Pashmo
Newbie
A stranger told me film is back..
I have each foot firmly in both camps. I shoot digital for 'work' work (commercial interiors mostly) and shoot exclusively film for my personal work and my own pleasure.
I do occasionally whip (haul) my Pentax 67 w/ 75/4.5 shift out on a commercial job and I would like to shoot it more but the bottom line doesn't really support this.
One thing that has become apparent since selling my Mamiya 7II way back in 2003 to fund a Canon 10D and a slew of lenses is that digital has, for me, become synonymous with work. And that's the reason I like film so much (amongst many other reasons not for this thread).
If I retired tomorrow I would sell all my digital cameras in a heartbeat. I'm lucky enough to have a darkroom too so producing photos without involving a computer is pure bliss.
I've shot film consistently since I was 16, even through my early adoption of digital for work, and I'm 46 now. I still get as excited when I step into my darkroom now as I did when clambering up the ladders into my first darkroom in my parents attic.
For me film hasn't come back because it never went away!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have each foot firmly in both camps. I shoot digital for 'work' work (commercial interiors mostly) and shoot exclusively film for my personal work and my own pleasure.
I do occasionally whip (haul) my Pentax 67 w/ 75/4.5 shift out on a commercial job and I would like to shoot it more but the bottom line doesn't really support this.
One thing that has become apparent since selling my Mamiya 7II way back in 2003 to fund a Canon 10D and a slew of lenses is that digital has, for me, become synonymous with work. And that's the reason I like film so much (amongst many other reasons not for this thread).
If I retired tomorrow I would sell all my digital cameras in a heartbeat. I'm lucky enough to have a darkroom too so producing photos without involving a computer is pure bliss.
I've shot film consistently since I was 16, even through my early adoption of digital for work, and I'm 46 now. I still get as excited when I step into my darkroom now as I did when clambering up the ladders into my first darkroom in my parents attic.
For me film hasn't come back because it never went away!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I highly doubt it... AA was super technical.... the iPhone would not have been enough for him. He'd be super into high resolution cameras and tons of software!
Huss
Veteran
The great thing about using an iphone at a concert is anyone can do it. No skill needed.
And that is exactly why film is coming back, and why strangers come up to me to tell me about it.
And that is exactly why film is coming back, and why strangers come up to me to tell me about it.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I highly doubt it... AA was super technical.... the iPhone would not have been enough for him. He'd be super into high resolution cameras and tons of software!
Over processed HDR would have been his norm.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
It's quite a bit more difficult with a moving subject.Boy’o’boy
Never heard of Paris by Night? Brassai. This about your AA passage.
And what amount of keepers have to do with film and low light?
Take a measure and expose. I have done it. Under low light.
No, I've done it, and it CAN Be done. But Digital is pretty clearly easier to get good results. No matter WHO you are or how experienced you are.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Well, I'm going by this thought process. Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) In Adams' heyday, film and lens constraints meant that in order to make big sharp prints with a full tonal range, one needed a big negative. Ergo 8x10 and 5x7 view cameras with which he made most of his famous images. What was film speed? ASA 25? Tripos were strictly required for all serious images.
2) By 1960 or before (but not in his early days) medium format, while smaller than large format was to the point in film emulsions and lens quality that they could make decent enlargements and with good tonal range. The example above somewhat proves that.
3) These days, with 60 MP "full frame" sensors and our awesome glass and coatings, more is possible than was with 35 mm. Maybe it would even exceed medium format image quality from 1960... With digital medium format, and modern optics I bet it could easily match the image quality of a 5x7 view camera with 1960 optics and emulsions... Heck, he may not have even needed his woody wagon to carry bulky gear around.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
By the way, some of those concert pix from back in the day posted above are not very good at all, by today's digital standards. With an entry level full frame SLR and a 85/1.8 lens, it would be very easy to beat them. They would look more like the Jimi Hendrix pic, except that it could also be in correct color and with less grain.
Bingley
Veteran
Shhhhhh! Don't let the secret out...
Michael Markey
Veteran
Agreed .
I can`t say that I was that happy with those of mine I posted .
I only posted as an example of how bad they could be .
I wasn`t happy even back in the day and certainly wouldn`t be happy with them now .
I went to lots of gigs back then (and worked on a few) but never took my camera again.
Marshall could do it but he was good and had much better access than most .
You`re right ,even an entry level DSLR would beat them now and something like an A7S knock `em out of the ball park.
Ste_S
Well-known
Just shows it's a matter of taste and/or appropriateness for the subject. Some people would consider the digital worse because it's images are cleaner.
Outside of that, if you're a pro shooting a concert (or anything else) you'd be a fool not to use digital from a cost perspective and speed of turn around for the client.
Guth
Appreciative User
I can, and do, enjoy images that others make using both digital and film cameras. The reality for me is that as far as music concert photography is concerned, I found all of the old film-based images to be more interesting than the image from the electronica dance concert that started this whole sub-discussion simply because they actually captured musicians in the process of creating music.
But I do get your point as well as those made by others in favor of digital cameras for certain applications. Especially if you are doing this for a living as opposed to just having fun as I am. Earlier this year I attended a concert in a very small venue that was a combination guitar store and bar that sometimes features live music. I had never been to this place before and did not know what to expect. It turned out that there was very little in the way of lighting so I chose some Ilford Delta 3200 film and gave it my best try. I surely would have obtained different results with a digital camera, and would have known on the spot whether or not I was achieving any success.
