Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR

[Derrel]

"Image quality" is an important factor for certain types of photography but
not for all types. Fine art photography, for example, really has nothing to do
with it. The images of the classic master photographers (or any artists really)
are not revered because of the "image quality" of their equipment.

This is something that the dedicated non-artist photographers cannot grasp.
They believe that only the image with the highest "image quality" is the best.
They are completely cut off from the finer artistic aspects of image making
and cannot understand any other viewpoint about photography other than
how many dots it has and how sharp it is. Whether or not the image makes
one laugh or cry or any other emotional response is lost on them.

Not really true at most levels; the successful fine art photographers of each era almost universally used the absolute best materials and practices, while the hobby photographers limped along with junkier, hobbyist equipment. The successful fine art photographers of each decade of the 20th century strived for high technical quality in their negatives, developing, and prints; hobby shooters on the other hand shot at the hobby level.

I love blanket put-down attempt to lump "non-artist" photographers into the category of dots-per-inch measurebeators. A weak attempt to defend film shooters as artists, and everybody else as number-worshiping idiots, but really, quite a weak troll. Ansel Adams was a successful, albeit kitschy, fine art photgrapher, and millions of his accolytes read his books The Camera, The Negative, The Darkroom--EACH of which was a tribute to striving for the highest-quality images by using the best methods, and by striving to reach the level of technical perfection.

Back to the OP's question: buying a Canon film SLR is fine. Film doesn't "teach" anything really. Digital doesn't "teach" anything either; rather, the photographer learns from his books, his videos, his mentors, his critics. Film purists are amusing to me, much like tube amplifier fanatics, hard-core wine enthusiasts, and other masters of dogma who cling to the arcane, esoteric, or obsolete with some type of fanatical devotion. The idea that technical quality has a **negative** impact on the artistry one is able to express through one's photography is a silly point of view to espouse. The idea that *lower* standards of image quality somehow advances artistry is a silly argument as well. Throughout the entire history of photography, artists as well as workmanlike camera operators have welcomed each new advance in photography: wet-plates coated in a tent over fumes of mercury were WILLINGLY discarded in favor of dry-coated glass plates; celluloid-based films were welcomed as an advancement over glass plates; roll-film was welcomed as an advancement over individual cut sheet film in holders;
the "miniature" Rolleiflex and the flashbulb both were invented around the 1928 time frame, and both were huge advances in photography; the Leica in the 1930's and 1940's was welcomed and widely accepted; color film was viewed as an advancement; the 35mm SLR in the 1960's and 1970's supplanted the rangefinder camera. Progress has been accepted and welcomed for many decades.

It's kind of amusing because, if you really LOOK, critically, at the history of photography, the most-learned and best shooters have always used a fairly narrow range of state-of-the-art, new, top-shelf equipment. The Top Shooters in multiple disciplines throughout each era tend to gravitate to the same,exact equipment; The Graflex, The Rolleiflex, The Leica M3,the Hasselblad 500 series, The Nikon F and F2, the Nikon F3 and the Canon F1-n, the Canon 1D, the Nikon D3...these cameras have ALL been more or less "the standard" for top-level shooters for over a full century, spanning three separate centuries...

Fine arts practitioners have been remarkably sheep-like in selecting the best tools of their era....ever since the huge, ponderous Graflexes of the 1880's and 1890's were the hot,new thing...

 

[compur]

You posted the above while I was editing my post. Here it is in it's entirety:


"Image quality" is an important factor for certain types of photography but
not for all types. Fine art photography, for example, really has nothing to do
with it. The images of the classic master photographers (or any artists really)
are not revered because of the "image quality" of their equipment.

This is something that the dedicated non-artist photographers cannot grasp.
They believe that only the image with the highest "image quality" is the best.
They are completely cut off from the finer artistic aspects of image making
and cannot understand any other viewpoint about photography other than
how many dots it has and how sharp it is. Whether or not the image makes
one laugh or cry or any other emotional response is lost on them.

The fact that one photographer makes a zillion snapshots that no one gives
a damn about with his mega-dollar whizbang digi-shooter while another
photographer makes a photograph using a homemade pinhole camera that takes
the viewers' breath away never seems to enter the thinking of such people. To
them it's all simply: How many mega-dots does it have?

I guess numbers win out because they're easier, faster and cheaper than
considerations of artistic excellence.

 

[Derrel]

Oh, you definitely win. Digital images are snapshots. Images made on film are photo-graphs. Got it chief!

 

[supraman215]

They are completely cut off from the finer artistic aspects of image making
and cannot understand any other viewpoint about photography other than
how many dots it has and how sharp it is. Whether or not the image makes
one laugh or cry or any other emotional response is lost on them.

Again with this holier than thou stance common among SOME of those shooting film.

Geeze Derrel don't you know You can't make art with a computer!!!! It's just 1s and 0s it's NOT ART! Was it Shakespeare who said give me an infinite number of 1s and 0s and monkey's and I'll make "Afghan Woman"

 

[compur]

Not really true at most levels; the successful fine art photographers of each era almost universally used the absolute best materials and practices, while the hobby photographers limped along with junkier, hobbyist equipment.

That value of that statement is entirely dependent on one's defintion of
"best materials and practices."

Obviously we know what your definition is: the most modern and expensive
digital equipment. But, digital and film photography are two different
mediums = apples and oranges. And, by the way, many famous classic film
photographers used equipment that was decades old at the time of their
use of it. Cartier-Bresson, for example, used 1950s Leica M's well into the
1970s-80s-90s and beyond. He did not feel a need to use the latest
auto-exposure/auto-focus technology of the later era. There are many
other examples of these photographers using older equipment.

The successful fine art photographers of each decade of the 20th century strived for high technical quality in their negatives, developing, and prints; hobby shooters on the other hand shot at the hobby level.

Your point?

I love blanket put-down attempt to lump "non-artist" photographers into the category of dots-per-inch measurebeators. A weak attempt to defend film shooters as artists, and everybody else as number-worshiping idiots, but really, quite a weak troll.

Not my intent at all. Many film shooters are idiots too.

But, seriously, my point is not about all non-artist photographers. Simply
those that put down film based on the shallow critieria I described.

Ansel Adams was a successful, albeit kitschy, fine art photgrapher, and millions of his accolytes read his books The Camera, The Negative, The Darkroom--EACH of which was a tribute to striving for the highest-quality images by using the best methods, and by striving to reach the level of technical perfection.

Again you equate "best" with what you think is best, i.e., modern digital equipment.

 

[mairead]

One thing to understand about fine art, is that artists also tend to enjoy exploring various mediums. For instance look at printmaking -- commercially it's down to a science -- fast, efficient, and high quality. Yet artists continue carving out woodblocks by hand, printing off stones etc, because the medium itself is interesting as well as the results. What about calligraphy? There are all kinds of decorative fonts available, no need to do it by hand, and yet people enjoy and appreciate the art form.

There's no reason that someone can't be very artistic with a digital camera, but it's not the only way. And when you get into fine art, yes quality matters, but what constitutes that quality isn't always black and white. You're also bringing creative expression into the mix, what kind of response the viewer is likely to have, what the piece is trying to say. With a photograph if the quality is awful, it's going to get in the way of all that other important stuff. But well done photos from film aren't bad quality either. Poor quality tools can be frustrating, but using film doesn't automatically make a camera poor quality any more than being digital automatically makes a camera high quality.

Using film isn't dogmatic or clinging to something that is obsolete -- it's enjoying that particular tool and process (a process that still has it's place as an art form IMO). There are pros and cons to everything, and for some people the pros of film will out way those of using a digital camera. If some of the arguments for film have seemed dogmatic, well then, so have a lot of the posts I've seen pushing digital

 

[compur]

Oh, you definitely win. Digital images are snapshots. Images made on film are photo-graphs. Got it chief!

Again with this holier than thou stance common among SOME of those shooting film.

Thank you both for illustrating my point about these considerations being lost
on certain people.

Just to clarify for those with reading disabilities:

I have not said and I do not feel that art cannot be made with digital
equipment. In fact, I feel art can be made with most anything.

 

[Neil S.]

LOL!

WTF happened to my little thread here?

Digitial is faster/easier/more versatile. Period.

By faster I mean both while shooting, and workflow wise.

By easier I mean you can shoot thousands of RAW files on a single card. You can review the image on the LCD for proper exposure, among countless other things that make it easier.

There is zero point arguing which is better, you WILL lose this one.

Why do you think that Canon stopped making film SLRs? Because they were better lol? Methinks not...

Good game film fanboys, thanks for playing.

 

[Derrel]

You posted the above while I was editing my post. Here it is in it's entirety:


"Image quality" is an important factor for certain types of photography but
not for all types. Fine art photography, for example, really has nothing to do
with it. The images of the classic master photographers (or any artists really)
are not revered because of the "image quality" of their equipment.

This is something that the dedicated non-artist photographers cannot grasp.
They believe that only the image with the highest "image quality" is the best.
They are completely cut off from the finer artistic aspects of image making
and cannot understand any other viewpoint about photography other than
how many dots it has and how sharp it is. Whether or not the image makes
one laugh or cry or any other emotional response is lost on them.

The fact that one photographer makes a zillion snapshots that no one gives
a damn about with his mega-dollar whizbang digi-shooter while another
photographer makes a photograph using a homemade pinhole camera that takes
the viewers' breath away never seems to enter the thinking of such people. To
them it's all simply: How many mega-dots does it have?

I guess numbers win out because they're easier, faster and cheaper than
considerations of artistic excellence.

You seem to be awfully concerned, almost adamant it seems, that digital images are crap (ie, snapshots) but that,amazingly, even a fuzzy pinhole camera image is capable of being an image that "can take the viewers' breath away."

You seem rather disingenuous in your attempts to portray youself as being reasonable in your subsequent post, attempting to play both sides of the coin, when in fact,your true and actually literally "written" position is revealed by your extreme points of view above. To summarize, above you state that digital photography is nothing but high-volume snapshooting, but even an oatmeal can and a pinhole with a piece of film is capable of creating photographs that, "take the viewers' breath away." Snort! You know what? I have never seen a pinhole photo that rose above mildly interesting.

Your opinions on the superiority of film have been made abundantly clear in this thread and countless others...your holier-than-thou POV in regard to the "superiority" of film shooting has been duly noted, your efforts to counter it notwithstanding.

For somebody who professes to be an artist and concerned about the artistry underlying photographs, compur, you seem to be very concerned and dogmatic about HOW, exactly, the image must be captured. "On film". Or else it is a snapshot. For a guy claiming to be all about the "art" you seem awfully,awfully preoccupied with the process, rather than the end result. Again, your protestations notwitstanding.

 

[Neil S.]

There are pros and cons to everything, and for some people the pros of film will out way those of using a digital camera. If some of the arguments for film have seemed dogmatic, well then, so have a lot of the posts I've seen pushing digital

There are far more pros for digital compared to film.

There are also far more cons for film compared to digital.

Yes this does mean digital is "better".

Feel free to have your opinion, its your right.

You could have an opinion that a steam powered car is better than a Corvette. You may feel that way, but when you compare power/handling/top speed/etc. is there really any question which is better? I didn't think so.

Its the same thing for film. You can hang on for sentimental value or whatever if you want, but don’t act like it can compete with modern DSLRs.

Just understand that if you list the advantages and disadvantages of each you will come to a conclusion.

That conclusion is that digital is better lol.

Just let it go...

/ENDTHREAD

 

[Neil S.]

To them it's all simply: How many mega-dots does it have?

LOL...

Mega-dots???

How old are you?

You sound like you are at least 90...

 

[John Mc]

The one thing ive learned today,dont Use 18-55 mm zoom lenses at the widest opening for wide angle shots on a 35mm film camera!why? cause ive now got A fish-eye view on my film for a large interior shot,am i disapointed?a little bit,but ive learned a valuble leason.dont go to 18mm again unless you want an odd shot

but im glad i have done this,learned a wee bit about lenses on film compared to Dslrs(croped ones anyway)

 

[mairead]

There are far more pros for digital compared to film.

There are also far more cons for film compared to digital.

Yes this does mean digital is "better".

No, it means you missed the entire point of my post. What is a pro to one person, may not matter so much to another. What is a deal breaker for one person, may be a positive point for someone else. The speed and ease of digital might make that type of camera better for you, but not better across the board as different people have different wants and needs.

You could have an opinion that a steam powered car is better than a Corvette. You may feel that way, but when you compare power/handling/top speed/etc. is there really any question which is better? I didn't think so.

But how much power and speed does one need? I know nothing of steam powered cars, however, I can tell you that a fancy sports car would not suit my needs and I would not enjoy it. Yes that is just an opinion based on what I personally need in a car, just as your appreciation for corvettes stems from your own opinions about what makes a car great.

Its the same thing for film. You can hang on for sentimental value or whatever if you want, but don’t act like it can compete with modern DSLRs.

Just understand that if you list the advantages and disadvantages of each you will come to a conclusion.

That conclusion is that digital is better lol.

