My new Nikon...

[gsgary]

nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top. so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..

The haze is actually SOOC, created from a cheap UV filter that was angled directly into the light.

Here's another shot but I didn't get the right angle so it covered most of the photo.
View attachment 100608

Kodak portra ?

 

[bribrius]

nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top. so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..

The haze is actually SOOC, created from a cheap UV filter that was angled directly into the light.

Here's another shot but I didn't get the right angle so it covered most of the photo.
View attachment 100608

Kodak portra ?

i was wondering that too. But it doesn't quite have the richness of porta and the contrast, if i explained that right.

 

[480sparky]

What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............

I was just waiting for someone to play the MF card. Ain't many of us here that can afford to shoot digital that compares with MF.

And the next level is LF. How many can take a DSLR shot that compares to a 4x5 image? And 4x5 isn't the end of the road.... cameras exist all the way up to 20x24. Ain't no way a DSLR is gonna take even n 8x10 on.

And LF has other benefits as part n parcel. Movements for one. Rise/fall, shift, tilt, swing. Yeah, you can get a P/C lens for a DSLR, but it won't come close to a view camera with full control.

Far more control over DOF than just using the aperture is another key feature to LF.

 

[Microbois]

So some people reason that it makes more sense to shoot the actual film to get the look rather than use a digital camera and Lightroom presets to only roughly emulate a certain film. Yes, that might seem snobbish, but it's not any more snobbish than someone saying "film is clearly dying out and digital is clearly superior." Technically, yes it is in many ways, but aesthetically...well...

Sure, if one wants the look of film, there's nothing else that will give that exact look aside from the real thing... film. But on the other hand, I'm wondering if this film look that is so sought after today in the digital age has more to do with the fact that for the last century, it's pretty much all we have seen, and all our memories are made from this material. Not so surprisingly, my father filmed me with a Super 8 camera when I was a newbord all the way up to maybe 8 years old, and lo and behold, my memories of when I was too young to remember are just made out of those images my father shot back then.

Just as another example to support my theory, all the night scenes in movies are shot with blue lights. It's obvious to all, if you've been out at night during a full moon, the look created in movies has absolutely nothing to do with what you'll experience in real life. But still, the public came to accept it "as is" in movies, and that's how night scenes are shot, and it works, period.

Another example. When my son was younger, he watched the Batman and Spiderman cartoons. The kids channel had shows from both the 70's (hand drafted), and the new ones generated by cartoon software. Needless to say, my son couldn't stand the old ones, and didn't want to watch them at all. He called the old one the "small" Batman, and the new one the "big" Batman. So, as he grows older, his memories of cartoons from his childhood will be exclusively digital versions of Batman. By the time he turns 30, maybe there will be another technology that will change the look of cartoons significantly once again, and I'm wondering if his kids will perceive today's digital version of Batman like some old stuff not worth watching.

Anyway, this is what I'm seriously wondering. How much of the fact that film is still around and sought after today has to do with plain nostalgia, or a desire to preserve a look we are so much used to that it's deeply hardwired in our brain, or if it's the aesthetics of film that is so much more pleasing over digital, even when properly filtered and treated to ressemble film.

I'm into video as well, and I remember that before we could put our hands on full frame DSLR with video capabilities, anyone who wanted that "film look" had to invest into a 35mm adapter, just to get that shallow depth of field digital video cameras with small sensors couldn't acheive. While a shallow depth of field is very important in story telling so you can purposely direct the eye of the viewer, I think the film look easthetic is not as crucial.

I'm also wondering just how much the poor reputation of digital at the beginning plays a role today for someone who decides to still shoot film despite the additional burden. Up until recently, digital photography was plagued with some serious problems such as ugly noise in low-lights, blown out highlights, poor dynamic range, aliasing, color fringing, compression artefacts, lossy file formats, and also that plastic look, just to name a few. But there's been a lot of improvement in those areas, and with the advent of FF cameras with newer sensors, most of those problems are a thing of the past, and in some areas, digital is performing much better that film.

