# Film is still hard to beat



## itsnotmeyouknow (May 14, 2012)

While my Pentax 645D is in Tokyo being repaired, I gave my 645 lenses a workout in Korea with a few different kinds of film. I don't believe that digital is YET able to completely replicate the effect.

Got some film developed and scanned at 15mp in Seoul for the princely sum of £4 each film (about $6). These are from a trip to an island about 80km from Seoul except one from Seoul itself

Pentax 645N FA 45 - 85 at 45mm and f/16 1/60 Kodak Ektra 100




what-a-lot-of-statues!-Ektra by singingsnapper, on Flickr

Pentax 645N FA 45-85 at 50mm f/11 1/160 Fuji Reala 100




Buddha-with-ice-cream-Reala by singingsnapper, on Flickr

and the one from the streets of Seoul

Pentax 645N FA 45 - 55 at 45mm 1/160 f/11 Kodak Ektra 100




Looking-down-the-road-in-Gangnam by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## AndysRollei (May 15, 2012)

Nice!

I love film as well, and would agree that it is hard to replicate the look of film effectively, and probably wont be able to for some time. I use a few rolls of film in my Rolleiflex every know and then and often like they way they look over my digital stuff, it just looks so much cooler, and has more character. 

Andy


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 16, 2012)

As nice as these are, it's when it comes to mono's that film really wins out. No digital image comes close to what I got from AGFA Scala, or can get from Ilford XP2.


----------



## leGreve (May 16, 2012)

You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?

The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.

Digital is its own... Otherwise you might take the step further and say that a Kodak film anno 2012 is not quite achieving what the old camera obscuras could achieve.

If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise.
Besides digital is far more efficient to one's workflow and you have photoshop to help you make what ever look you want. Don't try to make digital into film or compare it to eachother... there's absolutely no point.


----------



## mws (May 16, 2012)

Nice, I just got a Fuji GW690ii of ebay, and I can't wait to run some film through it this weekend.


----------



## Strobe the globe (May 16, 2012)

You are right. Digital is just not quite the same.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (May 16, 2012)

leGreve said:


> You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?
> 
> The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.
> 
> ...



I'm assuming nothing of the sort. How much detail can be resolved on film depends on many things. Size of frame and type of film. For example, ilford Pan 50 can outresolve many Digital cameras in its 120 format. Shooting film also forces you to consider more before you shoot. I use many platforms, from 6 x 7 based film, 645 film and 35mm digital and MF digital. Film has more variation in its colour forms. If you use Velvia 50 it will be very different from other colour films. Velvia is very difficult to work with and I love the look of the Reala 100 which is much more forgiving. Ektra 100 is also excellent. Digital can seem one dimensional in comparison. With film you can give a very different look without it looking over processed.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 16, 2012)

"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.


----------



## distant.star (May 16, 2012)

.
I believe leGreve's incisive comments are dead-on. And you probably shouldn't take umbrage when your spade is called a spade.

If you did not intend to frame the whole thing comparatively and as a competition, you would have titled the thread something like "Sometimes I Like Flim Too." Believe it or not, everything in the world is not a win/lose proposition.

I like to read books. Sometimes I read them on an e-reader, sometimes on paper. Neither one "beats" the other.





itsnotmeyouknow said:


> leGreve said:
> 
> 
> > You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?
> ...


----------



## FunPhotons (May 18, 2012)

I gave up film long ago because of the cost - never going back. I can buy a new lens in what it would cost in film and development to shoot a vacation, never mind the time and hassle factor.

Your images are nice, and they're just being transmitted over the web, but I don't see anything special that can't be done in digital. If anything what I notice is that film blobby/softie look, I'm glad I don't have to take shots like that anymore.


----------



## dukeofprunes (May 18, 2012)

(Disclaimer: never used film myself) 

It seems to me that different types of film often are made to achieve a specific look, be it high contrast, tinted colors etc. Digital raw files may often look a bit bland, but they are a good starting point for post-production.

May it be that film lovers are sometimes comparing film to unprocessed digital files?

I cannot see anything in the OPs pictures that is not easily achieved in PP with digital files. E.g. tint the grey balance towards red to achieve the warm asphalt.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (May 18, 2012)

I think essentially film and digital are different mediums and I use both. I don't see the point in trying to make digital look like film or vice versa. The sad thing in photography these days is the obsession with over sharpening and pixel peeping. It's like auto tune in music. It might make it 'in tune' technically but you lose the whole point of it when you try and over analyse and look at too close a level. I think it also helps us to be less tolerant of other opinions as it makes us more tribal as everything is specs based


----------



## mws (May 18, 2012)

I use both film and digital, I like both for different reasons. 

For someone with a good digital picture to start with and who is skilled in PP can make it look like any film stock. 

Digital is great, I can blast off a 100 shots of my kids with no cost and pick the good ones out later. I can have the results now and easily share them with anyone. It's also great for pros who shot thousands and thousands of shots. 

I like film because I enjoy the art/craft nature of it (by no means saying there is not art in using digital) I like slow methodic approach it makes me take. I like the surprise of not knowing what my images will be until I develop them. I also enjoy playing with old cameras. 

Just as cameras still don't stop people from painting, I don't think digital will ever totally kill off film, there my just be far fewer film stocks available.


----------



## dukeofprunes (May 18, 2012)

mws said:


> I use both film and digital, I like both for different reasons.
> 
> For someone with a good digital picture to start with and who is skilled in PP can make it look like any film stock.
> 
> ...



I really appreciate the difference in methodical approach between film and digital. On a similar note, most of the music I listen too comes off vinyl records..


----------



## Kamera Obscura (May 18, 2012)

Is it still film after scan?

dario.


----------



## FredBGG (May 18, 2012)

Yup... film is still my favorite







But with medium format cameras like this...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 18, 2012)

@Kamera Obscura

No it's a digital scan of an analogue image, much like that of a cameras jpeg / raw, a digital sampling of an anlogue source (the primary photoelectronic process is an analogue one)

The only real differences in terms of the file are the effect that film grain has on detail, versus the effect that square regular pixels have on detail (no moire) the superior dynamic range on most properly scanned film images, true 16bit sample depth (rather than upsampled 14bit) and the fact that if you scan a slide of 35mm film at, say the 40MP that my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 manages, that you have 40mp of green, 40mp of red and 40mp of blue detail being scanned, rather than a vastly upsampled bayer image with all its guess work.

So it's not film. But if it matters, done properly it's better - mostly for quality reasons - than the images from your DSLR.

Of course, for most users, me included, the immediacy of digital is far more user friendly, less expensive in consumable costs, and less hassle. When I shoot speedway motorbikes I'm glad my card holds 2'000 images, and that I can shoot 8fps with some abandon.

Maybe some day DSLRs will catch up with film for quality, for most real world users, DSLRs are better, but they aren't quite there yet, and it's not all about pixels.... 

I haven't sold my EOS 3 yet for a few reasons (resale value, chromagenic mono film, the ECF AF)


----------



## Kamera Obscura (May 19, 2012)

Thank you for that, Paul.

I guess I was being a bit cheeky. 

Great info and I agree.

All the best,
dario.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (May 19, 2012)

paul13walnut5 said:


> @Kamera Obscura
> 
> No it's a digital scan of an analogue image, much like that of a cameras jpeg / raw, a digital sampling of an anlogue source (the primary photoelectronic process is an analogue one)
> 
> ...



Great post. I did very little with the images in post, I just used a very small amount of USM with a small radius. For me the saturation and colour of film is something that shines straight from the scan without any need to change the saturation level at all. The green sign wasn't actually as deep and dark as that and my 5Dmk III recorded it more accurately colourwise. But I don't always want simply a record of what I see. Sometimes I want to capture something. Sometimes, but not necessarily always, film is the one way of capturing something. Different types of film will record it differently. Kodak Ektra will record very differently to Portra. And that's before you edit it in post. 

If you look at it as consumables, when you buy a digital camera, you are paying for your film up front. Like film, generally the more you pay, the better quality "film" you get. I didn't intend to say that film was better than digital. Each has its advantages. For me, film captures something that I can't put my finger on. It could simoply that due to the cost of consumables I take more care with the analogue shots than the digital. This is something that has crept into my digital workflow too and I am seeing better results as a result. I often ask myself if the shot I am about to take would I still press the shutter if that frame was to cost me money.


----------



## risc32 (May 19, 2012)

I most definitely don't want to get into a film-vs-digital debate, but when I lay my eyes on a 4x5 slide I see something very "right". What that something is I don't know, not sure I even care, but I like it. Sure I like my mk3 a whole hell of a lot too.


----------



## gmrza (May 19, 2012)

leGreve said:


> You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?
> 
> The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.
> 
> ...



I think this sums up my experience. The only reason I have shot film recently is for nostalgic reasons. Workflow is a PITA, and resolution has been beaten. You have to do an A/D conversion somewhere with film, unless you have a full darkroom, which I don't - that is assuming you only want to print, but these days almost every photo needs to be converted into a digital format at some stage.

I will concede that for large format film may still be your best bet. ;-)

Oh, and for anyone whining about the AF on the 5DmkII, try an 85mm f/1.2L II on an EOS 650! Focusing becomes a special kind of masochism!


----------



## Danny Burk (May 19, 2012)

Hello FredBGG.......I see that you liked my photo of my Fuji GX680iii that you found on my website.....


----------



## Hillsilly (May 19, 2012)

Film and digital do compete with each other. Every time someone decides to take a photo, they've made a conscious decision to use a digital or film camera....and digital has won (mainly for the reasons listed above - easier workflow, quality files and image manipulation opportunities).

But it is interesting that the people still using film (even if it is only for a small percentage of their photos) include a high number of very good / acclaimed photographers. And while they would be succesful with either medium, they still choose to use film for some critical work. Why would this be the case? Surely not just for nostalgic reasons? Personally, I like the "look" of film and I think a lot of others do too. Plus, I've got a darkroom set up in my garage, and its fun to make prints. And it really doesn't cost much if you're developing your own film. (Although, local E6 processing costs have shot through the roof and I'll probably just stick with B & W at some point in the near future). 

To say that digital has beaten film is probably just comparing 35mm film?


----------



## dafrank (May 19, 2012)

My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.

I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then a lot of digital _is_ is better. 

But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same. 

While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can _hear_ the difference.

This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that good film shots will always look better than average digital ones and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture ever becomes, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure.


----------



## Forceflow (May 19, 2012)

Danny Burk said:


> Hello FredBGG.......I see that you liked my photo of my Fuji GX680iii that you found on my website.....



Gee... one would think that this community (as it is filled with photographers) knows that one should not simply rip off other peoples photographs. Especially when it kind of implies that you made the photograph yourself... not cool.


----------



## archangelrichard (May 19, 2012)

"If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise."

LMAO

LMMFAO

If you believe this I have some land to sell you, excellent ocean view ... straight above

Seriously, anyone who believes this try enlarging that shot to 16 x 20 (or crop an 8 x 10 from that enlargement) --- what? You can't? all you get is dots (pixels)?

NO digital does not come near the resolution (by a factor of thousands) of film; but that isn't the point -- Digital is more CONVENIENT to use, you view the images instantly, rdit them ion your computer and print them yourself (albeit at the very low resolution of 300 dpi) and many find they can't tell the difference

this comment is just so incredibly beyond reality I am ROTFLMMFAO


----------



## KeithR (May 19, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> this comment is just so incredibly beyond reality I am ROTFLMMFAO



Yeah, right.

Dream on.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 19, 2012)

Are there any scientists here who can cut through all this crap and tell us whether there is a perceptible resolution/DR difference between the highest quality of digital vs film?


----------



## dr croubie (May 20, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> "Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.


I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?


----------



## distant.star (May 20, 2012)

.
For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice:


_*When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer*_

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before
me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and
measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with
much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 20, 2012)

distant.star said:


> .
> For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice:
> 
> 
> ...



I'm just genuinely curious about the scientific difference. I'm not tyring to figure out which is better from a Whitmanesque "mystical" point of view. It should go without saying that amazing beautiful pics can be taken with BOTH. That isn't really the core question, imo.


----------



## mws (May 20, 2012)

The real question is how many stops of DR can the human eye resolve. For film the DR behaves like a continuous function, for digital it is discrete. If digital can capture more DR then the human eye can resolve, then the debate may change. 

The point is moot unless you are printing your pictures in the dark room. I develop my own B&W, but then scan the negatives just out of convenience.

It's only a matter of time until digital can totally beat film in every aspect, but I still don't think that this would totally kill off film.


----------



## Danielle (May 20, 2012)

dafrank said:


> This is about the fact that good film shots will always look better than average digital ones and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture ever becomes, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure.



+1

I'll just continue using both.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 20, 2012)

mws said:


> The real question is how many stops of DR can the human eye resolve. For film the DR behaves like a continuous function, for digital it is discrete.



Doesn't it depend on the level of analysis? Photons are discrete, right? Cells are discrete, right? Analog photography is also discrete, but it relies on a process (more hardware, less chemical) to transfer the data from one level of discretion to another.


----------



## Policar (May 20, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> I'm just genuinely curious about the scientific difference. I'm not tyring to figure out which is better from a Whitmanesque "mystical" point of view. It should go without saying that amazing beautiful pics can be taken with BOTH. That isn't really the core question, imo.



Why would you care about the scientific difference? Isn't the point entirely how it looks? How do you even measure that scientifically? Color gamut? Acutance? Resolution? At how many lp/mm? Zeiss lenses were designed for good micro contrast but worse resolution...is that better or worse and in what contexts? Is grain good or bad? What colors (if any) do you like? How do you feel about false detail (aliasing), is it nice and sharp and crunchy or disgusting to you? Is a lack of DR good or bad? (This is a tricky question--printed images only have four or five stops of contrast at best so a capture with more DR than that looks flat when printed, but one without enough loses detail--the answer is of course subjective and it's based on the subject and light and how the image is developed.)

As a scientific instrument, digital is way better. Astronomers (appropriately enough) switched from film to CCDs in the 1970s and have not looked back. The simple answer here is that digital is WAY better in general.

In terms of signal/noise ratio, digital is just way better. Way, way better. No argument from anyone. But some people like film grain because it looks more random and smooth. The 5D Mark III I have found has pretty ugly noise, imo, while some digital cameras have amazing beautiful noise with a great texture--so that's a whole other subjective discussion.

