The Argument of EOS Film over Digital

You have to process it first.... or have it processed. It's easy. You should be able to tell the lab how long to process it. As I mentioned to Airfrogusmc, I typically overexpose each shot by 1/2-1 stop and develop it for 45 seconds - 1 min less than the recommended processing time.... Most labs will do that if you ask them to. I think they call it "pulling" (or "pushing".. someone correct me. lol).

Or you could expose correctly? Anyone pushing or pulling film is the anti Christ to my lecturer

Film is good when all the developing costs are free, you have a room of Nikon 9000ED scanners open to you 24/7, dry to dry prints take 2 minutes and you only need to buy the paper and you pay £25 for 20 rolls of HP5. University for the win!

Guys read my earlier post or read some of the books on the zone system. In film RARELY is your shutter & apperture giving you true ASA/ISOs. The only way to REALLY know what the proper ASA/ISO is to test. Once you have that established you then need to find out what your normal development time is. Then you can test to find out N+1, N+2, N-1, N-2 etc is.

HHMMM I had a fairly long post about the zone system and it seems to have vanished. Maybe its in another thread. Found it #133

skid00skid00 wrote in post #6943822
You certainly came across as being personal... Semper fidelis means 'always faithful'. Do you actually think you are more faithful than I am? Whatever.
In the meantime, post a couple of your B/W's. Prove you're one of the few... Seriously.

I was strictly talking about topic. You're the one that brought up the jarhead reference.
"Me thinks Jar impacted Head one to many times!"

Show me where I took any of this thread personal.

Let's keep this thread friendly, shall we?

Discussion is good, dissing isn't

madhatter04 wrote in post #6944294
You have to process it first.... or have it processed. It's easy. You should be able to tell the lab how long to process it. As I mentioned to Airfrogusmc, I typically overexpose each shot by 1/2-1 stop and develop it for 45 seconds - 1 min less than the recommended processing time.... Most labs will do that if you ask them to. I think they call it "pulling" (or "pushing".. someone correct me. lol).

About the only time that I had to ask the photo lab to push or pull process a roll of film was when I neglected to make sure that I had the ASA set correctly and then discovered my error about midway through the roll -- at that point it is too late to change to the correct ASA. I would just tell them what ASA to process the film.

BTW, when pushing film, it is being treated as a more sensitive film in both exposure and then in developing times. The opposite is true for pulling film. It is because of the extremely wide range of luminance sensitivity for film that this type of processing works.

Yeah what happens when you push film you are underexposing and over developing. The shadow detail and mid tones are sacrificed and the film becomes more contrasty. The opposite is true when you pull film. The shadows come up a stop and the highlights come down because of less development time making the film have less contrast.

Schnauzer wrote in post #6938766
When I got my 20D, my fist digital camera, I soon gave away all my darkroom stuff. I thought I'd never go back to film. My 40D will be replaced with the 5DMII when it gets here next week. Still I can't stay away from film. I really enjoy my EOS3 and find that I'm taking better pictures with it than I ever got on film before because of the thousands of digital shots that I've taken and been able to analyze immediately.

That said, when I shoot a horse show (for money) I take digital. I hope film lasts forever because I really enjoy it. But when it gets serious or for money, I grab the digital.

If I had my wish I would have all the latest digital stuff in my EOS3 body with its battery grip.

Exactly the same for me...Entering Digital photography via a 20D allowed me to analaze where I went wrong in real time and as a consequence I improved 1000% in a matter of weeks! Then when I returned to film with the 6x17cm panorama camera I was vastly improved technically.

sjones wrote in post #6940574
Yeah, I realize that it developed into its own separate argument, but in the early course of the thread, if I recall, the high fps rate was basically discussed as a benefit of modern digital SLRs.

The buffer is, however, as stated, at least one film body has more FPS. But, digital has more higher frame rate bodies, whatever constitutes high speed though.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #6946010
The buffer is, however, as stated, at least one film body has more FPS. But, digital has more higher frame rate bodies, whatever constitutes high speed though.

Yeah, and at some point in the near future, digital is going to be 30 fps at 300 consecutive RAW files, if not more. I was just pointing out that shooting film does not have to involve 3 fps or less. Frankly, I do not use burst shots, even when I was using the 350D, so it is not a lost feature for me.

Again, it is a personal decision based on personal needs or preference, and of course, as stated before, using one format does not preclude use of another.