Anyone Still Use Film?

railman44 · Jun 19, 2005

I still use my F3HP and love it! However, my recent purchase of the D70 has somewhat changed my mind regarding digital. I bought some of first point & shoot rangefinder digitals and considered them toys. Digital SLR's are not toys. Someday, not soon, they will replace film. It took me a while to get over the "each shot costs money" syndrome. I can see something interesting and shoot to my hearts delight and it doesn't cost a dime. I can delete the stinkers and in a high-rez jpg or RAW the pictures are fantastic. The Nikon F6 is the end of the line for professional film cameras for Nikon and I doubt you'll see Canon or any others bring out any new film cameras. This year some new film was announced but that will ebb as the years roll on. Megapixels are increasing and prices are coming down. Kinda like owning stock in a buggy-whip factory and Henry Ford moving in across the street. However, I still like my F3HP...

airgunr · Jun 19, 2005

Still film for 95% of my shots. The wife has a 5mp Digital P&S that takes very nice pictures. I got a good film scanner so I can digitize my slides & negatives.

My problems with digital are:

Technology keeps changing exponetialy every 6 months to a year. Thereby making your "State of the Art" camera out of date shortly after you bought it. Kind of like computers in the '80's and '90's

Reliance on batteries for everything.

Need for HUGE hard disks and memory for storage and manipulation. (of course I've got tons of shoe boxes of pictures......) Same goes for memory cards.

Some of the things I like about digital:

Instant gratification in knowing whether you got the picture or not.

The ability to change the ISO on the fly for 1 or many pictures then back. That is really cool.

Relative ease of sharing your work with others through the internet.

Ability to burn a CD and sent it out to friends and family of events, vacations, etc.

For now I'm more than happy with my 35mm film SLR's and will continue to use them. That being said, I am strictly a hobbiest. This is not a work thing for me. If I was in this as a job I am sure I would have switched over the Digital long ago just to keep up with the market place. If you are a Wedding photographer, Photo Journalist, etc. You HAVE to keep pace with the competition. Fortunately I am under no such pressures.

ksmattfish · Jun 19, 2005

I've been a pretty hardcore film geek, but I recently got a 20D. It's been a lot of fun, but I'm still shooting more film. Here's what I think about my DSLR after about 4 weeks:

:thumbup: Instant feedback is lots of fun! The histogram is a wonderful thing. You can be pretty sure if you got the shot or not. Being able to check the images in the field is very handy for weddings, and at least fun in less important situations. It also moves the experimentation process along faster.

:thumbup: More images on the card. I hate having to reload film in the middle of something important, like a wedding ceremony. I also hate rewinding film early, like at exposure 24 on a 36 exp roll, so that I can start the ceremony with a new roll. Even when I do have to change the memory card, it's a lot faster and easier than loading a roll of film.

:thumbup: I've been very impressed with image quality as far as resolution goes. I'm getting results with the 20D that are what I get with handheld 35mm film. I think that in a 35mm film vs 8mp DSLR shoot-out on tripods, film would still win by a hair. Claims that an 8mp DSLR is anywhere near medium format film are just silly in my opinion. There is a smooth, grainless look to low ISO digital images that is similar to the smooth, grainless look of medium format, but the depth of detail is just not there.

:thumbdown: I shoot mostly neg film though, so I find the dynamic range of digital lacking. I'm not a big fan of slide film for the same reason. Hopefully that's something that will be improved upon; I can probably learn to live with it for now.

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: Small, dim viewfinder sucks!! I've seen debates about whether full frame sensors are the way to go, or will increased technology allow for greater image quality on the x1.6 and smaller sensors. I need the full size sensor just so I can get the bigger viewfinder image.

:thumbup: I love getting more control in the color processing. I have my own BW darkroom, but I have to rely on the labs for color film. They are still part of the equation for prints, but I feel like I have more say.

Overall I think I'm going to like this camera a lot for wedding and commercial photography. It's still too big to be my carry around camera, and I still love BW film for most of my personal work. I could probably give up color film though...

Mumfandc · Jun 19, 2005

I looked at an exhibition catalog of some photographs by Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin. They are pictures of Communication Design students at ECAL in France.

They are highly detailed images, but I can't figure out if they were maybe shot with a digital camera, or if they are probably digital film scans...maybe large format. Is there a way to determine this through observation of the grain/noise?

Here's an archive of the images online (You might have to expand the images): http://www.mmparis.com/1976/

Hellashot · Jun 25, 2005

I just bought an EOS-3 so I can learn film and help improve my skills. To get the same controls on a digital camera I'd have paid $4000+. I have a Drebel too.