In terms of resolution it's complicated. Velvia (a very sharp color film) has mtf curves that resolve without aliasing to about 60 or 80 cycles/mm (at like 30% mtf). The D800 has about 200 pixels per mm or 100 cycles/mm. As per the nyquist sampling theorem that means 50 cycles/mm without aliasing and that's not even taking into account bayer interpolation. So it sounds like digital is much worse here, but it's not! Velvia drops off from >100% mtf to <100mtf around 20 cycles/mm but bayer sensors resolve to about 100% mtf until almost 70% of their stated resolution. I think. Without an antialiasing filter, the D800E might resolve 100% mtf (>100% mtf once sharpened) until 70 or 80 cycles/mm. Of course there might be aliasing, which is a problem....except that aliasing looks subjectively like detail, so you might get the appearance of >100% mtf until or extinction with the D800E. The best measure of subjective sharpness is the area under the mtf curve, which in that case would be dramatically larger for the D800E than for a slide of Velvia. Even though, in theory, the Velvia can resolve to a higher resolution without aliasing. Of course you need to scan film and even a drum scanner will knock off quite a bit of mtf from the system.

Imo, the combination of reduced noise/grain and increased mtf puts state of the art digital at twice the linear resolution of film. Digital printing's vast superiority to darkroom color printing tips the tables even way further. APS-C looks like 645 to me. Full frame looks like 6x7. But I prefer how 6x7 Velvia looks to how the images from my 5D III look by a pretty enormous margin. Even though I can't explain why and even though others don't.

In terms of DR, it depends on which film (black and white negative can have easily way in excess of 10 stops, all of which are usable if you dodge and burn; Velvia has five stops maybe) and how you measure it (how much noise/grain is too much and if a soft highlight rolloff that doesn't contain recoverable detail but still looks nice counts as real DR).

In terms of color gamut, digital is more accurate but film can have a wider gamut in theory. Once scanner...doesn't matter as much, the gamut is squished. And some films have more vivid colors because the spectral sensitivity curves reject more colors than the weak bayer filters on digital SLRs.

But yeah, digital wins for a given sensor size by far. Large format film (Velvia 50, specifically) is by far my favorite in terms of aesthetics, but the price is high and you need to be very careful about light due to the limited DR and how easy it is to blow an exposure.


----------



## mws (May 20, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> mws said:
> 
> 
> > The real question is how many stops of DR can the human eye resolve. For film the DR behaves like a continuous function, for digital it is discrete.
> ...



True, I guess I didnt think that through. In general I guess I would say that right now film has more DR then digital.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 20, 2012)

Policar said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just genuinely curious about the scientific difference. I'm not tyring to figure out which is better from a Whitmanesque "mystical" point of view. It should go without saying that amazing beautiful pics can be taken with BOTH. That isn't really the core question, imo.
> ...



You're surprised to find tech geeks on a photography forum? 

Thanks for the in-depth breakdown... really appreciate that!


----------



## Policar (May 20, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> You're surprised to find tech geeks on a camera forum?



I guess I shouldn't be, but it seems so simple to look at the results from two cameras and decide which is better and so complicated to try and interpret the science of human perception and the science of image recording (neither of which any of us here really understand to a significant extent) and then apply that. 

But in the sciences everything has switched to digital...and so for scientific purposes...yeah, it's by far the best. And FX digital probably trounces 135 in general.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 20, 2012)

Policar said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > You're surprised to find tech geeks on a camera forum?
> ...



I was always turned off by film photography because I didn't find it user-friendly. As soon as digital cameras started competing with film... I was all over it. Even if I could get the same outcome with a film camera... I find the digital process allows me to focus more on -- and get more control over -- the final product. Sorry for the pun.


----------



## Policar (May 20, 2012)

Modern SLRs (even the F4, which I briefly owned and quite liked) behave a lot like dSLRs except the ISO isn't adjustable on a per-shot basis, of course.

In terms of user interface, I prefer manual focus SLRs (135 and 6x7) to dSLRs and even to modern SLRs because the interface is so much simpler and you don't need to replace batteries. Set your stop, meter your scene externally (spot or incident as appropriate) and decide on an exposure, set your shutter speed appropriately, focus, take a photo. There are only three variables: focus, f-stop, and shutter speed. With a dSLR it's like using a computer, so complicated and there are so many modes for everything. I still have no idea how to change focus setting appropriately with my 5D III and no idea what P mode does.

Large format is difficult enough to shoot that it's materially more painful than shooting digital, but 135 (either on a modern SLR or an older one) is nothing to be afraid of except that there's no longer any real reason to shoot it except nostalgia or fun.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 20, 2012)

Hi Dirtcastle, after Policar's explanation, I don't really have anything to add. But I'll just mention one thing. The problem with providing a direct comparison to decide which is technically better is that people often compare scanned negatives with DSLR files. This is a problem because the scanning process produces a lower quality file compared with the original negative. You'll hear a lot of people say that a negative has a similar amount of data to a 20 - 25mp camera. But I'd say that a "scanned" negative file might be lucky to have one third of that claimed resolution. Therefore, given that good scanning is hard to do anyway, if you enjoy digital workflow, then a DSLR is going to better. Realistically, way better. But the answer changes if you are comparing medium format and large format film where the film negative area is many multiples larger.

So why bother with film? Policar mentions one of my favourite films - velvia. Velvia is a high saturation / high contrast film and can produce spectacular reds and oranges (ie sunsets) - something that many DSLRs struggle with. Greens and blues also looks awesome and it is a really good medium if you are taking nature or landscape photos (assuming you don't care about realistic colour). It can take a bit of PP to make a digital file look as good. And a really good medium format or large format negative, when viewed on a lightbox through a loupe, has a 3D effect that is captivating and difficult to achieve with a DSLR. These days, film also gives your photos a different look. There is no way you'd mistake a velvia photo for a HDR enhanced digital file.

The other reason why I personally shoot film is because I'm not a professional photographer. Instead, I have a job where I'm in front of a computer all day. I equate computers with work and the last thing I want to do at home is more work on a computer. But that's just me.


----------



## unkbob (May 20, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > "Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.
> ...



If the roll has 36 exposures then each image costs you 55.55 cents. You've spent $150 on your film body. A 5D3 costs $3499. So you can take around 6000 photos before your costs catch up to that of a 5D3. For a professional, that's not many images, although you won't be as trigger-happy with film as you would be with digital.

Also, there are cheaper full frame digital cameras out there than the 5D3. Compare your film costs to buying a used 5D or even a 5D2 and the economics are very different.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 20, 2012)

Thanks for the great responses. I also work in front of computers all day. But I'm a digital designer, so digital photography is a natural extension. In fact, I sorta rediscovered Photoshop when I became a photographer a few years ago. 

I'm definitely not one of those people who feel that specs make better photos: I feel that 90% of photography is composition and lighting. But I also admit that I use Photoshop to make up for a lot of shortcomings in my lighting and exposure. And again, that's another reason why I like digital... as long as my composition is OK, I can adjust later. That enables me to get waaay more good shots than I would otherwise get. People think I'm a good photographer, but I'm actually much better at editing than shooting. I'm an average shooter.

Having made my case for digital, I still see reasons why film shooting still has its place. It forces you to work on your lighting and exposure. And the the variety of film types can get results that might be laborious and difficult to achieve in Photoshop. Plus, if you're good with film... then you're good to go.

I also feel like there is a bit more of an experimental/unpredictable aspect to film. Sometimes it is easy to experiment with digital processing. But achieving unique results in Photoshop/LR can be a laborious process. To me, that's one of the merits of film photography... it sometimes gets great, unique results in a short amount of time. An expert Photoshopper can go beyond the limits of film processing (obviously), but learning Photoshop at that level takes major commitment and skill. 

And it's true that, for a lot of people, computers take the fun out of photography. And I don't think there's anything irrational about that. I would rather be a painter than be on the computer all day, but I'm better at Photoshop... so that's what I do.


----------



## FunPhotons (May 20, 2012)

unkbob said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



I shoot at least 1k photos on a three day vacation, sometimes upwards of 2k. Over the course of a year I shoot at least 10k pictures, I try to do about 100 pics per day. A lot of it is learning, I learn a little bit more (usually) with each shot. But buried in there are some really good pictures (non professional and zero interest in going professional) 


When I shot film I'd do a few canisters on a vacation, hate the cost, and miss 99% of the shots I could be taking. No way is film economical, I happily just 'blew' about 300 shots on a nephews birthday party, and some of them are really good. Never would have done that in film days - never mind the extra goodies like now I can do work in post in a civilized manner (no stinking chemicals in a stupid darkroom) 

As far as I'm concerned digital equipment is free. A vacation in film is roughly equal to the cost of a 'L' lens.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (May 20, 2012)

90 - 95% of what I shoot is digital. Yes its more immediate and convenient. For me it is a different medium from film. As great as digital is, I think there have been two consequences as a result:

I think it has become more scientific than artistic and so we are inclined to overanalyse and pixel peep at the risk of missing the whole. Many shots are sharpened to an inch of its life because of the obsession with sharpness. 

Secondly because there is no cost in consumables once you've made the down payment of buying the camera, I suspect we actually print far less. We spend more time displaying our works on forums at 800 px size photos and yet many people whinge about the 5D3 having 'only' 22mp compared to the 36mp of D800 and then use less than 1mp of it in a small low res web shot. Yes I know the advantages of being able to crop. But I think that digital photography has made many of us lazy. The real cost is losing the quality shot because we don't take the time to find the shot. I'd question whether it is really an advantage at all to be able to just snap away. 

How much control are we giving away to the computer in the camera? Shooting full manual - manual exposure and manual focus would slow you down quite a bit (and yes this is where digital can come into its own - but a good incident meter is far more accurate than a DSLRs meter). 

Shooting medium format film has taught me a lot, and has improved my digital photography a great deal. I do feel that we get too obsessed with specs and pixel peeping that we lose sight of the real goal.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 20, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
> at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?



Is that what they're going for? I've got a 7e (aka eos 30), and the 3 is definite step up in features. Time to go shopping me thinks.


----------



## pwp (May 20, 2012)

Yes film certainly does often display lovely subtle differences to carefully processed digital files. I love some of the exquisite Holga and Lomo images that better artists are producing. In a training environment film does have the advantage of forcing a student to really look at the subject and feel very sure before pressing the shutter. There is also a certain motivation that comes from knowing it will cost a dollar every time you push the shutter.

I started out on a small newspaper where we had to fit four jobs onto a 36 exposure film. There were some narrow advantages in this enforced and necessary system but I know I would have delivered far better shots if I'd gone out with a couple of 32Gb cards.

As someone who has not owned a film camera since 2001 it was in large part a business reality that pushed me away from film. In a good year my annual film/processing bill was $35-45K. The switch to digital was eye-wateringly expensive but almost overnight my film/processing expenses fell to zero and I was sending out bigger invoices as I could value-add, custom prepping the files for exact client needs and delivering to deadline conscious clients in a fraction of the time. It was a business no-brainer.

There are many completely valid dimensions to this discussion, but my decision to dump film signposted a breathtaking leap in the quality and unhindered creativity in the images I was producing. As my first picture editor kept drilling into us, "content is king..."

Paul Wright


----------



## 7enderbender (May 20, 2012)

Here's my take (again):

We already have established the economics of this comparison. We know that there are differences in "feel" and "look". All true and in a good way. I still think there is room for both and I still use both. Film less and less - not because I wouldn't like it still (quite the opposite) but because of cost and inconvenience - and because of the drop in quality. And that has to do with the sad fact that a) I don't have easy access any longer to a lab and enlarger to make my own prints b) at "professional" labs mostly everything gets scanned and you get the same kind of mediocre print you get for other digital files.

The two main annoyances with my DSLR: 1) I'm pretty much forced to use AF lenses 2) the print quality these days still hasn't caught up with where film was 20 years ago

And I'm only talking 35mm here. Medium format still beats all that anyway.


----------



## mb66energy (May 20, 2012)

I don't believe yet that film is hard to beat but I will try it now - with an "old" EOS 33 35mm camera. If I have results I will tell about them in this forum.

O.k., if you compare a 4x5 inch negative with an APS-C file, 4x5 will win.

But the erratic thing is that I see nearly the same detail with a XGA Beamer (0.75 MPixel) and a slide projector. Except the disturbing TFT patterns. And I know that the EOS40D with good light, lens and technique delivers per pixel sharpness. So it would be much better with - lets say - a 6 MPixel Beamer (2k x 3k) which not yet available for mortals like me!

But besides the discussion about which is better: The meaningfulness of the subject, the lighting and the arrangement of the surroundings are the most important parameters to achieve a valuable/good/great/interesting photograph - if you have at least a good so called amateur camera (let's say an 40D, a 650D or similar cameras from other brands).


----------



## Policar (May 20, 2012)

That's more of a condemnation of your slide projector (or eyes) than anything... And it's just not true; my 1080p projector is much softer than the slides I've shot. Also, I've yet to find a digital camera that's even close to "per-pixel" sharp. Bayer interpolation and the olpf knock resolution down by at least 30% linearly (and in theory should knock it down by 50% to satisfy nyquist, but of course no one does this).

In terms of extinction resolution 135 and FX are really pretty similar. I have 25 megapixel scans of Velvia that have detail almost down to the pixel level. The only issue? Contrast is quite poor there and it's very grainy. Subjectively, 135 looks closer to 4 or 6 megapixels than it does to less than one... You can print up to 8x10 with 135 no problem; you can't from a web cam.

Large format, while no more detailed than any other given medium at normal apertures (due to diffraction), still has the best "look" by a very large margin (excepting maybe those 80 megapixel MFDB backs) just because the lenses are so darned good. But it takes maybe 20 minutes and six dollars to shoot a photo and $150+ for a high quality scan, so you get what you pay for. But 4x5, and particularly 8x10 (which I've never shot, only seen prints from) is still a worthy format, even if 135 and 120 are on the way out.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 20, 2012)

distant.star said:


> For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice



This reminds me of a quote from a famous scientist:

[quote author=Richard Feynman]_I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts._
*― Richard P. Feynman*
[/quote]


----------



## dirtcastle (May 20, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this "digital vs film" quality issue doesn't really kick until you start printing at large size (beyond 4x6in and magazine spreads).

I'm guessing that the majority of photographs are consumed (by the public) at small sizes (magazine size or smaller), and often on digital devices. At those sizes, is there a technical difference between digital and film?


----------



## Policar (May 20, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this "digital vs film" quality issue doesn't really kick until you start printing at large size (beyond 4x6in and magazine spreads).
> 
> I'm guessing that the majority of photographs are consumed (by the public) at small sizes (magazine size or smaller), and often on digital devices. At those sizes, is there a technical difference between digital and film?



Smaller than 8''x10'' anything, including 135, is more than good enough. APS-C digital will hold up almost flawlessly at 11''x17'' (and probably acceptably at any size) unless you're super picky. The 8x10 film prints I saw were 80''x100'' and at that point you do get a distinct advantage from large format, however.


----------



## distant.star (May 20, 2012)

.
Great quote. I love Feynman, such an iconclast. As an artist himself (he would sit around and make drawings in topless joints) he had an artistic appreciation and insight often missing in his colleagues.

