MG30D wrote in post #11033987
^ True, I'm not dissing shooting film....just the notion that photogs are dropping digital for film. It's not some big movement, people always were using film...we're just noticing it more.
But your probably using a good scanner for B&Ws, right?
The nikon coolscan cost more then a 5D...& it's what most serious MF shooters use. That's what my point was...it's not a cheaper option really, just a different option. Flatbed scanners are not very sharp. My Slides are sharp, but on my flatbed scanner they're not as sharp as my dSLR pics at full size. For web viewing they're fine. So I would never consider my film as replacement to a 5D, without serious investment in scanning...before given images to a client.
There are guys to this day that shot film for weddings. But, they often do so because they like the look of film & don't like how the wedding photo industry has become about shooting 1000s of photos. They rather give their clients a handful of MF shots & some 35mm shots + Prints....but it is not about cost...the cost is pretty similar in the end. They just attract a niche of the market, that enjoys the look of film better.
Film is mostly only "cheaper" if not shot professionally.
Actually, using the Nikon Coolscan V ED, which was US$500 at the time of purchase. This is important, because I wanted a rangefinder. When I switched from digital to film, a full frame rangefinder wasn't even available, and while Leica now has the M9, it is more than US$7,000. Let's say in theory that the M9 would save me money in the longterm (it would take lots of rolls of film for that), it wouldn't matter, as I don't have the money up front for an M9.
Keep in mind, I'm an amateur, and as you noted, expenses for professionals are a whole different issue.
My point, just to reiterate, is that while wet print might look better than inkjet (whether the camera is film or digital), my experience was based on my comparison between the hundreds of digital monochrome conversions that I did and scanned negatives, whereby the negatives, even if somewhat crippled, still won out in terms of tonal depth and grain. Apparently, there are some folks who believe that a scanned negatives renders like a photograph taken from digital camera; they are mistaken.
Anyway, my original intent was to use my 350D in tandem with the rangefinder (using the 350D for the majority of shots for cost reasons), but once I saw the scanned output, the 350D was permanently retired (other reasons contributed to this as well). Also, I can exploit the advantages of Photoshop to manipulate the image (curves alone does wonders).
Plus, the intangibles; I just enjoyed the process of shooting with a film camera more, and I as I do street photography, I prefer not to use an SLR form factor.
Undoubtedly, film will remain a niche, but like vinyl records, it will experience its intermittent bumps in popularity, and as long as a market exists for Tri-X or a similar variant, that's what matters to me.
And perhaps one day, I might drag a few negatives into a darkroom.
NeutronBoy wrote in post #11033995
People are shooting film, scanning the negatives into digital files and using PS for PP to print digitally. I don't get it ... a friend and I heard a woman describe this exact process she follows. Just buy the digital camera already!
Now, explain to me why I should get a digital camera already?