NickTrop
Veteran
Nice little article from Popular Photography and Imaging from this past December. Here are some "fair-use" snips:
5 Reasons to Shoot Film
Five cases when film beats digital hands-down.
By Russell Hart
December 2006
Digital is the earnest child of photography, always striving to better itself. Film is the adult, having had more than a century to mature. That's why there are times when film -- and only film -- is the best insurance that you'll get the result you want. Here are five arguments in its favor.
1) ULTIMATE IMAGE SHARPNESS
For most purposes, digital will do. But unless you're shooting with an ultra high-resolution digital back or top pro-level DSLR, film still produces the sharpest possible images. A 35mm frame converted to a digital file by today's desktop scanners simply clobbers the sharpness of a typical consumer DSLR...
...Yes, you can sharpen a digital image in software. And with most DSLRs you must, because images are considerably softened by anti-aliasing filters that keep their sensors from recording jagged edges and moiré patterns.
...The sharpness you get from film is more natural looking.
2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK"
Films have personality; DSLRs don't. While many DSLRs let you dial in higher or lower saturation and contrast, those crude adjustments can't compare to the richness of film, whether Velvia's crisp, saturated look or the delicate tonal shoulder of Tri-X...
3) WIDEST TONAL RANGE
Digital SLRs are dynamically challenged. In contrasty light they have a hell of a time with highlight and shadow detail. Sure, they've improved, and RAW helps. But they have far to go before they match a color negative's ability to lasso photons high and low.
Film can be manipulated to soak up even more of a scene's tonal extremes. You can rein in highlights by "pulling... the development of b&w film. You compensate for this by adding exposure when shooting, improving shadow detail. You can overexpose color negative film by as much as four stops to increase shadow detail and reduce contrast, without damaging highlight nuances.
Again, some super-duper digital backs claim to match or exceed the range captured by film. If you can afford them, go for it -- and bring along your laptop.
4) ON A FIXED BUDGET
At a given level of quality, film is still less costly than digital. On the low end, a single-use camera loaded with color negative film costs under $10; the cheapest digital point-and-shoots run nearly $100...on the high end, consider what a well-appointed 35mm SLR will set you back these days: a couple hundred bucks with lens.
5) WIDEST ANGLE OF VIEW WITH YOUR EXISTING LENSES
True, camera makers have created some excellent wide-angle zooms,...for their digital SLRs. These lenses offset the smaller-than-35mm image sensor found in all but a couple of DSLRs. ...many photographers choose the same brand of DSLR that they used for 35mm because they can shoot with their existing lenses. The problem is (the) smaller image sensor puts horse blinkers on those lenses, wasting much of their available image circle.
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/3442/5-reasons-to-shoot-film.html
------------
I'll add "6" - those small digital point and shoot cameras and tiny sensor are not capable of producing "bokeh" in most instances - for me, a "deal breaker".
So, when you're asked why you're shooting with your grandfather's camera, you have a nice tidy little "cheat sheet" in this article. Sometimes grandpa knew best.
5 Reasons to Shoot Film
Five cases when film beats digital hands-down.
By Russell Hart
December 2006
Digital is the earnest child of photography, always striving to better itself. Film is the adult, having had more than a century to mature. That's why there are times when film -- and only film -- is the best insurance that you'll get the result you want. Here are five arguments in its favor.
1) ULTIMATE IMAGE SHARPNESS
For most purposes, digital will do. But unless you're shooting with an ultra high-resolution digital back or top pro-level DSLR, film still produces the sharpest possible images. A 35mm frame converted to a digital file by today's desktop scanners simply clobbers the sharpness of a typical consumer DSLR...
...Yes, you can sharpen a digital image in software. And with most DSLRs you must, because images are considerably softened by anti-aliasing filters that keep their sensors from recording jagged edges and moiré patterns.
...The sharpness you get from film is more natural looking.
2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK"
Films have personality; DSLRs don't. While many DSLRs let you dial in higher or lower saturation and contrast, those crude adjustments can't compare to the richness of film, whether Velvia's crisp, saturated look or the delicate tonal shoulder of Tri-X...
3) WIDEST TONAL RANGE
Digital SLRs are dynamically challenged. In contrasty light they have a hell of a time with highlight and shadow detail. Sure, they've improved, and RAW helps. But they have far to go before they match a color negative's ability to lasso photons high and low.