Completely off topic, since we're drifting there anyway, Loren Eiseley was another scientist with a strong artistic side. His essay, "How Flowers Changes the World," should be mandatory reading for any human being.







epsiloneri said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice
> ...


[/quote]


----------



## dr croubie (May 20, 2012)

distant.star said:


> Completely off topic, since we're drifting there anyway, Loren Eiseley was another scientist with a strong artistic side. His essay, "How Flowers Changes the World," should be mandatory reading for any human being.



Drifting further off topic (why not?), for anyone who hasn't heard of him, check out the works of Ernst Haeckel, especially Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature). I wish I could take macro photos half or even 1/4 as good as his 120-year-old drawings.

Slightly back on-topic, when shooting film, it all depends on how slow film you use to take shots, how good your scanner is, etc. Lots of people making comparisons (not just here, but on the interwebs), are forgetting that they're scanning slides shot 30 years ago on glass that didn't have as fancy coatings as now (although some old lenses are sharper than current counterparts, i'm looking at you, Super Takumar 50/1.4 vs EF 50/1.4). 

Aside: i've just thought of a test, seeing as I've got an EOS 3 now (now there's one way film beats digital, Eye control AF), and a roll of Velvia 50 lying around, i'll go ask my friend if he's bought his 5D3 yet and do a direct same-shot-same-lens comparison one day.

Anyway, let't think mathematically.
5D3 is 5760x3840 = 22.11 x10^6 pixels.
Let's scan a 135mm film to 4800dpi:
36/25.4*4800 = 6803x4535 = 30.85 x10^6 pixels.
OK, so scanning all but the finest-grained film is not going to give you the same sharpness as a D800. So let's downscale the scanned film a bit later on.

Now, as is my understanding, an iso100 film has the same grain size, whether it's deposited on a 135, 120, 4x5, or 8x10 negative. (if i'm wrong on that, better stop me here).
So let's scan in a 645 (cropped to 3:2 ratio) film, 56x37.3mm, at 4800dpi.
56/25.4*4800 = 10582x7055 = 74.65 x10^6 pixels.

OK, that's about what I was expecting (i was typing as I worked, so i'm reading the results now too).
Basically, scanning 135 film gives (near enough) equal to the best FF digital in terms of MP (D800), just as scanning 120 film gives equal to the best MF back (IQ180). That's assuming that scanning film to 4800dpi gives just as good results as the digital equivalent, which is a test for later. But the results should scale, if I can only scan a 135 Velvia 50 at 2400dpi (or more likely, to 4800dpi then downscale), I'll get 1/4 the res (7.5mp), and scanning 120 film to the same will give 18MP.


Anyway, that's just from an MP perspective. DR and colours is a whole different perspective, and we could go all day, but they're just not directly comparable (vinyl vs CDs vs MP3s anyone? or transistors vs tubes?).
The best thing about film is the non-linear response curve, so highlights don't get clipped as easily, even if you overexpose a bit too much (if you're good and process your own), you can recover a bit by underdeveloping. With digital, once the photon-bucket is filled, it's filled, no going back (although you can instantly see results and shoot again, another plus on digital). So there's never going to be a direct number-to-number comparison. Knowing your tool is more important than the tool itself in this case.

The best film will always beat the worst digital.
The best digital will always beat the worst film.
I think that's the only thing we can say with certainty...


----------



## dirtcastle (May 21, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> The best film will always beat the worst digital.
> The best digital will always beat the worst film.
> I think that's the only thing we can say with certainty...



That's a cool way to look at it. Thanks for the thorough breakdown!


----------



## pwp (May 21, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Drifting further off topic (why not?), for anyone who hasn't heard of him, check out the works of Ernst Haeckel, especially Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature). I wish I could take macro photos half or even 1/4 as good as his 120-year-old drawings.


Film vs Digital vs Ernst Haeckel. OMG what exquisite work. 

Ernst Haeckel could teach most 21st century image makers a thing or two about patient observation & uncompromising technique. Fabulous.

Paul Wright


----------



## pdirestajr (May 21, 2012)

I thinks there is no debate or comparing "film vs digital".

It's like trying to compare a painting to a digital photoshop illustration. They are completely different in every way. One is organic and the other is digital art.

The process of making an exposure on film, developing that film in a dark room, optically making a print on an enlarger, and developing the print has nothing to do with the digital workflow process.

Why can't they just be different forms of art?


----------



## dirtcastle (May 21, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> I thinks there is no debate or comparing "film vs digital".
> 
> It's like trying to compare a painting to a digital photoshop illustration. They are completely different in every way. One is organic and the other is digital art.
> 
> ...



Let me guess... you prefer film?

The reason they are considered the same artform is because they are both photography. ;-)


----------



## Policar (May 21, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Completely off topic, since we're drifting there anyway, Loren Eiseley was another scientist with a strong artistic side. His essay, "How Flowers Changes the World," should be mandatory reading for any human being.
> ...



Except that megapixels mean nothing as a metric and mtf means everything. And both scanners and sensors are supposed to be designed to oversample by a factor of at least 2 (although they don't) to prevent aliasing. 

A D800 shot will put Velvia 50 to shame every time, mm per mm.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 21, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I thinks there is no debate or comparing "film vs digital".
> ...



I don't prefer film. I use both. I also use photoshop sometimes, and illustrator other times. And oil paints other times, and crayons when I color with my daughter.

Crayola is better than roseart.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 21, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Crayola is better than roseart.



I just registered http://CrayolaRumors.com


----------



## pdirestajr (May 21, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Crayola is better than roseart.
> ...



Lol. This thread just got fun!

The digital vs film debate is old.


----------



## hutjeflut (May 29, 2012)

personaly i like digital more specialy at iso 100 its often clearer no noice at all and i like it that way.
i get some people like the film noise but i just dont i dont see it when i look at a object so i dont want to see it when i look at a picture of the object.

thats why digital wins for me and i only have a simple 450d now.


----------



## dr croubie (May 29, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Aside: i've just thought of a test, seeing as I've got an EOS 3 now (now there's one way film beats digital, Eye control AF), and a roll of Velvia 50 lying around, i'll go ask my friend if he's bought his 5D3 yet and do a direct same-shot-same-lens comparison one day.



OK, so i've now got an Epson v750M scanner in the mail (cost me as much shipped from europe as a v700 costs here (v750M isn't available in aus).
As soon as it gets here, all I need is for my mate to come back from the states with his 5D3 and the tests can begin...


----------



## FredBGG (May 30, 2012)

Forceflow said:


> Danny Burk said:
> 
> 
> > Hello FredBGG.......I see that you liked my photo of my Fuji GX680iii that you found on my website.....
> ...



He is referring to the photo of the camera. I shot the portrait. We happen to know each other and have exchanged info on the camera system. Danny Burk like me is a Fuji gx680 enthusiast and pro photographer.


----------



## FunPhotons (Jun 2, 2012)

You want to know how film compares to digital? Look at the growth of number of pictures taken versus population growth. I haven't done this, but I know the rate of population growth is slowing while the growth of digital pictures is exponential. 15 billion pictures per year by next year is a number I recall (could be wrong by a few digits). Try walking around with a film camera as small as the S100, or a film camera in your phone. 

Digital has trumped film as a medium, case closed.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 2, 2012)

Because quantity *always* beats quality, sure. [irony alert]


----------



## smithy (Jun 9, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Because quantity *always* beats quality, sure. [irony alert]


+1 million (although that was sarcasm, not irony!)


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 9, 2012)

Just shot 4 rolls yesterday of Ektar 100 on the Elan 7 with a Lensbaby. Will be scanning into LR on Tuesday for my nature on lsd show.


----------



## traveller (Jun 9, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > Aside: i've just thought of a test, seeing as I've got an EOS 3 now (now there's one way film beats digital, Eye control AF), and a roll of Velvia 50 lying around, i'll go ask my friend if he's bought his 5D3 yet and do a direct same-shot-same-lens comparison one day.
> ...



I'd be interested to see your tests, as in most real world tests that I've seen, film doesn't even come close to the resolution that you calculated in your previous post [_Re: Film is still hard to beat « Reply #54 on: May 20, 2012, 06:03:18 PM »_]. I think the problem with your calculations is that you can scan at any resolution you like, if the detail isn't there to resolve, you won't get any more useful information out of it. You could drum scan a picture printed in a newspaper at 10,000dpi -the picure wouldn't be of any higher quality than a normal flatbed scanner. 

I think I've posted the link before, but you might like to take a look at this test conducted by Tim Parkin and Onlandscape: 

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 9, 2012)

traveller said:


> I'd be interested to see your tests, as in most real world tests that I've seen, film doesn't even come close to the resolution that you calculated in your previous post [_Re: Film is still hard to beat « Reply #54 on: May 20, 2012, 06:03:18 PM »_]. I think the problem with your calculations is that you can scan at any resolution you like, if the detail isn't there to resolve, you won't get any more useful information out of it. You could drum scan a picture printed in a newspaper at 10,000dpi -the picure wouldn't be of any higher quality than a normal flatbed scanner.



Yeah, that's what I'd be interested in figuring out too. I know the scanner can go up to 9600 dpi or something stupid, maybe i'll scan that high and down-res to a 5D3-sized image.

At any rate, so far i've only been shooting Kodak Tmax and Ilford iso400 B+W, i'm fairly certain that i can get better results from my 7D than from the film, but that's still not stopping me.

For the test i'm planning on using iso50 Velvia as the one everyone raves about having the finest grain, anyone got any other ideas what films to shoot in terms of resolving-power?


----------



## sweetcancer (Jun 9, 2012)

I think digital is fine shot at lower iso. At iso 400 and up, I prefer film, because digital noise, more often than film grain, is UGLY. That said, I would never only shoot film, because of all the hassle and cost.

I only have experience shooting 35mm film.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 9, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be interested to see your tests, as in most real world tests that I've seen, film doesn't even come close to the resolution that you calculated in your previous post [_Re: Film is still hard to beat « Reply #54 on: May 20, 2012, 06:03:18 PM »_]. I think the problem with your calculations is that you can scan at any resolution you like, if the detail isn't there to resolve, you won't get any more useful information out of it. You could drum scan a picture printed in a newspaper at 10,000dpi -the picure wouldn't be of any higher quality than a normal flatbed scanner.
> ...




Try these:


Ilford Pan-F Plus Ultra-Fine Grain Black and White Film ISO 50
Acros Neopan 100
Portra 160
Fujicolor Superia Reala
Ektra 100


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 9, 2012)

Hands down to all film shooters 

For me...I'll stay with digital - shoot it, view it, if I don't like it then delete it, and if I like it shoot it AGAIN for even better pic. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## zim (Jun 9, 2012)

Pan-F was my goto fine grain film.

Still enjoy the occasional roll of FP4 (always was an Ilford fanboy) through my F1n but just for fun would never dream of doing anything important/serious with it although it’s cost that mainly stops me doing more.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jun 9, 2012)

I wonder how many times in the past 10+ years this conversation has taken place. and since I really couldn't be bothered to read through 6 pages of people giving their opinion I skipped to the end to say

It depends what you want to shot, what you want to do and who's going to see your work.

There are still a lot of high-end studio fashion shooters that will shoot film (mainly medium format of course) and totally swear by it for what work they do. Sure digital has it's place - hasselblad, phaseone etc - make perfectly amazing digital cameras for that kind of work yet there are still people favouring to shoot film.

Enlarging is one of the major issues with digital photography - of course it depends on what work you do - if you're doing the kind of commercial work that is going to be plastered on billboards that are 10 meters across - digital probably isn't the best way to go about that work.

For certain applications digital is better - a client wants something done at short notice and wants samples asap... digital is the way to go about that kind of work.

The kind of corporate head-shot work where clients will want to see results on the day, or even as you're shooting via a monitor - obviously digital is better in that respect.

as I said... it depends on what you want to shoot as to whether or not Film is better or Digital is better.

If in doubt - stock that fridge with as much 35/120 as you can get your hands on just in case! =D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 9, 2012)

sweetcancer said:


> I think digital is fine shot at lower iso. At iso 400 and up, I prefer film, because digital noise, more often than film grain, is UGLY. That said, I would never only shoot film, because of all the hassle and cost.
> 
> I only have experience shooting 35mm film.



There is barely any noise at ISO400 on digital and already tons with film.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 9, 2012)

For ideal circumstances, where resources and flexibility are not an issue, film is the best. 

For everything else... digital.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 9, 2012)

These rules will constrain you, I prefer to be receptive and free. Film or digital, and most often…both.


----------



## infared (Jun 10, 2012)

Film is REALLY easy to best or beat or equal...the universe has changed....I moved on.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 10, 2012)

infared said:


> Film is REALLY easy to best or beat or equal...the universe has changed....I moved on.



if it so easy care to prove it with images? What's your experience? What film have you worked with before? Do you often use auto features on your cameras? All of these are relevant questions. 

Some film has much greater dynamic range than digital. With some film you have to be so precise with your exposure that just a little bit out renders a shot totally differently (i'm thinking Velvia 50 here). With digital of course you can delete and shoot again, but this disposability of digital is what is cheapening photography. Do you never try to challenge yourself or do you reach for the "auto HDR" button when you need a well exposed shot. Film is a great way of learning the essential skills that do actully apply to digital as well. 

I shoot both film and digital and both are different mediums. The trouble with the "auto HDR" generation of photography is that in the race for a shot that reveals details in the shadows, images can lose their shape and dimension. They lose definition. Photography isn't just about what you can see but also about what is hidden. That is why it is an art.


----------



## infared (Jun 10, 2012)

I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!! 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 10, 2012)

infared said:


> I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne



The thing about art is that there is no right or wrong or right. That is why I do not speak in absolutes. You chose to.


----------



## infared (Jun 10, 2012)

whatever....


----------



## wonderdude (Jun 10, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> For the test i'm planning on using iso50 Velvia as the one everyone raves about having the finest grain, anyone got any other ideas what films to shoot in terms of resolving-power?



Kodak Tech Pan


----------



## sweetcancer (Jun 10, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> There is barely any noise at ISO400 on digital and already tons with film.



Maybe SOOC there isn't, but if you do anything to the image in post processing, at least with my 5D2, ugly banding and lot of shadow noise come to table. In film there is grain, yes, but it isn't ugly. (depending of course what film you use)


----------



## CowGummy (Jun 10, 2012)

infared said:


> I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne



Wow - am loving your flickr stream. Especially the recent series - Awesome work!


----------



## infared (Jun 10, 2012)

Thanks...I feel like I took a wrong turn somewhere...but I can't stop driving to see what is around the corner! LOL!


