Why film?

Mark Smith said:

Kirk
I agree I shoot medium format 90% of my film images with this:



The look it gives even at high ISO is lovely and I find the MF
Rangefinder not that much bigger than my DSLRs
At the current prices these thing go for if you want to shoot film,
its a no brainer.
Mark
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Pretty shocking in my opinion when you could have used large format and gotten better results.

Dave

Chato said:

And why did he give his "childish candle retort?":

Click to expand...

Because he didn't understand my post? I don't know possibly you should ask him that.

I was just stating a FACT you don't need power to develop film- is that so hard to understand?
I'm not advocating a powerless darkroom, even though he seems to think I am.

Chato said:

Could it be because HIS point is that digital and it's convenience is
far more important than the benefits of film?

Click to expand...

No that was not his point and you know that.

I corrected a post that said you need power to dev film and pointed out that you don't need electricity to develop film- thats all.

Chato said:

film? Are you claiming that the ability to do this makes film MORE
convenient?

Click to expand...

In a power cut yes, but not on the whole I was just pointing out to someone who stated you couldn't do it - thats all.

Chato said:

I read this entire thread - And the bottom line here is that you just
dislike the guy and will fasten on ANYTHING to make your point. Well,
I'm not attacking or defending him forr previous threads - But on
THIS thread, sarcastic as he may be, he's correct.

Click to expand...

Sarcasm is nothing to be proud of and in this case although correct, his post was NOT relevant because I didn't advocate a non powered darkroom, even though he seems to think I did.

Chato said:

Assorted quotes from THIS THREAD
**************

Anyone who'd want to setup a non-electric darkroom is not interested
in photography, but more interested in tinkering with doo-dads!
***********

Click to expand...

You think that's correct? tell that to the photographic pioneers or someone interested in Alt processing. Are their cyanotypes and sun prints made because they are not interested in photography? but tinkers in'doo-dads' .
Honestly you need to use power to be interested in photography
Anyway that WASN"T my point!!!
PLEASE READ THE THEAD

Chato said:

No . . . there is a fourth . . .

Click to expand...

Oh brother...

Chato said:

NB. What is the topic of this thread?

Dave

Click to expand...

Honestly I really doubt your comprehension here, I disagree with MusicDJ

I think that his rhetoric is misplaced, he may have shot film for 20 years but that doesn't negate his lack of comprehension of my point.

Nowhere in this thread have I criticised his choice of medium, NOWHERE

You have attempted to spin it that way, i'll leave others to judge your motives in trying to make that assertion.

Good day Sir
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Chato said:

Pretty shocking in my opinion when you could have used large format
and gotten better results.

Click to expand...

Not clever Dave, I shoot 4x5 on a Wista Field too, but bought the Fuji because I like to shoot 3200 ISO B&W in low light.

So no, you can't always get better results with larger formats, that is a simplistic and naïve point of view.

It has little to do with connivence (sic) more with availability of emulsions and practicality of operation,



Fuji 6x7 1/15 sec at F3,5 Delta 3200 rated at EI 6400 dev in Rodinal (no power used)

YMMV
I just prefer film, you'll have to learn to live with that (as much as it hurts)

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Mark Smith said:

Chato said:

And why did he give his "childish candle retort?":

Click to expand...

Because didn't understand my post? I don't know possibly you should
ask him that.
I was just stating a FACT you don't need power to develop film- is
that so hard to understand?
I'm not advocating a powerless darkroom, even though hr seems to
think I am.

Click to expand...

He NEVER said you couldn't develop film without power. You were making a point to Scott Eaton, (a digital fanatic) not to Music Doctor. He simply replied that using a powerless darkroom was rediculous from a convenience point of view, so why mention it?

Mark Smith145430 said:

Mark Smith145430 said:

Could it be because HIS point is that digital and it's convenience is
far more important than the benefits of film?

Click to expand...

No that was not his point and you know that.
I corrected a post that said you need power to dev film and pointed
out that you don't need electricity to develop film- thats all.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no - That was his point. Over and over he iterated the same point.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Mark Smith145430 said:

film? Are you claiming that the ability to do this makes film MORE
convenient?

Click to expand...

In a power cut yes, but not on the whole I was just pointing out to
someone who stated you couldn't do it - thats all.

Click to expand...

Odd, he never said that, as I point out above.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Mark Smith145430 said:

I read this entire thread - And the bottom line here is that you just
dislike the guy and will fasten on ANYTHING to make your point. Well,
I'm not attacking or defending him forr previous threads - But on
THIS thread, sarcastic as he may be, he's correct.

Click to expand...

Sarcasm is nothing to be proud of and in this case although correct,
his post was NOT relevant because I didn't advocate a non powered
darkroom, even though he seems to think I did.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Assorted quotes from THIS THREAD
**************

Anyone who'd want to setup a non-electric darkroom is not interested
in photography, but more interested in tinkering with doo-dads!
***********

Click to expand...

You think that's correct? tell that to the photographic pioneers or
someone interested in Alt processing. Are their cyanotypes and sun
prints made because they are not interested in photography? but
tinkers in'doo-dads' .

