why still film? For how long?

Tuolumne said:
"x" = fill in the blank.

No digipics from 1950, but in 2059 today's digipics will look just as colorful, bright and contrasty then as they do now. :)

/T
Click to expand...

That's true. There's chance to view digital pictures in 2059 taken today. Chance, though not granted. Same as with film, btw.

I believe seasoned digital users know taste of pudding and make proper backups, while newcomers happen to learn it hard way. Like seasoned film users make efforts to prolong days of processed film [and prints, maybe]. Everything is volatile.
 
This last weekend I visited Lucerne and shot my M8 and Zeiss Ikon - I have to say I enjoyed the Zeiss more, mainly owing to the superb viewfinder, weight, and the tactile pleasure from using it - and taking more time over each shot, and wondering how the images will turn out.

But the shots from the M8 came out well, haven't had the 2 b/w rolls from the Zeiss processed yet.

I doubt I'd ever shoot a film SLR though, I really like using the D700.
 
I shoot film because I like to.

I own and shoot digital, as well as film. And will continue to do so.

When travelling I shoot both and later enjoy correcting both to match so I can compile an album. Not making film look like digital, just post processing scanned film and digital to complement each other in a single album.

The process of handling film cameras, developing (B&W myself), scanning and correcting I find pleasurable. Every now and then I find myself shooting film just so I can go through the whole cycle again.

I never miss an opportunity to stock up on film and Rodinal. And, again, will continue to do so.
 
Tuolumne said:
"x" = fill in the blank.

No digipics from 1950, but in 2059 today's digipics will look just as colorful, bright and contrasty then as they do now. :)

/T
Click to expand...

That might actually not be the case, if you open and close your JPEGs in software a lot.

Since JPEGs are compressed, they are rendered each time you open them and save them. Even copying from one location to another seems to some extend degrade them. So, on a drive which you would compress, or run disk defragmenter on a lot, files will eventually lose quality.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but have read this on several occasions both in print and on the net.

In short: save your files in uncompressed TIFF, PSD, DNG, etc. Downside: takes up a lot more space...
 
CLE-RF said:
Even copying from one location to another seems to some extend degrade them. So, on a drive which you would compress, or run disk defragmenter on a lot, files will eventually lose quality.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but have read this on several occasions both in print and on the net.
Click to expand...
While JPEGs have their issues, just moving 'em around with system copy commands sure won't degrade them. Really. (Opening and re-saving them in editing applications is another matter.)

A file is a file is a file; and a byte-by-byte (well , more likely block-by-block) copy will be a perfect digital duplicate (absent error in the copy process, which is highly unlikely).

...Mike
 
Last edited:
CLE-RF said:
That might actually not be the case, if you open and close your JPEGs in software a lot.

Since JPEGs are compressed, they are rendered each time you open them and save them. Even copying from one location to another seems to some extend degrade them. So, on a drive which you would compress, or run disk defragmenter on a lot, files will eventually lose quality.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but have read this on several occasions both in print and on the net.

In short: save your files in uncompressed TIFF, PSD, DNG, etc. Downside: takes up a lot more space...
Click to expand...

You are confusing opening a jpg and resaving it with just copying the file. The former will degrade the jpg. The latter won't.

/T
 
If you like snapshot of vacation and are an amateur or a professionnal doing commercial work digital is the way to go. If you are an ARTIST, and are searching for that special orginal vision/rendition, then going film will give you orginality and rarity. I shoot film over digital anyday, all the digital files looks the same sharpened thing same color ETC.
 
edodo said:
If you are an ARTIST, and are searching for that special orginal vision/rendition, then going film will give you orginality and rarity.
Click to expand...
If only it were so easy!

...Mike

P.S. This guy:


[click for original]

...manages to be original using digital or film (whether you care for his stuff or not).
 
Last edited:
To zoom out a bit, silver process is only one of the processes. I still do film as

- you still cannot have the feel of the process in digital
- Result is somehow not visualised (it is more computer
doing 80% and you still do not know what will come out ... not to tell me you can
tell by looking at 300k pixel LCD
- To repeat, result is somehow has too much variable;
I like slide which is fixed more or less
Even black and white negative with its Dodge and Burn, zone system, ... etc.
still is ok
But try HDR, stitching, ... somehow you lost and the capture process becomes
not that important part of the process and one lost its way
- you cannot do 8x10 quality
(even though some starts to query, even 4x5 is hard to fight with using small format)
- The Ground Glass view is not to be replaced, that is why LL Michael use medium
format (to have a better view for old eye) and now try to use 7" LCD to get the view
like a Large Format camera

However, we are in RFF and in this context film process really need to answer some serious question -- a mobile process like RF require silence, quick response, available light, ... and in the near long term can film be replaced by a digital sensor. I am not sure.

