Am I crazy for buying a film camera?

The lab where I go it is 3091 x 2048
Just curious. Thanks in advance, P.

No text

I still occasionally use my old film SLR although it's a Canon so I cannot use any of my modern Nikon lenses on it.

It remains fun to use, and the results can be quite interesting.

Actually my main frustration is just how expensive film processing has become, which makes economic sense (most labs have closed) but remains a frustration.

Couple samples below - I realise these shots are full of limitations and I'm thus not posting them for their great qualities, but I still think film has a special quality to it:

detail of small tree trunk with snow
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/3084133825/

portrait
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antoinebach/3399093981/

pidera said:

The lab where I go it is 3091 x 2048
Just curious. Thanks in advance, P.

Click to expand...

Jessop's UK - Film Development and Scanning
High Resolution = 3637 x 2433

In Edinburgh, Scotland they supply low res, medium res and high res jpegs on a CD for an extra £2 but I always 'remind them' to do a High Res scan as sometimes you will only get a low res and medium on the CD.

Richard
--
Richard Lawrence
Web: http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/
http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/spotlight.htm
http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/articles.htm

I just bought a mint F100 on Ebay for $216 shipped and I use my 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 and 80-200 f 2.8. I want to buy a 24 f 2.8 next. I love it.

I think it is about a $1.99 and another couple bucks for a high resolution CD at COSCO. Also MPIX will process your C41 film and upload the files for you.

Anthony said:

I have to agree with you here. The f100 is a fantastic body, but it isnthe film version of a modernized digital camera... And I'm not sure if that's what I want.
I think I would prefer the manual, nostalgic feeling of shooting a roll of film.

For that reason, I'm actually considering nothing more than a pentax K1000 or and older nikormat with 50mm lens, and nothing more.

Click to expand...

I think if that is the kind of camera that you want then you are crazy to buy such a camera. These things are floating around for free (or very nearly free...lol). I have a K1000 and a couple of pentax lenses that I keep in a bag in my trunk, I was given the whole lot by a photographer who was cleaning out his darkroom. The experience while using it is enjoyable.

I have an even older Practika L2 camera that was my father's. Nothing special, not even a meter. I've used this camera for years. Additionally, M42 lenses can be found for this for next to nothing. There are so many 50mm lenses that were sold as kits ....millions of them.

More recently, I purchased (crazy I know) a Nikon FG. I just wanted something that could use my older manual focus F-mount lenses. Beautiful little camera, full manual control, Aperture and Program modes, even primitive exposure compensation. I don't use film often so one thing I really wanted was the ability to shoot even if the battery was dead. The FG can shoot a 1/90th even with no battery. Focusing is a pleasure with the split prism. I can use this with some newer lenses as long as they have aperture control (I enjoy using this with my Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0...nice and wide on full frame).

These are just the ones I have in my small collection. Obviously, there are hundreds of other 35mm cameras that will fit the bill too.

However, if you truly want a single lens film experience why not get one of the medium formats? One of the folding models maybe? With film you might appreciate the extra resolution from a medium format camera. I haven't gone down this road yet but have investigated it a bit. (Damn, now I'm going to head off to Value Village to see if they have any lying around).
--
eddyshoots

Yes, you're right, the analysis is limited by the quality of the scanner. There's a saying in astronomy that the atmosphere/telescope/eyepiece/eye chain is a stack of filters, where the final quality is limited to the worst of that chain.

However, as far as scanners go, the V700 compares very favoribly to dedicated film scanners:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm

more specifically, the comparison is done here:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_8.htm

Granted, this was done in 2006, compares to aa Nikon 4000, and who knows how good current film scanners are, but the flatbed held up quite well.

So yes, we're limited by the fact it's a scan, but the V700 I used yields about as good as you can get w/o going to $20k scanners, and even they yield minimal increases in quality.

