What are the advantages of film?

[DocFrankenstein]

Inspired by the similar thread, with "digital" instead of film...

and my zero knowledge of film in general.


The only ones I can think about are:
Extremely long exposures (ie night sky, etc)
Slightly better colors
BW photography? (who needs that?) ;)

I am not sure that 35 mm is capable of carrying more information (has more megapixels) than even DRebel. Maybe ISO 50? From what I've seen, A4 blowups of film don't seem to have higher quality than the Rebel pics.

Please enlighten me.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Black & white film still has tremendous appeal for me...


Yes.. there are digital manipulations that look great.. but I still have not seen anything in Digital that gives the immediate "cleanliness" of high grade B&W film...

The film bodies are currently A LOT more affordable!

...thas all I can think of :)

[robertwgross]

I can take very long exposures using either film or digitally. My film tends to be ISO 50, so the exposure tends to be longer than ISO 100, the minimum on my digital camera.

I don't know what you mean by megapixels on film. Film has no pixels whatsoever.

If I shoot a good Velvia slide, then I can scan it into a digital file of 100-150 Megabytes. So, if I need to print large, the slide will carry it better than a 6.3 megapixel digital image.

---Bob Gross---

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't know what you mean by megapixels on film. Film has no pixels whatsoever.

If I shoot a good Velvia slide, then I can scan it into a digital file of 100-150 Megabytes. So, if I need to print large, the slide will carry it better than a 6.3 megapixel digital image.
I mean the amount of useful information recorded on the negative (on the photo paper actually)

One could scan a polaroid which will give a 500 mb image and some gigapixels. Doesn't mean it will actually contain that much useful info.

What I mean is that a 11*7 inch print from rebel contains more detail than same size print from 35 mm.

I can take very long exposures using either film or digitally.
But then the digital sensor accumulates noise over time because of the ambient temperature, right? This, theoretically will make the DSLR images noisier.

Black & white film still has tremendous appeal for me...
I know man. I was just teasing. ;)

Yes.. there are digital manipulations that look great.. but I still have not seen anything in Digital that gives the immediate "cleanliness" of high grade B&W film...
Not trying to argue or anything :!:

What is a high grade BW film? Can you get better BW clarity with ISO100 or ISO 50 BW films?

The film bodies are currently A LOT more affordable!

...thas all I can think of
But then the developing costs...

[drisley]

As far as colours are concerned, I've always heard that digital produces much more accurate colours than film.
But, accurate isn't always better.

[Jesper]

Extremely long exposures (ie night sky, etc)
You might get problems with noise and dead or stuck pixels on digital cameras, but there are tricks to avoid this. You could, for example, make multiple shorter exposures and combine them using software such as Image Stacker (http://www.tawbaware.com/imgstack.htm).

Slightly better colors
I don't think film is capable of producing colors that you can't produce with a digital camera. There are lots of people who love Fuji Velvia slide film, which gives very saturated colors and is mostly used for nature and landscape photography. However, with digital, you can do almost anything with the colors on the computer. There are several "digital velvia" actions for Photoshop available that will give your digital photos the look of Velvia film.

BW photography? (who needs that?) ;)
Most desktop inkjet printers are not great for printing black and white images. I think the traditional darkroom is still better for this.

I am not sure that 35 mm is capable of carrying more information (has more megapixels) than even DRebel. Maybe ISO 50? From what I've seen, A4 blowups of film don't seem to have higher quality than the Rebel pics.
There is no clear answer to the question of how many megapixels of useful information you can squeeze out of 35mm film. With my 10D, I have made prints that are sharper, cleaner and show more detail than anything I've ever made with film.

One advantage of film is that the equipment is much cheaper and that film cameras don't need a lot of battery power - especially if you're going into the wilderness, in an area without electricity, you'll have to take a lot of spare batteries with you if you're using a digital camera. Medium format film equipment is expensive, but a medium format digital back costs as much as a brand new car. On the other hand, with a simple 10D and some effort you can also make great super high megapixel images by stitching multiple exposures - have a look at Max Lyons' gallery (http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/).

[MarkH]

One advantage of film is that the equipment is much cheaper and that film cameras don't need a lot of battery power - especially if you're going into the wilderness, in an area without electricity, you'll have to take a lot of spare batteries with you if you're using a digital camera.

While you may need several batteries to use a digital in the wilderness, wouldn't the film camera need many rolls of film?

With my 10D I have shot over 600 images on one battery, I have 4 batteries total. Is the bulk and weigh of film that much less than the batteries? My experience is that the BP-511 batteries are small and light with the clones costing very little.

I see no reason why I couldn't buy another 4 batteries if I thought I would need them, for the cost of film and developing for 10 rolls of 24 (in NZ anyway).

I am sure there are some advantages of film, like the cheapest way to get full frame size (The 1Ds being the dearest) and the cheapest backup camera that you would only use if the digital failed (therefore no film and processing costs).

I don't personally like black and white (never have), but it is something that film offers which isn't equalled in digital.

[Tapeman]

You are always shooting "RAW"

You get to piss off airport screeners by asking then to hand inspect 30 rolls of film.

You still can by it anywhere.

[where1]

As mentioned, a cheap way to achieve full frame. I still use film when shooting with my fisheye lense. I tried it on a DRebel, but the fisheye effect is effectively lost.

[whowie]

The advantage of digital, for me, is convenience and cost. Shoot, process, immediate and easily distributed results. I have both a color and B+W darkroom but I haven't fired up the color lab since going digital. I doubt, though, if I'll ever give up the B+W lab.

The disadvantage of digital, for me, is batteries. Film cameras, IMHO, still rule for extended camping and backwoods trips. I've lugged laptops and chargers with me, uploaded images to the laptop in while sitting in cafes and restaurants and charged batteries through a car cigarette lighter but nothing beats a Pentax K1000 and a dozen rolls of film in a backpack.

[nosquare2003]

One advantage of film is that the equipment is much cheaper and that film cameras don't need a lot of battery power - especially if you're going into the wilderness, in an area without electricity, you'll have to take a lot of spare batteries with you if you're using a digital camera.

While you may need several batteries to use a digital in the wilderness, wouldn't the film camera need many rolls of film?

With my 10D I have shot over 600 images on one battery, I have 4 batteries total. Is the bulk and weigh of film that much less than the batteries? My experience is that the BP-511 batteries are small and light with the clones costing very little.




The battery will drain fast when the weather is very cold. And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

[Webster]

You might get problems with noise and dead or stuck pixels on digital cameras, but there are tricks to avoid this. You could, for example, make multiple shorter exposures and combine them using software such as Image Stacker (http://www.tawbaware.com/imgstack.htm).

Is there any advantage to using Image Stacker rather than just combining layers in PS?

[RichardtheSane]

The battery will drain fast when the weather is very cold. And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

Yes you can.

You do have to manage power well, but it is possible.

[Webster]

And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

Sure you can. Lo-res jpeg is very battery friendly. The need to take lots and lots (and lots) of pictures without a card or battery change is one of those special cases where it makes sense to not shoot RAW. I've gotten almost 1500 shots on a single card, and the battery was still alive.

[Jesper]

You might get problems with noise and dead or stuck pixels on digital cameras, but there are tricks to avoid this. You could, for example, make multiple shorter exposures and combine them using software such as Image Stacker (http://www.tawbaware.com/imgstack.htm).

Is there any advantage to using Image Stacker rather than just combining layers in PS?

I don't know, maybe you can also do by hand what Image Stacker does automatically for you. As you can read in the manual (http://www.tawbaware.com/is_help/imgstack_help.htm) it implements a number of different blending modes. I haven't used Image Stacker yet.

[WestFalcon]

Film comes in plastic containers...you can store your split shot and hooks for fishing in these. Just throw the film away! :D

[RikWriter]

[The battery will drain fast when the weather is very cold. And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

Done it.

[RikWriter]

The film bodies are currently A LOT more affordable!


You can say that again. I saw a Rebel X with a 200EX flash at a pawn shop today for $99. Thinking about going back and buying it, just for the hell of it...I mean, it will take the lenses for my DRebel...

[robertwgross]

[quote="DocFrankenstein"]
What I mean is that a 11*7 inch print from rebel contains more detail than same size print from 35 mm.
[quote]

I'm not sure that I would jump to the same conclusion.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

I can take very long exposures using either film or digitally.

But then the digital sensor accumulates noise over time because of the ambient temperature, right? This, theoretically will make the DSLR images noisier.


Yes, a DSLR sensor will accumulate color noise over time. However, I find it relatively easy to do noise reduction (post processing) to eliminate nearly all of that.

Whereas, film has grain. It can be post processed out also, but it is just different. I've never figured out how to crank up the ISO of my film in the middle of the roll.

---Bob Gross---

[Mthorpe_Davies]

With film you take it into the pro lab and they colour correct and print for you, with difital you have to piss around and do it yourself, I haven't found a lab yet who will take a raw file and post process it for you.

[robertwgross]

Film comes in plastic containers...you can store your split shot and hooks for fishing in these. Just throw the film away! :D

That's what I'll do. I'll go into the business of selling film containers to fishermen. I have only about ten million of them.

---Bob Gross---

[Longwatcher]

With film you take it into the pro lab and they colour correct and print for you, with difital you have to P*** around and do it yourself, I haven't found a lab yet who will take a raw file and post process it for you.

One of the models I shot recently will take your RAW shots and process and edit them for you, however, I don't know much she will charge, but she is pretty good (better then me anyway). The only catch is she was two generations behind on photoshop, so I suspect if you really wanted to pay her for processing, she would have to factor in the cost of software upgrades to PS CS version.

How you would get the images to her is probably the problem. 8)

[CyberDyneSystems]

[The battery will drain fast when the weather is very cold. And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

Done it.

Over 1300 with a MkII on one battery.. and its been a while since Ive seens a roll of film that will gove 600 shots?

[blinking8s]

As mentioned, a cheap way to achieve full frame. I still use film when shooting with my fisheye lense. I tried it on a DRebel, but the fisheye effect is effectively lost.

dude, i really want a fishy lens for my drebel...bad...are there even any?

[DocFrankenstein]

As mentioned, a cheap way to achieve full frame. I still use film when shooting with my fisheye lense. I tried it on a DRebel, but the fisheye effect is effectively lost.

dude, i really want a fishy lens for my drebel...bad...are there even any?
Probably not... You'll have to multiply by 1.6 and there are no lenses like that... I think

[nosquare2003]

The battery will drain fast when the weather is very cold. And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

Yes you can.

You do have to manage power well, but it is possible.


Ok, I should be wrong. Last time, I shut down the LCD and shooting JPEG but it couldn't take 600 shots under zero degree. My second thoughts for several causes:
- the additional energy requirement for microdrive.
- the Image Stabiliser

[robertwgross]

I've seen a battery last a lot longer also by turning off the autofocus.

---Bob Gross---

[MarkH]

The battery will drain fast when the weather is very cold. And you cannot take 600 shots on one battery...

I dislike the cold more than my batteries, so not a problem.

I don't always get 600 shots, but I rarely run out of batteries before taking 400 shots. How many shots can you get on a roll of film? How many times can you recharge and reuse a roll of film?


The disadvantage of digital, for me, is batteries. Film cameras, IMHO, still rule for extended camping and backwoods trips. I've lugged laptops and chargers with me, uploaded images to the laptop in while sitting in cafes and restaurants and charged batteries through a car cigarette lighter but nothing beats a Pentax K1000 and a dozen rolls of film in a backpack.

I have 4 batteries, assuming 400 shots per battery then I can take over 1500 shots! You would need over 40 rolls of 36 to equal that.

I think that I would have no trouble beating your dozen rolls with my 4 batteries and 3GB of CF cards, no chargers or laptop needed!

[geisha]

i think it is just personal preference between digital & film...i still use the 35mm and not challenging anyone but i feel that digital takes away the romance of photography... but then you guys don't have to experience getting a bad set of prints back... colourwise the digital has a better white than film...

but again i am intrigued by black & white photography so for what has captured my interest i must keep the 35mm.

[pradeep1]

One of the benefits of film (moreso a film camera) is that you can find "beaters" on the very cheap that you can take into places you normally don't want to walk around with your expensive gear.

It seems like film cameras have had something like a 50-60% drop in prices across the board on new used bodies. The entry level film cameras by top name brands can be had for less than $200. Amazing. I remember spending close to a $1000 in 1998 for my EOS ElanIIe w/lens. I thought that was a good deal. Now that same set can be had for something like $450 and in much better condition than my equipment.

I agree with CDS about black and white film. Also, I still like shooting slide film, especially the fine grained ASA 100 Sensia. But it does get very costly and I do it rarely.

OTOH, if anyone wants to buy about 100 rolls of 100 ASA fine grained slide film that has been carefully kept in my refrigerator, let me know. 8)

[trees]

Could someone please help me, I'm looking to buy a digital camera which can also take 35mm film.

I have heard of a camera which lets you look at the photos as you do with a digital, edit and then send the ones to keep to the 35mm film.

Is there such a camera or am I just wishful thinking.

Thanks

Teresa

[chris.bailey]

Film....

You get a nice noise as it winds on.

Everynow and then you open up to change rolls only to find it did not feed on right in the first place or has torn the sprockets meaning you have to explain to your Aunty Mabel why you have not got any pictures of her daughters wedding after all.

Even the pro printers make a mess of it sometimes.

Postal service pinters will send you back someone elses holiday or bedroom pictures about 1 roll in 100 meaning someone else has your :oops:

Negatives are a bugger to store safely and are not child or dog friendly (dont ask, just accept me on that one)

The most important shot on a roll is always the one at the end so you get only half of it.

Despite all of the above I have fond memories of Film in the same sort of way that I have fond memories of my first car i.e. I would not want to go back to driving it :wink:

[Penguin_101_1]

I still use a film SLR because it is a ton cheaper than a dslr and the batteries last a lot longer.

Monolta X-700
70-200mm
45(?)-70mm
50mm
Flash - vivitar
and a lot of other stuff

[blinking8s]

I still use a film SLR because it is a ton cheaper than a dslr and the batteries last a lot longer.


a ton cheaper?

[Penguin_101_1]

Could someone please help me, I'm looking to buy a digital camera which can also take 35mm film.

I have heard of a camera which lets you look at the photos as you do with a digital, edit and then send the ones to keep to the 35mm film.

Is there such a camera or am I just wishful thinking.

Thanks

Teresa

I don't see how that can be possible (I could be wrong) but the light goes on the film that has the image and changes I think the crystles with an image. Some of that might be wrong because I am doing it off of memory.

[Penguin_101_1]

I still use a film SLR because it is a ton cheaper than a dslr and the batteries last a lot longer.


a ton cheaper?

Ok a lot cheaper :lol:

ETA: I carry me digital with me everywhere and its lens, filters, ect. I only carry my slr when I am going to shot something.

[geisha]

Could someone please help me, I'm looking to buy a digital camera which can also take 35mm film.

I have heard of a camera which lets you look at the photos as you do with a digital, edit and then send the ones to keep to the 35mm film.

Is there such a camera or am I just wishful thinking.

Thanks

Teresa

I don't see how that can be possible (I could be wrong) but the light goes on the film that has the image and changes I think the crystles with an image. Some of that might be wrong because I am doing it off of memory.

i am answering just on wild common sense, but how can an iamge be transfered to film after a digital one... if film is about shutter and the shutter opening to allow light in to expose the film which has reflexed off the mirror after... what i am trying to say is i don't think so... but that is just an assumption.

[dennykyser]

Digital also lets you learn much faster. You can try a lighting situation and either look at the histogram right then, or go to your pc and see the results. Before you would have to use slide film and wait for the results to come back and hope you documented everything you shot so you could see what worked best.

I have learned much more with digital

BUT There is an advantage to film

Film Bodies take quite good quality pictures with average or kit lenses.

When I added a 10D I imediatly had to get better glass, the digital seemed to make the poor glass come out more in the prints.

[karusel]

i think it is just personal preference between digital & film...i still use the 35mm and not challenging anyone but i feel that digital takes away the romance of photography... but then you guys don't have to experience getting a bad set of prints back... colourwise the digital has a better white than film...

but again i am intrigued by black & white photography so for what has captured my interest i must keep the 35mm.

Agreed! After buying a consumer grade camera I was still using my film Rebel and I bought lab equipment (used) and exposed a couple rolls of film. I really loved the way of the processing, it kind of makes you... I don't know, appreciate what you shoot more, you're kind of more cautious how you compose the scene, when you shoot, why you shoot plus there is some magic satisfaction - I made this, I did it, I made an image appear on a blank paper! The feeling comes nowhere near editing in PS and printing it out.

I quickly realized though, that I'd need ridiculously too much of practice to master developing and regarding the fact that film as we know it will one day soon be obsolete, so I figured it was regretfully just not worth it.

As for fieldwork comparison... one battery lasts for, what, 500 images? Which is nearly 14 rolls of film. For that you also need about 3.5 gigs of CF, or a portable hard drive unit such as X-drive. Ha. Now with 20 GB X-drive and 5 battery packs you can make about 2500 images, which you could also do with 70 rolls of film. Not to mention that you'd have to change films depending on what you'd shoot, at what time of day, etc.

[IndyJeff]

First off, you can't compare the battery life of a digital and the abttery life of a film camera by saying "can you take 600 shots on one roll of film?" No but you can take 600 shots on one battery. I have done that.

Secondly, if your sending your film off to a postal printer, i.e. York labs, and your not labeling your first frame with your contact info then they lose your film, thats your bad luck. A simple 3 x 5 card with your name, address and phone number on it will get your prints back to you.

Now advantages of film.....you have a negative which can easily be stored in a sleeve inside a negative binder. That negative will not be gone in 10 years or lost forever because your hard drive crashed and is unrecoverable.
As far as better colors with a digital, if you have a properly exposed film shot the colors should be as true to life as anything you can shoot digitally.
When you shoot film you don't have to sharpen damn near every shot in order for it to be acceptable.
When shooting film there are 1001 uses for the plastic containers. You can save them and glue the lids on then string the together with superglue and attach them to an old photo vest. Now you have life jacket with too many damn pockets.

[dn7elson]

Now advantages of film.....you have a negative which can easily be stored in a sleeve inside a negative binder. That negative will not be gone in 10 years or lost forever because your hard drive crashed and is unrecoverable.

Unless you happen to try a new film brand. I tried some 3M color slide film (albeit in the late 60s :) ) and took a couple rolls of 36 at the Riverside raceway. Got several panned shots of a Mclaren spinning out at a turn. A year later (after using the proprietary 3M processing) I could stack all 72 slides and look through the stack with virtually no obstruction. Gee, I can't understand why 3Ms entry into film bombed. :?

Never had this with Kodak or Fuji, whether print of slide. But bad things can happen, even to film.