Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR

[John Mc]

I know im pritty much a newbie here in the Forum,but instead of listing of whats better,why not list off what you like about your choice of recording instrument,Film,or digital.

It might be stupid and childish doing it this way but hey,it seems fitting here.

I like the fact that with film,youve done all the work to get that photograph.
And with Digital,i like the speed and instant access i have to the image.

Just a thought

 

[compur]

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.

I think most classic car dealers would be glad to trade a Corvette for
a Stanley Steamer and make a tidy profit in the process.

The criteria you use to judge things is not necessarily the same as what
others use. When new technologies arise, the public tends to abandon
the old things and reach for the new things. This is how antique dealers
make their living.

 

[mairead]

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.

I'm not sure about the analogies that get used... as an art form, one can create a beautiful piece with a film or digital camera, so in that respect one is not better than the other. In a commercial setting with very tight deadlines, the fact that digital is fast could mean that for that situation it is more competitive. But that's the thing, not all situations are the same. not everybody does the same thing with photography, so one might reign supreme in one arena, but may not have a strong advantage in another. Much comes down to personal preference.

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

It depends on the situation. Not everything is black and white.

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.

They are different from DSLRS. Different situations may lend themselves to different tools. This is not a far out concept, and I'm not sure why you're so invested in proving the supremacy of digital. Maybe you should just realize that people like to work with different things and relax a little

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?

LOL :lmao: Really? I think you need to apply this last bit to yourself. You're the one pushing your opinions as fact, not me. I personally prefer film, but that doesn't mean that I don't think digital isn't a great choice for someone else. I'm not the one trying to push my own favored process on other people (other people can do as they like -- notice how I'm not going into the digital section of the forum to convice people to switch to film). I'm not failing at anything, because I'm not treating this as a black and white issue where there is only one proper answer, one proper tool.

 

[white]

I say we get rid of computers and digital SLRS and go back to typewriters and daguerrotypes.

Dags had "better" resolution anyway. :er:

/crustyoldmanwholivesinthepast

 

[Neil S.]

The point you seem to be missing is that there are other reasons for doing
things. Not everyone makes decisions based on which way is easier, faster
and cheaper. I know that may be hard to believe but it is true.

I don't shoot film because I think it's easier, faster or cheaper than digital.
(I shoot both BTW). I know that film is more difficult, slower and possibly
more expensive than digital. I do know this. I just don't make decisions in
this case based on those 3 adjectives as you appear to do.

You keep saying things like this...

Please tell me why you DO shoot film then.

Clearly there is a historic and sentimental value to it. This is why I am considering buying a film SLR myself.

I am not naive enough to think that film is “better” somehow though.

You are not outright saying it but you keep implying that people who switched to digital were just taking the easy way out, and that it is not better.

Its not just easier/faster/cheaper, it’s simply BETTER overall. Period.

You simply cannot win the argument that you ARE making by continuously implying that digital in inferior somehow.

If this is the case and film is better in any way, then please do tell us what that is exactly. I am all ears.

You need to back up your statements here pal, especially when debating something with me...

 

[Neil S.]

You're the one pushing your opinions as fact, not me.

No no no...

What you are doing here is choosing to completely ignore the facts.

I am not pushing my opinions as facts, what I am saying is the facts.

This is why you cannot actually address the points that I am making here, and are simply resorting to stating nothing but opinion. Great job. :thumbup:

I am still waiting to hear how film is better in any way...

 

[Derrel]

I'm waiting for the pin-hole photograph to take my breath away...

 

[Neil S.]

I think most classic car dealers would be glad to trade a Corvette for
a Stanley Steamer and make a tidy profit in the process.

The criteria you use to judge things is not necessarily the same as what
others use. When new technologies arise, the public tends to abandon
the old things and reach for the new things. This is how antique dealers
make their living.

How does something being more expensive automatically make it better? What you are saying here is simply ridiculous.

These are the kinds of absurd arguments that you keep making again and again, with absolutely nothing to back them up.

I am about to stop arguing this with you film fanboys.

This is because:

#1 You refuse to acknowledge anything as fact.

#2 You are making ridiculous statements based on nothing but your biased and one-sided opinion.

#3 I am starting to realize that I will probably never get through to you, so whats the point in trying?

 

[white]

Film has a better history than digital.

Oh snap. Did I just win the thread?

Oh, and here you go, Derrel. I'm partial to #3, myself.

 

[Derrel]

I'm partial to this pin hole photo, which is typical and representative of the entire genre.

http://irgupf.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pinhole-1.jpg

Pretty freakin' impressive, right?

 

[mairead]

You're the one pushing your opinions as fact, not me.

No no no...

What you are doing here is choosing to completely ignore the facts.

I am not pushing my opinions as facts, what I am saying is the facts.

Ok, let's try this another way as you're not understanding...

When you judge the value of something it is judged against particular standards. What those standards are, depends on the job that needs to be done. Pretty clear, I hope.

Now both SLRs and DSLRs take pictures, in that way they are alike. HOWEVER, the purpose and style of these pictures depends on what they are for. The speed at which these pictures must be in their finished form depends on what they are for. Following so far?

Photography is used for different purposes -- commercially, as a serious hobby, as a fine art medium, as a simple recording tool, etc. Because of these different purposes, different standards will apply. Some times speed will be of the essence, other times the it's ok to wait on the pictures. Sometimes artistic criteria comes into play where as other times the photograph is strictly functional.

If there are different standards, then different tools (SLR and DSLR) may come into play as needed.

The problem that you are having is that you have grabbed onto what are some advantages of DSLRs and then tried to apply them with equal importance across the board. In some situations what are considered the advantages of DSLRs might not be as important and vise versa of course.

This is why you cannot actually address the points that I am making here, and are simply resorting to stating nothing but opinion. Great job. :thumbup:

I am still waiting to hear how film is better in any way...

I have been addressing everything that you have put forward. However, your black and white approach to everything (the same one tool is always superior for everyone in every situation), makes it difficult to converse with you about this. You want me to say that because DSLRs are so fast, efficient and have versatility that they must always be the clear winner. However, like most things in life, it's not that simple.

When it comes to what tools people like to use there will always be varying opinions (and not just in photography), because people are different and yes have different opinions based on their very real needs and very real experiences. Fact only goes so far in this discussion, because so much is personal preference and what a person feels they work best with.

The issue with your argument isn't with whether or not a DSLR is fast or efficient or versitile, it's the fact that these things mean different things to different people. As such, you can argue till you're blue in the face, but it won't make people feel any differently about using an SLR or a DSLR.

 

[Overread]

so from a film vs digital war we are now onto a pinhole photography war?

Seriously why?

 

[compur]

Please tell me why you DO shoot film then.

As I've said I shoot both film and digital. As to why I shoot film, I simply
prefer it for some types of photography.

BTW, are you aware that this is a film photography forum? We are film
enthusiasts here. Perhaps you'd enjoy going to a classic car forum and
telling the members there that they're all nuts for not buying a Prius.

I am not naive enough to think that film is “better” somehow though.

As I've said repeatedly I did not say film is better than anything. I did
say that digital is not necessarily better than film when it comes to art
photography.

You are not outright saying it but you keep implying that people who
switched to digital were just taking the easy way out, and that it is not
better.

I said the majority of people who embraced digital photography did so
because they perceived it as easier, faster cheaper than film. That is
my belief.

Some do also say they believe that digital produces higher quality images
than film but I don't see that as being a substantial reason for why the
majority switched.

Its not just easier/faster/cheaper, it’s simply BETTER overall. Period.

And they call me dogmatic!

You simply cannot win the argument that you ARE making by continuously implying that digital in inferior somehow.

That's because I haven't made such an argument. I only said that digital is
not necessarily better than film in the area of art photography. Also, please
note that nowhere in that last sentence did I say that film is better than
anything.

 

[white]

I'm partial to this pin hole photo, which is typical and representative of the entire genre.

http://irgupf.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pinhole-1.jpg

Pretty freakin' impressive, right?

Oh yeah. That sky blowed my mind. :lmao:

 

[Neil S.]

BTW, are you aware that this is a film photography forum? We are film
enthusiasts here. Perhaps you'd enjoy going to a classic car forum and
telling the members there that they're all nuts for not buying a Prius.

AM I AWARE LOL???

THIS IS MY THREAD PAL...