Film can be manipulated to soak up even more of a scene's tonal extremes. You can rein in highlights by "pulling... the development of b&w film. You compensate for this by adding exposure when shooting, improving shadow detail. You can overexpose color negative film by as much as four stops to increase shadow detail and reduce contrast, without damaging highlight nuances.
Again, some super-duper digital backs claim to match or exceed the range captured by film. If you can afford them, go for it -- and bring along your laptop.
4) ON A FIXED BUDGET
At a given level of quality, film is still less costly than digital. On the low end, a single-use camera loaded with color negative film costs under $10; the cheapest digital point-and-shoots run nearly $100...on the high end, consider what a well-appointed 35mm SLR will set you back these days: a couple hundred bucks with lens.
5) WIDEST ANGLE OF VIEW WITH YOUR EXISTING LENSES
True, camera makers have created some excellent wide-angle zooms,...for their digital SLRs. These lenses offset the smaller-than-35mm image sensor found in all but a couple of DSLRs. ...many photographers choose the same brand of DSLR that they used for 35mm because they can shoot with their existing lenses. The problem is (the) smaller image sensor puts horse blinkers on those lenses, wasting much of their available image circle.
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/3442/5-reasons-to-shoot-film.html
------------
I'll add "6" - those small digital point and shoot cameras and tiny sensor are not capable of producing "bokeh" in most instances - for me, a "deal breaker".
So, when you're asked why you're shooting with your grandfather's camera, you have a nice tidy little "cheat sheet" in this article. Sometimes grandpa knew best.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Another feature of film (which has been mentioned a lot before) is the inherent archival qualities of it.
Compared to a CD or DVD or 5.25" floppy or punchcards or whatever, a negative is forever!
Heck, I'm sure there are some people who never bother backing up -- the only version is on their hard disk. Or even worse, some people might delete the pic after printing it -- no original of any type, whatsoever. I could see that happening if you don't own a computer and use kiosks to print your pics. Either you delete the pics, or you keep buying memory cards.
Compared to a CD or DVD or 5.25" floppy or punchcards or whatever, a negative is forever!
Heck, I'm sure there are some people who never bother backing up -- the only version is on their hard disk. Or even worse, some people might delete the pic after printing it -- no original of any type, whatsoever. I could see that happening if you don't own a computer and use kiosks to print your pics. Either you delete the pics, or you keep buying memory cards.
Last edited:
NickTrop
Veteran
antiquark said:
You have to be pretty religious in your backing-up of stuff, which I suspect most people aren't. All hard drives eventually fail, every single one of them. They don't have a very long life and tend to "die suddenly" this is especially true when you start moving/deleting/writing large media files as this causes HDs to frag. Removable media is also unreliable. Flash cards get lost or break, disks become unreadable.
Yes, I've lost many a digital pic, as a somewhat early adapter, to all of these above and would have lost nearly all of them if I hadn't backed up "most" but not "all", most being 50 or 60 precious pics or so last year. I am posting on a new-ish laptop I didn't intend to buy
Last edited:
c.poulton
Well-known
I think the two main reasons I still shoot film are the 'look' of film against digital which I find 'too clean', and being able to fall back on my negs should I loose any of the scans due to hardware failure.
R
rich815
Guest
#2 is pretty much only reason I do photography at all. No doubt digital images can be impressive but they look too clean, smooth and clinical to me. Almost like perfect color Xerox copies (good ones, yes!) but it's not what I'm after myself.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
NickTrop said:
Here here! Those super short lenses are the pits. Not to mention lag.
I also like the physical object you produce, something to be filed away for the future that can be held up to the light and seen, and be printed next year or in 50 years. I can't open up any of my old files from my first computer, I forsee a lot of missing images in our futures.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Yeah, when I screw-up and ruin a negative or slide I can accept that, but when some unknown does it for me I tend to get very p*ss*d off.
Again tho, digital does have a place. News, editorial, etc where the final product is needed fast and the quality of film is redundant. I'd hate to go back to shooting editorial on film. (As would every client)
Again tho, digital does have a place. News, editorial, etc where the final product is needed fast and the quality of film is redundant. I'd hate to go back to shooting editorial on film. (As would every client)
Lemures-Ex
Jared S
I don't get these arguments. Why not use both? They are different tools for different jobs/situations/approaches/preferences.
