacrifice those pluses for film for the
convience of digital.

Click to expand...

I haven't shot film in years...

But film does have more dynamic range. This shows up more in B&W than in color, but the advantage is still there, even if it's shrinking...

Dave

Good DSLRs may be able to match the quality of 35mm film... but not large format. Many film shooters are those who like the image quality of large format.

Best wishes

--
Mike

Thanks for your comments thus far guys. I'm tempted to pick up a SLR to experiment with in addition to a new DSLR. That's one way to see if I spot the difference in output. Even if the output can vary according to the skill of the developer used (in addition to other factors).

I don't plan on shooting in LF for a while. Though I do have a MF Rolliflex I can try later.

I'm thinking of getting a Nikon F6. Not much more expensive than a D300.

Do you guys find photographs taken using a SLR and "film A" to be more pleasing than the prints you are getting with your DSLRs? Curious.

Plus, I still have five 35 mm cameras and I do see a difference in the final images. Maybe a pain in the butt but sometimes worth it. I have 2 rolls waiting to be processed now and it only costs me $3.00 to develop and have scanned to a CD in high res.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

Umm, I enjoy it. Do I really need any other justification?
--
---
Laurence

I shoot with an EphZedFifty.
My flickr: http://flickr.com/photos/12102118@N06/

DarkDTS said:

Thanks for your comments thus far guys. I'm tempted to pick up a SLR
to experiment with in addition to a new DSLR. That's one way to see
if I spot the difference in output. Even if the output can vary
according to the skill of the developer used (in addition to other
factors).

I don't plan on shooting in LF for a while. Though I do have a MF
Rolliflex I can try later.

I'm thinking of getting a Nikon F6. Not much more expensive than a
D300.

Do you guys find photographs taken using a SLR and "film A" to be
more pleasing than the prints you are getting with your DSLRs?
Curious.

Click to expand...

I don't wish to cast stones at anyone using film. They seem to feel that it gives them an "edge."

It certainly does. But is the edge worth it? Is there a "qualitative difference" so great as to justify all the inconviences of film? Personally, I don't think so. But some of those who shoot film definitely do.

Dave

It's one thing to shot when there are no limits, costs or real effort (digital.)

It's quite another to commit to making an image when there are 12, 24,36 or for especially a single exposure on a piece of film you've purchased. You are forced to see the subject.

Then you'll have to spend hours (or days) processing, unless you scan that to a digital file in which case your back on the digital path and the resulting product becomes similar.

Still, the quality is not the same...not to say one is better, just different as to sense of sharpness, scale, etc.

And if the whole process is analog, you needn't worry about viruses or hard-drive storage. ;-)

Regards
Ed

I have a series of articles on the blog section of my website with all kinds of reasons I still use medium format film. The most critical using being the creation of black and white images.

You can read them at http://www.kirktuck.com
Just go to "blog" and start with the second entry down.

Kirk
--
Austin based portrait artist

....the cameras are nicer to use - bigger, brighter viewfinder image, and the also the lenses do what they are designed to do, especially wide-angle (if like me you can't afford a FF dSLR).

tak44 said:

....the cameras are nicer to use - bigger, brighter viewfinder image,
and the also the lenses do what they are designed to do, especially
wide-angle (if like me you can't afford a FF dSLR).

Click to expand...

To your lenses-doing-what-they're-designed-to-do statement, I'll just add that my film cameras have detailed distance and depth of field scales that I love to use.

But the main reason I use film is because I haven't found a way to enjoy pictures that beats seeing them projected on a large screen, and from what I've seen and read, there is no digital method that matches a projected slide. I also like composing in a square format, so my TLR continues to see use alongside my film SLR's (both loaded with Astia) and those big, screen-filling square images are an absolute delight.

Hi,

I own several perfectly good cameras that take good to excellent pictures (more than can be said for me) and the fact that some are film (several formats) and some are digital (ditto) doesn't mean that I'll scrap half. You might as well ask why own more than one pair of shoes or use B&W...

BTW, most of the joys of film have still to appear in digital versions and I just happen to enjoy thinking about what I'm doing. Aso I like using cameras that don't need batteries.

'nuff said?

Regards, David

When film is scanned and finally processed with all of the controls of Photoshop, it became very hazy to me, as to whether silver photogaphy was better or not. As I learned Photoshop, the over all quality of my work moved upward to new levels. I considered myself to be a pretty good darkroom printer (my color printing skill was marginal). With Photoshop and digital capture, I'm experiencing quality beyond my wildest dreams, or, what I could do on my best days in the old darkroom, in B&W and or color!

Digital color is just unbelievably better. Just no contest - consistent, control, clean, High ISO, white balance, on so forth -- a whole new media -- more than just better -- revolutionary. Adjustments and manipulations beyond our wildest dreams.

