Would you give up film if?

[mikhail33]

If there was a modular M. So i can just upgrade the sensor instead of the whole camera when something better comes up!

 

[dave lackey]

Isn't it sad though?

Why is it sad? Because not everyone thinks like you? Maybe we should change the forum to pictureforum.com? There is room here for all discussions, therefore, nothing should be sad.:angel:

 

[dave lackey]

A: On screen, other things being equal, I doubt that most people can identify whether an image is from a film or digital source with more than 50% accuracy.

.

And you would be wrong as soon as someone posts their original images with a Summarit. There is a reason that black and white film is still used by many in lieu of digital. I use both for different results. The results are as plain as day.

But let's not play that game. BTDT too many times here.

 

[dshfoto]

I think that film works differently from a digital sensor in two ways. One is the depth of the sensor. There always seem to be back focus issues with digital sensors that affect the sharpness of the image. Secondly, a I don't think that a digital sensor registers all of the light coming into it while the shutter is open. Rather, it seems to take slices of exposure. So, with film, you get a true average the light on the film.
These two effects seem to make the image "look" different from film in ways that are hard to explain, but the eye and brain pick-up on.

 

[nikon_sam]

It would have to be a digital camera that could spit out a negative that I would develop so I could manually print it in my darkroom...for me it's the entire process that I enjoy...shooting, developing & printing...
And Yes, I know I can print from a digital file BUT it's not the same...I enjoy mixing the chemicals, seeing the film as it's pulled from the tank and hanging it to dry...watching the image literally develop before me in the dark red room and then presenting this manually handmade print to the subject in the photo...
Do you happen to know the number of people who have never seen or held an actual photograph manually made with the only electronics used being the light bulb in an enlarger...My mission is to lower that number...

 

[Paddy C]

It would have to be a digital camera that could spit out a negative that I would develop so I could manually print it in my darkroom...for me it's the entire process that I enjoy...shooting, developing & printing...
And Yes, I know I can print from a digital file BUT it's not the same...I enjoy mixing the chemicals, seeing the film as it's pulled from the tank and hanging it to dry...watching the image literally develop before me in the dark red room and then presenting this manually handmade print to the subject in the photo...

I believe this will always be the most compelling, incontestable reason to continue using film.

 

[Paddy C]

And you would be wrong as soon as someone posts their original images with a Summarit. There is a reason that black and white film is still used by many in lieu of digital. I use both for different results. The results are as plain as day.

I perhaps phrased my statement incorrectly. "Other things being equal" was really the wrong way to state my intended meaning.

Which was...if you process digital to match a given film (be it colour or black and white), I doubt that most people could identify whether an image is from a film or digital source with more than 50% accuracy when viewing both on screen.

Obviously, native digital is different than scanned film.

 

[shadowfox]

Yes teriffic argument and reflects perfectly what this forum is generally about ... gear!

The image itself being secondary.

The image is not secondary to anything.
It is *equally* important as the process to some of us.

Gear is secondary. But gear is easy to talk about, hence this forum (and any other fun forum except the really pretentious ones).

Don't get cynical on us, Keith

 

[shadowfox]

Why is it sad? Because not everyone thinks like you? Maybe we should change the forum to pictureforum.com? There is room here for all discussions, therefore, nothing should be sad.:angel:

Dave, if I ever in the Atlanta area, I'd buy you a drink for the way you handle the "image purists" in this forum

 

[willie_901]

My two D700s along with my X100 already replace film usage for me. When the X100 isn't flexible enough, I use a D700. When a D700 is impractical or inappropriate, I use the X100. So both cameras have what it takes to for me to stop using film film. The D700, which I often use in manual mode, delivers outstanding results. I really enjoy using the X100. I can say I find it to be 80-90% as enjoyable as I found the ZI-M body I used for a couple of years. The X100's image quality is amazingly close to the D700's.

I also have a Nikon FG body and a Yashica Electro 35. I will use these sporadically until my small cache of film stock is gone.

Smart phones are killing off access to convenient, commercial development. I do not have the discipline to develop my own film. I am not interested in mailing film around to have it processed and scanned.

If my personal circumstances were different, I would be tempted to invest in medium and large format cameras. I would learn to use a 100% analog process. We all know it is possible to purchase high-quality analog darkroom equipment for next to nothing.

Instead, I recently decided to spend a significant amount of money making prints. There a couple local custom labs and I'm exploring small custom labs on-line as well. I believe digital files from the D700 and X100 (along with a dozen or so digital platforms from other vendors) printed on high-quality paper and in the hands of skilled and dedicated professional printers will result in aesthetically superior photographs.

I do not believe film is required to produce excellent prints. That is, I don't think gallery owners, art buyers – and especially friends and family (who are likely the only people who will ever view my prints) – will ever think about whether not the prints came from a pure analog, a hybrid analog-digital or all digital process.

 

[anu L ogy]

I would need a digital camera that didnt come back with 255 255 255 everytime i pointed it at something too bright.

 

[MIkhail]

Dave, if I ever in the Atlanta area, I'd buy you a drink for the way you handle the "image purists" in this forum

I cannot tell even from print, weather image is taken with Summarit or not, sadly. ;-(
I can, however, tell if the image is any good or not.
To each is own

 

[kxl]

I don't think I would give up film by choice but I also don't dismiss the prospect of this happening at some stage ...

I'm with Keith. I don't think I would give it up, but I don't totally dismiss the prospect of this happening at some stage, for any one of the following reasons:

• the cost of film becomes prohibitive (e.g., > $10 roll of 36 exp)
• my non-photo activities take up so much of my time that the turnaround time from exposure to development to scanning to printing becomes unacceptable
• if/when I finally tire of the darkroom process.

If any of the above happen, I will stick with my D700 and probably purchase an M9, and their respective successors.

 

[sahe69]

If there would be a DRF with a D700-like sensor and w/ dust shaker below 4000 euros, I'd probably jump on it and sell my film RFs.

That being said I'd still keep my MF cameras and the Xpan. (Digital FF X-pan - now THAT would be something!)

 

[iBay]

If the digital output is the same as what film would give without a post processing. And if the digital camera has a selector which film to choose (tri-x, portra, extar...), I would give up my film photography.

 

[taskoni]

If I have to give up film I would get a Canon 7D with 300mm f/2.8L and 1.4 Extender and start to shoot wildlife
(I sold my digitals to get in to film photography. Before that I never liked my shots. Now I do)

 

[Vilk]

twenty-and-a-half-EV dynamic range and a cheap, power-independent, permanent storage solution guaranteed to give me back the range fifty years from now with no hardware upgrades, format conversions or data backups in the meantime

 

[PaulW128]

I guess the answer to that question for me is the Nikon D7000. I just sold my D70, D90 and the last of my film cameras (OM1's) for the D7000!

Best
Paul

 

[dmc]

I guess the answer to that question for me is the Nikon D7000. I just sold my D70, D90 and the last of my film cameras (OM1's) for the D7000!

Best
Paul

I can understand how you feel. I shoot with a 5D and the results are just outstanding. I also use an X100 for personal shots/street shooting, and ditto with it. But I see them complementing what I do with film, not replacing it. I only shoot B+W and process myself, so maybe cost is not as big a factor as for others, but as an art form, it is hard to beat good old fashioned film. I know that you can probably come up with equally artistic results with Digital, but where is the feel of the reel, the smell of the fixer, the magic as the image slowly appears in the tray? Maybe I'm just getting too old!

 

[segedi]

35mm film.... perhaps.
Medium format film...no. Well perhaps if those PhaseOne IQ backs were to drop in price by 10x.