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jun 10, 2012)

wonderdude said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > For the test i'm planning on using iso50 Velvia as the one everyone raves about having the finest grain, anyone got any other ideas what films to shoot in terms of resolving-power?
> ...



the latest Ektar 100 is really excellent


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 11, 2012)

Hi Dr Croubie, I know you intend to scan the transparencies. But I'd also suggest buying a slide projector and having a look at the projected images. I seriously doubt that you'll find the scans are on par with digital. But I don't think that's point. Its not about which is "better"... I thinks its generally accepted that digital is "better". Instead, its about the experience that each offers. One of the differences is that viewing photos on a monitor is generally a solitary experience (or alternatively, is so common that it looses its impact). But film gives you the chance to have a slide show! Very old fashioned, but its fun to gather the family (and/or friends) around, turn off all of the lights and view wall sized projections. 

Also, its not that hard or expensive to get into B & W printing - one of the other experiences that film offers. Trust me, its fun. If you do it at night time, you don't even need a real darkroom. I just use my garage. I've got a feeling you're in Australia? If you don't have a local camera shop, have a look at Blanco Negro Supplies in Sydney. Their prices and shipping costs are pretty good.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 11, 2012)

Film=Vinyl


----------



## BCMAR15 (Jun 11, 2012)

Hard to beat?

Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.

Not that hard at all.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 11, 2012)

.
Hi Bob. I didn't know you were on the CR Forum. Glad you are.

For everyone else, this man is an extraordinary photographer -- has more experience and broad understanding of visual technologies and process than most of the rest of us combined. When he has something to say I listen. His work is a delight to experience.

And like most of the pros I know who spent so many years in darkrooms/labs his perspective on the wonders of digital technology are instructive -- none of them would go back to those "dark ages."

Don't mean to embarrass you, Bob. Just speaking the truth!




infared said:


> I am 57years old..I shot commercially for 30 years...product illustration..but always managed to keep my hands in the art side of things. I spent more hours in a darkroom than you have sleeping. I am just so over film....digital is exciting and shows me MANY things that I NEVER saw on film. I do NOTHING on auto...why so many assumptions???? Why talk at me?????..you know nothing about me other than the opinion I laid down. Never assume anything. Here is my flicker page....I am in a dark phase right now. Maybe you will dig it...maybe you won't ..who cares....I LOVE it!!!!!!!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bowne


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 11, 2012)

BCMAR15 said:


> Hard to beat?
> 
> Changing ISO in a flash. Instant results (no mailers, no waste). No chemicals. No 10,000 slides to store and manage.
> 
> Not that hard at all.



You're talking about convenience not quality.


----------



## crasher8 (Jun 11, 2012)

Quality without convenience is a dying concept, like common sense.


----------



## dafrank (Jun 11, 2012)

*My thinking about film vs. digital*

As I see this thread has gone on for a long time, I am re-posting my contribution from early-on, because I imagine not many at this point have reads it, and I thin that it makes some cogent points about a subject which has failed to die a much deserved death; film and digital are quite different paths to image making and always will be, and, therefore, their uses and aesthetics will continue to diverge more and more.

Here's my previous post, keeping in mind that a previous poster brought up his film camera - a Fuji GX 680:

"My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.

I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then most every digital capture is better. 

But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or certainly 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same. 

While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.

This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that excellent film shots will always look better than just average digital ones, and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture or future films ever become, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure."


----------



## BCMAR15 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> BCMAR15 said:
> 
> 
> > Hard to beat?
> ...



Excuse me? Did you not write, "Film is still hard to beat," as the title of your post? I don't see "quality" in there, do you? 

How's about being SPECIFIC and NOT opening a can of worms next time, huh?

And for the LAST time, to everyone, QUALITY is subjective. Hello?


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 11, 2012)

BCMAR15 said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > BCMAR15 said:
> ...



Well in the first place it was kind of a rhetorical question. I liked the colour quality to the shots I had taken with particular film types that are a result of the emulsions used in the film. If you had bothered to read the thread you would have known what I was talking about. 

I'm not stupid, I know that film is more expensive and harder to process or are you suggesting I am? Put away the claws, please.

Edited to add - I am now dealing with one of the inconveniences of film - scanning 4 rolls of film - 2 B&W negatives and 1 x Ektar 100 and 1 x Reala 100. A lot of the B&W is scanned already, and the guy at the lab hasn't developed it correctly - way too grainy for Ilford delta 100. Not an expensive error as he forgot to charge me and I forgot I hadn't paid when I dropped it off.


----------



## BCMAR15 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> BCMAR15 said:
> 
> 
> > itsnotmeyouknow said:
> ...



I did read what you wrote. How does that in any way, shape, matter or form limit my comments, hmm? What, do I have to run my opinions by you first?

And chancing ISO on the fly and having instant feedback on exposure, lighting, framing, etc. is most CERTAINLY about quality. Clients--and bank accounts--don't like redos.

Edit: somebody else brought up cost on page 1. Cost isn't quality. Why didn't you jump on them?


----------



## smithy (Jun 13, 2012)

BCMAR15 said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > BCMAR15 said:
> ...


You might not mean to come across as being aggressive, but it certainly reads like that. We're pretty laid back here, even when we disagree with each other. For all-out war, go register on an Apple forum or something.


----------



## pwp (Jun 13, 2012)

The only thing I miss about film is the great conversations photographers had with each other once or twice a day at the E6 film lab. That was nice. 

Recently I looked at some files of premium level drum scans from 6x7 Velvia shot on an RZ67 that I used to think were the bees knees. They looked awful compared to what I'm shooting today on 1D4 & 5D3, and would be surpassed easily by the old 5D Classic.

Film does deliver certain unique characteristics, but certainly not ones that I have any willingness to continue to explore. I've always gone by the rule that "Content is King". Most (not all!) photography today leaves the work from previous decades gasping for respectability. Go and take a look at photography books and magazines from the the 1970's, 1980's & 1990's. Then try to convince me that Film is Still Hard to Beat.

PW


----------



## Richard8971 (Jun 13, 2012)

I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"

I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.

Now comes digital. You can see the image as soon as you take it and can instanly make changes and now anyone can learn how to take a photo (outside of using "auto") and have it be affordable. One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll? : (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket. 

With digital, a journalist can take a photo half-way across the world and sent it back to his/her editor in minutes, if not seconds. Do THAT with film. 

If you choose to shoot film then so be it, but in MO film is going the way of the 8-track, super 8, beta tape, records, lazer disks... It is simply being replaced by a superior tecnology. Before long, any leftover superiority of 35mm film over digital will be long gone.

D


----------



## Danielle (Jun 13, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> One example being is if I need to switch my speed of film, I simply change my camera's settings (ISO) and not have to switch out a entire roll of film. Not to mention, on a 16GB card I can store 800 photos!!! Come on... I mean really. Your average person carried only a few rolls and they contained what? 24? 36? shots per roll? : (Let's see... math... 800 divided by 24 {average shots per roll} is 33 rolls!!!) Oh, and I can swap memory cards in like 5 seconds if by chance I run out of room shooting in a morning and they can STILL fit in my front pocket.




Yup, totally agree with that as much as I'd defend film where I can.

I've shot well over 2400 shots in day shooting sports and stuff before (haven't done it since though). But how many rolls of film would that be? Oh, lets say at bare minimums at least $1300 worth!!!!! Not a chance in hell I could have afforded to do that.

I was taught on film, before any other options were available. But will only shoot medium format film now, and no I don't shoot much of it. Darkroom access is also getting harder to come by.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 13, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> I would have to say that film vs. digital is that digital has given the masses the chance to really learn photography and I think that really chaps "filmies"
> 
> I mean, when I was growing up, I wanted a Canon AE-1P so bad, but the cost of cameras and lenses were out of my leauge, not to mention that one-hour photo shops were almost unheard of. The learning curve was massive. You did not know if you got a good shot (if you shot manual) until you developed your film.
> 
> ...



You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta wasn't better than VHS, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course


----------



## smithy (Jun 13, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta VHS wasn't better than VHS Beta, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.
> 
> On the other side of things, yes film digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course


I edited your words to help your post make sense


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 13, 2012)

smithy said:


> itsnotmeyouknow said:
> 
> 
> > You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta VHS wasn't better than VHS Beta, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.
> ...



Oops don't know how I managed that. Thanks! 

So this is what I meant:

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? VHS wasn't better than Beta, VHS just won the marketing war. Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though? I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera. I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100. There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course


----------



## markd61 (Jun 25, 2012)

Those are beautiful images.

What is ironic is that the scans from your negs are probably better than what can be achieved by optical printing on photo paper.

When I first started scanning negs on a Kodak RFS 3570 back in the 90's I was astonished to see the dynamic range of the scans that far surpassed the quality of printing conventionally. I was able to create prints from my scans that left my clients speechless. The best part was when they took their negs to other labs and could never get prints to equal the range in our prints.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 28, 2012)

Some days i'm in a film mood, some days I'm in a digital mood. The digital days outweigh the film days probably at least 100:1 these days, but I still have a film camera and some film waiting to be used.

My decision is based on liking to shoot black and white with chromagenic film now and then, I love xp2 and 400cn.

The grain is lovely, quite pronounced, yet doesn't get in the way of detail, quite unlike digital noise, the contrast and gamma scale is totally different too, and the biggest bonus of all: I can optically filter the lens.

When I've tried this on digital the results are very flat - post-processing being better for digital mono's- but a red or yellow or occasionally green filter over my lens renders my viewfinder 'momo' to all intents and purposes, certainly it makes it far more easy for me to see in mono: with an unfiltered viewfinder I struggle to see visualise a good mono shot.

There is the argument of shooting RAW with the mono picture style on (giving me a mono live view, but colour RAW if I really need to tweak) but I find this less immediate, ironically.

My shots on film tend to be more rigorously planned an executed, I think technical merits of the medium aside, film forces you into a different way of working : sometimes it's great to have space for 500 RAW files at 8fps. Other times it's great just to take your time. Not that this is exclusive to film users of course.

I'm not looking to be corrected as it really is just an opinion and it is what works for me, but thats the point, these debates always come down to which is 'better'. I reached the conclusion that they are different, and folk who write one off against the other are potentially missing a trick.

On the Beta / VHS debate (It really isn't the same thing, Beta / 16mm would be a better comparison) VHS won out because it was cheaper to make, had higher profit margins and the studios got behind it.

Beta was technically far superior (component colour vs composite colour) but the decks were more costly and the distributers never really got behind it.

I have a Sony J3 deck (pro betacamSP/BetacamSX/Digibeta) which still gets daily use and a JVC S-VHS deck which is used occassionally, normally for friends looking to dub their 1980's holiday videos to DVD.

Ultimately, Beta derived formats won.... Which reminds me, I have 2 rolls of S8 ektachrome I need to use up!


----------



## gary samples (Jun 28, 2012)

do they still make film?


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 28, 2012)

gary samples said:


> do they still make film?



Making it isn't the problem, everyone here still sells it, even the local supermarkets and Big W.

It's the processing that's a bitch, I get my normal-colour and colour-B+W (like Tmax) films done at the 1 Kodak Express between here and Melbourne, even they can't do slide (like Velvia) so they post it to someone else. The 'true' B+W films like BW400CN I get done at another shop called (funnily enough), Black+White Photographics (who also, funnily enough, do process Velvia and slide films).
Besides those two shops there might be another one or two around the place, if they close then it's postage to Sydney or Melbourne or start mixing my own chemicals...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 28, 2012)

@drcroubie

Think you got your true and colour bw films mixed up there old chap: 400Cn is chromagenic (c41 process) TMax's are old school mono.


----------



## slclick (Apr 2, 2016)

My EOS 3 just kicked the bucket and took me out of the film business (for a while) unless you count 120 Holga which I next to never shoot any longer.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 3, 2016)

dr croubie said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > "Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.
> ...



100 rolls, or 3600 shots.
For a professional, probably 5 weddings (or less)?
So, a 5D3 pays for itself pretty quickly. 
Maybe you should argue about other advantages of film?


----------



## slclick (Apr 3, 2016)

sagittariansrock said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



Film is expensive. That is a given. But a bigger issue for me is space/darkroom availability. I'm accustomed to too professional of facilities from Community College to have a go (again) at a home setup. The only darkroom to rent is 12+ miles away with limited availability. So besides the fact that my film body just broke, it's not the real problem here, it's infrastructure.I have a ton of film, paper, toner, and other goods to produce alternative prints but just not the place. Oh, send it to a lab you say? And who is going to do my dodging and burning? My toning? .....I won't scan unless it's drum scanning and it's just not available here. I love it, I am very passionate about it but it's just not feasible. Maybe when the kids move out, lol.


----------



## pwp (Apr 3, 2016)

Wow another resurrected 2012 thread singing the praised of film on the same day. What's going on? Must be a Kodak led conspiracy. This has been solidly argued for just about all of this century. I thought the dust had settled.

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today. 

-pw


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 3, 2016)

pwp said:


> ........
> 
> Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.
> 
> -pw



Get a clue, pw. 
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr. 

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 3, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...



While film isn't completely dead, it is mostly dead. The fact that when I go to Walmart and can only find one brand, one speed, and only in color... and the fact that they no longer process the medium tells me that film is mostly dead. It is a niche market just like vinyl records and jiffy pop popcorn.

Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago. 

In my opinion, film is easy to beat because it is so got dang scarce and cumbersome to find processing. Yes, I could process it myself, but I don't have room for a darkroom setup.

With digital, things move at lightning speed and I can get any look I want... including a film look, whatever that is.


----------



## d (Apr 3, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> Get a clue, pw.
> Film is still practical w/much to offer....



Film is practical? Ha! You have to have to buy it, unpack it, open your camera, fit it inside correctly. Then 24 or 36 images later you rewind it, open your camera and remove it, store it, install your next roll, then 24 or 36 images later...

Took a group photo...did anyone blink...dunno, no way to check. Take some more photos just in case...

Do I need to talk about the development process? Scanning to obtain a digital version?

Doesn't sound like a very practical medium to me, when with a digital camera I can snap, review, upload, edit and print a bunch of photos in practically no time. And with the low cost of computers and cameras these days, it doesn't take many photos at all before you come out cheaper than an equivalent number of film images.

I do like film and still shoot it occasionally for a bit of fun, but I don't think it has much to offer these days other than warm feelings of nostalgia. Practical, it ain't.

d.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 3, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



I've already stated I use both, so I understand them both well. Anyway, back to your post. 
Film users are a thriving community, however, obviously not equal to the # of dslr users. What do you really expect to find at Walmart film wise? Go to a real camera store like B&H where you will get the best prices.(and over 200 entries for available film) Do you do all your camera shopping local? Film is no different
Read the reviews there and select whatever ISO's you need.

Scarce? Do you get out in the internet world much? Not trying to give you a hard time but this is much too simple. Here's a link: Do your own homework. You'd be surprised what's still available.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/labs_services.php?doc=custom . You may also want to see apug.com for other film suppliers.
Here's a couple others not listed: PhotoTech labs in Richmond, VA. Moon Photo, and Panda Photo Lab in Seattle, and Richard photo lab. Good luck!


----------



## d (Apr 3, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > N2itiv said:
> ...



You've still failed to build a case for films practicality!

Yes, loading film isn't difficult...but how is it *more practical* to have to stop shooting and change your roll of film every 24 or 36 (or 12 or 15) shots? Need to shoot at a different ISO mid roll? Time to stop and open the camera up again. Practical? No - I can just hit a button or turn a dial on a digital camera.

What? You have to physically send your film to the lab for prints or scanning?! Sounds like there's a time component involved - and I hope they don't lose or damage your film! My digital file doesn't need any scanning, and I can upload a copy of it to the lab (or a client, or to and off-site backup) in a few moments. Very practical.

Free time?! While you're developing (or are waiting to for the lab to develop) your film, I or my retoucher have already finished with and delivered to the client, my digital file. Client certainly finds digital more practical.

"internet noise" and "uninformed pack"? No, my statements come from many years of working in commercial studios where the *practicality* of digital imaging killed off the use of film long ago.

As others have said, film is easy to beat. Yes, it can be nice to shoot for warm fuzzies...but there's nothing practical about it.

d.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> ...not to mention the environmental impact from all that plastic and those toxic chips which are seldom recycled.



As opposed to the non-toxic and environmentally-friendly chemicals used in darkrooms? :


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 3, 2016)

I'm happy to accept that digital imaging is more practical than photography, but if it is so good, why do Fuji sell more instax film cameras annually than ALL DSLRs combined? And why are their sales increasing annually, while DSLR sales are decreasing? And why is film simulation software so popular with DSLR users? Could it be that DSLRs are really the Betamax of the camera industry?

Lol, I just realised I also replied to this topic back in 2012.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 3, 2016)

d said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



You seem to be lacking somewhat in you understanding. I already told I use digital as well, so I am aware of its strong points. You, on the other hand, are not very knowledgeable through any current use of film. Digital is faster and at times that's certainly necessary. I have proved my point quite well. The issue is your lack of accepting that. Not everyone is professional or shoot commercially. Again, the point is peoples enjoyment or knowledge of film benefit under controlled circumstances. From a professional standpoint, time is money. While "you" toil over how many images and how much correction those images require, I'm enjoying quality time. 

Once again, you make a sad case making it sound like packaging film and taking it-or having it picked up-for delivery is some major campaign. You talk about damaged or lost film but you fail to mention damaged or lost cards, hard drives, storage costs/hardware and files that need back up based on storage media loss( cd's,dvd's, thumb drives) and ability to read files at a future date That's why you have no credibility on this subject. You just can't handle the truth. You worked in a studio and I owned and managed a successful business that was predominantly film based. Save the bravado, I'm not impressed. When I return to business again, digital will be a big part of it. As will film. Film is easy to beat only from those whom write it off due to their insecurities or lack of desire to learn how to easily and properly deploy it. Professional or not.
As far as product delivery goes, that depends on the genre of work done and mgmt. practices. I still have professional friends in the wedding/portrait biz I talk w/frequently. Yes, digital again can be faster. Tell me how long it takes to get film developed, scanned, retouched and sent back. Without doing research, you can't. Easier to talk than learn. With digital, a 'tog can shoot and sell after session. Many 'togs shoot, edit, and schedule a viewing. The second method I can do in equal time. Let's face it, film as easy or difficult as people wish to make it. You haven't taken much time to learn the facts but still try to make yourself look knowledgeable. Maybe viewers here will catch on to that.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > ...not to mention the environmental impact from all that plastic and those toxic chips which are seldom recycled.
> ...


 
Neuro, I'm not trying to say film is spotless in that area. All photography, in general, is an environmental issue. Let's not overlook that film constitutes much less in that area because it's no longer the predominant method used. Neither does it require as much supporting hardware.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 3, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> I'm happy to accept that digital imaging is more practical than photography, but if it is so good, why do Fuji sell more instax film cameras annually than ALL DSLRs combined? And why are their sales increasing annually, while DSLR sales are decreasing? And why is film simulation software so popular with DSLR users? Could it be that DSLRs are really the Betamax of the camera industry?
> 
> Lol, I just realised I also replied to this topic back in 2012.



There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!


----------



## d (Apr 4, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> You seem to be lacking somewhat in you understanding. I already told I use digital as well, so I am aware of its strong points. You, on the other hand, are not very knowledgeable through any current use of film. Digital is faster and at times that's certainly necessary. I have proved my point quite well. The issue is your lack of accepting that. Not everyone is professional or shoot commercially. Again, the point is peoples enjoyment or knowledge of film benefit under controlled circumstances. From a professional standpoint, time is money. While "you" toil over how many images and how much correction those images require, I'm enjoying quality time.
> 
> Once again, you make a sad case making it sound like packaging film and taking it-or having it picked up-for delivery is some major campaign. You talk about damaged or lost film but you fail to mention damaged or lost cards, hard drives, storage costs/hardware and files that need back up based on storage media loss( cd's,dvd's, thumb drives) and ability to read files at a future date That's why you have no credibility on this subject. You just can't handle the truth. You worked in a studio and I owned and managed a successful business that was predominantly film based. Save the bravado, I'm not impressed. When I return to business again, digital will be a big part of it. As will film. Film is easy to beat only from those whom write it off due to their insecurities or lack of desire to learn how to easily and properly deploy it. Professional or not.
> As far as product delivery goes, that depends on the genre of work done and mgmt. practices. I still have professional friends in the wedding/portrait biz I talk w/frequently. Yes, digital again can be faster. Tell me how long it takes to get film developed, scanned, retouched and sent back. Without doing research, you can't. Easier to talk than learn. With digital, a 'tog can shoot and sell after session. Many 'togs shoot, edit, and schedule a viewing. The second method I can do in equal time. Let's face it, film as easy or difficult as people wish to make it. You haven't taken much time to learn the facts but still try to make yourself look knowledgeable. Maybe viewers here will catch on to that.



I appreciate that you are enthusiastic for the analogue medium - that's fine, and as I've already stated I sometimes still run a roll through a camera as well. However you know nothing of my background or experience, yet attack it as if having some insight - kindly desist.

I chimed in on this discussion because of your brash response to others ("get a clue", "get real") and claim that film is "practical w/- much to offer". Yet rather than inform on what those practicalities could be, you've made a series of silly claims and ill-informed, subjective criticisms that speak more to *your* own insecurities and desire for bravado, seeing as those are the terms you've chosen to use.

I started off in the studio shooting film in large format view cameras - I've done the whole develop/scan/retouch/print thing, and fail to understand how you can argue this workflow results in you enjoying more "quality time" compared to a digital workflow?

Is it because you're outsourcing the processes beyond the camera? Digital makes it even quicker to get an image into the lab. Or is it because you've achieved your shot sooner due to the constraints in having a finite number of frames for capture, while the digital shooter invariably has hundreds or thousands of frames to work through later? I don't think so - modern digital cameras and their features like live-view, tethering, EVFs, CDAF , histograms etc. make it very easy to achieved a desired result with very few clicks of the shutter. If time actually is money, surely then film is not a wise investment? I'd say digital is the more practical (and profitable!) option here.

You're right, I didn't mention card or hard drive failures - I don't tend to worry about them. My camera has dual card slots, so each photo has a backup made at the time of capture. After shooting I can remove one card for safe-keeping as well, and once I've uploaded those images onto my computer, more copies are made. These days, storage is cheap. I can buy an external hard big enough to store my entire library of images for around the same cost as shooting and developing a half dozen rolls of 36 exp. 35mm film. I have three such drives, tucked away in different locations. After a couple of years, those drives will be retired and replaced with some that are no doubt of larger capacity, and likely lower priced as well. I hope your negatives are stored somewhere secure, and you're around to grab them should fire, flood or theft threaten! Perhaps you have them stored in a safe? How much does a decent safe cost? I guess only having a single copy of something isn't all that practical!

Neither do I worry about being able to read my image files into the future. While my images are stored in the camera's native raw format, with a few clicks I can have to whole library exporting into another format (DNG, TIFF, JPG etc) should I so desire. I'm confident there will always be something around that can read or convert them, and I don't even necessarily need to purchase the software - currently it's possible to rent Photoshop for a month for $20. A cheap and practical option.

You claimed I can't handle the truth; I think you might be a bit stuck in the past, not fully grasping the realities of the present.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## d (Apr 4, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!



What purpose does film serve other than to offer a different look (easy to emulate digitally), and give "pleasure"? These thin, subjective statements lack substance. 

My observation is that the only ones acting threatened are those who profess film's greatness, when challenged to articulate its benefits.

d.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 4, 2016)

d said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital. If anyone feels to threatened by film to accept that fact, tuff!
> ...



Only thing that lacks substance is your mental process. So now you determine what has value for all those besides yourself. Film is no greater or lesser than digital. The user has skill or they don't. The image speaks for itself or it don't. Neither medium changes that. Yes, you fear film because you ridicule it when you have vague knowledge of it. The title of this thread is film is hard to beat, not film is invincible. People like yourself always come on these threads as critics. Can't handle the thread and don't have sense enough to stay away from it out of respect for others. Film users don't have these insecurities you project. Every response you've given lacked substance. Couldn't back up your own statements when challenged. Typical fanboy troll! Cheers.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 4, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > N2itiv said:
> ...



Local is the whole point. I used to choose from dozens of 35mm film options locally. Now there is just one. I used to be able to get film developed locally and get it back the same day. Now I have to mail it off. Then I have to pay shipping to buy and process. Yup, there are still film shooters out there, but the community can't be said to be thriving. If it were then I could still have dozens of choices right here in town. There aren't any. 1 choice isn't a choice.

I like film, but for the OP to say it is hard to beat, for others to say the medium is thriving, and for others to say it is convenient... well, that just ignores reality. Film can be a wonderful medium, but it can be duplicated easily through digital means.

"Scarce? Do you get out in the internet world much? Not trying to give you a hard time but this is much too simple." C'mon. That statement is just snarky. I'm on the internet and know what is out there. I ordered all my gear online... except for the Voigtlander Vito CL. I am fully aware of Adorama and B&H.

I don't mind anybody disagreeing. That is fine. What we have here are differences of opinion. The snark is just childish and unnecessary.

Here was my question: "Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago. "

So yeah, I am aware of what is out there. I asked for black and white film recommendations. There is NOTHING local and nobody LOCAL to ask. Film shooters should be able to tell me what films they have had luck with and where I can send it. They can also tell me what to stay away from.

Differences of opinion should not elicit smart Alec responses. Digital is thriving. It is everywhere. Film is a very small niche market and nowhere even close to where it was at its zenith in the marketplace.

In fact, the following chart shows that after 2005 analogue camera sales do not even register as a blip on the radar. That is why there are very few places to buy film locally and why there are so few choices. That is just reality, not opinion.  AS far as phone cameras go: Those come with the phone and are on nearly every phone. The main reason for buying a phone is for the phone. But even phones can be found free. It still counts as a "sale".
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/15/chart-shows-badly-digital-camera-sales-getting-hammered-smartphones/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital.



Yeah, and vinyl is coming back, too. If it gives people pleasure, great – although I think it's mostly nostalgia. The 'advantages' are really limited to lower cost (provided not too many images are taken).


----------



## d (Apr 4, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > N2itiv said:
> ...



I've been clear in my reasoning...your insults don't change or refute that. You've ignored my points and failed to give any reason as to why film is a practical photography option. I respectfully suggest that this is because you're unable to. 

d.


----------



## gsealy (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital.
> ...



I don't see the need to argue about digital versus analogue. If a person can discern the difference and wants to go down that route, then by all means do it. It's not nostalgia.


----------



## aj1575 (Apr 4, 2016)

Digital is the way to go, and from a technical viewpoint, digital is already far ahead of film (ISO 100'000 film anyone?)
I do understand that some people like that Film look, like some people like that vinyl sound. But please be honest, most people won't be able to tell the difference in a blind test. Sure, there is the difference in operating film (and vinyl), but this is more about the process, than about the result. Something of this experience got lost with digital; shooting hundreds of pictures to get a few keepers is like a brute force method compared to carefully planed shoots with film. But you can work the same way with digital, if you like to. So it is okay to say, I like to shot film, but to say that film is better technicaly than digital is not correct.

Last week I had another experience, a shoot that would have been nearly impossible with film. I was shooting along a railway-track with a nice signal-arch. It was to dark for the autofocus, so I did it manualy. Sure this is also possible with film, but not with a 10x digital zoom on the screen. Composition was another problem, especially on the side the contrast was so low, that it was hard to make out what is where. Again, no problem for digital. Crank the ISO up to the max. take an overexposed shot to judge the composition (1-2 sec shutter speed), adjust the composition, and make the shoot at ISO 200. Film just doesn't do that.
If you make that shot with film, then you will be proud of it, and happy when you see the result. But digital is much better suited for this style of shooting.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 4, 2016)

aj1575 said:


> But you can work the same way with digital, if you like to.



Good post. 

I do exactly this because a shutter has a finite life. I have a very low income so replacing a shutter would be very expensive for me. I try to be careful and methodical for the sake of my photos, but also for the longevity of my equipment.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 4, 2016)

d said:


> ...You've still failed to build a case for films practicality!



Personally, I think it is film's_ im_practicality that makes it special. 

Because every shot costs $$, you think twice before pressing the shutter button. The percentage of keepers is a little bit higher.

Because you (generally) take fewer shots, you tend to remember each one and they feel more valuable to you.

Because there are so many choices to make - type of film, format, style of camera, do you develop it yourself, are you going to scan it, work in the darkroom, send it to a lab - you feel more involved with the process.

Because you're not using the same camera as 100's of thousands of other people, you feel like you are making a more individual statement. And some film cameras are a lot of fun to use.

Because of the skills that you pick up using digital cameras, you have the confidence to be more creative with film. And with all of the development that has gone into film over the last ten years, you can get some pretty awesome results. Have you used Portra recently? Or Ektar? Or Cinestill? The quality of current films is amazing and part of the reason a noticeable contingent of high end wedding photographers shoot film.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 4, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Here was my question: "Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago. "


Looks like a cool camera. Hope you have some fun putting a few rolls through.

For 35mm B&W film, for getting started, I'd stick with either Kodak or Ilford and just choose a film based on ISO. A lower ISO will have less grain and a higher ISO more grain. For general purposes, you can't really go wrong with tri-x 400 or TMAX 100 or 400. TMAX has been around for a while, but it is one of the newer B&W films.

I assume you live in the states? I really don't know the best places to recommend for developing over there. But for what its worth, I usually shoot colour film and later convert it to B&W in post if I want to. When choosing a place to develop your film, make sure they offer a high quality scanning service.

