OT: Still use film?

[Chicago_Pete]

Just curious to see if any of this diverse bunch of audio guys still use a film camera?

I admit that I have gotten extremely lazy and use my Nikon D100 as a point and shoot.

Cant argue with the convenience of digital but personally I would put a lot more thought into the shot before taking it when I used film.

Pete

[ByteWrangler]

Cant argue with the convenience of digital but personally I would put a lot more thought into the shot before taking it when I used film.

This is certainly true for me and, it seems, also for most people because a throw-away digital shot costs nothing. You can, in many cases, review almost instantly to see if it turned out or not and reshoot, and most digital media holds hundreds of shots, so you seldom "run out of film". Result: take lots and lots of pictures and use the few you like.

On the other hand, film is a much more limited resource; each shot is costly because you pay for the film and processing - and often printing - for every shot you take, good or not. A botched or just ho-hum shot uses one of those precious 20 (or 24 or 36) frames on the roll, and even if you brought more film, you still have to stop and reload at the end of each roll. Also, you don't know if it turned out until long after the fact, so you tend to be more careful with each.

I find that if there's something I really care about but won't have another chance at, I'll carefully compose and sometimes adjust settings (the camera itself does a darn good job metering light and focusing in most cases) before shooting. The rest of the time, I just take picture after picture, keep the one or two I like and delete the rest (or archive the chaff along with the wheat all on a 50-cent CD that holds hundreds). With film, I considered a 20-shot roll with two or three really good pictures on it a good roll; with digital, that might be one or two out of several dozen.

It's all good, though.

[dtel]

My last film camera was a Nikon, but it died, haven't been taking pic's. For snapshots we have been using a Kodak EasyShare 5.0.

Have been looking at cameras ever since Michael Colter came here in December, he has a very nice digital Nikon. Looking at his camera made me want to start taking pictures again, without spending that much money for the camera.

I have not decided which Nikon I want but it will be digital. From everything I have read I really like the Nikon D80 .

I want to go to digital because a couple of months ago we went through all of my old pictures, a big box, a few thousand pictures. And this was just the pictures that did not make it into photo albums, and there is another box of slides that we have not even looked through yet. Not that these pictures were trash, but just think of the money I could have saved by not printing all of those.

And on the other side of it when you want a picture of something you can take more and try some things you may not with film, because you can just save the ones you want to keep, and you don't have to print them just to see how they came out.

No more film for me, I could buy a new camera with the cost of just the leftover pictures from the past that just didn't quite come out as expected.

What was said is true, I did take much more time with film, But the new digital SLR still gives you all the control as film, and more control after the pic is taken ................That is if I can retrain myself on all this new equipment and editing after the shot ?

[Mallette]

Even digitized, Kodachrome 64 still looks better than even an 8 megapixel digital shot, and I still love the "fiddle factor" and careful setup required of my 120 roll film vintage Yashica. I recall an estimate that it would require a 35 megapixel digital image to equal 35mm Kodachrome 20. I can't even extrapolate that to 120!

Nonetheless as you guys mentioned, I mess around with a lot of shots I'd not even try on film with my digital. Plus, you can determine how to shoot the same image on film that way, and make every film exposure count!

Film will remain an art form for many decades to come. Painting did not disappear as predicted when photography was invented.

Dave

[dtel]

Even digitized, Kodachrome 64 still looks better than even an 8 megapixel digital shot, and I still love the "fiddle factor" and careful setup required of my 120 roll film vintage Yashica. I recall an estimate that it would require a 35 megapixel digital image to equal 35mm Kodachrome 20. I can't even extrapolate that to 120!

Nonetheless as you guys mentioned, I mess around with a lot of shots I'd not even try on film with my digital. Plus, you can determine how to shoot the same image on film that way, and make every film exposure count!

Film will remain an art form for many decades to come. Painting did not disappear as predicted when photography was invented.

Dave

Never thought about it that way, good point! [Y] Would tubes be equal to oil painting & SS to digital, sorry...[:$]

[Mallette]

Well, I suppose this thread really should be in "General," but our forum is loaded with anachronisms so until the topic nazis show up...

Most digital cameras are designed to the sensitivity of 100 ASA film. Some are even setable to higher, but that increases noise and I for one do not find noise in digital photographs as "artsy" as grain can be in film, so I never use them. Anyway, you can extrapolate the correct film shutter speed and f-stop by using your digital camera, then translate as required. If you're digital gets what you want with f8 1/100s, then if shooting ASA 64 film you'd want about a 1/3 stop less or change the shutter speed to 1/60, since ASA 64 is about a t/3 slower than ASA 100. If using 200 ASA film, you'd go to either f5.6 or 1/200 sec to get the same results.