Seriously, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of annoying the great people we find here, but it's just that I have a hard time understanding some justifications. Some said they like film because it forces them to take their time and work seriously, but nothing holds them from being just as careful with digital. Others mentioned film is more "organic" but no one can define that word properly. Sure, I understand the meaning, but just how much more "organic" film can be when you have a hard time making the difference between 2 identical photos, one shot on film and the other one on digital? Sure, couple years ago you could tell them apart easily, but today, unless it's under very specific conditions where digital performs poorly, it's far from easy, and certainly not within the reach of the general public. Others prefer film because digital is "too easy", and their pictures are worth more to them because they worked so hard to make them. It's just that I find those justifications a little bit silly, and once challenged for some more details, I'd like to have better answers than "to each his own", "that's my personal choice", or being accused of looking for an argument. I'm not, and I'm just trying to understand even though there are still plenty of very good reasons to choose film over digital today. I never heard those ones :

• If you are to shoot in extreme conditions that may affect your digital camera, better off using a film camera which has much less electronic inside prone to failure
  
• If you are on a microscopic budget, but still want lots of different lenses and accessories, there are tons of film cameras and gear that sell for next to nothing
• Your style calls for retaining as much details as possible in highlights
• You already owe some film equipment, or it was handed over to you by a loved one (syaudi's great story about connecting with his father)
• You just like film plain and simple

If someone wants to chime in, I'd love to read what you are thinking.

 

[Microbois]

What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............

I was just waiting for someone to play the MF card. Ain't many of us here that can afford to shoot digital that compares with MF.

And the next level is LF. How many can take a DSLR shot that compares to a 4x5 image? And 4x5 isn't the end of the road.... cameras exist all the way up to 20x24. Ain't no way a DSLR is gonna take even n 8x10 on.

And LF has other benefits as part n parcel. Movements for one. Rise/fall, shift, tilt, swing. Yeah, you can get a P/C lens for a DSLR, but it won't come close to a view camera with full control.

Far more control over DOF than just using the aperture is another key feature to LF.

I totally agree with you on this one!

 

[Vtec44]

nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top. so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..

The haze is actually SOOC, created from a cheap UV filter that was angled directly into the light.

Here's another shot but I didn't get the right angle so it covered most of the photo.
View attachment 100608

Kodak portra ?

i was wondering that too. But it doesn't quite have the richness of porta and the contrast, if i explained that right.

It's digital.

I have about 5 rolls that need to be developed but I haven't sent them in yet. lol I got the digital thing down pretty well but I still love shooting film. It's a challenge especially for weddings.

 

[bribrius]

So some people reason that it makes more sense to shoot the actual film to get the look rather than use a digital camera and Lightroom presets to only roughly emulate a certain film. Yes, that might seem snobbish, but it's not any more snobbish than someone saying "film is clearly dying out and digital is clearly superior." Technically, yes it is in many ways, but aesthetically...well...

Sure, if one wants the look of film, there's nothing else that will give that exact look aside from the real thing... film. But on the other hand, I'm wondering if this film look that is so sought after today in the digital age has more to do with the fact that for the last century, it's pretty much all we have seen, and all our memories are made from this material. Not so surprisingly, my father filmed me with a Super 8 camera when I was a newbord all the way up to maybe 8 years old, and lo and behold, my memories of when I was too young to remember are just made out of those images my father shot back then.

Just as another example to support my theory, all the night scenes in movies are shot with blue lights. It's obvious to all, if you've been out at night during a full moon, the look created in movies has absolutely nothing to do with what you'll experience in real life. But still, the public came to accept it "as is" in movies, and that's how night scenes are shot, and it works, period.