When I do shoot B&W, I go with Foma films (because I can get them at an affordable price from blanconegro.com.au). If you want to try colour film, you can't go wrong with Ektar (if ISO 100 is your thing) or Portra 400 (if you want a bit more speed). Ektar has a more saturated, contrasty look - great for landscapes, sunsets etc. Portra is for making people look beautiful.


----------



## pwp (Apr 4, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> aj1575 said:
> 
> 
> > But you can work the same way with digital, if you like to.
> ...



Even the best SLR film bodies had shutters rated at numbers that would be laughable today in premium bodies. When the EOS 1n was announced in 1994 one of the big deals was the upgraded shutter durability, 100,000 exposure cycles without maintenance and 150,0000 cycles with maintenance. Whoo-hoo! That was probably plenty because film tended to keep your shooting rate well down from 2016's day to day requirements.

My comments caught a bit of flack earlier in this thread, but I stand by my comments. They were not intended to put down anyone with a love of shooting film, and I apologize if that's what you read into it. My comments come from a working professional viewpoint with high client expectations and tight deadlines. From a commercial business viewpoint dropping film like a hot potato was a financial imperative. Client perceptions (misguided or not) of a photographer stuck in the past vs constantly introducing them to a fast evolving future counts for a lot too.

I did shoot film professionally for over a dozen years and loved every minute of it. There was certainly a "craft" about it that you had to be highly focused on to have consistent and evolving success. Incidentally my respiratory health improved enormously after I closed the door on the darkroom for the last time. As someone who continually pushed what was possible in making images, digital and the equipment revolution that followed was a gift from the gods. Just about every innovation over the past 15 years or so has offered the means to attempt shots that you wouldn't have even dreamed of last century. 

So that's how it's evolved for me and my way of doing things. And as aj1575 posted, you can slow right down to a filmic pace any time you like or when the project requires it. 

Film? Vinyl? 1968 Mustangs? All gorgeous with a unique aesthetic, just not remotely relevant in 2016 for this photographer. 

-pw


----------



## risc32 (Apr 4, 2016)

mws said:


> Nice, I just got a Fuji GW690ii of ebay, and I can't wait to run some film through it this weekend.



I have this camera. It's just great, you'll love it. I use whatever digital camera i have handy as a meter. just got a few rolls of film back, and i swear, it's some of the best stuff i've ever shot. I really like my 5d, and 5dmk3, they are a dream. They just work. But, that 6x9.... i can't explain it,won't even attempt. When you look at the slides with a loupe, damn. Of course when i look at a 4x5 slide i am again just totally impressed. 
anyway, hope you enjoy it.


----------



## slclick (Apr 5, 2016)

I happen to enjoy the process of film far more than the final image -for obvious reasons (the reverse of the digital experience) and when practiced enough, the final image is equal to the satisfaction of the process as well.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Here was my question: "Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago. "
> ...



Thank you Hillsilly. By looking at some of the film presets I have in lightroom I get the impression that some of that look is supposed to look like the print aged or that expired film was run through a camera. Is this correct? I seem to have read somewhere that some folks seek out old expired film to shoot with. Thanks for the advice!

The Voigtlander Vito CL does not have the ability to interchange lenses. I'm still working through the color roll I bought at Walmart. I actually have to guess at the distance to subject too, so this id going to be fun to see the results once developed.

One thing that does intrigue me are the old Soviet cameras I see on ebay with the Jupiter 9 lenses. It seems old film cameras go for next to nothing. I just watched a "minty" Canon A700 with four lenses go for $49.


----------



## jarrodeu (Apr 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of people coming back to film. Those going film only and those keeping both mediums. The problem is not which is better or for what: the issue seems to be people lack of understanding it serves a purpose, offers a different look, gives pleasure and has just as much right to exist as digital.
> ...


Some landscape shooters find the extra resolution of Large Format film to be worth the hassle.
I am fairly lazy so between the extra effort(which does make me take better pictures) and the cost, I'm mostly digital.

Jarrod


----------



## leGreve (Apr 5, 2016)

Thank god.... thought this was a recent thread.


----------



## leGreve (Apr 5, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > ...You've still failed to build a case for films practicality!
> ...



If you need film to invoke those feelings then you need to look at your skill set honestly.
NOTHING prevents you from thinking twice before acting, only your own choice of jumping the low part of the fence.

I'm getting sick of all you romantic fools who still cherish film.... NOONE who watches a still or a movie will at ANY point go "OH MY GOD.... I can totally tell you shot this on film, it's so freaking amazing and much more rich." 
Noone......

And when you take that away, all you are left with is all the bullshit work that comes with developing and scanning.

I'm a schooled photographer and was part of the last class that used the developing room at school. After graduating, I never looked back and I have never used film since, and I never will. This was in 2008.

That's the deal with progress.... it moves things forward and leaves nostalgia behind. Things are supposed to become easier and give faster turn arounds. If I was a client and you told me "oh... just have to go back and develop the shots before we can take a look at them" I'd go.... "you know what, don't bother." and leave.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 5, 2016)

I agree. Its not a competition with a winner and a loser, so no need for people to get so worked up. Film and digital look different. They have different tonal characteristics and produce different results. Nobody would force all painters to use the same canvas or oil paints. So why would anyone expect us all to to use digital?

In relation to movies, most Hollywood movies incorporate some film shooting. And there are a number of high profile producers and cinematographers who prefer to only shoot on film.

LeGreve, your clients sound like they control how you work. That must be stressful. Maybe one day you'll have the freedom of JJ Abrams, the Coen Brothers, Sam Mendes, Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg etc and be able to tell your clients that you'll be the one making the artistic choices. Maybe, one day, you could choose film! 

Kodak is likely to make a profit this year, driven largely by sales to movie makers. They're not shy in promoting their involvement with Hollywood - http://motion.kodak.com/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

There are some pretty big movies on their list, including Star Wars VII, The Walking Dead, Interstellar... And, anecdotally, the only reason why some films aren't shot on film, but are instead captured on digital, is for budget purposes. Its a bit sad when the accountants control creative processes.

Yesterday, I mentioned that Portra "is for making people look beautiful". Portra is based on Kodak's movie film stock. In doing 30 seconds of research for this post essentially the same comments are regularly made - movie producers prefer film because they feel it is more flattering on the actors than digital. Unless we're all suffering from some form of group brainwashing, it is interesting how a lot of knowledgeable movie makers instinctively prefer film. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> Thank you Hillsilly. By looking at some of the film presets I have in lightroom I get the impression that some of that look is supposed to look like the print aged or that expired film was run through a camera. Is this correct? I seem to have read somewhere that some folks seek out old expired film to shoot with. Thanks for the advice!



Get as creative as you want. eBay is a good source for expired film. You can also use slide film (eg Velvia, Provia) and process them as if they were normal colour negative films. This is called cross processing and also gives unusual results. Also, an old camera is likely to have light leaks, which will replicate some of that look.

But I'd say most people shooting film just try to make good / normal photos. They use current film in a camera that doesn't have light leaks. We're pretty boring, really.

You can also try to make your shot as perfect as possible in camera and then use the Lighroom presets later if you want. Best of both worlds. 

There are a lot of good, cheap film cameras. For between $200-$350 there are also a lot of good medium format options.


----------



## symmar22 (Apr 5, 2016)

I don't really understand the war over film vs digital. Maybe that because I was in my photo school in 1988, when digital photography was only a dream. Nowadays I still use film and digital they are just different mediums, and it's perfectly OK to use both. There's no debate that digital offers more possibilities, a more flexible workflow, better resolution (in most cases) and saves time.

On the other hand, it never gave me the same excitement I have as when I open the film processing tank or the image appears on the paper in the tray (though I don't print much any more). 

When I work it has to be digital, and it makes it extremely easy compared to the old times when I had to deliver slides to my clients. However, when I picture for fun, digital gives me no real pleasure, so I use a Linhof Technikardan as my main camera, and my digital Canon gear gets little use for my personal work. I use sometimes my EOS 1V I got like new on eBay for 250$, and an Olympus OM4Ti that is a joy to use. None of the 35mm film cameras come close in sharpness to digital, but a good picture is not only about sharpness (on the other hand with the 4x5, resolution is not really an issue).

Can you commercially work with film ? Nowadays that sounds difficult, unless you've reached the status where you can impose your choice to your clients.

Can you use film as a hobby photographer ? I don't see any reason not to. If you do it for fun, then you should use the tools and medium you have fun with. IMO the film has one virtue: its cost. That forces a slower pace, where one needs to think the composition and wait for the right moment to press the shutter. That is how you learn to make good pictures, not by cropping a frame out of 50 MPX from a 15 FPS burst.

IMO lots of photographers could use the learning process from film cameras. If you keep using it for your own style of shooting is something else, but it's nevertheless an excellent learning tool.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> I agree. Its not a competition with a winner and a loser, so no need for people to get so worked up. Film and digital look different. They have different tonal characteristics and produce different results. Nobody would force all painters to use the same canvas or oil paints. So why would anyone expect us all to to use digital?
> 
> In relation to movies, most Hollywood movies incorporate some film shooting. And there are a number of high profile producers and cinematographers who prefer to only shoot on film.
> 
> ...



Thanks again!


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 6, 2016)

pwp said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > aj1575 said:
> ...


Your comments caught no flak from me.  In fact, I believe I agreed with them completely.  I shoot digital. Last week I was given an old film camera (Mint circa 1960) with a non-interchangeable lens 50mm f/2.8 (Voigtlander Vito CL). I'm going to run a few roles through it for fun and on occasion, but not because I think it could be superior, just for nostalgia's sake.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 6, 2016)

And, in full disclosure, I shoot 99% digital to 1% film. Last year, I shot around 20 rolls - and all for personal use. Most of this was 6x4.5, so we're only talking around 300 shots. There's no argument from me on digital being technically better and much more efficient to work with. Film still looks better, though.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 7, 2016)

I had the experience recently to spend time photographing alongside someone who only shoots film.
It was very interesting.
I was taking about 1000 shots a day and he was shooting max 1 roll of film.
He was very particular about when he took a shot and when he didn't.
He was very careful and precise about taking a photograph.
He looked for very particular light and took his time to carefully study his subject.
I was very impressed and it really made me think about my photography.
Digital makes it too easy just to shoot and shoot.
Part of why film photographs look better is probably because the photographers are more careful and deliberate to set up correctly and expose properly.


----------



## slclick (Apr 7, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I had the experience recently to spend time photographing alongside someone who only shoots film.
> It was very interesting.
> I was taking about 1000 shots a day and he was shooting max 1 roll of film.
> He was very particular about when he took a shot and when he didn't.
> ...



This +1


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2016)

slclick said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I had the experience recently to spend time photographing alongside someone who only shoots film.
> ...



Nonsense, this is just attributable to a lack of self discipline and craft, just go out with a small capacity card in your camera that will slow you down too.

I shot weddings for many years and on a full day shoot averaged 13 rolls of 36 exp film, 468 frames, when I shoot digital weddings I average around 500 or so images.

Using film is a personal choice based on mindset, there is no technical reason to shoot film, none, zero. Anybody that says film has more DR, resolution, 'headroom' etc just doesn't look at the film manufacturers own figures, no film can approach the capabilities of modern camera sensors, be that stills or movie cameras.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti film in any way, but I just don't see why people need an excuse or justify using it or not using it, just use it (or not) because you want to, that is the only reason anybody needs.

There will be a reasonable market for film for a long time to come, digital movie projectors might have made serious inroads in some markets but most cinemas and movie theaters worldwide rely on actual film to project. For this use alone film stock will continue to be made for years in viable amounts.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 7, 2016)

Don't see why what I said should be considered nonsense.
I'm just relating my experience and my opinion. 



privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...


----------



## NancyP (Apr 7, 2016)

For film-like nostalgia, try a Sigma camera with Sigma post-processing software. The software is so annoying that I don't spray and pray with the Sigma Merrills any more. I am trying not to spray and pray with my primary camera, Canon 6D.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Apr 8, 2016)

Film vs. Electronic - similar but really different depending on what and why you are shooting.

Sports and time sensitive topics for news efforts - does anyone really debate this?

Landscapes, here you can start debating

As to taking a moment or two to think about a shot - you should do it anyway - Ansel Adams I think is famous for saying something like "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"

Portraits, I think there is some debate, but again the purpose of the image starts to drive the preference.

Lastly, "close enough" still begs the issue of why you think one is supposed to be better than the other - they have different purposes and "close enough" is already a compromise - if you choose to compromise (I do) then don't blame the media for your choice.

My 2 pennies


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 8, 2016)

I, for one, am glad we can still rent horses and feel the thrill.

And I'm glad somebody else is feeding the horse, grooming the horse, providing medical care, shelter...

Yes, the days of film must have been tremendously romantic. Who wants to be out taking pictures when you could be standing in a darkroom with all kinds of interesting chemicals, or waiting days for a reliable lab to rush your film and prints back to you...Wait, if a lab does it, there goes the control, the dodging and burning and precise exposures...Ahh, but straight out of camera, that's the manly way to do it. Photoshop is for slackers.


----------



## Monchoon (Apr 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2016)

Monchoon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



I shot the entire wedding, formals and all, with 135 format even though I owned and used Mamiya 6x4.5 to 6x9 backs, I never used them at weddings. I like to think I was a very early adopter of the journalistic style of wedding shooting, besides I rarely sold prints much bigger than an 8x12 album anyway. I also 'pioneered' the concept of giving the negatives (RAW files) away with the album and ordered prints, I never saw future print sales as a viable return considering the storage and referencing needed for all the films.

It's funny, what has changed? Nobody would question anybody shooting weddings with 135 format digital cameras nowadays.........


----------



## Monchoon (Apr 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Monchoon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



It's not funny a lot has changed, we didn't have digital back in the 70's. I had my studio in the late 70's to early 80's.  I bought my first DLSR about 1.5 years ago.

I do enjoy your posts, but anyone that I knew at that time was either using a Blad ( I was not I had a Kowa super66 a Mam 6x7 then later a Mam 6/4.5) or other MF. As I did say yes if I did the reception I would mostly use my F2.
But almost never did I use the Nikon in the studio.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2016)

My point was what has changed about the format? The 135 format is considered plenty 'good enough' for weddings now, indeed smaller is not at all uncommon. I did the numbers back then and saw no reason to use my bigger cameras with fewer shots per roll and more expense per exposure as I, personally, rarely made larger than 12"x18" prints, and 135 has always been good enough for that size. Indeed my standard print size now from a 21MP 135 format camera is 14"x21".

If my business acumen had been anything like my technical analysis I would have been a commercial dynamo, but it isn't! I just looked at what I needed to do a job and used the equipment that got me the results I needed, I have always been like that and get a bit of stick here sometimes for still being like it (the 50 f1.4 is one of my all time favourite lenses for instance). My equipment choices have always been results driven.

