ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3919 times:
My feeling is that film should now be thought of as another creative media. I don't really see any technical benefits in using film for 99% of applications, but it does have a unique look to it, and of course the process of working with film can be in itself quite rewarding.
I think of it this way - painters don't generally choose between watercolours or oils because one is better than the other, but because each has a particular look and technique associated with it.
stealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5549 posts, RR: 47 Reply 5, posted (7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3894 times:
Quoting epten (Reply 4): Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects.
I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion and that is yours.. an opinion that is all certianly not fact.
Quoting epten (Reply 4): But if you simply want a perfect capture
What the hell is that, anyone claims to have achieved that is smoking something!
If you have a film camera, put a roll of film in.. go out and shoot some pics.. you might actually find out you shoot differently and get different results. I have spent some time speaking with "youngsters" that grew up with digital .. when they pick up a film camera they know they do not have x00 frames to get it right.. they start to think about THE image.. not how many they can get! ***
Might put some film in the EOS 50 sitting next to my desk and head out to the airport and see what I come up with!!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3891 times:
Quoting stealthz (Reply 5): If you have a film camera, put a roll of film in.. go out and shoot some pics.. you might actually find out you shoot differently and get different results. I have spent some time speaking with "youngsters" that grew up with digital .. when they pick up a film camera they know they do not have x00 frames to get it right.. they start to think about THE image.. not how many they can get! ***
Unfortunately the 'digital kids' seem to have had it planted in them that film is crap and bred useless photographers who took mediocre photos (I'll refrain from using the word 'image' as it for me relates more to digital photography). I remember learning the techniques with film as a 12-year-old and it was sure hard to get it exactly right with no Photoshop to save your bacon! Also, there was no internet and no forum to run to to seek advice - you were on your own (unless you were lucky enough to have guidance from someone experienced) and you perfected your art by trial and error. Sure, a lot of your work was fit only for the bin but at the end of it all you stood proud knowing that you were responsible for own achievements.
Quoting epten (Reply 4): Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects
It was good enough for 100 years! And it's more proven than digital. When you factor in how advanced film was at its conception - and how long it's been around - I'd say film wins hands down! You probably have used film/slide in the past but comments like that usually come from those who haven't the first clue about 35mm media.
soon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
Quoting epten (Reply 4): Film is inferior to DSLR in all aspects. There's no rational reason why anyone would use film today.
Wrong!...Resolution of film far superior, at least the medium format I still use. DSLR's are good and a convenient tool however I have found the post processing work to have too many variables. A fine Hasselblad and 100 ISO film...nothing comes close...still. If you know enough about what you are doing your color balance would be corrected on the lens during the shoot. Also for interior work, Kodak made an indoor tungsten film that had incredible latitude. This is an area I have found digital photography to fall short on. In interiors, shadow areas in digital have a bad color shift while this film maintained the basic and true colors in the shadow areas with minimal color shift. Currently though my use of each...Digital 98%/,Film 2%.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3839 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 8): My daughter is a professional photographer working with some of the best fashion and portrait photographers in the World. They're all laughing at your statement.
To be fair there is a lot of unsupportable prejudice on both sides. I've met pro film shooters who scorn digital ... but also have very little experience with it. A lot of long standing film users will try and shoot digital the way they shoot film and are disappointed. Getting the best of either medium takes a certain amount of expertise.
In general a film specialist will get better results from film than digital ... and visa versa.
And of course don't forget that the final result also depends on you skill in postprocessing/scanning/printing - what comes out the camera is a starting point. I've met photographers whose dislike of digital is really a dislike of computers. Similarly to produce a quality B&W print from film is an artform in its own right.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
As always excellent points Colin - I never seem to think of the right words or phrases to express exactly what I mean, then you come along and say it perfectly!
Quoting ckw (Reply 9): A lot of long standing film users will try and shoot digital the way they shoot film and are disappointed
This was definitely me - so much so that I actually temporarily 'retired' my brand new EOS 350D a few weeks after I bought it (preferring instead to briefly revert to film), such was my disappointment. I now love digital but 35mm film/slide will always be my number one.