Another example. When my son was younger, he watched the Batman and Spiderman cartoons. The kids channel had shows from both the 70's (hand drafted), and the new ones generated by cartoon software. Needless to say, my son couldn't stand the old ones, and didn't want to watch them at all. He called the old one the "small" Batman, and the new one the "big" Batman. So, as he grows older, his memories of cartoons from his childhood will be exclusively digital versions of Batman. By the time he turns 30, maybe there will be another technology that will change the look of cartoons significantly once again, and I'm wondering if his kids will perceive today's digital version of Batman like some old stuff not worth watching.

Anyway, this is what I'm seriously wondering. How much of the fact that film is still around and sought after today has to do with plain nostalgia, or a desire to preserve a look we are so much used to that it's deeply hardwired in our brain, or if it's the aesthetics of film that is so much more pleasing over digital, even when properly filtered and treated to ressemble film.

I'm into video as well, and I remember that before we could put our hands on full frame DSLR with video capabilities, anyone who wanted that "film look" had to invest into a 35mm adapter, just to get that shallow depth of field digital video cameras with small sensors couldn't acheive. While a shallow depth of field is very important in story telling so you can purposely direct the eye of the viewer, I think the film look easthetic is not as crucial.

I'm also wondering just how much the poor reputation of digital at the beginning plays a role today for someone who decides to still shoot film despite the additional burden. Up until recently, digital photography was plagued with some serious problems such as ugly noise in low-lights, blown out highlights, poor dynamic range, aliasing, color fringing, compression artefacts, lossy file formats, and also that plastic look, just to name a few. But there's been a lot of improvement in those areas, and with the advent of FF cameras with newer sensors, most of those problems are a thing of the past, and in some areas, digital is performing much better that film.

Seriously, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of annoying the great people we find here, but it's just that I have a hard time understanding some justifications. Some said they like film because it forces them to take their time and work seriously, but nothing holds them from being just as careful with digital. Others mentioned film is more "organic" but no one can define that word properly. Sure, I understand the meaning, but just how much more "organic" film can be when you have a hard time making the difference between 2 identical photos, one shot on film and the other one on digital? Sure, couple years ago you could tell them apart easily, but today, unless it's under very specific conditions where digital performs poorly, it's far from easy, and certainly not within the reach of the general public. Others prefer film because digital is "too easy", and their pictures are worth more to them because they worked so hard to make them. It's just that I find those justifications a little bit silly, and once challenged for some more details, I'd like to have better answers than "to each his own", "that's my personal choice", or being accused of looking for an argument. I'm not, and I'm just trying to understand even though there are still plenty of very good reasons to choose film over digital today. I never heard those ones :

• If you are to shoot in extreme conditions that may affect your digital camera, better off using a film camera which has much less electronic inside prone to failure
  
• If you are on a microscopic budget, but still want lots of different lenses and accessories, there are tons of film cameras and gear that sell for next to nothing
• Your style calls for retaining as much details as possible in highlights
• You already owe some film equipment, or it was handed over to you by a loved one (syaudi's great story about connecting with his father)
• You just like film plain and simple

If someone wants to chime in, I'd love to read what you are thinking.

you look at photographs different. You see whatever is newest, as best. crisper, sharper, maybe color. You just look at that way. I don't. I look at photographs from time periods. The look of photographs from time periods. I appreciate each look for its different qualities. Some try to mimic that look with post processing. I try to mimic that look by choosing the right camera and lens to shoot with from the start. I don't look at a photo taken today, as being better than one taken in the seventies. I look at them as different qualities. Thirties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties to current.
I see the transition of photography and appreciate the look fo each transition as the gear changed. You don't differentiate any of it. You just see NOW. I try to mimic a look of seventies, throw on a old lens. I get pretty ecstatic if i can pull it off. I like the look , for its individual appeal. As i appreciate all the looks. Even a point and shoot photo from the late eighties. Certain look. You don't know the difference, you don't see the difference. or you just don't care about the difference. I posted a film bw on here couple weeks ago. Someone commented if it weren't for the electric wires they would swear it was straight out of the 30's or something. EXACTLY. That is the point. But you can't comprehend this, just like you couldnt comprehend why many movies are still fought to be shot in film over digital. I think you are missing the boat quiet honestly. I watch movies the same way, the advent of technicolor for example. i look at the industry, the changes, various look. Styles of how a movies is shot. You just don't get it. If all you are looking for is the best, easiest, highest iq photo, then sure. I guess you are on the right track.
But that isn't the track some of are on. Little more too it than that. Quite honestly, i find your outlook pretty shallow. Without a appreciation for photography or any of its history. But rather just in the latest and greatest highest iq product. I don't think me and you, would have much in common to discuss on this matter.

Your kid, totally unrelated. If he studies cartoons and becomes a cartoon buff when he is older he might be seeking out those older toons. From his perspective now doesn't know the difference. Any more than mine do. Some seem to have better graphics, some are color, we like those better. It is a kids mindset, not the mindset of someone really into the study or appreciation of a art. My children aren't a fan of black and white movies, nor do i expect them to be. They watch for entertainment value, not because they study the movies industry and film making.

Here you go, she is a childrens book illustrator. Not very old is she? The background is the last book she did. It is a promo along with the books writer. Not sure if she uses digital imaging or not, but the entire time i was there she was doing this, which i think is preparation for the next project she is doing.

looks like she might see things differently than you too...????

 

[bribrius]

What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............

I was just waiting for someone to play the MF card. Ain't many of us here that can afford to shoot digital that compares with MF.

And the next level is LF. How many can take a DSLR shot that compares to a 4x5 image? And 4x5 isn't the end of the road.... cameras exist all the way up to 20x24. Ain't no way a DSLR is gonna take even n 8x10 on.

And LF has other benefits as part n parcel. Movements for one. Rise/fall, shift, tilt, swing. Yeah, you can get a P/C lens for a DSLR, but it won't come close to a view camera with full control.

Far more control over DOF than just using the aperture is another key feature to LF.

i was just looking at them the other night, prices. wondering if i can do it or what. I couldnt even tell what might come with a tripod. NO knowledge of different bellows. No idea on how to get it developed. so beyond the pricing, i was somewhat hesitant to pull the trigger anyway. I would love to try my hand at large format. But know about zilch on pulling it off.

 

[gsgary]

What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............

I was just waiting for someone to play the MF card. Ain't many of us here that can afford to shoot digital that compares with MF.

And the next level is LF. How many can take a DSLR shot that compares to a 4x5 image? And 4x5 isn't the end of the road.... cameras exist all the way up to 20x24. Ain't no way a DSLR is gonna take even n 8x10 on.

And LF has other benefits as part n parcel. Movements for one. Rise/fall, shift, tilt, swing. Yeah, you can get a P/C lens for a DSLR, but it won't come close to a view camera with full control.

Far more control over DOF than just using the aperture is another key feature to LF.

i was just looking at them the other night, prices. wondering if i can do it or what. I couldnt even tell what might come with a tripod. NO knowledge of different bellows. No idea on how to get it developed. so beyond the pricing, i was somewhat hesitant to pull the trigger anyway. I would love to try my hand at large format. But know about zilch on pulling it off.

Your thinking of large format 4x5 and bigger, medium format is 120

 

[480sparky]

i was just looking at them the other night, prices. wondering if i can do it or what. I couldnt even tell what might come with a tripod. NO knowledge of different bellows. No idea on how to get it developed. so beyond the pricing, i was somewhat hesitant to pull the trigger anyway. I would love to try my hand at large format. But know about zilch on pulling it off.

Medium format hardly much more money than 35mm film. The market is flooded with tons of gear that sells for 5% of it's original price. 120 and 220 film are quite standard, and most any film lab should be able to process it. If you're only interested in black & white, you can develop the film yourself with a total cash outlay of $150 or less.

I wouldn't recommend jumping from 35mm directly into LF. Not only is it disproportionately more expensive, it's far more laborious. Dip your toes into the medium format arena first. At least you'll get a small taste of what LF life would be like without spending thousands. And you may find MF is more than you need and will lose interest in LF.

About the only suggestion I would make if you want to make that big of a jump to LF is to wait for the Wanderlust Travelwide to start it's next production run. It's basically a 4x5 point-n-shoot. No bellows, no movements.... just a box, lens and film. And, from what I understand, about the most affordable LF setup available.

 

[Microbois]

I look at photographs from time periods. (...). I appreciate each look for its different qualities.

Thanks for providing yet another point of view. This is exactly what I was looking for.

You don't differentiate any of it. You just see NOW. (...) You don't know the difference, you don't see the difference. or you just don't care about the difference. (...) But you can't comprehend this, just like you couldnt comprehend why many movies are still fought to be shot in film over digital. I think you are missing the boat quiet honestly. (...) You just don't get it.

Just to clear a few things up, I'd like to remind you that all I asked was the following question : Is it possible that today's interest in film photography, despite the advantages of digital, could be fueled by nostalgia, or by the fact that our memories are so used to this film look, that we are reluctant to break free from the look we are used to? I'm just asking.

All I'm trying to understand is why you want that film look? Why is it so important to you? I understand that you may like the different aesthetics of each time periods, it's a question of taste, but how do you integrate it in your work, and how does it serve a purpose in your creative process? While I have some clues as to why many movies are still fought to be shot in film over digital, I'm not sure I have the same explanations as you. You would be nice if you could fill me in on those, but spare me the DR, the aliasing, the exagerrated sharpness, the rolling shutter, or the other known weaknesses of digital.

 

[Vtec44]

IMHO, this discussion is best to be in another thread.

 

[bribrius]

IMHO, this discussion is best to be in another thread.

agree, it is going nowhere anyway. Congrats on the camera, i picked one up myself from derrels link above. I had too, temptation and all. Plus i have never had a slr with autofocus, all my slr stuff is early eighties or pre eighties. something different. Can use my nikon ais lenses on it too if i want from what i gather.

 

[bribrius]

Hello beautiful! Where have you been in the last 10 years??

View attachment 99475

have you figured out how to use yours yet? I just took mine out of the box.

little confused. Dont mean to hijack your thread. I posted this in offtopic but it probably makes more sense here.
i don't get it. Call me what you will. But there is no asa dial, i figured out the manual adjustments. i don't now what the iso button does as it is film. And what is cms? It didn't come with a manual. The focus, seems to keep putting in red the far box on the left, no matter which way i point the camera or what at. I don't know how to change that. And i can't figure out how to get it off matrix. Also, putting on my old lenses, seems to work. but i don't get if i need to dial in something for them or just put it on and go.
huh.....

seems like a nice camera though. World apart from my other film cameras it is closer to a dslr kind of button thing.

i have a 24-120, 18-140 dx. Wondering if either or will fruck my photos...Or if i should just go back to the ais like the 35-105 or something. 1.8 g dx? will that fruck my photos? Seems nice, just somewhere in between my old film cameras and a modern dslr. Seems closer to a modern dslr. No dials, auto film, buttons. that kind of thing.....Like a misfit hybrid. I think i will like it though, sorta. For higher speed shooting anyway... It does have a nice big clear viewfinder. view finder isn't a hundred percent coverage though i guess. Something to keep in mind when framing shots..

just of thinking of coverage too, hate to get back a lot of photos mis framed with unwanted lens vignette. First ever af film camera (other than a polaroid) and pretty much always shot kodaks and konicas with manual dials. Little lost. No asa dial???? wtf?

 

[Vtec44]

I believe so that the camera will know how to expose it for the correct film speed. CMS is custom menu settings. The focus point can be moved but the directional button the back of the camera. There's also a single or auto focus point next to that directional pad. There's a metering mode button on the side of the view finder.