The film crowds are so uptight....they can strangle themselves...

kfreels wrote in post #15142674
I don't know about most of that because I've never run into whole groups of people like that but I'm sure there are some out there. But I will say that shooting film - especially with some of the older film cameras - requires a higher degree of skill than digital. You can't easily just go into post and bump up the exposure. 800 ISO is about the max you get for useful shots. You can "push" film but the result is often much less pleasant than pushing a digital camera a stop. If you think dynamic range is bad in a DSLR, try shooting Kodachrome.

And if that wasn't enough, you lose the ability to chimp as well. The shot is what it is until you get the film developed and proofed.

Still, over many years I was able to develop a knack for determining exposure without the meter. Most of the time, I could select an aperture and shutter combination based on the film I used in a natural lighting environment and get it right. Sure I was often off by +/- 1/3 stop and occasionally even a full stop. But for the most part I would get it right. Of course when it was critical I would use a meter. But it's amazing how quickly you learn exposure when it costs you the shot and $20 every time you get it wrong.

Anyone who has learned these skills over many years of trial and error is bound to develop a sense of pride. This can lead to seeing people who shoot auto-ISO, program and green box as inferior. They will likely see others who may shoot manual but only after chimping a dozen times to get the exposure right as equally inferior.

I'm sure it is easy to fall into the ego trap because it is difficult for some to realize that each person is on their own path with their own agenda and their own ideas on what is important. Some will get vocal about people who do things differently but these will likely be younger people who have self-esteem issues and their entire self-image revolves around this idea of themselves that the things that they do are the important ones (to them of course) and that they are good at them.

And I'm sure these people gravitate towards one another, stroking each others' egos as well because nothing feels better than outside confirmation that your ideas are right. That's why boards like this exist. That's why facebook grew so huge so fast. And as human beings, none of us really enjoy stepping too far outside our comfort zone. Ego stroking is a basic need. It's not just human. It extends to other primates as well. Some need it more than others and some need to be jerks to others to get that. Some get it from putting others down while others get it from lifting others up, but we all need it and obtain it in some minor way.

So I guess the point is - neither you nor I are exempt from the feelings and conditions that cause people to be like that. We just deal with it in different ways in different areas. Rather than griping about how other people on another board are "uptight", find yourself a board where you feel welcome and stay there.

I can see most of them are very knowledgeable and probably at one time working as a pro but the digital revolution put them out of work. It was sad. Could you imagine you didn't get your contracts because you are shooting with a Nikon??? And you have to deal with all the Canon pros who just stole your jobs???

TooManyShots wrote in post #15142666
It was on another message board. Yes, it was relating to my question and somehow the topic got switched to ISO setting on DSLR can not be mixed with film speed setting on light meter and film camera.....because all ISO setting on each DSLR body has its own standard. Could you imagine here we begin to talk about my F stop on my 1dmarkIII is different than your F stops on your XTI??? It was like I was in a twilight zone....

I don't think you understand film very well.

ISO is a rating. However, because it's a chemical process, it's not perfect. Batches affect the outcome. Age of the film affects the outcome. Development times have a major affect on the outcome. Chemicals used to develop have a major affect on the outcome. Therefore, the EV used for a film shot might not be the same for a digital shot.

If you have two identical photos, the film photo will "win". Every time. It's a more difficult process. It's a more restraining process. There are more places one can screw up, whether is while taking the picture or while developing the roll. There is no "undo" button for film. And no body is going to blow a whole 7 dollar roll on one picture unless they are being paid.

Digital is around because it is convenient. And for the same format size, it is has attained "higher" IQ. Don't forget that.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15142666
It was on another message board. Yes, it was relating to my question and somehow the topic got switched to ISO setting on DSLR can not be mixed with film speed setting on light meter and film camera.....because all ISO setting on each DSLR body has its own standard. Could you imagine here we begin to talk about my F stop on my 1dmarkIII is different than your F stops on your XTI??? It was like I was in a twilight zone....

I hate to agree with the people who caused you angst. But the first few generations of rebels did have somewhat inaccurate ISO's. It made metering with an external meter difficult unless you adjusted the meter to account for the bias. There were tons of threads on the xti (if I remember correctly) underexposing, mainly because users were comparing with previous rebels that were using boosted iso's.

st3mpy wrote in post #15143576
I don't think you understand film very well.

ISO is a rating. However, because it's a chemical process, it's not perfect. Batches affect the outcome. Age of the film affects the outcome. Development times have a major affect on the outcome. Chemicals used to develop have a major affect on the outcome. Therefore, the EV used for a film shot might not be the same for a digital shot.

If you have two identical photos, the film photo will "win". Every time. It's a more difficult process. It's a more restraining process. There are more places one can screw up, whether is while taking the picture or while developing the roll. There is no "undo" button for film. And no body is going to blow a whole 7 dollar roll on one picture unless they are being paid.

Digital is around because it is convenient. And for the same format size, it is has attained "higher" IQ. Don't forget that.

Yeah, but these film crowds believe that you can't use your DSLR metering system to expose a color negative because they believe they are different beasts. ISO 400 on your DSLR is different than your ASA400 in films. How many stops of light of difference are we talking about here? Does it have any real world meaning shooting in the real world? The answer is no. Let's face this, the same conditions apply to expose your film, it also applies in digital photography too (monitor color profile, white balance, and even your lenses). To argue that one shouldn't use the metering from your DSLR to expose your film negative based on this silly point...is just silly. This whole silly argument to me is just.....arguments. I went there to seek advise. Not to argue over silly points that have no impact in the real world shooting situation. You may get good grades in your photography class.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15143599
I hate to agree with the people who caused you angst. But the first few generations of rebels did have somewhat inaccurate ISO's. It made metering with an external meter difficult unless you adjusted the meter to account for the bias. There were tons of threads on the xti (if I remember correctly) underexposing, mainly because users were comparing with previous rebels that were using boosted iso's.

Hehehehe.....no offense taken. So, is my F stop same as your F stop... I can see this will get sillier.....

TooManyShots wrote in post #15143644
Hehehehe.....no offense taken. So, is my F stop same as your F stop... I can see this will get sillier.....

On newer cameras they have stopped playing games. But yeah, on an original rebel or xt your f-stop might be different than mine to get the same results. God forbid I end up as one of the old film guys shouting at you to get off of my lawn, but there are subtle differences between the way you would expose for the best results. With digital you have the option of exposing for the highlights, then pushing or pulling the darker tones. With film you generally wanted to get the middle tones right, and then you had the option to adjust the highlights and shadows through processing. Unless you were shooting slides then you just bracketed and prayed a lot None of this matters all that much in the long run as its splitting hairs and both methods gets you close enough for most work.

TooManyShots wrote in post #15143639
Does it have any real world meaning shooting in the real world? The answer is no. Let's face this, the same conditions apply to expose your film, it also applies in digital photography too (monitor color profile, white balance, and even your lenses). To argue that one shouldn't use the metering from your DSLR to expose your film negative based on this silly point...is just silly.

Not looking to fuel any fires, but did want to point out that back in the day, 'professional' film included an individual spec sheet that detailed specific characteristics of that particular batch of emulsion. Things like color corrections and reciprocity factors. I'm pretty sure that ASA was unchanged but maybe not...just can't remember. Couple that with the fact that processing facilities ran continuous checks on the processing lines to monitor color balance, film speed, etc, and unfortunately could only adjust *after* the test strips had been run through...it was a crude system, but the best available at the time.

I realize that this is splitting hairs, but maybe that's what these folks were obsessing about? The fact that ASA wasn't as constant as a DSLR's ISO?

I dunno...jut thought I'd add that to the pile

Foodguy wrote in post #15144116
Not looking to fuel any fires, but did want to point out that back in the day, 'professional' film included an individual spec sheet that detailed specific characteristics of that particular batch of emulsion. Things like color corrections and reciprocity factors. I'm pretty sure that ASA was unchanged but maybe not...just can't remember. Couple that with the fact that processing facilities ran continuous checks on the processing lines to monitor color balance, film speed, etc, and unfortunately could only adjust *after* the test strips had been run through...it was a crude system, but the best available at the time.

I realize that this is splitting hairs, but maybe that's what these folks were obsessing about? The fact that ASA wasn't as constant as a DSLR's ISO?

I dunno...jut thought I'd add that to the pile

It's all a bunch of silly talk with a bunch of people trying to sound smarter than each other. Film varied from batch to batch and from manufacturer to manufacturer. 100 speed kodachrome exposed different from 100 speed TMAX, Pro 100, Velvia, Gold 100, AGFA 100. A canon sensor varies a bit from a Nikon sensor. Canon calibrates their meters for digital a bit differently from the meters in the film cameras, but hey, across the board, the sunny 16 rule still works so any differences in metering are minor and aren't worth worrying about.

A college(KCC) in Brooklyn still forces students to buy film cameras, such as Pentax k-1000 and such. I just saw a young lady with it walking around, and I do see lots of hipsters (wannabes) cool kids, retros, students, tourists with film cameras on Coney Island.
What's the point if film wont exist in 25 years at all. No one in my area, besides CVS, processes film anymore. Waste of money and time. I shoot hundreds of digital photos, maybe 1/4 are keepers. With film, I shot 1 roll per day.

Gomar wrote in post #15146703
A college(KCC) in Brooklyn still forces students to buy film cameras, such as Pentax k-1000 and such. I just saw a young lady with it walking around, and I do see lots of hipsters (wannabes) cool kids, retros, students, tourists with film cameras on Coney Island.
What's the point if film wont exist in 25 years at all. No one in my area, besides CVS, processes film anymore. Waste of money and time. I shoot hundreds of digital photos, maybe 1/4 are keepers. With film, I shot 1 roll per day.