Quoting ckw (Reply 9): I've met photographers whose dislike of digital is really a dislike of computers
In my case not a dislike of computers - although I can empathise fully with what you're saying - but a dislike of Photoshop and its ilk. I know we've been through this a thousand times and it's a necessary evil but for me it has a taboo power of making bad images look good. I know you could use darkroom techniques that practically emulated some features of Photoshop but I and many others never had access to such techniques.
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3823 times:
I've often thought about picking up a used F100. Seems like an excellent film body and would have been a great step up from my old FM2.
That said, just last week, I went with my mother to drop off her film at a local pharmacy that she had been using. I just happened to go the day they were getting rid of the developer. "I'm sorry ma'am, CVS no longer develops any film." You should have seen the look on her face when she said "but, where am I supposed to get my pictures made?" I've tried to help her switch over but she is sticking to what is familiar to her.
Film still does a beautiful job, however, DESPITE post #4.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3776 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 12): I didn't mean to suggest they never use digital, they do. But, they also use film when they know it's the better medium for the job they're doing.
Yes - well its a huge sliding scale - I was referring to more extreme ends, but there's lots of variations. In my view the film vs digital debate is about as meaningful as Canon vs Nikon. Use what works for you - a great image is a great image regardless of the media.
But there is a 'process' to film which can be very appealing - hence I guess the growing popularity of lomography (I found a fantastic Lomography shop in Paris and had to be physically restrained from buying a significant proportion of its contents). Against that there is the sheer 'practicality' of digital - I don't think I could do as much as I do if I was still shooting film.
While I'm happy shooting digital, I'm very glad I had many years experience shooting film - and I think the digital generation has perhaps missed out - there is something special about that perfect slide or darkroom print that you just don't get from a digital 'capture'. But that could just be age and nostalgia talking
derekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 866 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3621 times:
I'm detecting a few pairs of rose-tinted spectacles here.
I took photos film for 25years before moving to digital. Would I move back? Never.
I have about a dozen film SLRs in my collection, Olympus OM10, Canon AV-1, EOS1, Nikon F3, F80, FT-N, FG, Pentax MG, ME, Zenit EM, TTL and a few others and I enjoy running a film through each of them now and again but with the possible exception of the Nikon F3 and F80, I would never take them with me for a days shooting. The advantages of digital, the storage, the cost, the sheer number of images it allows you to take far outweigh any advantage in returning to use film.
There is no doubt that being an "analogue " medium film image quality could be better than digital but it often wasn't as anyone who uploaded old images to this site will know only too well.
We forget what it was like to wait on a star item arriving and looking to see "35" in the film counter. We forget about the lost opportunities while changing film and the take-up spool not engaging properly. We wax lyrical about Kodachrome 25 and forget that it needed a bright sunny day to be in any way useable, etc.......I could go on.
Sometimes nostalgia takes over and I pick up an old camera and take a few pictures but the novelty soon wears off.
It ain't dead yet.. I know of a couple of places in Aus. ramping up their processing capacity... can understand why most the "drugstore" minilabs don't do film but some places see a continuing and growing market. I fully accept that that may be the "enthusiast" market being concentrated in fewer labs.
I know of one place selling and processing hundreds of rolls a day, maybe nothing like the thousands a day they were doing in the '80's but lot's more that the 10's a day they were doing a couple of years back.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9010 posts, RR: 28 Reply 20, posted (7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3596 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 13): and I think the digital generation has perhaps missed out - there is something special about that perfect slide or darkroom print that you just don't get from a digital 'capture'.
I think every previous generation says there was something special about their technology versus current technology.
Quoting ckw (Reply 19): Look at music - vinyl is making a small come back after its almost annihilation by CD.
A small comeback among audiophiles, perhaps, but I don't think it ever actually left. I'm not sure that the average music listener is out buying record players and LPs any more than they did 20 years ago.
Quoting ckw (Reply 19): CD will ultimately be replaced by MP3
Hasn't that already happened?
Anyway, regarding film vs. digital, I've actually had the urge to go get a film camera recently, just for the heck of it. But I'm not sure I want to invest the time and money.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3591 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 20): I think every previous generation says there was something special about their technology versus current technology.
I didn't mean that the technology as such was special, but rather the learning curve required to use it. As has been apparent from numerous posts here, many digital only users have no idea how a lightmeter works or possibly that it even exists. Had these people experienced shooting film on a manual camera, many of the questions seen here would be unnecessary.