One advantage of a flatbed format for a dedicated film scanner is the format flexibility. A dedicated slide scanner can't scan in medium-format and large-format negative. and positive film. Flatbed scanners can handle any format that fits the scanner. This provides an incentive for making a really good film scanner in a flatbed format. What alternatives are there if you wish to scan in your 4x5 positive film at 2400dpi?

On another note (since you seem to be dinging the comparison because a scan was used on the slide film), how would you do a comparison? You have to get both into some common media for a comparison, what do you suggest? As you say, the fact that the D90 starts out digital gives it an edge. How would you level the playing field? More importantly, how would you level the playing field in a way that we can judge via pictures here on the forum?

zzzzzzzzzzz said:

No, it is a reflective scanner with a transparency adapter. You basically compared your D90 to your scanner, not to film media.

Yes, your D90 produces better digital images than your flatbed scanner does.

hoof said:

First off, the V700 is a slide/film scanner. It was invented and designed to provide the best possible film/negative scanning in a flatbed format w/o driving the cost up past $1k. Every comparison and review I've read said the difference between a $20k drum slide scanner and this scanner is minor. The next step up V750 is a minorly different version, but comes with the ability to do a fluid interface for better scans.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Lyle-Mi said:

I believe you statement above only holds true if you limit yourself to 35mm, and even then some may argue. There is still no comparison between medium format and large format film images vs digital, even in smaller sized prints. Medium and Large format are vastly superior. At least they are to my eye.

Click to expand...

You are very much right. A larger imaging area will always yield an advantage. That's why FX format is hard for DX to beat, even with current-day DX vs 3-4 year old FX.

The problem becomes if you want to then use the picture afterwards. Either you have to scan it in, or you have to do some sort of analog imaging (e.g. a projector of some sort, or a photo print). As zzzzzzzzz points out earlier in the thread, a scanner can limit much of the advantage of film, making it less competitive to a native-digital capture mechanism like a DSLR. In fact, with a few exceptions (like the Epson V700 flatbed scanner), it's hard to get a good-quality scan w/o using $20k+ equipment. Even then, you're no longer in the analog domain, and are limited by the quality of the scan. And essentially, a digital scan is just a glorified digital capture mechanism, just done differently than a DSLR. It's kind of like taking a picture of a photo with a DSLR.

FTH said:

I still sell way more 6x7 & 4x5 film prints than digital shots. Maybe it's because of the long framing-thinking processus, but I think the colors & texture is way classier on film : gradiants are super smooth & texturs are very rich in details, the fact that the incoming light "burns" the gelatin, provides an extra something very particular & physical to film shots as well. (not like a translucent looking digital shot)

Click to expand...

Yup, you're talking about the "character" of film. Digital's biggest asset is also its biggest downside: It captures images just as they look in real life. Real life is often more boring than an "enhanced" version.

I showed a digital vs film comparison earlier in the thread. The D90 images look dull and washed out, because the actual scene in the physical world was dull and washed out. The DSLR captured reality very, very well. That's not always what we want in an image. With digital, you usually have to add that character in later (and it isn't always easier). With film, you get a lot of that character "for free", just by the nature of how the film works.

Terry Breedlove said:

I think it is about a $1.99 and another couple bucks for a high resolution CD at COSCO. Also MPIX will process your C41 film and upload the files for you.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd trust a scan by Costco. Sure, they might have good scanning equipment and people who know how to use it effectively, but I'm not willing to trust that. When I shoot film, I scan it myself using equipment that I trust and have verified will give me the quality I want.

But that said, you're right, it's cheap to process film (esp. "regular" negative 35mm film) at Costco

Rgds, Pieter

I was at the counter of a Nikon authorized camera store 3 months ago and while waiting my turn, the guy ahead of me was trading in a COMPLETE Nikon F1 with A1 lenses system, including wide angle, walk around, several telephoto and the 1.4 50mm. Guess what he got for a trade in on a D5000? $100!! Yes, $100. Fortunately(?) a guy behind me on line offered him a huge $150 for the whole camera and glass system. He took it.