Don't dis film. I have nothing against film. I have everything against diehard film shooters. They are too anal. Too anal for their goods. Whatever I learned from digital photography, I can use it in film too. I know this may sound like a blasphemy to some. Today I went out testing my second roll in medium format film (Yashica Mat + Fuji Reala 100). I was looking for some fall foliage but didn't see a lot. I was walking around with my light meter and metering all potential scenes. From 10am to 3 pm, I have captured 7 shots. I know they are keepers. Where you develop them??? Send them out to a pro lab. Most of them seem to be in Cal.

Shoot, I use my digital to get light readings all the time. That's what dodging and burning was for in the darkroom. As a student, my photography professor commended my quick thinking. It may not be perfect (my Kodak film was different from my AGFA, IIRC) but it worked for the most part.

Either way I had a tool to help get me around ballpark exposure, so I used it.

I think film photography is an original art. It takes real skill and understanding of lighting to make great original photos. Photoshop is also a new art that requires unique skill to create a different photo-based arts.

I started to use film a lot this year. My wife and I were using our film Rebel as main family camera up to 2007. But I never developed film by myself.
Started to rescan our film pictures last year and realized here is something more pleasant to my eye compare to digital.

This year one of my clients gave me his darkroom equipment and my parents RF camera which I borowed from them long time ago came back to me.
I started to do b/w. Acquired more RF cameras. I don't take street candids on digital anymore. It is much more better for me at film, from taking picture to PP in digital LR - b/w film is very tolerant. With digital you have to be very precise, but taking pictures with b/w film in RF camera is very simple.
And street candids on digital... way to much unnesesary details in them for my taste. Digital Leica is just overkill for it, IMO.

I also went for film MF for fist time two weeks ago. For family portraits. I'm still using mostly 5Dc, but film MF is very different and it is impossible to reproduce it with digital 35mm for my eye.

This is very "casual" portrait from this weekend. I was just practicing and testing my Yashica 124G after I did some initial CLA. It is kind of crap shot, but it has something special in it, something I struggle to get with digital DSLRs:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/kf095/810911246​9/

Just do it yourself! 50 bucks and a spare bathroom are all you need. I suggest you try b&W and a trial roll of color before you develop anything you actually want to keep.

kfreels wrote in post #15142674
I don't know about most of that because I've never run into whole groups of people like that but I'm sure there are some out there. But I will say that shooting film - especially with some of the older film cameras - requires a higher degree of skill than digital. You can't easily just go into post and bump up the exposure. 800 ISO is about the max you get for useful shots. You can "push" film but the result is often much less pleasant than pushing a digital camera a stop. If you think dynamic range is bad in a DSLR, try shooting Kodachrome.

And if that wasn't enough, you lose the ability to chimp as well. The shot is what it is until you get the film developed and proofed.

Still, over many years I was able to develop a knack for determining exposure without the meter. Most of the time, I could select an aperture and shutter combination based on the film I used in a natural lighting environment and get it right. Sure I was often off by +/- 1/3 stop and occasionally even a full stop. But for the most part I would get it right. Of course when it was critical I would use a meter. But it's amazing how quickly you learn exposure when it costs you the shot and $20 every time you get it wrong.

Anyone who has learned these skills over many years of trial and error is bound to develop a sense of pride. This can lead to seeing people who shoot auto-ISO, program and green box as inferior. They will likely see others who may shoot manual but only after chimping a dozen times to get the exposure right as equally inferior.

I'm sure it is easy to fall into the ego trap because it is difficult for some to realize that each person is on their own path with their own agenda and their own ideas on what is important. Some will get vocal about people who do things differently but these will likely be younger people who have self-esteem issues and their entire self-image revolves around this idea of themselves that the things that they do are the important ones (to them of course) and that they are good at them.

And I'm sure these people gravitate towards one another, stroking each others' egos as well because nothing feels better than outside confirmation that your ideas are right. That's why boards like this exist. That's why facebook grew so huge so fast. And as human beings, none of us really enjoy stepping too far outside our comfort zone. Ego stroking is a basic need. It's not just human. It extends to other primates as well. Some need it more than others and some need to be jerks to others to get that. Some get it from putting others down while others get it from lifting others up, but we all need it and obtain it in some minor way.

So I guess the point is - neither you nor I are exempt from the feelings and conditions that cause people to be like that. We just deal with it in different ways in different areas. Rather than griping about how other people on another board are "uptight", find yourself a board where you feel welcome and stay there.

rrblint wrote in post #15142549
Said goodbye to film years ago and I don't plan to go back to it, but if someone wishes to shoot film, I wish them luck...To each his(or her) own.

true, my film cameras are now curio cabinet items