Film Photography Survey

Started Nov 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,399

Mark Smith wrote:

carl english wrote:

We did have a variable iso film

We still have two currently made that can be exposed between 50 and 800 EI without changing process times.

- no more white balance problems

Dont have these with film either if scanned as a Raw

- instant gratification seconds after taking a shot

ever hear of polaroid?

Film is expensive in that we would have to a) pay for each roll of film, b) pay to have each roll developed and c) pay to have the prints made.

Film can be cheaper in that scenario too if you shoot few exposures a FF camera can be yours for $10 and you still have to pay to have prints made from digital.

With digital, the memory card is reuseable. Images are downloaded to the computer for viewing, so no developing and printing costs. We pay only for those few images we deem worthy of enlarging to make nice big prints.

With some films you do the same develop only then print the ones you need.

Yes, 35mm film is dead for all practical purposes.

35mm film can still out resolve most digital shots which curiously according to Flickr seem to be shot on iPhones.

Medium format (digital) is also dead for everyone except the hardened professional. Mainly due to very high entry costs. Plus cameras like the D800 have now clearly stepped into MF IQ territory.

Yet MF film cameras are cheap, film can be too. So if you shoot just a few shots (say one film a week)you can get wonderful output for a few dollars.

My go to film camera cost £100 and I feed it with Fomapan for £2 a roll it gives results like these:

I just sold off my medium format digital and bought a Nikon D800E. No regrets what-so-ever.

Sounds like you are trying to justify that too much

Justifying.....seem both camps have a commonality

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow