the 90's-- howd that crazy era work.

[mysteryscribe]

As usual some of the others cut to the core... So trust me this is from a personal point of view. I no longer shoot for money. If I did, I would be shooting a medium quality digital slr. In my opinion when you shoot for money, you produce sufficient quality to get paid. So in that I am in agreement with Hertz and I have never said any different. Most of the customers I had wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a six mega and a 15 mega. They just wouldn't buy any image so big that I couldn't turn the camera to blowup without huge crops.

But alas I don't shoot for money, I shoot for fun. Now it is the whole process that I enjoy. It's building the camera (can't build degital cameras at least not yet), it's loading the film holder, (shoving a card in the slot isnt as satisfying), It's fussing over the exposure because getting it right the first time is essential (since I only carry two exposures) after the shot it's developing the film. Then it does become a digital picture so I have no problem with digital as such. I just try to remember what digital is and what it isn't. (I work with photo editiors doing just what I did in a darkroom nothing more)

I lament what is GOING to happen to film, but I won't personally be here to see it, so I guess I shouldn't bother commenting....But then like everyone here I love to shoot and I love to hear the sound of my own typing, even though I don't say anything earth shattering.

Nice to see you hertz dont see enough of you

 

[JamesD]

Bah.

From this point forward, I'm keeping my opinions, my facts, and my lies to myself. It's just too easy to give the wrong impression.

:banghead:

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Bah.

From this point forward, I'm keeping my opinions, my facts, and my lies to myself. It's just too easy to give the wrong impression.

But you gave the right impression - and I was agreeing with you, only phrasing it differently. (To be honest I didn't read your post properly first time around - I was looking at the previous ones and being lazy) Although having me agree with you is not necessarily a good thing

 

[Torus34]

A personal note to all on this thread;

Please don't become disgruntled. Please.

You are all my photographic friends. All of you. And sometimes more than simply photographic. I have learned much by reading your posts. I have learned, with time, to 'read' your personalities and to adjust and relate to them.

It has come at a price: when any of you feel hurt, I hurt with you. I think it's called empathy. In one of the Scandinavian languoages, the phrase is 'Oof da.'

 

[Luke]

hehe, im not disgruntled, like most here, i think digital is cool but i have my reasons for shooting film. I've come to my descision, i want grainless prints, ill shoot pan f, digital, or MF. Easy.
I think HVR is def right, but to be honest, i didnt really see this turning into a digi verse film debate. Yeah, when i can buy a mf digi back i will, then again, when i can buy a leica i will, and when i can buy a EOS-1 mk11 i will. So for now im going to crank up the delta to 1600 and have some fun.
And yeah, i will be angry when flim gets the heave ho, hopefully ilford will keep supporting diehards though .
peace out

 

[mysteryscribe]

I'm gonna shoot it as long as they make and hopefully It'll still be around when I'm gone.

If I should accidentally outlast film, I will be looking for a way to retro fit a good lens on a cheap digital camera.

 

[PNA]

I've got $.02......!!!

I read all the above threads and have determined that y’al are right!

However, the bottom line as I see it is this……all of us enjoy shooting regardless of the format, film or digital, that’s why we’re here. The method we use to the final print differs greatly but the end results are close enough to be the same. There’s only two people who count regarding the final print, you and the customer (assuming the prints are being sold). One of you stated that the customer realistically couldn’t see what the grain/noise levels are and wasn’t really concerned with it, just the way the picture looked! And you’re right. I was in the printing business for several years and to a customer, none of them knew that a finished color print from a 4 color press was made up of thousand, nay millions of DPIs. And that each dot was different and that composed color dots made the picture, they were amazed when they examined the print with a 10X glass. The technology of the industry has changed with the intro of digital.

I do agree that the digital world has over taken film and for many reasons, but that doesn’t make it better (or worse) than what film still has to offer.

 

[santino]

I personally like grain, my latest 30x30 cm print was shot with the Pentacon Six (6x6) with Biometar 80mm lens on Lucky 400 film, underexposed at 1000 ISO and developed in Ilford Multigrade RC developer for 5 mins. it's my fav. way to get much grain (thought I don't use it with 35mm film because it gets useless unless you really want a "graphical" effect).

 

[JoeVanCleave]

....As such i was wondering, how did people shoot front covers for magazines etc predigital...

Back in 'the day', most (color) magazine covers were shot using transparency film, not C-41 or B/W.

And it was much slower than EI400 film. Usually less than EI100.

And it was usually medium format 6x6 or 6x7 (Hasselblad or Mamiya were common), not 35mm. Which is one reason why medium format systems are now being dumped so cheaply: professionals have refreshed their equipment inventory with electronic imaging systems. For high-dollar fashion magazines and the like, 4"x5" transparency film was not uncommon.

And they used lots of bright lights, which is why all those high-powered flash and continuous lighting systems were maturely developed technologies years prior to electronic imaging: you needed the light because of the slow, high resolution film.

And most color films strictly speaking don't have "grain" in the same way that silver gelatin B/W films do; instead, they have 'dye globules', which make them appear to be less "grainy", for the same ISO, as compared to silver gelatin B/W film. Which, by the way, is one reason why the newer B/W C-41 films look so good.

 

[JDP]

Oi. Anyone else feeling old? I turn thi...

I turn thir......

I enter my 3rd decade towards the end of this month, and I remember my HS photography class in 92 with Pentax K1000s.

I need a drink now.

 

[mysteryscribe]

The best looking film I ever shot bar none was the kodachrome 25 slide film. In 120 that stuff was flawless....

Agfa made some c41 stuff I have 35mm 25x30 grainless prints on my stuido wall made with their 25 speed.... also the origninal kodak c41 25 speed later called royal gold.... I only shot it in 35 but I bet it would hae been great in 120 except it scratched so easily.

 

[JamesD]

Oi. Anyone else feeling old? I turn thi...

I turn thir......

I enter my 3rd decade towards the end of this month, and I remember my HS photography class in 92 with Pentax K1000s.

I need a drink now.

Are you sure it's not your fourth decade? :twisted:

I'm in my third decade now... it sucks. Used to always want to grow up, now I'd love to be a teenager again...

 

[mysteryscribe]

but with money and a cool car...

 

[Don Simon]

Here's Tri-X 400 shot at 1000iso, developed in Diafine, scanned in 24bit color (gives it that sepia sorta look) and then NoiseNinja applied (Yashica Electro 35 GS @ f1.7, AP):

Sorry for getting off-topic, but... ooh. That's nice. Have you sharpened that with the software, or is the image really that sharp with the lens wide open? If the latter, I'm suddenly feeling the need to add an Electro to my collection.

Anywho...
The film vs digital thing just goes round and round, in fact I'm pretty sure Dante wrote about a circle of hell in which one is forced to endlessly debate the merits of full-frame DSLR RAW files versus drum-scanned 6x6 negatives. Ultimately, you just need to use what you feel is the best tool for getting the image you want. I mean, as long as you're not using a pinhole, right? (Having lit the touchpaper, I will now retire to a safe distance and wait for Mysteryscribe to explode )

 

[JamesD]

Ultimately, you just need to use what you feel is the best tool for getting the image you want. I mean, as long as you're not using a pinhole, right?

-counts to ten, counts to twenty... counts to.... six and a half...-

BLASPHEMY!!

You'll pry my pinholes out of my cerealbox cameras, which you'll have to pry out of my hands, when I'm cold, dead, and have given up on haunting!

-grumbles about these upstart photographers and their "glass lenses"-