Who needs digital cameras?

[cameramanic]

I bought a flash unit last week from a car boot sale its a Olympus ps 200,
cost 50p less than $1, I have been using it on my Bessa R to test it,
just got the photos back, perfect exposure.

In the UK we have a discount store called poundland,all items £1,
they have Kodak HD 400 film £1 for a pack of 2, perfect rangefinder film.not out of date.

Tesco will develop your film and burn it to disc in one hour for £1.98 per film.
So you have a set of negatives and the digital images on disc for £2.48 which is less than $5

who needs digital cameras ?

 

[GeneW]

who needs digital cameras ?

Well .. me!

Gene

 

[phototone]

I need pro level digital cameras because my clients require that I capture in digital and they can leave the studio with a disc of their images. Immediate delivery.

For personal work....poo on digital.

 

[Socke]

who needs digital cameras ?

Those who pay 10 Euro for processing, mandatory prints and scans at the local WalMart? Add around 1.50 Euro for the cheapest 24 exp ISO 200 film.

 

[Socke]

Ah I forgot to mention the scans are 1840x1232 an just below one MByte :-(

 

[dcsang]

<snip>who needs digital cameras ?</snip>

Those of us who are currently paying upwards of $6 CDN ($4.75 USD / 2.25 Sterling) for one roll of Ilford HP 5+ or $8 CDN for Pan F.

Save for Fuji and maybe a wee bit of kodak, everything else has to be imported now because not as many shooters are using film.

Sad really.. but it's a sign of the times.

Cheers
Dave

 

[Fred]

I use both.

For other peoples stuff I tend to use digital, pop it on a laptop so they can see the shoot. For most personal stuff I use film.

I do use a DSLR and film SLR for other odds and ends where an RF has trouble (long tele shots), sometimes digital is good for light tests n stuff.

Personally I prefer a wet print or projected slide film. Something more organic about the whole thing.

 

[Kin Lau]

Those of us who are currently paying upwards of $6 CDN ($4.75 USD / 2.25 Sterling) for one roll of Ilford HP 5+ or $8 CDN for Pan F.

That's why I roll my own. CDN $46- for 100ft of HP5+ at Henry's, about $2.50 per roll of 36. Tri-X is just a bit more at $55- for 100ft. APX100 is only $30-/100ft at photo-co or Downtown Camera. It probably costs me only about $.50 per roll to dev.

For colour, I usually shoot Fuji Superia XTRA, about CDN $15- for a 6 pack at most grocery stores or Walmart. $5- to dev with no scans, but I have my own scanner. I also noticed that Walmart's scans are done with a flatbed from the 4x6 prints. They don't use Fuji Frontiers, but Noritsu's up here instead.

But getting back to cameramanic's point. If you have the right circumstances for it, then great... all the power to you. Just don't rub it in for all your less fortunate brethern.

As for digital... yup, I do that too.

 

[childers-jk]

I agree with phototone. Other peoples stuff, digital. My stuff film. Processing your own B&W and using bulk film is my trail. I do digital for generic work, but for the good stuff, film is my choice.

 

[cameramanic]

I also have Digital as well as film cameras, Nikon D100, Nikon 4300, and some cheap and nasty digital toy cameras. My point is it's quite cheap to get digital images from cheap film cameras, which when scanned will give better images, and file sizes, than most consumer Digital cameras.

Most non-photographers use digital these days, not many point and shoot cameras sold are film cameras.OK most professionals use Digital as well so Digital is on the increase,
so back to my point film, and film cameras are getting cheaper. which as got to be good for someone reading threads on a rangefinder Forum.

When I scan the 6x6 Velvia transparancies I get from my Hasslelblad, or the 35mm slides from my rangefinders or SLRs, the files are big enough for the stock libraries without the interpolation i would need from my D100.

Someone in one of the other threads was asking why shoot transparancies when most people dont project them anymore, one answer is they definately scan better than negatives

 

[dcsang]

<snip>
so back to my point film, and film cameras are getting cheaper. which as got to be good for someone reading threads on a rangefinder Forum.</snip>

<snip>Someone in one of the other threads was asking why shoot transparancies when most people dont project them anymore, one answer is they definately scan better than negatives</snip>

hmm.. Film is not getting cheaper for everyone - it may be for you folks over in the UK 🙂 and that's a great thing but like I said, for us here in Canada ( I can't speak on behalf of the U.S. ), the prices of roll film have gone up in the past 8 months because everything must be imported.

Film cameras have definitely gone down in price - used film cameras that is - even more so if you shoot medium format - I recently picked up a nice minty Hasselblad 40mm C T* with hood for $750 USD - a couple years ago I would have been lucky to find a 50mm Chrome C lens for that price.

With respect to scanning of chromes; they certainly do scan better depending on the scanner 🙂 I've scanned 6x6 chromes on an Imacon 848 and they were SWEET looking; but I've also scanned the same chromes on an Epson 2450 and while they looked "ok" the quality wasn't nearly as good as the Imacon 😀

Oh, and Kin, I think I may start going your route for the B&W film - I like the HP 5+ grain so I'm willing to chance it and roll my own if it means a reduction in costs of up to 60% per roll 🙂

Cheers
Dave

 

[Matthew]

As I'm typing this, a portfolio of some of my architecture and location work is being printed beside me. Some of it was shot with Canon EOS film gear, some with a Leica M and some digitally. The scans were done with a Minolta 5400; most of the film used was Velvia. The thing that strikes me is that the scans from film are noticably better than the digital images. It's strange because on the screen the digital images look cleaner, but the film images are printing better. I'm certainly splitting hairs and no one who didn't know which was which is likely to be able to pick out the differences, but knowing which images came from a scan, the difference is apparent to me.