I didn't know at the time if the glass was compatible with the D7000, so I didn't offer him a counter price.

What's my point? All technical innovations strut their "hour upon the stage and are gone"(with apologies to WS).

hoof said:

The problem becomes if you want to then use the picture afterwards. Either you have to scan it in, or you have to do some sort of analog imaging (e.g. a projector of some sort, or a photo print). As zzzzzzzzz points out earlier in the thread, a scanner can limit much of the advantage of film, making it less competitive to a native-digital capture mechanism like a DSLR. In fact, with a few exceptions (like the Epson V700 flatbed scanner), it's hard to get a good-quality scan w/o using $20k+ equipment. Even then, you're no longer in the analog domain, and are limited by the quality of the scan. And essentially, a digital scan is just a glorified digital capture mechanism, just done differently than a DSLR. It's kind of like taking a picture of a photo with a DSLR.

Click to expand...

True, but the advantages of larger formats go both ways. A larger slide or negative is easier to put into digital no matter the scanner technology used. As long as it fits, any scanner will yield superior results with larger film. Much more detail can be extracted from and 8x10 transparency than can be extracted from a frame of 35mm film.

--
eddyshoots

I honestly do not think the two formats can be accurately compared. The two formats have different media types and there will always be some sort of conversion necessary to get them to the same media. You could try to print both, but then you have the mini lab/enlarger and printer variables. You could try to view both on a computer, but then the film has to be unfairly subjected to a scan. The way I see it is a D-SLR is clearly your best choice if your target media is a digital image. If you want to use your old slide projector than a film camera is a better choice.

FWIW I own a Nikon F, Nikon FG, Nikon N90s, Nikon N70, Nikon D50, Nikon D90, and a D7000. I also have a color enlarger and all of the required support equipment.

hoof said:

On another note (since you seem to be dinging the comparison because a scan was used on the slide film), how would you do a comparison? You have to get both into some common media for a comparison, what do you suggest? As you say, the fact that the D90 starts out digital gives it an edge. How would you level the playing field? More importantly, how would you level the playing field in a way that we can judge via pictures here on the forum?

Click to expand...

Hoof wrote :

hoof said:

Yup, you're talking about the "character" of film. Digital's biggest asset is also its biggest downside: It captures images just as they look in real life. Real life is often more boring than an "enhanced" version.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Here are some 6x7 slides (and 1 ektar 100 shot) to illustrate my purpose (system used : Bronica GS-1, 50mm & 200mm)

But here in Switzerland, I've just not been able to find a place where films can be developed for reasonable amounts of money.

in Geneva, forget it, 15 CHF for 1 roll ! In Canada, around 5-6 CHF... (4,5 CAN)

Americans have it very good when it comes to just about anything to do with products, pricing and selection. The economy is just so large that anything within it's borders can be done cheaper and better (in some cases cheaper or better).

I'm Canadian, I live within 5 minutes of the US border yet our grocery stores have half the product selection that the Americans have just a few minutes away. The same is true with hardware stores, shoes and clothing. Just about everything is less expensive. And remember I am talking a 2 or 3 km physical distance.

Just last night I was speaking with one of the other parents at my son's school. She buys just about everything she can in the US. A $50 designer T-shirt here can be found for $8 in Florida. 4L of milk is $449 here or $2 in the states. The list goes on and on. A consumer's paradise.

Even Costco. Canadian Costco has stopped handling film, they are only digital now. In many ways it's a different world across that border.

Now don't get me wrong. I love where I live and we have things here that I would never want to give up (Lower crime, universal healthcare...etc.) but I do wish Amazon would sell more than books here.

antoineb said:

But here in Switzerland, I've just not been able to find a place where films can be developed for reasonable amounts of money.

Click to expand...

--
eddyshoots

There's a lot to be said for film. Read this:

http://photocamel.com/forum/photography-talk/125603-digital-killing-photography.html