That said, I do think these are all valid points except #5 - Widest angle of view with lenses. This is nice, but you get a better tele end with smaller sensors and you use the sharpest part of the image circle so the advantages even out the disadvantages IMO.
I don't know why people worry about digital file compatability in the future. If your files become unusable there will almost certainly be file converters to make them usable again, especially for the largers companies.
Jared
That said, I do think these are all valid points except #5 - Widest angle of view with lenses. This is nice, but you get a better tele end with smaller sensors and you use the sharpest part of the image circle so the advantages even out the disadvantages IMO.
I don't know why people worry about digital file compatability in the future. If your files become unusable there will almost certainly be file converters to make them usable again, especially for the largers companies.
Jared
photogdave
Shops local
I remember having this discussion, oh, around this past December!
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
True.
I have a 2.5 Terabyte Raid system at home to keep my 100, 000's of digi photos (since 1998), and 2 closets of keep film too (since ever)... still my grand-pa Glass negatives (9x12 cm) still look impressive when I scanned them and they are more then 100 years old...
I don´t expect any of my hard drives stay "alive" that long.. in fact I do replace harddisks every 3 years or so (fortunately the RAID system makes the mirror data transparent... sort of...). and in fact, I could use that amount of €€€ for some lens... but no chance... need to keep investing in "legacy" data!
BTW two of my Grand-pa still pics in Glass negatives!
I'm not the original photographerangel:) but they do belong to the familly!
(if Mods-San feel they should not be here .. delete them...)
I have a 2.5 Terabyte Raid system at home to keep my 100, 000's of digi photos (since 1998), and 2 closets of keep film too (since ever)... still my grand-pa Glass negatives (9x12 cm) still look impressive when I scanned them and they are more then 100 years old...
I don´t expect any of my hard drives stay "alive" that long.. in fact I do replace harddisks every 3 years or so (fortunately the RAID system makes the mirror data transparent... sort of...). and in fact, I could use that amount of €€€ for some lens... but no chance... need to keep investing in "legacy" data!
BTW two of my Grand-pa still pics in Glass negatives!
I'm not the original photographer
angel:) but they do belong to the familly!(if Mods-San feel they should not be here .. delete them...
)Attachments
S
Socke
Guest
I don't bet on the archivability of films and prints from usual labs, if they are carefully processed they may be as stable as those from the 50s, but I have too many faded prints and negs from the 80s to believe in the inherent stability of those.
OTOH, film is what my Contax Gs need and I like to shoot my Contax Gs, so what was the question?
OTOH, film is what my Contax Gs need and I like to shoot my Contax Gs, so what was the question?
wintoid
Back to film
migtex said:
Fabulous shots!
JonR
Well-known
I agree with what was said above:
"I don't get these arguments. Why not use both? They are different tools for different jobs/situations/approaches/preferences"
To me it is not either or -- it is different forms of capturing things you see and feel. Today I spent a couple of hours with my Nikon D80 + 105 mm Micro AFS VR lens taking closeup photos of flowers where the Nikon and the lens is an absolutely fantastic tool and the ability to take houndreds and houndreds of shots experimenting with different settings is absolutely fantastic and could never be done in the same way with a rangefinder camera.... Then later in the afternoon we went for a walk and I took my Yashica Electro 35 CC with me - small, easy to use, silent and with the possibility to capture an afternoon outing.
I love 35-mm film and will continue to use it for a long time to come but I also love the possibilities with digital and I have fully embraced the new possibilities.
J
Jon
"I don't get these arguments. Why not use both? They are different tools for different jobs/situations/approaches/preferences"
To me it is not either or -- it is different forms of capturing things you see and feel. Today I spent a couple of hours with my Nikon D80 + 105 mm Micro AFS VR lens taking closeup photos of flowers where the Nikon and the lens is an absolutely fantastic tool and the ability to take houndreds and houndreds of shots experimenting with different settings is absolutely fantastic and could never be done in the same way with a rangefinder camera.... Then later in the afternoon we went for a walk and I took my Yashica Electro 35 CC with me - small, easy to use, silent and with the possibility to capture an afternoon outing.
I love 35-mm film and will continue to use it for a long time to come but I also love the possibilities with digital and I have fully embraced the new possibilities.
J
Jon