NickTrop
Veteran
I guess this was best answered in a review I recently read about a Panasonic digicam. I have this camera's ancestor (from way back in 2004), loved it when I got it but now only used it for specially purposes (it has a 12X optical zoom with image stabilization, so it takes the place of a big zoom.)
Here's the conclusion of the review from Digital Camera Review:
Conclusion
For many digital camera buyers image quality is the single most important consideration in their purchasing decision. However, exactly what constitutes superior image quality will always be relative and subjective. I have a favorite 11x14 Cibachrome print, made (in 1988) from an Agfachrome RS100 35mm slide. That print is sharp as a tack, all colors are hue accurate and absolutely neutral, there's no image noise, no blotching, no fading (after almost 20 years), and no purple fringing. Some potential purchasers may eliminate the FZ7 from their considerations because of its slightly higher than average noise levels and that's too bad. Most digicam buyers use their images for 4x6 prints, on-line photo albums, an occasional 8x10 enlargement, and for sharing (via e-mail) with friends/relatives. The FZ7 will excel in all those applications. This camera comes tantalizingly close to the mythical ideal prosumer digicam. With very little in the way of genuine competition, the FZ7 may be the best prosumer digicam choice (based on features/capabilities/performance vs price and at this point in time) for serious shutterbugs and advanced amateur shooters. Photography is not just a science - it is also an art, so it is important not to get too hung up on stats and specs. Noise, blotching, and purple fringing are (to a lesser or greater degree) present in all digital images and the only practical way to reliably (and completely) avoid these frustrating electronic anomalies is to shoot film.
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=2754
--------------------
This plus I love the old cameras, collecting affordable gear, like having a camera that works w/o a battery or the battery lasts for years, like playing with different film emulsions, like developing my black and white negs, like making my own wet-process prints, like being able to shoot at ISO settings higher than 200 withouts spending $1000 give or take for a DSLR kit for the privlidge, prefer not to spend hours tweaking images in photoshop, dislike finicky inkjets, and they're just - to me, way more fun. More focus on photography, less on technology bits, bytes, software, and megapixels.
Why do you still shoot film?
Here's the conclusion of the review from Digital Camera Review:
Conclusion
For many digital camera buyers image quality is the single most important consideration in their purchasing decision. However, exactly what constitutes superior image quality will always be relative and subjective. I have a favorite 11x14 Cibachrome print, made (in 1988) from an Agfachrome RS100 35mm slide. That print is sharp as a tack, all colors are hue accurate and absolutely neutral, there's no image noise, no blotching, no fading (after almost 20 years), and no purple fringing. Some potential purchasers may eliminate the FZ7 from their considerations because of its slightly higher than average noise levels and that's too bad. Most digicam buyers use their images for 4x6 prints, on-line photo albums, an occasional 8x10 enlargement, and for sharing (via e-mail) with friends/relatives. The FZ7 will excel in all those applications. This camera comes tantalizingly close to the mythical ideal prosumer digicam. With very little in the way of genuine competition, the FZ7 may be the best prosumer digicam choice (based on features/capabilities/performance vs price and at this point in time) for serious shutterbugs and advanced amateur shooters. Photography is not just a science - it is also an art, so it is important not to get too hung up on stats and specs. Noise, blotching, and purple fringing are (to a lesser or greater degree) present in all digital images and the only practical way to reliably (and completely) avoid these frustrating electronic anomalies is to shoot film.
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=2754
--------------------
This plus I love the old cameras, collecting affordable gear, like having a camera that works w/o a battery or the battery lasts for years, like playing with different film emulsions, like developing my black and white negs, like making my own wet-process prints, like being able to shoot at ISO settings higher than 200 withouts spending $1000 give or take for a DSLR kit for the privlidge, prefer not to spend hours tweaking images in photoshop, dislike finicky inkjets, and they're just - to me, way more fun. More focus on photography, less on technology bits, bytes, software, and megapixels.
Why do you still shoot film?
bmattock
Veteran
I shoot both film and digital. I use the tool that I think is appropriate to the job at hand, considering the tools I have available to me, and my ability (or lack of same) with techno tools such as The Gimp, my film scanner, etc. Sometimes it is a toss up which would be more appropriate; sometimes the choice is clear to me. I don't expect others to have the same answers, their tools, levels of confidence and ability and needs will all be different than mine.
I *prefer* to shoot B&W film - it is superior to the digital cameras I have available to me at this time. But the work is slow, for me, compared to my abilities to post-process digital photos. So for paid work, I go with digital unless there is an over-riding reason why not.
I see them both as tools. I use them both as I see fit.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I *prefer* to shoot B&W film - it is superior to the digital cameras I have available to me at this time. But the work is slow, for me, compared to my abilities to post-process digital photos. So for paid work, I go with digital unless there is an over-riding reason why not.
I see them both as tools. I use them both as I see fit.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
film is magical.
vincentbenoit
télémétrique argentique
Because I can.NickTrop said:
Vincent
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
I use film because the digital equivalents of my film cameras would be very expensive (whereas I've never spent more than $300 on a camera). Equally important is the fact that I prefer the look of B&W film.
lynn
lynn
I shoot film because it sees what I see more purely than digital does. I have no idea why.
back alley
IMAGES
vincentbenoit said:
ditto!
markinlondon
Elmar user
1. I don't know any different
2. Too many options confuse me. I know what I'll get with FP4.
Mark
2. Too many options confuse me. I know what I'll get with FP4.
Mark
peter_n
Veteran
I like the look of B&W film much better.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I have lots of it, and I keep on buying it. Might as well use it!
ywenz
Veteran
I like the look of color film and slides.. and for the privilege of using a Leica
jonasv
has no mustache
For the grain!
nrb
Nuno Borges
I like bw and I like the rf and slr gear I own. Even though I like my 5D and my e20, and even my c3020, I still feel parcial towards film, my wide angles and rf lenses, and the magic of developing it.
HMojo
Member
I prefer film primarily because film-based printed pieces *are* the image... whereas any digital image I've reproduced are essentially ink-printed onto paper; the results don't feel as "organic?" I've also noticed that I shoot digital slr cameras very differently than I do my film rangefinders. Since the number of shots is limited (using film - before reloading your camera of course) I tend to be pickier about what images I want to capture, how they're framed, etc. My old Nikon D2H (which has since been sold to finance Leica-related expenditures) I used as a bulk-shooter (fire off 5-10 shots per image... sort through the mess later). Digital just wasn't as gratifying for me personally...
Sparrow
Veteran
film cameras don’t have sub-menus
f/stopblues
photo loner
Because I love the process.. from film loading to rewinding, from the changing bag to the wash, from the light table to the final print.
R
rpsawin
Guest
Two reasons in order of importance (to me):
1.) Results
2.) Process
Results: I shoot primarily b&w for personal expression. I have not yet been able to come close to producing acceptable b&w results digitally. Color is a different issue and my digital color work is fine. I get my best results, and deepest satisfaction, using traditional methods.
Process: I work with computers for a living. When I want to use my emotions and my brain in a different way doing photography I don't want to stick a computer up to my eye, capture an image, and then spend time in front of yet another computer coaxing and acceptable image out of a software package and onto a print. Digital cameras are far more a computer than a camera. My M2 and M6 have no modes...thank GOD.
Bob
1.) Results
2.) Process
Results: I shoot primarily b&w for personal expression. I have not yet been able to come close to producing acceptable b&w results digitally. Color is a different issue and my digital color work is fine. I get my best results, and deepest satisfaction, using traditional methods.
Process: I work with computers for a living. When I want to use my emotions and my brain in a different way doing photography I don't want to stick a computer up to my eye, capture an image, and then spend time in front of yet another computer coaxing and acceptable image out of a software package and onto a print. Digital cameras are far more a computer than a camera. My M2 and M6 have no modes...thank GOD.
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Socke
Guest
I need film to use most of my cameras. So I shoot film
Solinar
Analog Preferred
The at home infrastructure is still there.......
The at home infrastructure is still there.......
I like the look of prints from B&W film, my home darkroom still works, the cameras are paid for and the technology still still works.
Color film on the other hand is less than optimum for me as I am not big on scanning film and the printing process is take out. In other words, I l rely on the camera shops devoloping unit and their Frontier printer to make my prints.
The pyschologic gratification of taking images from capture to the final print with color film isn't the same as it with B&W film. B&W is also a different way of telling a story.
As much as I don't care for scanning color negs, I might as well bite the bullet by a DSLR body and some AF lenses. A wide to moderate zoom and a couple of fast primes will take care of most of what I do in color. That will come soon. Until then I'm shooting mostly B&W.
The at home infrastructure is still there.......
I like the look of prints from B&W film, my home darkroom still works, the cameras are paid for and the technology still still works.
Color film on the other hand is less than optimum for me as I am not big on scanning film and the printing process is take out. In other words, I l rely on the camera shops devoloping unit and their Frontier printer to make my prints.
The pyschologic gratification of taking images from capture to the final print with color film isn't the same as it with B&W film. B&W is also a different way of telling a story.
As much as I don't care for scanning color negs, I might as well bite the bullet by a DSLR body and some AF lenses. A wide to moderate zoom and a couple of fast primes will take care of most of what I do in color. That will come soon. Until then I'm shooting mostly B&W.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
It took me so long to get back to my computer that I didn't see above post on process. Process it is. I like simple ones.