In the end I had a lot of fun just working to make the images and I managed to end up with a few that did a nice job of capturing the mood of the evening. I also ended up with a few people commenting on my use of a film camera. Not that this last bit really matters, but it does seem to be in keeping with the topic of the thread. Look, I realize that my photography skills leave a lot to be desired, but that doesn't keep me from having fun. For people like me that are treating photography purely as a casual creative exercise, film photography brings brings it's own unique challenges and therefore unique fun and unique rewards to the mix. I'll admit I find it interesting that there are people out there who are now just discovering this for themselves. I'll continue to watch with interest as it all plays out while enjoying the work of others, regardless of the camera type used. After all, one of the things I appreciate about this forum is how much inspiration I can find here and that has almost nothing to do with the camera being used.
jawarden
Well-known
Well, I'm going by this thought process. Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) In Adams' heyday, film and lens constraints meant that in order to make big sharp prints with a full tonal range, one needed a big negative. Ergo 8x10 and 5x7 view cameras with which he made most of his famous images. What was film speed? ASA 25? Tripos were strictly required for all serious images.
2) By 1960 or before (but not in his early days) medium format, while smaller than large format was to the point in film emulsions and lens quality that they could make decent enlargements and with good tonal range. The example above somewhat proves that.
3) These days, with 60 MP "full frame" sensors and our awesome glass and coatings, more is possible than was with 35 mm. Maybe it would even exceed medium format image quality from 1960... With digital medium format, and modern optics I bet it could easily match the image quality of a 5x7 view camera with 1960 optics and emulsions... Heck, he may not have even needed his woody wagon to carry bulky gear around.
I don't argue any of that, and I completely agree that modern optics and digital sensors are straight-up amazing. But everyone knows Adams, if we could dig him up and reconstitute his brain, would see the limitations of sharpness in this abrasive world and revert to his early career pictorial softness by converting his Holga to a pinhole.
Tina Modotti, btw, would definitely be a M4/3 zealot, probably Olympus, and certainly primes.
;-)
css9450
Veteran
Which brings up a pet peeve of mine, albeit of a mostly-unrelated topic.
I like to shoot concert videos with my Sony vidcam, but at any venue larger than a bar, I'm not allowed to bring it. But there will be 10,000 people there filming it with their phones...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I’m agree.
If some one needs to have clear picture, it is easy with digital.
But then I asked why my daughter wants to take two film cameras instead of one digital to Europe, she told me what she likes how results looks like.
I think most of the Disney attendees with film cameras are not pushing their professional limits, either.
For some if picture is sharp and no motion blur, but technically correct colour - it is nice picture. But for some it is dental exam boring picture.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Exactly. Film images have tremendous character that is utterly absent from a digital image. That's why we see 60 or more "film simulation" plugins that try to goose up the sterile digital images. You dont see too many plugins that try to take scanned film shots and make them look more digital!
Huss
Veteran
I know it was to be expected, but this really isn't a thread about film vs digital. Of course digital is incredible if that's what you want.
It was about a complete stranger approaching me and telling me about all the film camera users he is now seeing, and how surprised he was.
Best part about it was the observation of the young users, because who cares if old farts like us harp on about how great it is?!
It was about a complete stranger approaching me and telling me about all the film camera users he is now seeing, and how surprised he was.
Best part about it was the observation of the young users, because who cares if old farts like us harp on about how great it is?!
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Well, I'm going by this thought process. Correct me if I'm wrong:
1) In Adams' heyday, film and lens constraints meant that in order to make big sharp prints with a full tonal range, one needed a big negative. Ergo 8x10 and 5x7 view cameras with which he made most of his famous images. What was film speed? ASA 25? Tripos were strictly required for all serious images.
2) By 1960 or before (but not in his early days) medium format, while smaller than large format was to the point in film emulsions and lens quality that they could make decent enlargements and with good tonal range. The example above somewhat proves that.
3) These days, with 60 MP "full frame" sensors and our awesome glass and coatings, more is possible than was with 35 mm. Maybe it would even exceed medium format image quality from 1960... With digital medium format, and modern optics I bet it could easily match the image quality of a 5x7 view camera with 1960 optics and emulsions... Heck, he may not have even needed his woody wagon to carry bulky gear around.
Smaug, About optics & emulsions, (hyper) sharp does not = good. A parallel exists with musical instruments loud doesn't = tone. If HD digital appeals to you that's fine, but the reason people continue to photograph with Tessars & Dagors & Planars & (insert your favourite) instead of Apo-Sironar-S or Leitz Asph...is because of tonality and character. You should look at some (real) prints with 5x7 negatives & '60s or earlier optics..... I'll take Joe Pass over hip-hop any day of the week.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Excellent point. I'll take a real Mellotron over a digital recreation. The digital versions have the life sucked out of them. Same with a Fender Rhodes.
Come on man, plenty of amateurs used film to make concerts photos for many years. And let`s be honest... the iPhone isn`t a great low light tool and typically only has a wide angle and normal lens ... so it isn`t very easy to make a great concert photo with an iPhone either. High ISO on an iPhone is about 400. And that will look like a painting when you print it at 8x10".
Huss
Veteran
Those amateurs had a semblance of knowledge.
Yeah, I've looked at my low light iphone pics which looked great on the phone's screen. At any print size larger than 5x7 it was as you describe. A blotchy mess.