Currently I am pondering several future directions that make my next equipment choices relevant yet again, one is speed and AF centric in which case the 1DX MkII will be the obvious choice, the other involves powerful HSS and MP in which case the 5DSR and Profoto B1 will be in the shopping cart, web hits and promotions will be the determining factor, meanwhile my 7 year old 1DS MkIII's are more than capable of getting me the startup images I need for both directions, those 1DS MkIII's were the most expensive cameras I ever bought and far and away the most capable.


----------



## slclick (Apr 8, 2016)

I don't hear anyone saying film is better just that it has taught certain individuals particular skills and competencies with regards to elements of photography. It seems to be the non film responders who have the attitude that the film people are starting a competition, an us vs them. Reading comprehension is something they should review as this is not what has been posted here.You can try and argue how foolish shooting film is in the age of digital but you do nothing but paint yourself as inflexible in thought and acceptance.Film has been there besides digital for me since the 300D came out. I appreciate each for what they offer me and how I can use them. Different tools and different mindsets for a common art form. You would think with film being the predecessor of digital photography it would get a bit more credence, respect and understanding since it laid the foundation for where we are. Why people feel the need to belittle certain choices, basically come out and tell others they are a fool is nothing but sophomoric...your digital soapbox is unbecoming.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 8, 2016)

slclick said:


> I don't hear anyone saying film is better just that it has taught certain individuals particular skills and competencies with regards to elements of photography. It seems to be the non film responders who have the attitude that the film people are starting a competition, an us vs them. Reading comprehension is something they should review as this is not what has been posted here.You can try and argue how foolish shooting film is in the age of digital but you do nothing but paint yourself as inflexible in thought and acceptance.Film has been there besides digital for me since the 300D came out. I appreciate each for what they offer me and how I can use them. Different tools and different mindsets for a common art form. You would think with film being the predecessor of digital photography it would get a bit more credence, respect and understanding since it laid the foundation for where we are. Why people feel the need to belittle certain choices, basically come out and tell others they are a fool is nothing but sophomoric...your digital soapbox is unbecoming.



Your reasonable, balanced view is not a target. It's the laughably pompous who disdain digital photography the same way Vegans abhor consumption of industrial cows. It's those who have announced that they eschew a Canon or Nikon sensor because 1's and 0's can NEVER be tools for creating "art."

Those who claim a digital photo can never capture a subject's humanity, for instance. They are stating a falsehood for one, and also they are belittling the efforts and products of many other photographers.

On the other hand, I understand the value of discipline imposed by having a small number of available exposures on a roll of film, a discipline further extended by no chimping, being forced to wait hours or days for the results of efforts. So, in this light, learning to use film has a place in schools.

It isn't film being skewered, it's an attitude.

The effete, arrogant fops in any realm, be it architecture or cooking, are often ridiculed.


The only people worse than photographers who claim digital has no soul are those who knight themselves as "humanitarian photographers." But that's another topic, sort of.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 9, 2016)

I appreciate that you are enthusiastic for the analogue medium - that's fine, and as I've already stated I sometimes still run a roll through a camera as well. However you know nothing of my background or experience, yet attack it as if having some insight - kindly desist.

I chimed in on this discussion because of your brash response to others ("get a clue", "get real") and claim that film is "practical w/- much to offer". Yet rather than inform on what those practicalities could be, you've made a series of silly claims and ill-informed, subjective criticisms that speak more to *your* own insecurities and desire for bravado, seeing as those are the terms you've chosen to use.

I started off in the studio shooting film in large format view cameras - I've done the whole develop/scan/retouch/print thing, and fail to understand how you can argue this workflow results in you enjoying more "quality time" compared to a digital workflow?

Is it because you're outsourcing the processes beyond the camera? Digital makes it even quicker to get an image into the lab. Or is it because you've achieved your shot sooner due to the constraints in having a finite number of frames for capture, while the digital shooter invariably has hundreds or thousands of frames to work through later? I don't think so - modern digital cameras and their features like live-view, tethering, EVFs, CDAF , histograms etc. make it very easy to achieved a desired result with very few clicks of the shutter. If time actually is money, surely then film is not a wise investment? I'd say digital is the more practical (and profitable!) option here.

You're right, I didn't mention card or hard drive failures - I don't tend to worry about them. My camera has dual card slots, so each photo has a backup made at the time of capture. After shooting I can remove one card for safe-keeping as well, and once I've uploaded those images onto my computer, more copies are made. These days, storage is cheap. I can buy an external hard big enough to store my entire library of images for around the same cost as shooting and developing a half dozen rolls of 36 exp. 35mm film. I have three such drives, tucked away in different locations. After a couple of years, those drives will be retired and replaced with some that are no doubt of larger capacity, and likely lower priced as well. I hope your negatives are stored somewhere secure, and you're around to grab them should fire, flood or theft threaten! Perhaps you have them stored in a safe? How much does a decent safe cost? I guess only having a single copy of something isn't all that practical!

[/quote]

Yes, outsourcing, whether film or digital, saves time. One of the biggest concerns about digital-and this statement isn't bashing-are comments from a large # of users that digital takes them so much time. Not just in processing, but learning and using the potential of PS or other programs. Here's another point people don't seem to be considering: All those extra images take time to create, much more time to edit and discard and to process the vast amount of keepers. Those are other reasons time is money and free is as free as people make it out to be. Whereas you feel comfortable w/your archiving methods, we must remember that not everyone will have inclination to do this or perhaps they haven't done so yet. That's a whole other issue but at some point users will have to address it, especially as technology changes. Extra cost and redundancy is necessary.
Just as you don't worry about lost image files, I don't worry about catastrophic event. That will only lead to the consideration of image database hacking, grid failure from both man made or natural occurrences, or even some of these large data sites going of business and users don't have the time or resources to handle the large cache before they're lost. Almost pointless.

Once again, I use both technologies because they both have something to offer. Most respondents aren't well informed about film so they have a follow the heard mentality. If they're not informed, they shouldn't denigrate. 
Digital beats film in nearly every metric. That don't mean film has nothing to offer or that it has become incapable. Aside from the color or tones it's optimized for, it also provides great highlights and smooth tonal transitions. Film doesn't require the relatively frequently changes digital does. Digital is still evolving whereas film for the most part has reached its pinnacle. It's image quality is based on film stock used. Film expenses can easily be recouped (by those in business) and for casual users, cost can be minimized by non pro services. Under proper lighting conditions, film can be digital if larger formats and lower ISO films are used. Digital offers nothing within reasonable pricing that allows this opportunity. My personal opinion is that the 645z is the best deal going for overall image quality/affordability.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 9, 2016)

Monchoon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



In the latter days of film 35 mil began to make in roads into the wedding market due to a combination of much finer emulsion film, and the capability of the hardware. The main area here was flash, both TTL function and HSS. If hardware had continued to develop but with no digital I think, given the trend at the end of the film era, that 35 mil would have continued taken sales away from MF in the wedding market.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 9, 2016)

Concerning film from a professional (portraiture genre) aspect, as I previously mentioned, a large number of pros don't use the full speed potential of the digital medium. For those that don't shoot and sell immediately. film can equal their speed. Free overnight shipping w/fast developing times are offered, some processers will develop film and e-mail high res files quickly before the negatives return for quicker post work or other usage. The lab I previously dealt with-mostly for sports work-would digitize the roll, offered retouching as an option, didn't charge for developing, and would send the order back postage paid with fairly quick turnaround times, allowing reduced expense. So, I shoot the job, and save much free time for other things while the job is professionally completed and I don't have to be concerned w/paying additional staff. Again, not faster, but quick and still a viable alternative that allows for a negative hard copy and option to sell the negative later.(Jpegs weren't desired)

I mention this because- d-(you) might have a professional background and may appreciate it from that standpoint, or for others here that don't know/don't care and would make uninformed film bashing comments just because. In that case, I'll use the "get a clue" comment if necessary. Film usage shouldn't suffer because those types influence potential users away. I will say concerning that one post, the individual provided a good follow up that seemed quite reasonable.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 9, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Monchoon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The portability of 35mm was and is tough to overlook.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 9, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



CFB, 
You say local now. The post I responded to says Adorama (mail order) or somewhere? I gave you the somewhere you inquired about. I also mentioned those other service providers for if you needed their processing or other services and for other members that want to research what is still readily available for film. 
Go to B&H and read the many reviews there. While you're asking for recommendations, how about mentioning your lighting conditions for ISO as well. Any of those available major brand films are good so all brand recommendations would be opinionated. Accept that w/film everything isn't always in front of you and might require some effort if it's important to you. Get on the net at B&H and help yourself instead of expecting to be spoon fed. You're welcome for my previous advice.


----------



## N2itiv (Apr 9, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Post stacking only makes an annoying tone worse. :



I agree w/you, Yueng!
I'll fix that in future posts. If that's not acceptable, you'll just have to fire me.
Off to work shortly. Everyone enjoy and play nice today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2016)

The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.


----------



## slclick (Apr 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.



http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/out-of-africa/n10451


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.



At some point the number of HDDs full of unwanted but never deleted photos might equal the number of little plastic canisters in landfills.

I wonder how often a decade of family memories is wiped out because backing up a PC is too difficult or time consuming. Is cloud storage saving memories? Or just resulting in billions of orphaned images?

Couldn't sleep last night fretting about all this. And Judy Garland, poor thing.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 9, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.
> ...



The U.S. National Archives, aided by the NSA, are developing the technology to preserve those priceless historical records. They are nearly ready to roll-out an archiving service that operates with no effort (or awareness) on the part of the "customer."


----------



## scyrene (Apr 9, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.
> ...



LOL!

I read about a project - some art thing I think - done a few years ago, which involved lots of old mobile phones. They discovered that many had lots of photos on, still accessible. An unexpected time capsule! So maybe one day caches of old hard drives or memory cards will be useful in the same way, like Sumerian clay tablets (though generally less long-lived).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.
> ...



Sorry you're so offended that a medium you prefer is neither universally loved nor even remotely popular. I suggest you try to get over it and just enjoy shooting. Maybe even pop an 8-track tape into the player as you drive out to a scenic spot!


----------



## pwp (Apr 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> N2itiv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hah hah! This tired (very old) thread does have a touch of the "8-track" defense case about it. Regardless of your preferred medium, whether you listen to your music on vinyl, 8-track, MP3 or streaming, it's all music. 

Film, digital capture, artists oils or sketchpad...we're all making pictures. Beats the hell out of having to work for a living!

-pw

_* not saying it's either my way or the highway, but as a fully fired up future fiend, in my universe it's streaming and digital all the way..._


----------



## gsealy (Apr 10, 2016)

Busted Knuckles said:


> Film vs. Electronic - similar but really different depending on what and why you are shooting.
> 
> Sports and time sensitive topics for news efforts - does anyone really debate this?
> 
> ...



I definitely agree on the main point. If you go to any pro golf tournament, then you will see a bunch of photographers following a group, carrying 1 or more 1D's and shooting maybe a couple of thousand photos in a few hours. Out of those only a few will graduate to a newspaper, online website, or maybe broadcast. They use the 1D's like a machine gun. There is not much art to it, only capture and capture. Then get paid. Film has no place in this scenario. 

But there are other situations where film might be better, such as for commercial shoots for magazine ads or posters. Or maybe a person would use film for fine art. 

The thing is the person doing the shooting is the person who decides what they want to use to deliver the results they want and many times, need. There is no right or wrong.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 10, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > N2itiv said:
> ...



1. Actually, in my first post I mentioned that film is mostly dead and specifically said that I can no longer go into the Walmart and choose from what used to be well over a hundred choices. So I said local from the beginning.

2. Then I asked for recommendations about what black and white films people might recommend to me.

Guess what, people come to this forum asking for advice from more experienced or knowledgeable people all the time. I'd rather get that advice here than from Adorama or B&H reviews from God knows who.

3. Asking to be spoon fed? What kind of psycho twit are you? If you don't like what I post then just pass it over.

Nobody has to agree with you. Nobody has to agree with me. You know what else? Nobody is going to ring a bell and send you a trophy because you think you've won some kind of internet argument. 

My opinion is that film is mostly dead. Beyond my opinion is the fact that film is mostly dead. No amount of mental arm wrestling on your part is going to change my opinion or the facts.

When something was popular for many decades (mostly because that was almost all that was available) gets sidelined by new tech and mostly ends up being available to the masses via mail order and almost completely removed from the local stores, even national chains... it is mostly dead. That has nothing to do with whether or not film is good or bad or whether or not it is better or worse than digital.

Now, run along you sad, sorry, keyboard Rambo. There are plenty of people you can drag into a flame war. Just leave me out of it. Many of them will even let you spoon feed them your over elevated opinion of yourself and your pseudo clairvoyant powers. I ain't one of them.

BTW: My lighting conditions? I can worry about that myself. They vary all the time and from location to location. I can control those. Now go handle yourself.

If you interpreted in any way that my post was attacking your opinion or slamming you in any way then you have some serious problems. I think you should go back and read what I wrote and separate what I wrote from what others wrote. Then once you've done that clear your mind of any ill intent on my part and chalk your anger and frustration up to your own error in interpretation. From what I can tell, you are the only swinging Richard in this part of the thread.

May every day of your life be full of love and happiness.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 10, 2016)

Has anyone in Australia used "Hillvale" for processing? (hillvale.com.au)

Now that B&H have stopped shipping C41 chemicals to Australia, the cost of buying chemicals locally is making lab prices look attractive.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 10, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Has anyone in Australia used "Hillvale" for processing? (hillvale.com.au)
> 
> Now that B&H have stopped shipping C41 chemicals to Australia, the cost of buying chemicals locally is making lab prices look attractive.



That's too bad about the chemicals to Australia. I always felt that the fun of film (when I developed my own) was the creative control during processing.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 10, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> That's too bad about the chemicals to Australia. I always felt that the fun of film (when I developed my own) was the creative control during processing.


I've become a bit lazy in that regard. I just stand develop B&W. And with colour, it is standard chemicals with standard times at set temperatures. Not a lot of room for creativity.


----------



## d (Apr 10, 2016)

N2itiv said:


> Learn to coexist, gearhead. And while you're saving those canisters, maybe you can have your family save some for your ashes when that time comes.



Charming.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 10, 2016)

Ok, which is more racist, sexist, and making climate change worse? Film or digital?

I'm proud to see that there isn't a single humanitarian photographer among the bunch of us, which is why I love CR!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2016)

From dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevance)

*relevance*. [rel-uh-vuh ns]. noun
1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand:
_Some traditional institutions of the media lack relevance in this digital age._

Interesting that their chosen example is directly _relevant_ to the topic at hand, quite the counterpoint to the irrelevance of film in modern photography. 

Sadly, some people just can't handle the truth, and become rude and defensive when presented with it. 