Scanned film still carries the dust, fogging, scratches, developing errors, fingerprints, flatness, and grain with it. A lot of these problems along with local contrast control can be easily controlled (Quite difficult in the darkroom) in Photoshop.

Bottom line for me, I will never use film for original capture again. Old images will never be printed again in the darkroom - just not enough control or consistency - No two prints exactly the same. Nothing good to be said about the messiness and just plain labor of the old darkroom either.

Overall, my digital images have exceeded my abilities with film up to 4x5. The reproduction of very large documents like maps or large pieces of art work may still be better copied with process cameras and film. I am not up to speed in the digital scanning or printing in the graphic arts industry.

jack1931

David Hughes124436 said:

Aso I like using cameras that don't need batteries.

Click to expand...

Can you process, print, scan, display those images without batteries?

My FM2 was light years ahead of any APS dSLR in terms of general ergonomics, viewfinder, and handling with no batteries . My RB67 works just fine without batteries either. Just a simple light meter.

However, it doesn't change the fact it requires a few thousand square feet of chemical processors and support equipment to produce a single 24x36mm piece of colored film from that "camera that can run without batteries". I don't need need all that junk with digital and I don't have to rely on some stupid lab's competence and what dyes Fuji and Kodak are using that month to make an image.

No, you just have to rely on some "stupid" trendy $5000 camera / CF cards / card readers / computer / special monitors with calibrators / color spaces / special papers / printer and inks software / hard drives / etc etc etc

Then guess what? After all that . . you have the same old homogenized looking digital photo as everyone else.

Scott Eaton said:

Scott Eaton said:

Aso I like using cameras that don't need batteries.

Click to expand...

Can you process, print, scan, display those images without batteries?

My FM2 was light years ahead of any APS dSLR in terms of general
ergonomics, viewfinder, and handling with no batteries . My RB67
works just fine without batteries either. Just a simple light meter.

However, it doesn't change the fact it requires a few thousand square
feet of chemical processors and support equipment to produce a single
24x36mm piece of colored film from that "camera that can run without
batteries". I don't need need all that junk with digital and I don't
have to rely on some stupid lab's competence and what dyes Fuji and
Kodak are using that month to make an image.

Click to expand...

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

Bill Force said:

Plus, I still have five 35 mm cameras and I do see a difference in
the final images. Maybe a pain in the butt but sometimes worth it.
I have 2 rolls waiting to be processed now and it only costs me $3.00
to develop and have scanned to a CD in high res.

Click to expand...

This is what DarkDTS needs to do so he can judge for himself! Take identical shots with a digital and film camera to compare!

Bill Force said:

--
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out
of what you do have'.

Click to expand...

A very carefully exposed and developed film image can and does have great D range. Look at Ansel Adams on one of his good days . - I never got close to that kind of control or consistency with my black and white skills. But even Adams struggled to make two identical prints. The printing data was carefully recorded with pencil and paper to allow him to return to an image or have an assistant try to repeat it on another day. But there are just too many variables. Adam's print dollar values vary with their relative quality from one print to another even now. Did he personally print it? -- is it early or late? etc.

If your really honest, In viewing some of his original prints first hand, you might agree with me, that they could have been better. I don't mean that I made prints any better, but I'll bet he would have reprinted a few here and there.

For insance, where he used ferricyanide to lighten areas in a print, we can do in Photoshop, and unlike his, our prints will all be the same from one to another.

People that knew Mr. Adams agree that he would have embraced digital were he alive today. The Photoshop controls we have would have made his day.

They sure have made mine.

jack1931

Your thread doesn't deserve a response.

I'm outa here,

Jack1931

DarkDTS said:

For those of you still shooting in film (in addition to
digital)....why? What is it about film that makes you still eager to
shot with your SLR? Some claim SLR's still offer more dynamic range.
Yet I've read in a recent issue of Outdoor Photographer say that
DSLR's offer more "quantity and quality of data". Does that mean that
DSLRs actually now offers more dyanmic range?

Click to expand...

• There are 3 schools of thought:

1) Photographers who claim that film's better (and buy new fridges to fill them up with film, anticipating it's inevitable end);
2) Photographers who use both medias for different projects;

3) Photographers who believe digital today is better than film in all respects (like your humble servant here).

We very much like to argue about it and sometimes we sound like we're ready to kill each other ;-)

If you really want to know the "truth", do a test. Take 2 SLRs - film and digital (make sure it's a fair comparison, DSLR should be a new model FF) and compare them at ISO 100-200-400-800-1600-3200, in color as well as in B/W. Apply sensible P and PP (nothing fancy, just basic RAW development and enhancement). Once again, be fair - shoot in RAW, process it to 16-bit TIFF, then convert it to whatever you like after PP-ing. Finally, make prints in A1 size. If that sounds too expensive, print small ones as 50% - 100% - 200% crops. Use a pro lab. Compare the results. Tell us what you think.

http://lordofthelens.co.nz/