I think there are some similarities between those who cling to film and those who cherish their tubes. In fact, those "better than real" brilliant reds in Kodachrome and the ethereal grain of the late, lamented TriX are probably analogous to the warm colorations of tubes that do wonderful things to music that simple clinical accuracy cannot. THERE, a connection! [6]

Dave

[LarryC]

I use digital when I'm going to put something on the web -- forum, e-mail -- because it's a short, sweet process. Also for showing colors & textures from home to someone at a furniture or carpet store.

However, scenics are completely different, and there I like slides because of the full, lifelike size, color and richness. I think even large prints aren't in the same league, small prints sure aren't, and really small camera digital readout screens definitely aren't -- for me, that is.

There is something in common in peoples' willingness to think small is ideal, whether in small lossy music files, small pictures, or small speakers!

[ByteWrangler]

If you're digital gets what you want with f8 1/100s, then if shooting ASA 64 film you'd want about a 1/3 stop less or change the shutter speed to 1/60, since ASA 64 is about a t/3 slower than ASA 100. If using 200 ASA film, you'd go to either f5.6 or 1/200 sec to get the same results.

Wouldn't that be f11?

IIRC, back in the day, commercial photographers would take test Polaroids to zero in on lighting and settings before shooting for real.

Just out of curiosity, how does the latitude of a good Canon or Nikon digital camera compare with film like, say, Kodachrome 64? To keep the topic audio-related, latitude of film is analogous to dynamic range in audio - greater latitude means that a film can distinguish small variations in light levels over a greater range. That is, film with great latitude will have bright areas that aren't washed out while detail is still visible in deep shadows. K64 was (still is, I guess) wonderful stuff - I used it all the time before the kids were born, then switched to prints.

To make this appropriate for the 2-Channel forum, um..., uh..., does anyone know if anybody makes a digital camera for stereo photography? There. [*-)]

[Daddy Dee]

used to love 35mm. now, sorry to say, it's just too much work for my purposes.

of course, I have very few worthwhile purposes lately

[Arky]

Digital, i'm lazy.

[JJkizak]

Film isn't dead yet, but it is close. I can blow up a downloaded very good picture (150K) or scan a 2 x 3 film picture and blow it up to 13 x 19 with Epson photo glossy paper with my Epson R-1800 printer and it is so close in quality to professionel Ektachrome film 13 x 19 pictures most people can't tell the difference.

JJK

[colterphoto1]

I've got 2 Hasselblad bodies, 5 backs, 5 lenses that are making very nice doorstops

The Nikon F100 in great condition is worth about $125. N8008S about $35.

My two Nikon D200's, Photoshop CS, and workshops cost about $6,000 to stay in a dying industry.

Digital
is interesting, but in no way gives the same depth, vibrancy, and life
to an image that film does. No amount of Photoshop can do the trick
either. I gave up and left an industry that had been my bread and
butter for 12 years.

Now to ruin another perfectly good hobby... LOL []

Michael

[Bill H.]

Last year I bought a used Pentex SLR camera, but realized as others have stated, it is just to expensive to use............so it collects dust......

I have been researching getting a Good Digital Camera, and am torn between SLR, one with a good lenses for far away pictures, or one of the smaller units that are basically point and shoot, for close up pictures..........Oh the choices..........it is making my head spin!

I briefly looked at the camera Michael has, (D 50) ?.............but it is WAY out of my price range..........LOL..........

I also just sent in a small Digital Camera thru Dealtree, and am awaiting a coupon that I can use thru Circuit City. You can do this with all your electronics, to get some cash back. This way I don't have to mess with E*** at all................

[dtel]

I've got 2 Hasselblad bodies, 5 backs, 5 lenses that are making very nice doorstops

The Nikon F100 in great condition is worth about $125. N8008S about $35.

My two Nikon D200's, Photoshop CS, and workshops cost about $6,000 to stay in a dying industry.

Digital is interesting, but in no way gives the same depth, vibrancy, and life to an image that film does. No amount of Photoshop can do the trick either. I gave up and left an industry that had been my bread and butter for 12 years.

Now to ruin another perfectly good hobby... LOL []

Michael

The worst part of Michael's post is the man has real talent behind the camera. And he has a way with people, at a wedding everything is crazy, he not only takes the pictures but organizes and keeps things moving along. At the same time makes everybody laugh and smile, almost like a comedian with a camera who takes great pictures. It's very easy to see when someone is very good at what they do, it shows

I feel lucky to know him and have a chance to see him work !

Thank You Michael !

He never gives himself the credit he deserves ? []

[Mallette]

Yes, I meant f11.

Like most such things, film will decline to a puddle then rebound a bit...probably about like LPs, to relate on topic again. Unlike LPs, second hand film isn't much good, so it is going to get expensive unless someone can figure a way back to the 19th century way of rolling your own.

Dave

[IB Slammin]

I've got 2 Hasselblad bodies, 5 backs, 5 lenses that are making very nice doorstops

The Nikon F100 in great condition is worth about $125. N8008S about $35.

My two Nikon D200's, Photoshop CS, and workshops cost about $6,000 to stay in a dying industry.

Digital is interesting, but in no way gives the same depth, vibrancy, and life to an image that film does. No amount of Photoshop can do the trick either. I gave up and left an industry that had been my bread and butter for 12 years.

Now to ruin another perfectly good hobby... LOL []

Michael

I agree with all as to the quality of film being a better art form. Michael, correct me if wrong, but I understand that a pro shoots 12 bummers on film for every 1 that he keeps. As an amateur, I find that I take waaaay more pix on the card than I ever did with film. So if you don't take the shot, quality doesn't matter. BTW, B&W is king.

tc

[jt1stcav]

I have never owned a digital camera yet; I have owned Minolta's first AF 35mm SLR the 7000 Maxxum, and 9000 pro Maxxum, and later switched to all manual film SLRs like the venerable Olympus OM-1, OM-1n, OM-3, and the pro OM-4t (and countless wide angle, normal, and telephoto lenses...no zooms)! Unfortunantly, due to financial problems they've all been sold many years ago, and I've borrowed both my younger brother's digital point 'n' shoot cameras from Casio, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, and Olympus. They were all okay for snapshots, but with questionable white balance, noise, and purple fringing issues, limited features, slow built-in lenses, and tiny pop-up flashes, they were far from being anywhere near as good as even an inexpensive 35mm Pentax K1000 student SLR and ASA 400 Kodacolor print film!

The only digital SLR worth its salt IMO from all the other SLRs my brothers have owned or borrowed from the family-run camera store one of them is employed at, is the professional Canon EOS 10D. Not the Nikon D40, D40X, D50, D80, D200, or the Olympus E-300 and E-500 digital SLRs, but the older 10D and TOTL Canon lenses! White balance is best controlled, noise is virtually non-existent, purple fringing is eliminated to the point where an enlarged print from both a digital RAW file and from a 35mm slide are indistinguishable! None of the other digital SLRs listed above even come close to making prints as good as from slide film as does the EOS 10D (and their other TOTL pro models, or even the Rebel for that matter), using top-flight Canon glass (and certain fast Tamron lenses as well IMHO). There may well be other, newer digital SLRs out there that'll top the discontinued 10D, but so far we haven't come across it yet.

FWIW...

[colterphoto1]

[

I agree with all as to the quality of film being a better art form. Michael, correct me if wrong, but I understand that a pro shoots 12 bummers on film for every 1 that he keeps. As an amateur, I find that I take waaaay more pix on the card than I ever did with film. So if you don't take the shot, quality doesn't matter. BTW, B&W is king.

tc

Terry, when I was actively shooting weddings on only film (2 1/4 and 35mm, I'd take about 10 rolls of each on a wedding day. That is 240 color portrait and traditional poses and 360 bw candids. Total of 600 images. I'd aim to get that down to 350-400 to show the bride, so the percentage is much higher.

Sports and wildlife photography is always a much more difficult percentage.

Then tendency to 'shoot everything and edit later' is, imho, a sloppy strategy that does not encourage good work habits, is bothersome to your subjects, and takes hours more in the edit room and photoshop. Good work habits encourage 'getting it right in the camera' and include the use of proper lighting and posing techniques (which can never be corrected for in Photoshop btw), use of tripod to get the crop right, and filtering/use of custom white balance.

I have known 'pro' photographers who rely so much on their photoshop corrections that they gradually go bonkers staying up night after night making tweaks instead of taking time to learn proper technique in the first place.

BW WAS king. It got so I could not get film processed or printed accurately. It was time to give up.

Art is dead.

M

[maxg]

As a point and clicker I went digital and never looked back (in contrast to my audio habits). Just so much easier - instant results, instant deletes etc.

I tend to act as photographer for ACA (how desperate are we?) quite a bit. My camera is TINY - similar in size to a credit card and about the thickness of 3. Holds about 500 5 Mpixel shots so I can click away and review either live or later as it suits.

I couldn't do half the things I do with a non-automatic and the camera shoots repectable video (640 * 480 @ 30 fps) for about an hour on a 2 gig card.

Sometimes I get quite good results which I dont think I could ever successfully achieve without being able to take repeated shots.

Obviously - uploading to the net is a breeze with so many resizing options available to boot:

[J M O N]

Not only am I still using film, I'm probably one of the few dinosaurs still using a manual focus camera. I've got a couple of Canon T-90 bodies and about 8 or 9 lenses. I love this camera! I'm sure I will eventually have to switch to a digital SLR. Most everyone in my photo club has made the switch. The biggest reason I haven't done it yet is due to expense. Not so much the cost of the camera, but because of all the lenses I will have to replace. I also don't want to buy a digital SLR until the full-frame sensor models become a bit less expensive. Unfortunately (or fortunately), digital cameras are similar to the computer industry -- prices will keep coming down and capabilities will keep going up.