Can I dump film now?

[polarinda]

Hi everyone...I know this topic is OLD, but bear with me..


Now that digital technology is so advanced, with its quality coming very close if not better than film in 8x10 or even 11x13, why are we still using film?


Can anyone tell me what a rangefinder with good lens can do and say the d30 cannot?


Im talking about image quality here..thanks.

[reddawn]

Hi

Well, some says that German lenses (ie Leica) produce better images than Japanese made lenses (Canon, Nikon) - Leica lenses supposedly produce warmer colors and skin tones; Canon and especially Nikon lenses are supposedly more cold and metallic by comparison....

Using a converter, I have shot a Leica 50mm lens with my D30 before - there does seem to be a difference, and that 50mm lens was made in the 1950s! But the difference is small, not easily discernible unless you are looking for it, and those prime lenses are darn expensive :P And of course, this is a highly subjective matter.

Rangefinder lenses normally are of VERY high quality, since most of them are prime lenses, and they are all VERY fast lenses, with f2 as the standard aperture. (in fact, most of those lenses have at least f2)

Back to the film vs digital topic, a lot of pple are still using film mainly cos they are used to it and film does make certain things easier - i mean you don't have to spend time in front of photoshop editing your image - once you shoot, you send it to the lab and forget about it until you get the prints back. Pple who are not so computer literate also prefer film - no messing with PCs and stuff.

Others prefer slide film and projecting their images on slides etc. Also, currently you can get film almost anywhere - when on a holiday, or in Africa, you can still buy film, but how to buy CF cards when you run out of them in some foreign country? Film is cheap. While CF cards may allow you to reuse and reuse, you can't reuse your CF cards if you run out of them during your holiday.....unless you also bring along a laptop or Digital Wallet to download images.......that's additional cost to factor in.....

Cost is a BIG factor. To get into digital photography, you need fast computers, CDRWs, CF cards, printers, expensive digital SLRs, Expensive software like photoshop etc etc etc................and for the price you pay for the D30, you get such terrible AF etc etc :)

Most friends I know stick with film and the "semi digital" way - when they send their slides or negatives to the lab, they ask the lab to develop and scan, instead of making physical prints. They get back the developed negatives / slide film, and a CD full of high res 6 megapixel images - this is actually cheaper than developing and making prints.

The Fuji frontier machine makes this whole process easy for the Lab, and my friends will then use Photoshop to do any necessary post process, and print using their Epson printers etc etc.................

They get to save a lot of money and yet enjoy all the advanced features of their film SLRs (like say, lightning fast AF :)).

think of it, for the price of the upcoming EOS 1D, you can get a professional SLR (say EOS 3 or even the 1V), scan your images and get 6 megapixel images, and still get to shoot at high FPS :P You may not get the "butter smooth" images of the D30 by scannning film, but then again, there's no guarantee that the 1D will produce the same kind of high quality images as the D30 ya? only time will tell..........

[reddawn]

Hi

Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape) was one of the first to publicly claim that the D30 produces images better than Provia slide film (the finest grain film), but if you look at his articles and his website, he still remains largely a film person. (in my opinion anyway...)

One of the reasons is he is a fan of the rangefinders, as evidenced by his many enlightening articles.

Another big reason why Michael still uses film and scans film for printing is Medium and Large format film. The D30 is still no match for medium format film scanned with high resolution scanners like for example, the Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED. However, Michael has an interesting blend of film and digital processes - he scans film and makes prints with high quality Epson printers.

It has been proven that digital printing is better than traditional darkroom printing - the Fuji Frontier is a digital printing machine, scanning negatives and slides before making prints. I think one of the major factors why digital has come of age must be attributed to improvements made in the arena of inkjet digital printing.

[LaptopPop]

One thing that I've noticed with digital is that I end up doing all the work myself. With film, someone else at a lab does the work printing and color balancing and burning in, etc. Even for special blow-ups, I specify how I want it to look and then just walk away and they do all the work.

With digital, I am no longer just the photographer, but the lab as well -- much as it was earlier in the history of photography, or as it always has been for segments such as artistic photography.

I have to make any brightness or color adjustments myself. I have to learn all about a variety of techniques above and beyond just capturing the initial image.

That being said, I gain a level of control and immediacy that film will never give me. Would I go back? Never.

-lee-

[raptor]

One area where I still use file (I am a pro BTW so use EOS1V - expensive but V good indeed, and 2 D30's at events where I do on site printing) is in Black and White processing. You can do a certain amount of de-saturizing etc but IMHO for B&W the almost infinite shades of grey you can get from an analog film will beat any amount of 16 ( or actual) 12 bit steps of greyscale. Now you can get some pretty good pix but IMHO for Black and White -- keep your film camera for a little while longer. If you don't believe me try and look at some of Adsel Adam's (one of photography's true greats) brilliant Balck and White Pictures of the High Sierras in Northern California.
Otherwise for colour etc you can pretty well dump film now except in very special areas where Large format cameras are still used -- and this is an area I doubt even the most serious amateur will get involved in.
Just a note to a poster who said Medium Format film is better --- Not any more. In the professional arena Kodak Pro dugital backs are available for 6 X 4 which are FAR FAR superior to any film ever invented on this planet. The only drawback is they cost around 30,000 USD a piece !!!! but remember digital is still in its infancy and who knows in 2 - 3 years time.
Cheers all
-R

[Marloon]

so can we dump film NOW?!

[tonylong]

so can we dump film NOW?!

Heh!

I hear three main reasons why people keep shooting film, not that there are others, but these reasons stick out for me:

1) Film shooters who do their own darkroom development get attached to that creative process. It's a different feel from the digital darkroom, for sure -- having a hands-on approach to developing your own images has been an honored craft for generations, and there is nothing wrong with treasuring that craft. It should be said, though, that there are many comments you hear here and in other places to the effect that people are sure glad to get away from all the chemicals and smells...it's a tradeoff here.

2) B&W film shooters have a valid argument that there is more latitude in tonal range/dynamic range in B&W film specifically. Note that this doesn't apply in color film and works differently with slide film, but for B&W print film, it gets noted over and over by users of both that the film yields both finer gradations in the greyscale and also less problems when giving some boost (dodging) to shadows because film doesn't have digital noise and having more range in subtle highlight areas. It should be noted, though, that is has been demonstrated that digital actually retains more detail in shadow areas so, given a good exposure for highlights and a low ISO, as long as the noise in the shadows doesn't become a problem with amplifying shadows, the dynamic range may not be as much of an issue, but the subtle gradations of tonal quality certainly are highly values.

3) Shooting film "forces" on you a more thoughtful approach to your photography, especially since the main cost with film shooting is the development of your images. You are less prone to "spray and pray" and more prone toward wanting to "get it right in-camera" from the start. You depend less on letting the camera think for you and more on you doing the thinking. Plus, you make choices while getting the shot that determine how you will interpret your vision in terms of white balance and hue, sharpness, contrast, saturation...so that "capturing a vision" is something that gets a real grip when you take the shot, then can be more fully realized in the darkroom. Now, that being said, "serious" digital photographers have much the same philosophy, just with a different balance to their workflow...

Not mentioned were cost and comparing medium and large format cameras. As far as cost, IMO, there are numerous factors involved and it's not so black and white either way. The "serious" photographer is after the image, so I think the question "how much does it cost?" is rather a secondary consideration compared to "what will best enable me to capture my vision?".

For medium and large format users, I don't think there is a serious argument that they have the advantage of sheer resolution to overcome any DSLR camera. But so what? MF/LF shooters will continue to shoot film unless they can afford a digital back, but I'd imagine that if digital backs were more affordable, there would be the same shift to digital that we've seen with 35mm shooters. There still, though, will be film users for all the reasons I mentioned above...

[Jman13]

I think that 35mm film has its place pretty much only as part of the creative process and for those who have learned the intricacies of their chosen film and processing style to achieve their own artistic look. That's all perfectly valid, and if fine art photographers choose to use film for decades, more power to them. However, digital technology has essentially surpassed even the best 35mm films in every meaningful way, including cost (when you consider the cost of materials and developing). Digital is clearly superior for any sort of photojournalism, and cameras like the 1DsII, 1DsIII, 1DIII, 5DII and the top Nikons are rivaling medium format and larger film....having left 35mm in its rear view mirror.

Large format film obviously still has a place for landscape photographers and for those who need complete control of tilt and shift in a view camera, but some of the better MF digital backs are approaching 4x5 resolution, and it won't be long before this too will be matched or surpassed by digital technology (for an extreme price).

I run about 2-3 rolls of B&W film each year through an old Minolta body with a Rokkor 50 f/1.4 attached...it's just a nice departure from all the bells and whistles to have an absolutely no-frills, minimal technology photographic experience...but 100 film shots vs. 14,000 digital shots each year will tell the story.

[sjones]

Image quality remains subjective, and film offers to some a different look that may be more preferable than digital.

However, as others have noted above, striving for the best image quality in more objective terms (resolution, color accuracy, sharpness, dynamic range, etc) is only part of the process for some photographers.

[sjones]

Just noticed the OP dates back to 2001...still....

[watt100]

Just noticed the OP dates back to 2001...still....

I didn't realize the thread was that old! thinking who still shoots in film?

[RDKirk]

I hear three main reasons why people keep shooting film, not that there are others, but these reasons stick out for me:

I agree with your reasoning.

I would also note that in the US today there are more individuals who own horses than there were 100 years ago, even though the horse has certainly been supplanted by motorized vehicles in 99.9% of transportation applications. Even working cowboys are starting to ride motor vehicles.

Horses are still popular as a hobby among people who can afford it, and I expect the situation will remain the same for film.

[gfspencer]

Hi everyone...I know this topic is OLD, but bear with me..


Now that digital technology is so advanced, with its quality coming very close if not better than film in 8x10 or even 11x13, why are we still using film?


Can anyone tell me what a rangefinder with good lens can do and say the d30 cannot?


Im talking about image quality here..thanks.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at when you include a rangefinder in this topic because Leica now makes a digital rangefider (the M8/8.2).

I like an M8 rangefinder because it is (1) it is a small and compact camera, (2) it is discreet, (3) the viewfinder gives me a larger view and (4) Leica lenses are great lenses.

Can you get great pictures from a Canon 30D? Of course you can. Are the pictures as good as the pictures that you get with a Leica (or any other film camera)? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.

[muscleflex]

2001??? how the heck did you find this thread???? get back to work! ;-)

[muscleflex]

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at when you include a rangefinder in this topic because Leica now makes a digital rangefider (the M8/8.2).

I like an M8 rangefinder because it is (1) it is a small and compact camera, (2) it is discreet, (3) the viewfinder gives me a larger view and (4) Leica lenses are great lenses.

Can you get great pictures from a Canon 30D? Of course you can. Are the pictures as good as the pictures that you get with a Leica (or any other film camera)? I guess that's in the eye of the beholder.


lol - back in 2001, they probably did NOT have what you're talking about now! ;)

[Synovia]

self deleted:


Didn't realize this was a zombie thread.

[forrest64]

so can we dump film NOW?!

YES !

[Nanboh]

If you still have film from 2001, probably best to dump unless you've really taken pains to store it properly :D

[DAMphyne]

At it again eh Marloon?:lol:

[CAL Imagery]

I didn't realize the thread was that old! thinking who still shoots in film?
Still? How about who just started!