Alternatively, some people fail to grasp the concept of relevance. A ride in a horse-drawn carriage can be romantic, can be enjoyable, can be nostalgic...but it's not _relevant_ as a mode of modern transportation. Film is like that – impractical and irrelevant, and the fact that it provides personal enjoyment for some people doesn't change that essential truth.


----------



## slclick (Apr 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> From dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevance)
> 
> *relevance*. [rel-uh-vuh ns]. noun
> 1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand:
> ...



I accept the irrelevance of film. It changes nothing of the enjoyment factor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2016)

slclick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > From dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/relevance)
> ...



Of course it doesn't, nor did I suggest that was the case. Hey, I like horse-drawn carriage rides, too!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 10, 2016)

Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everone I can think of ...


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 10, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they *outperform everone I can think of ...*



Outperform in what sense?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 10, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, which is more racist, sexist, and making climate change worse? Film or digital?
> 
> I'm proud to see that there isn't a single humanitarian photographer among the bunch of us, which is why I love CR!



They are all triggers, though film is by far the most offensive. ;D


----------



## Destin (Apr 10, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Has anyone in Australia used "Hillvale" for processing? (hillvale.com.au)
> 
> Now that B&H have stopped shipping C41 chemicals to Australia, the cost of buying chemicals locally is making lab prices look attractive.



If you're after a Pro Lab, check out Vision Image Lab in Redfern. They do all my E6 processing (sent from Bris), I assume they do C41 as well.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> For anyone that thinks film is dead, at the end of "The Force Awakens" titles, you can see the Kodak logo saying "This film was shot using Kodak film."



The 1% that wasn't CGI?


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 11, 2016)

The 99% that wasn't the opening credits.


----------



## pwp (Apr 11, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everyone I can think of ...



Really? Try thinking a bit more broadly. They're good, but it isn't film that makes them good. They're simply good photographers.

This thread is absolutely hilarious!

-pw


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 11, 2016)

Destin said:


> If you're after a Pro Lab, check out Vision Image Lab in Redfern. They do all my E6 processing (sent from Bris), I assume they do C41 as well.


Thanks! Not sure if a pro lab is what I'm after, though. I might be misinterpreting the price guide, but it seems to be $9.90 to process a roll and then another $55 to scan it at Vision. I'm a little price conscious. At Hillvale it is only $20 in total.

You're not Destin Sparks? If so, by coincidence I came across your website recently when I was looking for some ideas on Brisbane landscapes. Excellent work!


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Yeah, that was humor. I've seen the film just once, and the cinematography didn't jump out at me as either good or bad. Mostly, I was happy the film didn't suck.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Were the actors made of wood too?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 11, 2016)

pwp said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Have a look at Nick Brandt and Morten Krogvold. Both do nothing but film and they outperform everyone I can think of ...
> ...


Yes, they are both exceptional photographers and artists. They have both tried to convert to digital, but both have concluded that they are unable to produce the same artistic expression that way and are back to film. Instead of ruling this thread as hilarious, maybe you should go and have a look at what a master print from film can be. It is jaw dropping ...

Personally, I have +20 years of experience with film and working in the darkroom and I loved it. However, I am now totally converted to digital and I would never go back. I will never reach the levels of these two either, not even to their knees. Mainly because of their artistic skills, but also because of how they do it.

Think broadly? That is what most amateurs do and that is why digital is clearly the best solution for the masses. However, if you want to excel your photography, you need to focus and concentrate your efforts in a particular area. In most cases digital will be the preferred technology, in the case of Brandt and Krogvold, film is theirs.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 11, 2016)

Eldar said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I looked at some of their images online and I'm sorry to say most of them don't impress me much. The straight-up portraits were nice, but many of the "nature" shots employed either surrealism or enhanced contrast for dramatic effect, and did so in ways that seemed manufactured to me. Maybe if I saw them as full-sized prints I would get a different feeling from them.



> both tried to convert to digital, but both have concluded that they are unable to produce the same artistic expression


It's entirely legitimate for each to choose their own medium, so if they prefer film I have no problem with that. On the other hand, the fact that they were unable to produce what they wanted with digital does not mean that someone else could not do so: it could be a simple matter of someone who is not comfortable with computers, but is very comfortable in the darkroom.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 11, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Maybe if I saw them as full-sized prints I would get a different feeling from them.


You should and and then I am sure you would. 

FYI, very few images are available on the net from Morten Krogvold. His website is currently down, due to reconstruction. Some of the dramatic landscapes you may be referring to are up to 24 hours exposures. That gives a unique image I believe you'll find hard to make with digital. He used the same technique photographing Rome and Venice, to ensure people free images. Quite special. He is a wizzard in the darkroom and his prints are fantastic. Get the book Photographs 1977-2007. I am sure you'll be rather impressed by most of them.

As for Nick Brandt, get the book On this earth a shadow falls (3 books in one). Fantastic images and even more so if you're able to imagine seeing these images in very large high quality prints. If you're not impressed, Africa and B&W is probably not for you.


----------



## Pookie (Jun 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.



Exceptionally narrow minded comment there and probably why you find it irrelevant... only 35 came in those nifty little plastic containers you're so fond of. Some people still shoot film and 35mm is the farthest from their mind when talking about film.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 6, 2016)

Pookie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.
> ...



I think the key to Neuro's comment was the word 'relevance'. Some people still use fax machines. Some people still use video recorders. Some people still have old style mobile phones with physical buttons and monochrome screens - some people don't even have a mobile at all! But while those choices may be _personally relevant to them_, they are not _generally relevant to the population as a whole_, or to whichever market those technologies belong to. They are niche. I don't see why it would be upsetting to be told that film is a niche now.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 19, 2016)

pwp said:


> They're simply good photographers.



Nick Brandt, anyway...


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Jun 19, 2016)

Maybe it has been expressed, maybe not. I just picked up a 10 bit monitor vs. the 8 bit 99.9999% of the internet images are used to display images. 

Suffice to say it begs for 12 or even 14 bit, and most DSLRs do 16 - there is a robust debate if the SNR can really resolve 16 vs. 14 and 99.999999% of the folks on the internet don't have the equipment to discern anyway. And just be curious go price a 12 bit or 14 bit monitor - your investment in imagine gear will jump.. AND no one else can really see/judge your product.

Those films you see in the theater - i suspect they are mastered down to 8bit.

It might be that in print is the only way to compare digital to film - there is still a data/projection bottleneck that limits 99.999% of people to 8 tops 10 bits of image quality where as film is film w/ no conversion or data pipe/display bottlenecks.

You can soft proof all you want, 8 bit isn't 10 bit and I am trying to figure out how to afford 12 or 14.

Yep Porsche is a different beast than Ferrari but they both get you to where you want to go quickly.


----------



## zim (Jun 19, 2016)

Busted Knuckles said:


> Yep Porsche is a different beast than Ferrari



Yip that's true Porsche just won the 24hr Le Mans ;D
felt sorry for Toyota though
Could I be any more OT, sorry


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 20, 2016)

What a keen film photographer said to me when I was complaining about my dirty sensor was that he has a new and perfectly clean sensor every time he takes a photo.
This sounded to me like a clear advantage. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 20, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> What a keen film photographer said to me when I was complaining about my dirty sensor was that he has a new and perfectly clean sensor every time he takes a photo.
> This sounded to me like a clear advantage. ;D



Clearly he doesn't actually use much film. If he did he would know of the myriad of issues that can arise from dirt both in the camera and in the developing stage. I don't know any photographer who shot film who hasn't had an entire roll, or even job, ruined by a bit of grit or sand at the development stage or that got in the back of the camera, film pressure plates are every bit as sensitive as digital sensors. Indeed it used to be such a concern that many would send films from the same job to different labs or the same lab on different days to mitigate the possibility of complete loss. 

Talking of complete loss, how's that film backup strategy working out for you?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > What a keen film photographer said to me when I was complaining about my dirty sensor was that he has a new and perfectly clean sensor every time he takes a photo.
> ...



Actually he's probably alot more well informed than you and taking photographs with film alot longer than you but more worryingly you lack a sense of humour. I am only repeating what he said after over 60 years of photo taking (boy and man). He's never moved to digital, he's an extremely precise and skillful photographer who very carefully looks after his gear. He's used more film than you've had posts on Canon Rumors. It was said in jest but with a ring of truth to it. Seeing the precision of how he operates he is using a new sensor with every photo he takes.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 20, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



You can't have it both ways - either it's a serious point or a joke. If it's a serious point, you've completely ignored PBD's reasoned responses ('my friend has been shooting for 60 years' is not a response). If it's a joke, then it's a joke :


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 20, 2016)

It must be a slow day on CanonRumors. It is actually a response. If look after your gear properly (which he has over a long period of time) you have a clean sensor everytime he takes a photograph. He develops his own photos so he doesn't have the second issue either. Privatebydesign questioned his experience without knowledge so I informed him of his experience. There are too many "obviously" people on Canon Rumors who just jump to maintain their biases and lack a complete sense of humour or understanding that not everyone who disagrees with them is wrong or attacking thetm. But that's the internet for you. Even I as a hardened Digital user would agree that film has some merits but I wouldn't choose film over digital.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 20, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



His was an off the cuff remark, and I made an off the cuff reply, we have the same sense of humour, sorry if I missed off am emoticon to make the point clear 

Again, I do not know of a film shooter, ever, who hasn't had a good amount of negative damage from either a film pressure plate or in the developing process, that is just a fact and an unfortunate byproduct of using film.

Being as this is a fact that he knows about he was obviously pulling your leg, not mine.

As for the entire premise of the thread. Film is easily beaten in every metric one can use to 'measure' it. DR, resolution, colour accuracy etc etc are all easily beaten by digital cameras.

But alluding to those measurements entirely misses the point of film, nobody would ever say watercolours are dead, or oil paints are hard to beat. Film is an entirely different medium for image capture than digital and it takes a different mindset, film used to be the only effective way of mass image capture but glass plate photographers were just as 'valid', it was a choice that individuals used to get the results they wanted.

If you want results and images are the intention there is no practical or measurable reason to shoot film*, indeed there are very good reasons to not shoot film, in that respect film is easily beaten and is dead. If the process is part of the output then film is alive and kicking and looking healthier than it has in quite a while.

_* Technically there are few things you can shoot with film that you can't shoot 'better' with digital, but there are looks you can get via a wet process that are very difficult to match without some skill and time in Photoshop. But again, that really is missing the point of using film most of the time._


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Good reply - well written - more of this please. Nice to see this from you


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> But alluding to those measurements entirely misses the point of film, nobody would ever say watercolours are dead, or oil paints are hard to beat. Film is an entirely different medium for image capture than digital and it takes a different mindset, film used to be the only effective way of mass image capture but glass plate photographers were just as 'valid', it was a choice that individuals used to get the results they wanted.
> 
> If you want results and images are the intention there is no practical or measurable reason to shoot film*, indeed there are very good reasons to not shoot film, in that respect film is easily beaten and is dead. If the process is part of the output then film is alive and kicking and looking healthier than it has in quite a while.
> 
> _* Technically there are few things you can shoot with film that you can't shoot 'better' with digital, but there are looks you can get via a wet process that are very difficult to match without some skill and time in Photoshop. But again, that really is missing the point of using film most of the time._



The main reason to shoot film today is the way it changes your way of thinking. It's a bit like slow food compared with fast food (fast food can be very okay). I shoot a lot digital and still love it but I also returned to use more film again. Technically, digital is superior in most respects: sharpness, high ISOs - when I got my 5D3 in 2012 it opened up a whole new world of available light photog to me -, flexibility in post-processing. But as your footnote says, there still are some areas in which film is superior. In Iceland I recently shot a very subtle rainbow in a waterfall's mist with my EOS 3 loaded with a Fuji Velvia because I knew from experience that I'd have to tweak a digital image much to get it out. The color slide displays it wonderfully - but I know: if I try to scan it I again need to do a lot of post processing to get it so nicely. Also sunsets shot with a Velvia are still hard to beat digitally, same with subtle color shadings in snow and ice. Digital you have 14 or 16 bits of color depth or so, film offers analogue infinity (okay not quite because of the grain). 

Plus, I personally still prefer true grain in black & white prints over fake vintage filters despite those are impressively good (e.g. Silverfast). For me this is a question of philosophy, of pureness and honesty. I'd never drive a New Beetle because it is a faked VW Golf or shoot a Fuji or Nikon retro style camera because like any digital camera they are computers with sensors but they pretend to be classic cameras.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 24, 2016)

I always laugh when I read threads like this! 
Do you go into and art gallery and compare oils to water colours? Do you compare charcoal drawings to engravings? 
Film is another medium to digital, another tool in the kit and has its place. Film has made a dramatic comeback in high end Hollywood movies all of which are scanned and edited, graded etc. digitally as well as adding digital visual effects. Here the two work in harmony and the grain is either supressed or enhanced (Star Wars). 
The tonality of film is really the reason many DOPs give for choosing it with their directors, that and the slightly softer feel it imparts which improves skin tones etc. 

Digital is sharper, more resolution and more clinical looking but many are tired of the clinical look / TV look and are using old optics to impart imperfections deliberately. We see this across commercials, TV, Features and photo shoots more & more. Maybe once Rec. 2020 is more widely adopted digital will have a colour gamut that allows the tonality of film its certainly possible with the Sony F65 which does utilise Rec. 2020.


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The best thing about film is those little plastic canisters it comes in, which are useful for storing a variety of small items from screws to quarters. The stuff that originally comes inside those handy little canisters has lost relevance.



Merry Christmas and happy New Year, Neuro(sis)-You know we all love you, here (cough, cough)
You know I can't be where you already are, brown.
Please PM me with your address so I can send you some canisters for future use. In the meantime, you can put bulb hangers on them and use them for ear rings. All the best to you. Cheers!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 14, 2016)

leGreve said:


> You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would you assume that?
> 
> The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.
> 
> ...


Working in the motion picture industry I hear this rhetoric all the time. Film and digital ARE different and have pluses and minuses with the world deciding film has more minuses than digital. Your wrong at this level though Producers do compare film to digital but mainly in terms of cost whereas DOPs compare because along with the director they want a different "look". 
The times you see people trying to make digital look like film and in stills a whole industry of plug-ins try to make digital look like film however Ive never heard anyone say they want film to look like digital. 

Your opinion of "quality" is a technical one not an artistic one and even that is based on other peoples finding unless your able to qualify technically the differences yourself. I'm able to test in a multitude of ways but Ive never found a conclusive answer because even technical tests can be read various ways. 

I always say the great masters decided whether to paint in oils or water colors who am I to say one is better than the other when its clear both can and did coexist. 

The new Star Wars shot of film, made millions & millions of $$ it did not stop the public watching it as content is king not the method. 

Long live film & long live digital and long live choice.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 14, 2016)

Film may or may not be still hard to beat, but discussion of this topic has been beaten to death. RIP.


----------