While we have 35mm slide landscape picture, the major thrust of 35mm is on journalism/sports and for the rest of us kid/dogs/cats... etc. Digital is not completely there yet but it takes over most of the markets already (plus phone camera). Now Imagine you have a RD1m with no AA and Beyer i.e. monochrome plus ISO 6400 and with 12 Mp+, would you takes that to available light than a M2 and TriX?

Not now perhaps, but give it 5 year, are you still using small format film RF. A big question I am not sure but many of you have more experience in this platform than I have.
 
One more thing, I am learning now digital negative in case film lost the battle in the capture part, I think the printing part (inkjet vs canotype/platinum/... would be harder to win completely as you do not need 1,000+ run to keep Cosina factory to run; a few chemical and doing your paper is ok).

I am not giving up the whole process, but silver capture process is just one phase in the photographic history.

Live long and prosper.
 
we were used to the way film render our perception of reality since more than a century now, digital has come up in the late 10 years and yet I can see the fingerprint of digital is still the same on every single camera, compact, dslr, leica M8, just the pixel amout that progress... People are used to the way digital renders our perception of reality. Everyone has a digicam now, everyone is shooting digital, thus shooting FILM MAKES YOU RARE AND ORIGINAL!
 
"I am curious why most of you still elect to shoot 35mm film?"

Because it would take about 24mb to equal all that film is capable of.

"Do you think you will continue with film, or are you on the fence with digital now?"

I have a digital camera. I use it to take photos of my restored film cameras. It makes it easier to post photos of them. My serious stuff is all film though.

"Do you scan your film, or darkroom print from your film?"

Both. I scan the stuff that gets posted on the internet (you pretty much have to, in some way), but the serious stuff is all made on an enlarger.

"If equipment cost was equal for both, and you had to re purchase gear after a theft, would it be film or digital?"

Film. I really hope that doesn't happen though, because some of my stuff is well-nigh irreplacable.

"Is it the rangefinder camera you are most attracted to, or is it film in general?"

I have about 100 cameras. About half of them are rangefinders, but then half of them are not.
 
I guess film does make me rare and original. So does shooting rangefinder type cameras with available light. I've always liked ultra-wide angle lenses, I "see" ultra-wide, a 19mm Canon for four decades, and more recently the 15mm Heliar. I guess I'm lucky because I can still pull off 1/4 second exposures with good consistancy, even at age 66 and a one handed hold. I love the effect of a sharp photograph of a group of people while one walking by in the background shows motion blur.

These days I cover a lot of local political events (I always did), after all these years I know the players, and it's nice to be getting paid to "shoot candids" and be able to get within a few feet of the subjects, maybe even join the conversation, and get off several exposures. I'm so close that nobody walks between me and the subjects. The 15mm lens even allows me to get in some of the pictures. Imagine trying to hold and operate a DSLR in one hand at arms length.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com Almost all of these are with the 15mm Heliar.
 
Last edited:
edodo said:
If you like snapshot of vacation and are an amateur or a professionnal doing commercial work digital is the way to go. If you are an ARTIST, and are searching for that special orginal vision/rendition, then going film will give you orginality and rarity. I shoot film over digital anyday, all the digital files looks the same sharpened thing same color ETC.
Click to expand...

what if you are a professional and an artist and you're not shooting commercial?
 
Film is the real thing. Like cotton, wool, leather. Cannot be replace by plastic. Look similar but don't have the same qualities, same feel, and don't last as long.

Film is "Forever Important Lasting Moments".
 
My reason for shoting film is not because film is better or digital is not as good,
The reason I went back to film last year was because I wanted to shoot full frame and while I was waiting for a 5DmarkII I took my old FM2n out and used it.

Anyway, one thing led to another, instead of a 5d markII I ended up buying an M6 :D I bought M6 because I wanted to try something different (a range finder) and the price of M8 was too expensive for me, espescially because I had no idea if I'm going to like shooting with a rangeifnmder or not.

Turns out I love shooting with my M6 (and film) and currently I'm thinking about getting a scanner.

However, if or when I have enough money to buy an M8 , I will buy it.

Bob
 
I decided to take a break from Kodachrome and shoot some Techpan in my Hasselblad of the snow layers against the rock of Independence Pass, CO today.

It's been awhile so it was about 2 minutes too long in the soup, but a good start. I like film because it makes me work hard on technique. I also like it because I get surprises, good and bad.

So this was a test of sorts for an idea. Tomorrow I will shoot another roll, bracket the 4 strongest scenes and have dr5 do reversal of the film. Then I will get Ilfochromes done to engage a metallic feel.

Just another way to do things I guess.....
 
Last edited:
You don't see film trying to mimic digital. Instead, you see digital trying to mimic film (evidence seen in numerous PS plug-ins).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom