Love film!

[mila_olivera]

Am I detecting sarcasm? Or just misundertanding?
Internet's the most confusing way of comunication.

No im not joking i think film is much bigger in the UK , last issue of Photo Pro had an article about Ilford and there is no way they are giving up on film, i have shot 4 rolls this week

That's great. I don't think that film is going to replace digital at all, but it is firm and gaining users.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

That's great. I don't think that film is going to replace digital at all, but it is firm and gaining users.

As people grow interest in photography and research how the equipment works, it's very easy to see how and why people get drawn to desire to shoot with film.

The digital equipment crosses in relation with film to an exact match. Although film has to be removed and processed later, the mechanics and settings for use of the equipment has not changed. We still refer to. Light sensitivity as ISO, the lenses still operate the same way, and we still have mechanical shutters.

I think film has been hindered in its demand, but I don't think it's going to disappear by any means. It will be one of those things that sticks around for those nostalgic types of people.

 

[timor]

The digital equipment crosses in relation with film to an exact match. Although film has to be removed and processed later, the mechanics and settings for use of the equipment has not changed. We still refer to. Light sensitivity as ISO, the lenses still operate the same way, and we still have mechanical shutters.

Yes Aaron. That is how most people see it. That, how is presented by industry. For both technologies, generically called "photography" the parallels ends with pressing the shutter. What happens after that is completely different and foreign to each other. The final product seemingly similar is totally different in the nature to. 150+ years of film photography created a world of own values. I like this values, I shoot film and make prints in a darkroom. I have nothing against digital, maybe only, that it converted photography into triviality.

 

[Ballistics]

Well sorry I misunderstood. And there is no full frame digital camera that will out resolve a MF or LF film camera.

Yet.

I'd say within 5 years it does.

And so what? What's the point?

Joe

What's yours?

 

[amolitor]

Just an FYI, diffraction limits mean that you have to go to a larger film/sensor plane in the not too distant future.

If you want to resolve more than 40 useful megapixels or so at, say, f/8, you're simply not going to be able to do it with a full frame sensor and standard lens technology. This doesn't mean that throwing more megapixels at the sensor isn't useful in other ways, but it's not going to give you more resolving power. Lens test heros will, of course, shoot at f/2.8 and get more, but that's not very interesting if you want (say) 100 real megapixels in a range of real shooting situations.

In reality, large format doesn't really do that much more (I forget what the effective megapixelage of, say, an 8x10 sheet film is, but I remember being astonished at how low it was).

Anyways. If you want more resolving power within a usefully wide range of apertures, at some point fairly soon you gotta go bigger.

I like film. Film is nice. I like getting my fingers wet.

 

[gsgary]

I got fed up of talking about film so me and my club mate went out to shoot some film instead of talking about it, can you name the 2 cameras he has with him from his vast collection

 

[Ysarex]

The digital equipment crosses in relation with film to an exact match. Although film has to be removed and processed later, the mechanics and settings for use of the equipment has not changed. We still refer to. Light sensitivity as ISO, the lenses still operate the same way, and we still have mechanical shutters.

Yes Aaron. That is how most people see it. That, how is presented by industry. For both technologies, generically called "photography" the parallels ends with pressing the shutter. What happens after that is completely different and foreign to each other. The final product seemingly similar is totally different in the nature to. 150+ years of film photography created a world of own values. I like this values, I shoot film and make prints in a darkroom.

I have nothing against digital,

Yes you do -- you keep saying you don't; you know -- Hamlet -- [timor] doth protest too much.

maybe only, that it converted photography into triviality.

See, there you go. You start the sentence with "I have nothing against digital," and then you say you do. And I'm going to call that claim utter rubbish and nonsense. You want trivial? Here's an image from the world of film photography. Yes indeed, portent with the promise of profound portraits.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Yet.

I'd say within 5 years it does.

And so what? What's the point?

Joe

What's yours?

I don't have one yet -- I asked you first and I don't want to jump to conclusions.

Joe

 

[timor]

Yes Joe, unlimited plenty brings always trivialization. It's a phenomenon not exclusive to photography. And if I caused jump in your blood pressure, I am sorry. Be assure, I am not talking about your photography. This is a remark regarding general perception of and attitude towards a photography after a mass deployment of digital cameras.

 

[Ysarex]

Yes Joe, unlimited plenty brings always trivialization. It's a phenomenon not exclusive to photography. And if I caused jump in your blood pressure, I am sorry. Be assure, I am not talking about your photography. This is a remark regarding general perception of and attitude towards a photography after a mass deployment of digital cameras.

No argument there; it's just the same as the mass deployment of disposable film cameras -- nothing unique about digital in that regard.

There's an under current in this and other related threads that suggests animosity between two different camps. The future of photography is obviously digital and for legitimate reasons, but that doesn't mean film has to end or that the two have to be bitter rivals. That doesn't mean one has to be bad and the other good. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes by a film photographer:

Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence. -- Paul Strand

Joe

 

[timor]

Thanks Joe. Now I think I am more on the same page as you. I don't despise digital, I shoot film 'cause I like the film experience, thing I can not find in digital as it is wholly different technology. That's all.

 

[stlbob]

As was said prior,film never left the building.It just got an office in the basement.which is just fine by me, I can get the good stuff,take care of it and pass it on.

 

[compur]

I've been attending local camera shows for many years. These shows feature mostly film equipment being sold by local collector/dealers. As the "digital revolution" emerged these shows shrank and shank in size but in the last few years they have experienced a resurgence of interest and are usually packed with people from beginning to end now.

I have an friend, a vintage camera buff from England, who went back to England recently for a visit. While there he attended a camera show near London. When he got back he told me that it was impossible to get near the tables at the show due to the crowds there. He had to wait a couple hours for the crowds to subside a bit before he could even get up to the tables to see anything.

 

[Fred Berg]

I've been attending local camera shows for many years. These shows feature mostly film equipment being sold by local collector/dealers. As the "digital revolution" emerged these shows shrank and shank in size but in the last few years they have experienced a resurgence of interest and are usually packed with people from beginning to end now.

I have an friend, a vintage camera buff from England, who went back to England recently for a visit. While there he attended a camera show near London. When he got back he told me that it was impossible to get near the tables at the show due to the crowds there. He had to wait a couple hours for the crowds to subside a bit before he could even get up to the tables to see anything.

I think it was Gary who mentioned that film is big in England (he said UK - I just checked back), and that it is in no small part due to the efforts of Ilford. I haven't run a roll of their film through a camera for, oh, twenty years or more but decided to give it a go again recently. I have a roll of FP4 DIN 22 loaded in one of my cameras at the moment and if it turns out nice, I could be persuaded. The price was a pleasant surprise at about a euro cheaper than T-Max DIN 21.

 

[Tuffythepug]

Well, I have a fresh roll of Ilford in a Bronica 645 which I just obtained recently. I have not shot black and white in many years but I still have tanks and reels so I'm going to give it a whirl again. I love the immediacy of digital but I love the way black and white is captured on film that cannot be easily duplicated with digital,.

I've found a place I can buy just about any film still in production and also provide whatever degree of processing I may need at reasonable prices. I plan to try a few different emulsions just to see what might best suit me. I did always like Ilford and of course the Kodak Tri X and Pan X.

Does anyone else ever use a DSLR to take test shots before burning a frame of film just like we used to do with polaroids to check for proper exposure and framing ? I plan on doing this at least for the first couple of rolls until I'm more comfortable using the metered prism finder of the Bronica. You have to think about these things when you are only going to get 15 exposures on a 120 roll of film. You want every shot to count.