5 Reasons Film Is Better...

[wgerrard]

And what (new) film P&S camera could the writer of the article have pointed to that could be purchased...:

No disagreement here. The only film cameras I see in any mainstream retail store are those disposable things.

Amazon will sell you a Holga, and, surprisingly, an Olympus Epic (1 left in stock) and even a Canon APS camera.

Most people are not interested in "photography". They just want to take a few pictures to mark specific events. A lot of those folks are happy with buying a $10 throwaway once or twice a year. Others will spring for a couple hundred bucks for a little digital to stuff in a pocket while on vacation. ("Little" often being the most important criterion.) These folks don't have any reason to know about, much less worry about, things like noise, shutter lag and sensor size.

Which is why the Wired article, like most similar arguments, is relevant to a tiny sliver of camera users.

 

[RayPA]

In the morning they smell like victory?

ah yes...I know that smell very well. it comes in a green and white cup, costs a couple of bucks, and it goes well with a blueberry scone or a butta cwasant.

.

 

[Trius]

Pshaw! I'm tired of film AND digital. I'm going to buy me a sketch pad and some crayolas. And charcoal for B&W.

Seriously, hasn't this been done to death already? The equine corpse has been flogged so long it's starting to stink up the place...

If you don't drawn/sketch on a Moleskine don't bother showing it here.

 

[M. Valdemar]

That writer is a big windbag.

Probably a flak for Truegrain software. Notice the build-up, the point by point exposition, then POW!@

Buy Truegrain, pathetic digital users!

Hey, I'm a professional advertising copywriter, I know whereof I speak.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Not that this adds or subtracts anything to the article ... but I found it really funny last week while in Wellsley MA at a paper/craft/art store, a table featuring the latest and greatest from the lomo society

I happened to have my little fuji f30 to take the shot of the moment that made me burst out laughing; not that I have anything against lomo (though these were all Holgas and Dianas), but that it was a featured item in a store that prides itself on gift wrapping

I guess my point is that film is still alive, even if in a artsy niche way

 

[charjohncarter]

Maybe someone mentioned this (I didn't read all the posts), but he left out my biggest reason (I could live with his anti digital reasons) for liking film over digital: Dynamic Range (digital doesn't have enough yet).

 

[M. Valdemar]

I think the whole thing is a silly non-debate, digital is just another way to do imaging and if you like film use it, if not, don't.

Stop complaining and pontificating about why you like something or not like a bunch of menopausal old ladies.

 

[Keith]

Interestingly the camera that sits at the head of that peice of crap ... the Leica 1 ... was regarded as "not a real camera" because of it's teeny negatives and the guys with the real cameras that required two people to lift them knew damned well that 35mm film would never catch on! :angel:

Theres a bit of irony in that image.

 

[IGMeanwell]

Maybe someone mentioned this (I didn't read all the posts), but he left out my biggest reason (I could live with his anti digital reasons) for liking film over digital: Dynamic Range (digital doesn't have enough yet).

Depends on the camera you use ... I can say without hesitation that my Fuji S5 has the dynamic range of most negative films

I routinely set my S5 to overexpose at +2 and can still recover most highlights

but they are specialized cameras to some extent

 

[charjohncarter]

I read that some company was addressing the dynamic range problem (which proves my point). I hope they and others succeed. But for me it is still a none starter, I have three digitals, two DSLRs and I find I have to be very careful of the subjects I choose. Here in California the wedding photographers are going crazy. All these dark skinned girls (I have no problem with dark skin, it's just a fact.) wearing a very white dress and their new husband wearing a black tux.

 

[40oz]

Obviously the writer has never actually used a G9. They are very, very fast!

compared to what? And fast at what?

 

[IGMeanwell]

I read that some company was addressing the dynamic range problem (which proves my point). I hope they and others succeed. But for me it is still a none starter, I have three digitals, two DSLRs and I find I have to be very careful of the subjects I choose. Here in California the wedding photographers are going crazy. All these dark skinned girls (I have no problem with dark skin, it's just a fact.) wearing a very white dress and their new husband wearing a black tux.

If you ever get the chance to borrow an S3 or an S5, try it out... their files are a pleasure to work with

Here is a couple examples of a wedding I was an usher (not as a photographer) for where the S5 showed its ability to keep details in both the dress and tux

One example (2nd image) ISO1600 in mixed lighting (I was in the 2nd row)

and then a silly example with harsh light, the flower girl trying to keep her father's attention

These were shot in RAW at auto DR processed in lightroom

 

[charjohncarter]

It looks digital, but certainly better than the Canon or the other digitals I have. Very nice. Do you still pull out the Hassy for the formal portraits? (No judgement just as question.) I'm constantly going to LightZone when I use digital. You are much closer than my DSLRs to improved dynamic range, so you might give LightZone a try.

 

[charjohncarter]

A little LightZone and you can improve dynamic range.

 

[photogdave]

A little LightZone and you can improve dynamic range.

Just looks like you lowered the contrast. I don't see any additional highlight or shadow detail. Maybe a result of jpg compression?

 

[IGMeanwell]

It looks digital, but certainly better than the Canon or the other digitals I have. Very nice. Do you still pull out the Hassy for the formal portraits? (No judgement just as question.) I'm constantly going to LightZone when I use digital. You are much closer than my DSLRs to improved dynamic range, so you might give LightZone a try.

I wish I had a Hassy I suppose if photography were the major source of my income and not a 2nd job for me... I would probably incorporate medium format

For any weddings I do, I generally use nikon/fuji for all shots including the formals, mostly available light, I carry a flash, will sometimes use strobes (ABs) and I will carry film with me for specialized shots or general backup

The S5 has not as of yet been tested in a paying job for weddings, just a couple portrait sessions

For post processing I use a mixture of lightroom and Alienskin exposure plugin in Photoshop in light doses ... never tried lightzone maybe I'll give it a look

The only way to really appreciate the D-range of the Fuji SLRs are to do the same shot with a film camera and look at the similarities

Here is a a image from a leaf study I did recently, shows even with a boost of contrast you can see the different levels of this you can strain out of one file

 

[mike goldberg]

Hi All & Pete,
Is the "leaf study" a B/W film capture?
Mike

 

[IGMeanwell]

Hi All & Pete,
Is the "leaf study" a B/W film capture?
Mike

Yeah I should explain ... I have this annual collection I do for my own personal work that I call a "frosted leaf study"

Basically I have a glass outdoor table and in the fall it starts to frost over... it creates a great background for the many leaves that fall onto it. So I periodically go outside each morning, shoot each leaf the same way and with a few exceptions (such as the B&W one I posted).

They are all digital at the moment, but range in different cameras and lenses for the past two years. I'll continue to do it until I lose interest

I'll post a prototypical shot from the series