Is there a competition here? If someone can put out good photographs using film, great. If they put out good photographs with digital, great. That's the thing -- I don't see one as inherently better than the other, just that they're different and for some digital makes more sense, and for others film is the way to go. I've never argued that film is supreme. Rather I was making the point that it still has a valid place and is a good choice for some people. I don't get the strange need to convince people to give up the error of their ways and go digital -- it's like a bizarre camera pissing contest that completely misses the point.

I have not come to your conclusion, btw, and I have been giving it thought (as eventually I'm hoping to actually have enough cash to invest in some more camera related equipment). It's just that what's vitally important to you -- speed and ease, isn't so important for me.

 

[Neil S.]

I have not come to your conclusion, btw, and I have been giving it thought (as eventually I'm hoping to actually have enough cash to invest in some more camera related equipment). It's just that what's vitally important to you -- speed and ease, isn't so important for me.

Obviously you have a right to your opinion.

Shooting a film camera is like driving a classic sports car. It may be beautiful and stylish, but it wont be able to compete against the newest sports cars.

You are acting like film can in some way compete with digital.

Just admit that film cameras are antiquated and sub-par compared to DSLRs, and I will admit that it has its own charm and sentimental value.

If you cannot do this then you are clearly biased, and refusing to consider all the facts involved here.

What if I had an opinion that the world was flat?

I could go around telling people this and saying "well this is my opinion, so it’s true for me".

Just having an opinion and voicing it doesn’t make it true now does it?

You have to actually prove why it’s true. This is where you are failing badly.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Enjoy living in the past...

It seems to suit you very well.

 

[compur]

You seem to be awfully concerned, almost adamant it seems, that digital images are crap (ie, snapshots) but that,amazingly, even a fuzzy pinhole camera image is capable of being an image that "can take the viewers' breath away."

You missed my point, Derrel. I didn't say "digital images are crap." In fact
I said earlier that I shoot digital too as well as film.

You seem rather disingenuous in your attempts to portray youself as being reasonable in your subsequent post, attempting to play both sides of the coin, when in fact,your true and actually literally "written" position is revealed by your extreme points of view above.

I don't recall portraying myself as anything in particular. In fact I don't
even recall mentioning myself except to say that I shoot both digital and
film.

To summarize, above you state that digital photography is nothing but high-volume snapshooting, but even an oatmeal can and a pinhole with a piece of film is capable of creating photographs that, "take the viewers' breath away." Snort! You know what? I have never seen a pinhole photo that rose above mildly interesting.

No, Derrel, I didn't say "digital photography is nothing but high-volume
snapshooting."

I gave an example of a particular thing to illustrate a particular point
about particular people with a particular viewpoint. That doesn't mean
I am speaking about everyone who owns a digital camera (which would
include me anyway since I own and use several as I've said).

Your opinions on the superiority of film have been made abundantly clear in this thread and countless others...your holier-than-thou POV in regard to the "superiority" of film shooting has been duly noted, your efforts to counter it notwithstanding.

I have never said film is superior to anything in this thread or any other. I
have only said that digital is not necessarily superior to film in all respects.
It is you who are claiming superiority of your chosen medium, not me.

And, is this not a film photography forum? A place where film enthusiasts
gather to discuss their love of that craft? Is it so hard to understand that
a member of this forum might defend that craft against statements that
some other medium is better? And, why am I even having to ask such
questions? What forum do you think you're on, Derrel? Do you make a
habit of going onto internet forums and telling the members that some
other activity is better than what they're doing? And, you have the
gall to say that I'm trolling?

For somebody who professes to be an artist and concerned about the artistry underlying photographs, compur, you seem to be very concerned and dogmatic about HOW, exactly, the image must be captured. "On film". Or else it is a snapshot.

Sorry, I just never said how an image "must be captured." You are reading
misconstrued "meaning" into things you only think I said.

And, how is it that my expressing my views is being "dogmatic"? How is
your expression of your views any different?

For a guy claiming to be all about the "art" you seem awfully,awfully preoccupied with the process, rather than the end result. Again, your protestations notwitstanding.

I claimed to be "all about art"? When did I claim that?

Since you're so obviously confused over what it is you think I said, I will
boil it down to this:

The same criteria in which digital photography is normally judged (i.e.
image resolution, sharpness, etc) does not necessarily apply when it
comes to art photography.

That's all, really.

The rest of my "smart-ass, holier-than-thou, dogmatic" comments were
about how that simple idea gets misunderstood by certain individuals. A
point which I think has now been amply illustrated by the recent exchanges
on this thread.