Scurra · Jun 26, 2005

I use a little of both. I have my 20D and a Sony P&S camera for the digital side of things, and a kodak range finder, an Olympus OM-1 and a Canon 3000v for the film side of things. It has to be said i've been shooting less film recently because I can't afford the developing fees.

Kodan_Txips · Jun 26, 2005

I bought a Dimage Z1 8 months ago as a birthday treat for me. I was pleased with the gimmickery it has, but displeased that it was superseded almost immediately. In January I bought a Caplio P&S digital, to carry with me always.

But then I was aimlessly skimming thru ebay, and saw how the cameras I always dreamed of having during the late 60s were available for as little as 40 dollars, and the floodgates opened, and my credit card sank beyond rescue.

I now have 2 minolta SLRs, 2 nikons, far too d@mned many lenses, 4 flashguns, 2 tripods, a Weston meter (I always longed for one of these), an enlarger plus bits, 3 or 4 carry bags, and so on and so forth. I need some help here guys, call a counsellor!

For me, digital will never compare to the nostalgia and joy I get out of owning and using really top class film gear.

sbalsama · Jun 26, 2005

I do not want a digital either, although I was almost going to go for the Olympus C-7070 - it was value that couldn't be beat.

Instead I just purchased myself a Mamiya C330s, my first jump into medium format. Digital just cannot live up to what film is. They are both technological means of photography but they can never be adequately compared, at least in this century. For now, I will continue to use film; I'm young so the chemical fumes don't get to me as quickly

ThatCameraThingy · Jun 26, 2005

Yep , Canon EOS 30with grip and Eos 1n.

Preffered id Fuji 200iso superia for the general stuff and Fuji 100 Velvia for the smart things.

That said, I would switch to Canon EOS 20D in a heartbeat if I could afford it.
had the privalege to play with Cillie's 20D. and I think it's an awesome camera.

Hanno

justforfun52 · Jul 4, 2005

Seems like many here like the cost benefits of digital, but I'm not sure that the cost/quality is there for digital. I bought a Nikon N80 last year and the body was ~470 CDN$. Now I suppose the closest digi version would be the D70 and that body costs ~1050 CDN$. That's a difference of almost $600. And if you go the other way to the D100, it costs ~1370 CDN$!
Now there is the film cost, but you can get film pretty damn cheap if you buy bulk and look around. And in terms of processing, if I want digital prints I still have to get a shop to print them. What about selecting prints? Well for film, if I want to save money, i can ask to just have the negatives developed and a print sheet of the roll, and just choose from that sheet.
Also printing at home is no cheap task when going digital. A decent printer will cost ~150-200 CDN$ and ink cartridges life when printing pictures is a joke. For my very middle road bubblejet canon i860 each colour (5 total) costs 13.50 CDN$ for the staples generic and 18 CDN$ for the canon brand. A review at PCWORLD.com gives the cost per print and it's less than stellar. Then you have to buy paper and if you want editing features you need software, which can cost money, although I suppose you could just "borrow" a copy from a bittorrent site which would save you some money although ethically it's a little dicey. Lastly, memory cards. Their prices can get steep for anything larger than 256mb and depending on type/brand. The cost associated with these are low when you look at it on a per shot basis, so they are not really an issue, but still are part of the intial startup cost, pushing entry into digital that much higher. Also don't forget how fast digi's eat up batteries and spit 'em out!

Being an amatuer, having a film camera has made me a little choosier when taking shots because I don't want to waste shots. This forces a better development of photography skills. All my friends have digi's and they pop off so rediculous amounts of "pics." There's no way they put much thought into each shot, because if it's ass, it doesn't matter, just hit the delete button and shoot some more.

I guess the point is that I do not believe that there really are any cost benefits to going digital. Furthermore, it's not like you're paying more for better quality; you get the same or worse for a much larger investment and processing costs that are marginally less per print.

BTW i use a nikkor 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5D lens.

Feel free to correct me where you think I'm wrong.

fadingaway1986 · Jul 4, 2005

Okkk... Here goes
I have both a Canon 300D and a Canon 3000N.

I have had my 300D for almost 2 months now. In that 2 Months I have taken almost 600 photos.

If I were to take that many photos on a 24exp film, that would be 25 rolls.
Here in Australia where I work, a 24exp film is $8.77 - that equates to $219.25.
Then if you worked in film. I always bought my film in a 3 pack - so 25 rolls divided by 3 = 8.33. Now a pack of 3 costs $12.94. This equals $107.83.
So therefore in the last 2 months, the amount of photos I have taken on digital, if taken on film they would have cost me $327.08.

Meanwhile, at work digital prints cost 29cents. 600 x .29 = $174.
Then you have to factor in that I haven't printed all of these. I think I have printed approximately 70. So - 70 x .29= $20.30.