Click to expand...

Right. I'll run out and buy a Model T Ford - Never get a flat tire either.

Mark Smith145430 said:

Honestly you need to use power to be interested in photography
Anyway that WASN"T my point!!!
PLEASE READ THE THEAD

Mark Smith145430 said:

No . . . there is a fourth . . .

Click to expand...

Oh brother...

Mark Smith145430 said:

NB. What is the topic of this thread?

Dave

Click to expand...

Honestly I really doubt your comprehension here, I disagree with MusicDJ
I think that his rhetoric is misplaced, he may have shot film for 20
years but that doesn't negate his lack of comprehension of my point.

Nowhere in this thread have I criticised his choice of medium, NOWHERE
You have attempted to spin it that way, i'll leave others to judge
your motives in trying to make that assertion.

Good day Sir
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Dave

Chato said:

He NEVER said you couldn't develop film without power. You were
making a point to Scott Eaton, (a digital fanatic) not to Music
Doctor. He simply replied that using a powerless darkroom was
rediculous from a convenience point of view, so why mention it?

Click to expand...

LOL no but he stated "I bought a candle enlarger" and kept making points about "powerless darkrooms" something I have not advocated

Chato said:

Chato said:

Chato said:

Could it be because HIS point is that digital and it's convenience is
far more important than the benefits of film?

Click to expand...

No that was not his point and you know that.
I corrected a post that said you need power to dev film and pointed
out that you don't need electricity to develop film- thats all.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no - That was his point. Over and over he iterated the same
point.

Click to expand...

Honestly you need comprehension lessons, really seriously I'm worried

Chato said:

Chato said:

Chato said:

film? Are you claiming that the ability to do this makes film MORE
convenient?

Click to expand...

In a power cut yes, but not on the whole I was just pointing out to
someone who stated you couldn't do it - thats all.

Click to expand...

Odd, he never said that, as I point out above.

Click to expand...

No but (please join the dots) he said to my point that you can develop film without power "Oh I just bought a candle lit enlarger" in RESPONSE to Scotts post - try to follow the thread.

Chato said:

Right. I'll run out and buy a Model T Ford - Never get a flat tire
either.

Click to expand...

What so you equate those who find film or Alt process to be the equivalent to buying a model T Ford?
It's an aesthetic choice, Ok

Not something to be denigrated as "I'll go out and buy a candle enlarger or a Model T Ford'
Those are ignorant at best, and Troll-ish at worst.
I re-iterate:

Chato said:

Chato said:

Nowhere in this thread have I criticised his choice of medium, NOWHERE
You have attempted to spin it that way, i'll leave others to judge
your motives in trying to make that assertion.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

you attempt to spin it as such does you a huge disservice (or just shows your true colours)
--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

you DO post your examples!

Chato said:

(BTW - You owe me a thank you, for fighting off the temptation of
posting my own examples)

If I shot B&W I might very well go back to film until digital has
better range.

Click to expand...

Well.. I am not so sure about the superiority of film concerning HDR..that's very variable with different films and therefore very arguable.. but that's not the reason I love film. I love the overall results and the sheer feel of a selenium toned silver print. besides.. I feel that when shooting film I commit myself with the subject in a deeper way and enjoy the whole photographic experience a lot more.
Silly? Maybe to some people.. but it surely does feel good!

Nuno

O5iris said:

you DO post your examples!

Click to expand...

O5iris said:

Well.. I am not so sure about the superiority of film concerning
HDR..that's very variable with different films and therefore very
arguable..

Click to expand...

I don't do HDR.

O5iris said:

but that's not the reason I love film. I love the overall
results and the sheer feel of a selenium toned silver print.
besides.. I feel that when shooting film I commit myself with the
subject in a deeper way and enjoy the whole photographic experience a
lot more.

Click to expand...

O5iris said:

Silly? Maybe to some people.. but it surely does feel good!

Click to expand...

Not silly - As I stated in the post you are replying to, even after digital surpasess film in range, there will still be those who like the look and feel of film.

Isn't that what I said?

O5iris said:

Nuno

Click to expand...

This last one doesn't "pop," but I post it anyway, because I like the look and feel of this shot...



Dave

--
Wow...that's a pretty killer camera! Are you any good?

-Jake-

Dear Dave,

I think you have problem with reading comprehension. I stated pretty clearly why I think medium format gives me the look I want. And it's very useful for objects that move around. It's all about "right size". I wrote some pretty straightforward stuff about my preferences early on. I don't know whether someone read it to you or not. You seem to have a lot of emotional issues tied up in proving your point of view. I'm not sure it's an effective use of your time and energy. I know it's fun to be a contrarian but it does make you seem a bit silly.

Kirk
http://www.kirktuck.com
--
Austin based portrait artist

Nice pics!
Which camera/lens combinations?

Kirk Tuck said:

Dear Dave,

I think you have problem with reading comprehension. I stated pretty
clearly why I think medium format gives me the look I want. And it's
very useful for objects that move around. It's all about "right
size". I wrote some pretty straightforward stuff about my
preferences early on. I don't know whether someone read it to you or
not. You seem to have a lot of emotional issues tied up in proving
your point of view. I'm not sure it's an effective use of your time
and energy. I know it's fun to be a contrarian but it does make you
seem a bit silly.

Click to expand...

My "point of view" is that Music Doctor has a reasonable point of view. It's that simple. And I am struck my all those who feel that they have something to "prove" at his expense.

Over and over the man states that he loves film, but digital is so convenient that he personally doesn't shoot film anymore. Not with a word or a comma has he bashed film. So we've reached the point where everyone is making believe that he's a Scott Eaton clone who puts down digital every chance he gets, and that he's a liar when he talks about his film experience.

Normally on these threads I defend film against digital nut jobs like Eaton - But on THIS thread, it would appear the situation is reversed.

Dave

Dave

Member said:

Kirk
http://www.kirktuck.com
--
Austin based portrait artist

Click to expand...

O5iris said:

Nice pics!
Which camera/lens combinations?

Click to expand...

Bee and Carp with a D1x and Swarovski scope, Pigions with the same "lens" but a D2x

Dave

. . . lossy desktop scanned film outresolves any digiscam that's why! Where does yours rank? Of course it also has far more latitude then any digiscam too.



If you want to verify it yourself you can check my 100% crops in my album at http://www.fototime.com/inv/7FA2D97823BDBD6 - it includes the setup parameters.

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?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I shoot transparency slides as an analog hedge against the risk of digital data stored magnetically or optically. Who knows about jpg files in a hundred years?

--
'Photos are what remain when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

After getting into photography via digital cameras, I was intrigued by the prospect of shooting full frame for $200 instead of $5000. So I got an F100 on Ebay and have been pleasantly surprised by:
-Greater dynamic range (blue sky,snow and shadows CAN coexist!)



-Truer reds
-More detail in shadows





http://www.pbase.com/pgonline/image/93052869

An additional benefit is that my wide lenses really shine on full format. My 15mm Sigma fisheye actually is pretty impressive on the F100



http://www.pbase.com/pgonline/image/93054742

I shoot Fuji NPS160s, have it developed and scanned at Costco, then bring it in to Photoshop.

However if I am not dealing with high contrast shots, or extreme wide angle, then Digital (D200) can usually do better( higher ISO, cleaner shots,etc). Just my $0.02

For them who know, no explanation is needed. For them who don't, no explanation is possiable...

Film still has many advantages (so far) however, the use of film in todays fast environment is no longer fast enuf. Hence, it's somewhat fall from grace.. and digital has taken over..

To be honest, it's the image that is there 1st, the quality is sometimes 2nd place....
Bob - Tucson
--
Does the equipment make the man..? No..! But it sure can make the man money...

I don't know if I 'll do it or not, but I'm looking at a Canon 50mm f1.2 built in 1977; I examined it today and the lens is in mint condition. The joy of a used 50mm is that most folks owned them, most didn't use them. If I purchase the Canon 50mm f1.2, I'll need a camera for it and I'll purchase a T90 which will accept FD lenses. This option is 1/3 the price of a new 50mm f1.2 L today.

I enjoy using an older camera and being astonished at how excellent the image is. I have an Epson scanner and I can scan the film in and muck about with photoshop, etc.

I have a Boy Scout camera made in 1932 purchased for $5 in its day. This camera is in mint condition and I don't think any shots were ever taken from it. Today this very same camera is worth about $500. I'm trying to find some film so I can use it at least for a couple of rolls worth so I can enjoy an image created by a camera from the early "30."

Digital, most digital, is still a bit to fussy for me, I don't like the dynamic range. I know you can't tell a digital image from a film image despite what folks say. The great advantage of digital is chimping that can be done with the LCD screen, the immediate gratification of getting it home and transferring the image to the computer. I still don't like the wait for film after the roll is taken in, but once the image is in my computer it is identical to playing with a digital image.

For cropping, film is still better for those of use without a FF camera.
--
Rationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.
Joni Mitchell

You people are sick. I mean really sick. Get help before they lock you up.

jack1931

There are certain joy and quality to it. If you have shot film and printed photos in a darkroom any time between the mid-70's to the mid-90's you would understand the "fun" of it. Especially if you had experience with quality cameras. If your first SLR is a digital one. Forget it. Most would not get it.

For me? I still shoot a few rolls every now and then. 99% chrome and then scan them. 1/2 of the joy is using my beloved cameras cuz I don't want to part with them. Other than shooting 120 all my film shoots are mostly for fun and I am in a relaxed mode. It kind of like high end watches. If you want something accurate, go buy a quartz watch. If you only need something that tells time you got a cellphone or computer. But nothing give me a grin on my face when I put a nice watch on.

There is no doubt film and processing would be special order items in the future. The market will shrink to service only a small special interest group. Enjoy them while you can.

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?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

--

For an old manual-focus camera it is easy to buy an UWA lens for € 100 or less. For a cropped-sensor or FourThirds DSLR you will have to shell out at least $ 500.
Here's a shot with an M42 Chinon lens on an M42 Praktica LLC:



--
pbase Supporter