The problem with automated systems is that very few (if any) work 100% under all conditions. If all you've ever known is the automated version, you're stuffed when it lets you down. I guess that's why we still have airline pilots
As for vinyl - certainly making a comeback in the UK - "record" shops are actually selling records again. Sure a lot of its nostalgia, but different technologies all have their unique attributes - and these are being "discovered" by people who missed the technology the first time round.
Think of old cars - there is no earthly reason to drive a 50s sports car apart from the fact that it is an experience different to any you'll find on a modern car. Someone who has driven at speed on a twisty road without all the modern safety and stability features may not be a better driver, but they will certainly gain a better appreciation of what's involved (esp. if they end up in a ditch).
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3578 times:
Let's also not forget that there are now plugins(such as DxO Film Pack) which ever more increasingly approximate the grain structure of different films. Now one can have the 'look' of film without the wait time(if you drop it off somewhere) or all the chemicals(if doing it yourself). Almost no one can distinguish between a scanned negative/print and a digital image manipulated to look like film using one of these plugins, so on just the time saved alone, why would anyone agree to put up with waiting for your shots to be developed anymore.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3553 times:
Quoting megatop412 (Reply 22): why would anyone agree to put up with waiting for your shots to be developed anymore
Why grind coffee beans when you can make instant?
Seriously, for some of us the journey can be as important as the destination. Now don't get me wrong, I'm die hard digital and have found sadly little time for film anymore (though I do run a roll of B&W through my old Canon F1 from time to time) - the reason being digital B&W just doesn't look quite right. I think its the roll-off on the highlights ... digital is just too abrupt. Though this is improving - my OMD does a pretty good job, the best digital B&W I've used so far.
Thumper45 From Canada, joined May 2013, 4 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (7 months 1 day ago) and read 3483 times:
IMO learning on a film camera was probably the best thing for me. I spent hours learning about ISO, shutter speed ect ect. What made me grasp everything so much faster was the fact you really had to think about the shot, composition, light. You only have a set number of exposures to get that shot and each bad shot costs time and money.
Digital is the way to go for 99% of pro photographers as you remove many limitations you have with film. IMO film is now an art form. Most new photographers have no concept of how to take a picture they simply point and shoot and hope for one or two photos. With digital this is now easier than ever.
I still get out with my film stuff when I can to shoot purely for the enjoyment of it and I highly recommend people learn on film.
megatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (7 months 22 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 23): Why grind coffee beans when you can make instant?
Because grinding your own beans leads to markedly better tasting coffee. I'm the furthest thing from a coffee snob there is, but instant coffee tastes terrible.
With film, it is debatable whether minor aesthetic differences between scanned prints and digital images manipulated to look like film would make the timesuck one experiences with film development worthwhile. It wouldn't be worth it to me. Then again, like you said, if one relishes romping around in the film developer...have at it
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 659 posts, RR: 17 Reply 28, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3362 times:
Quoting epten (Reply 27): You guys still think that film is in any way better?
My coffee beans comment was tongue in cheek - but there can be a certain satisfaction in doing things the hard way which is entirely separate to the final result. The process can be as rewarding as the end product.
I think we are beyond the stage where saying whether film or digital is better in any absolute sense. But this does not mean film can be replaced by digital. Each has a certain look, and favours a particular style of photography. The difference is perhaps a matter of taste - it is possible to accept the technical superiority of one while still preferring the aesthetic of the other.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 29, posted (6 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3359 times:
Quoting epten (Reply 27): You guys still think that film is in any way better?
Yes. Film was momentous and has been with us for over 100 years - remaining relatively unchanged throughout. There may come a time when digital is equally proven but until such time it's an unfair comparison because digital has the latest technology at its disposal. If you were to ask the question logically on a 'like-for-like' basis I'm sure most (if not all) would agree that digital is superior for a number of reasons; but all things considered I personally think film is/was by far the greater feat in terms of advancing imaging.
Do I love 35mm film/slide? Definitely. Would I do away with digital and go back to it full-time? No. Any comparison has to be fair and needs to take into account technologies and performance available at the time of conception.
Film's time has perhaps been and (nearly) gone, but it shaped imaging in a way which - for the moment - digital can only dream of. Film has its place in history - after all, it captured a lot of it!