Now, you said software - Photoshop Elements came with my camera. Otherwise I have a downloaded version of both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop. If you didn't have this - the Kodak Photo Tellers have minor photo editing features such as red eye, zoom and crop, B&W/Sepia, add borders, etc. Currently our machines don't have contrast or brightning features, however we are getting new machines, and they apparently do have them.

So. In the last 2 months, if I were using film, it would have cost me: $327.08
In the last 2 months, if I had printed all the photos I took on digital, it would have cost me: $174
In the last 2 months, I printed approx 70 digital, and it cost me: $20.30

Also note, you said to get developing and and index print and choose the photos you want. Developing = $2, Index = $2. Thats $4. 25 films = $100. Then you still have to pay for the film.

I think Digital is DEFINATELY cheaper. Sure the equipment is more expensive. But within a year, I think I would have paid that off in savings.

DocFrankenstein · Jul 4, 2005

fadingaway1986 said:
I think Digital is DEFINATELY cheaper. Sure the equipment is more expensive. But within a year, I think I would have paid that off in savings.

1) You wouldn't have shot as much film

2) It doesn't have to be as expensive as you make it. IE I shoot BW film for 2 bucks per 36 exposures. Chemicals are free in the camera club, so it's 2.50 for a roll of film. Canadian bucks BTW.

3) MF lenses are 10 times cheaper. With digital, by the time you add in lenses, cards, batteries... it gets really expensive. My 300D and lenses cost me 3 grand. That's 1200 rolls of film, counting the camera purchase in. 1200*36=43200 exposures

That's somewhere around the number of exposures ansel adams did in his entire photo career. :wink:

fadingaway1986 · Jul 5, 2005

1) Probably not. But I do love being able to shoot lots and not have to worry about the cost. I take photographs to document parts of my life. If I didn't have digitial - I wouldn't have as many "documentations".

2) I am not part of a camera club, and do not have the knowledge to do the developing myself. The film alone cost me more than the digital did. So whats the point of me using film then?

3) I don't use MF. My complete kit was $1557. This included the camera, a Battery Grip, Lense (although cheap, but the same I was using on my film camera), and a 256MB Card. They also gave me a card for free prints of different sizes. Plus I also got an extended warranty.

jstuedle · Jul 5, 2005

I have shot digital for over 3 years with a D1X. And before that with a few point and shoots for a couple of years. In my opinion, with my D1X I get equal quality and size prints to my old favorite Ektar 25, but at up to 200 ISO. 30X40 prints are no problem. Latitude is not as great, but care taken to nail focus and exposure will pay off every time. The cost benefit in favor of digital is I am afraid a myth in my opinion. To do digital correctly, after the camera, come higher quality glass, as digital will show any imperfection the lens may have. Don't forget monitor calibration, and paper/ink/scanner calibration for good measure. Upgrade the computer, again and again. More ram, faster DVD burner with dual layer. External hard drive storage to keep the images online, maybe RAID backup. Forever increasing hard drive storage capacity. Bigger, better, brighter monitors. Maybe a dual or tri-monitor setup. Now its time to upgrade the camera, more mega-pixels. Then the cycle start all over again. It never ends, but would I go back? Hell no. Love the medium, control, access, and output. Do I still shoot film? Occasionally. I will shoot a little B&W just to keep the D-76 level up in my bloodstream. I still keep all my old film bodies, just to bring back a few memories. But digital has re-invigorated my love of photography and I for one am glad it did.

DocFrankenstein · Jul 5, 2005

jstuedle said:
I have shot digital for over 3 years with a D1X. And before that with a few point and shoots for a couple of years. In my opinion, with my D1X I get equal quality and size prints to my old favorite Ektar 25, but at up to 200 ISO. 30X40 prints are no problem. Latitude is not as great, but care taken to nail focus and exposure will pay off every time. The cost benefit in favor of digital is I am afraid a myth in my opinion. To do digital correctly, after the camera, come higher quality glass, as digital will show any imperfection the lens may have. Don't forget monitor calibration, and paper/ink/scanner calibration for good measure. Upgrade the computer, again and again. More ram, faster DVD burner with dual layer. External hard drive storage to keep the images online, maybe RAID backup. Forever increasing hard drive storage capacity. Bigger, better, brighter monitors. Maybe a dual or tri-monitor setup. Now its time to upgrade the camera, more mega-pixels. Then the cycle start all over again. It never ends, but would I go back? Hell no. Love the medium, control, access, and output. Do I still shoot film? Occasionally. I will shoot a little B&W just to keep the D-76 level up in my bloodstream. I still keep all my old film bodies, just to bring back a few memories. But digital has re-invigorated my love of photography and I for one am glad it did.

:hail: