Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR

[maris]

[FONT=&quot]A philosophical digression: the decision between film and digital doesn't depend on what the pictures look like.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever. But if you want to see pictures that have the same relationship to subject matter as film based pictures then nothing touched by digital technology is worth looking at.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A film based photograph happens when a physical sample (about 10^-25 kilograms) of subject matter travels across space, penetrates the film surface, and occasions picture forming marks right where it penetrates. If this is what you really want then don't bother with digital. But why would you want to make pictures using actual samples of subject matter?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here's an idea. A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. There is no virtual component. It is a straight line case of one substance acting directly on another. To put it more technically a film photograph is an index of the subject. A film photograph has indexicality. If this is what you really, truly want then you must use film. Don't bother with digital.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Digital of course delivers "appearances" and that can be entertaining or even turn a dollar but there is a down side. As a general principle every picture that depends on downloading the memory of somebody or something, painting, drawing , digital, has the same credibility problem. It could have been synthesised from nothing even if the picture maker testifies otherwise. Bluntly, if you don’t want to chance a world where "seeming" is indistinguishable from "being", where “looks like” means “same as”, then film photography is what you must do.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]To address the OP's question, any Canon SLR that has manual settings will do fine and the cheapest one leaves more money for film.
[/FONT]

 

[epatsellis]

wow, I feel like I'm walking through a pasture full of cow "frisbees".

Where to begin????

As a photographer, I use whatever medium is best for the job at hand, regardless of whether it's film or digital. All processing and printing (both film and digital) is done in house, either optically or with a Fuji Frontier 370.

Let's start with consumer grade digital vs. film, shall we?

Consumer digital cameras are quickly approaching the quality capability of film, true. However, there are significant advantages leaning towards film, the most significant being the craft aspect.

Medium format digital potentially has surpassed film, however there are quite significant PHYSICAL hurdles to overcome. for a far more involved explanation see here: Joseph Holmes - News: Medium Format Problems
Comparison of MF to LF digital (predominantly through the use of a Dicomed Scan Back (predecessor to the Betterlight) yielded some significant advantages. Due to the limitation of accuracy, repeatability and manufacturing tolerances, to actually achieve that level of resolution is very dependent on accurate calibration of the back to the body and lens, as well as very, very, dependent on technique. I spent a week with the latest and greatest at the time Phase One back this summer, between body, a few lenses and back, we're talking ~65K, give or take. I compared it to my Sinar P/Dicomed Scan back as well as the same back used on an RB67.

For my purposes, predominantly still lifes and product shooting, while the Phase One back gave you larger files, it was predominantly empty resolution, much the same as drum scanning a chrome with a 3 micron aperture. The combination of Bayer Pattern sensor as well as smaller photosites limit dynamic range and detail capture. The optical and mechnanical requirements as well as cost make it unworkable for me.
The advantage clearly goes to the Sinar/Dicomed combo once you start to require camera movements and perspective control. The ability to use movements and non interpolated resolution makes it a winner hands down. (to get an idea of the significant difference between the Dicomed/Betterlight scan backs and a Bayer pattern sensor, see The Rest of the Picture , I'll let you draw your own conclusions vis a vis LF film vs. Betterlight) Downsides are the need for continuous lighting (I use self built HMI lighting) and the need for a computer/laptop.

Film, as noted previously, is far from dead. In terms of portability vs. image quality, there is still nothing that bests a hybrid LF film workflow, in terms of resolution, dynamic range and flexibility. With architectural work especially, where the concurrent need for both movements and flexibility in terms of post exposure processing and creative manipulations, as well as the need for significant tolerance in the areas of exposure make it a clear winner. (Note that while many commercial architectural photographers use stitched 35mm grade digital images, some will readily admit it's a compromise, at best. Perspective correction done in software is not the same as getting it right at capture time, as well as the entire Bayer pattern sensor issues previously mentioned limit real resolution and detail capture ability.

In summary, I'd wager that for most of the people on this board, their consumer level (and even well heeled amateurs/semi pros with pro level equipment) 35mm based bodies are better than comparably sized film cameras, but even a scanned 6x7 transparency will run circles around any 35mm class digital body in terms of resolution and color accuracy. LF film just increases the gap proportionally. Instead of a camera update every few years, we film shooters can update our imaging systems by simply using the newest films, an the new Ektar in LF makes any form of digital capture suspect.

Once one looks at the non technical aspects, in the area of craft especially, there is a significant advantage to the use of film. If one is willing to expand the art of photography to include historical/alternative processes, craft becomes even more important. From a fine art aspect, the "hand of the artist" is more important than the technical aspects. There is significant truth to Adam's preference for "a fuzzy image of a clear concept" over " a clear image of a fuzzy concept". As a photographer who has worked for 25 years and now have returned to school, I have found many of the ideas I held to be true have a basis in historical fact, and the entire concept of the photographer as artists goes back to the earliest photographers. The digital/film debate isn't new, or the first time that a new process seemingly eclipses and old process, a search for articles in contemporary articles during the time wet plate overtook daggeurotype, dry plate overtaking wet plate, flexible film overcoming dry plate, etc. That the majority adopt a new technology isn't surprising, making photography easier, more accessible, etc. is a marketing companies dream. Where the difficulty comes in is honestly assessing your own skills and seeing if the equipment is the limiting factor in achieving your aesthetic.

Speaking aesthetically, a little research into pictorialism, photo secessionism (particularly Steiglitz, et al), and numerous 20th century "isms" that grew out of the modern/post modern aesthetic will likely open your eyes to the media vs. craft aspects.

 

[epatsellis]

I second everything that Derrel says on this issue. Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no reason to start down the film path. You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea. But atleast shoot black and white, develop your own stuff. If you do color you're just shooting yourself in the foot because as soon as you take it to the lab it all becomes digital again, and therefore defeats the whole purpose.

Were you to investigate further, you would find that, in fact, you can print color at home, as well as process color film at home. Many, many do in fact do exactly that. It's less expensive than b&w, easier than you would believe and surprisingly, it's very easy to find inexpensive dichro enlargers for pennies on the dollars today. Simply because you choose to not do so, don't project that inability or lack of desire to others. The advantages of an optically printed large image compared to a digitally printed one is like night and day. See my references above to the craft aspect of photography.

 

[supraman215]

Sounds like digital hasn't conquered the 6x7 film world yet. That's not surprising. but it will be interesting to see what the future has in store.

 

[epatsellis]

Digitial is easier, faster, and cheaper. And better quality, with less work, and no damaged film or damaged negatives. No ruined originals, but as many perfect duplicates as needed. As well as improved prints over darkroom methods. To me, using digital 35mm systems is not about it being easier, faster,and cheaper, as much as easier,faster,cheaper, and BETTER. The newer d-slr's have easily,easily surpassed the B&W and color emulsions Kodak and Fuji have been able to come up with.

There's no film that can even remotely come close to a full-frame d-slr in terms of color richness and ISO speed...looking through some images on the Popular Photography web site the other night that were shot with a Nikon D3s and the 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor, I was struck by the absolutely AMAZING technical quality of the images under artificial stadium lighting. There is simply NO FILM on the planet that can produce those kinds of images. None.

There's a reason top-line EOS and Nikon film slrs now bring 1/10 of their original retail prices, and why paying more than $200 for a 35mm SLR is foolish.

In order: false, false, and not even close. To expand on those assertions:

Easier, not really. Take a Polaroid ProShot, put a pack of FP100C into it and shoot, pull the tab, wait 60 seconds and peel. (were SX70 film still available, it would be simply push the button, wait 60 seconds and look)

Faster? See comments above


Cheaper, not really, even at the lower end of the market, between a camera, computer, printer, color calibration hardware, etc. you've still spent a couple of grand, and haven't taken a picture yet. With a film camera, you can spend ~$100 or $200 and be in a position to actually make images.

In terms of color richness, not really. The king of DSLR color accuracy, the Kodak SLR/n, is 5+ years old, the color gamut is wider, and accuracy (delta e) is far better than even today's cameras. It has it's downsides, but color accuracy isn't one of them. Even the Kodak is incapable of incredibly saturated colors, compared to MF 160VC or NC, once again, the move to LF just widens the gap even more. Just like a digitally originated image, a scanned film image can have it's saturation turned up, as many of those images you have seen are. Accuracy is another matter, and a properly profiled workflow, whether digital or film, will give you accurate colors. Where film excels is that you can fine tune the color response through the use of film, and get incredibly saturated, accurate colors.

High ISO is only a small part of the photography world, and yes, the newer digital cameras are far superior, in this one aspect. Need I remind you that a GRO is "faster" than a 911, until the first corner. Balance in camera performance, like so many things in life, is about compromises. Your statement is a strawman argument, based on only one aspect of photography. Then again, I've shot Tri-X at 25,600 and it's workable, though very "noisy" and required a lot of "post processing" mojo. (sound familiar?)

The biggest reason that film cameras bring so little today is, pure and simple, marketing. Or more specifically, the need for large corporations to put profitability above all else, through the need for "upgrades". The trickle of technology comes at a pace that ensures a specific percentage of users are "early adopters" and will want the latest and greatest at any cost. (and have the deep pockets to pay for it)

 

[epatsellis]

Sounds like digital hasn't conquered the 6x7 film world yet. That's not surprising. but it will be interesting to see what the future has in store.

There are sensors that have high enough resolution, getting that resolution, on the other hand is very, very difficult. See Joseph Holmes article above for a realistic assessment of why the physics and real world manufacturing tolerances make it very unlikely that you can even get close.

 

[supraman215]

I second everything that Derrel says on this issue. Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no reason to start down the film path. You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea. But atleast shoot black and white, develop your own stuff. If you do color you're just shooting yourself in the foot because as soon as you take it to the lab it all becomes digital again, and therefore defeats the whole purpose.

Were you to investigate further, you would find that, in fact, you can print color at home, as well as process color film at home. Many, many do in fact do exactly that. It's less expensive than b&w, easier than you would believe and surprisingly, it's very easy to find inexpensive dichro enlargers for pennies on the dollars today. Simply because you choose to not do so, don't project that inability or lack of desire to others. The advantages of an optically printed large image compared to a digitally printed one is like night and day. See my references above to the craft aspect of photography.

I said, there's no point it shooting 35mm taking it to the local lab because it will most likely be developed digitally defeating the purpose. As a craft and a hobby I think the whole point is processing the film yourself.

 

[epatsellis]

... Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no reason to start down the film path....

I was simply responding to your comment, separated above for clarity, as a false statement, you can in fact print both b&w and color at home. And far more cost effectively than b&w, at that.

 

[Neil S.]

wow, I feel like I'm walking through a pasture full of cow "frisbees".

Guy I don’t care how many cameras and lenses you have, how many years you have been shooting, or how much experience you claim to have.

You are never going to prove that digital does not have advantages in almost every way compared to film.

Add to that the fact that if you want to do many of the things possible in post, you would need to scan the film to digital anyways. This is simply a waste of time when you could just shoot in digital providing nearly as good or even better image quality.

It goes without saying that this adds significant time and work to the process, and will likely reduced image quality compared to shooting pure digital.

You say that a FF DSLR isn’t as good as 6x7 film? You really think that’s a fair comparison?

Even if it was, can you do the same things with 6x7 film that you can do with a FF DSLR?

That would be a big fat no lol...

Can you take thousands of photos on one CF card?

Can you shoot at 8-10 fps?

Can you have the camera set the Iso on the fly, making it far more versatile?

Again that’s a no for all of the above.

Digital is faster for both workflow and shooting.

Digital is easier for workflow and shooting for so many reasons.

Digital does not require that you scan to digital in order to edit in the extremely powerful photo editing programs available like Photoshop.

Digital does not require that you either roll the dice on taking the film to the lab (as Derrel already mentioned) or spend tons of time and money making the prints yourself.

Yes all of this does mean digital is better.

The only thing I am hearing so far that is better about film is that it has more dynamic range.

Is there anything else?

And no more of the 6x7 vs. FF nonsense because that is just a ridiculous comparison for many reasons.

If digital is better in 98 ways and film is better in 2, which one do you think is better overall?

Do we really need to list every one of the things that is better about digital?

You try and make it sound like making prints from film is cheap and easy lol???

And you say that we are the ones dropping the cow frisbees?

Really lol?

You still seem to be living in the past…

 

[Neil S.]

I said, there's no point it shooting 35mm taking it to the local lab because it will most likely be developed digitally defeating the purpose. As a craft and a hobby I think the whole point is processing the film yourself.

This is exactly right.

Its pretty much a waste of time unless you are going to process the film yourself.

And if you do there is a lot of money and time invloved, not to mention having to STILL scan to digital if you want to use for the web or edit with PS.

 

[epatsellis]

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...

...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...

Wow, must have slept through that entire photo history website you read, huh?

Arguably the most influential "fine art" photographer, Edward Weston, used a no name $5 lens he bought in a Mexican flea market on a "barely adequate" wood 8x10 camera (Read his daybooks to really understand how the concept of the image far surpasses the equipment used to take it). Fine Art photographers use whatever medium works best for communicating the fundamental concepts they want to convey. There are still very successful and very highly regarded fine art photographers using wet plate, and LF film. On the printing front, arguably the best photographic printing methods, carbon and platinotype, both originated over a century ago, and have been superceded by "improved" media, such as gelatin silver. Such "improvements" come at a price, either in terms of tonal range, archival stability, or in the case of Gum Bichromate, expressive capability.

Even Ansel Adams, who enjoyed playing with new equipment, gravitated towards his reliable wood 8x10 and 4x5 cameras when it was shooting for his creative/artistic work.

The best shooters rarely used the latest and greatest, instead using the same equipment they used throughout their careers that has proven reliable through the test of time. This obsession with new gear is a fairly recent issue, due to the popularity of photography with the "average" person.

 

[epatsellis]

Guy I don’t care how many cameras and lenses you have, how many years you have been shooting, or how much experience you claim to have.

You are never going to prove that digital does not have advantages in almost every way compared to film.

Add to that the fact that if you want to do many of the things possible in post, you would need to scan the film to digital anyways. This is simply a waste of time when you could just shoot in digital providing nearly as good or even better image quality.

It goes without saying that this adds significant time and work to the process, and will likely reduced image quality compared to shooting pure digital.

You say that a FF DSLR isn’t as good as 6x7 film? You really think that’s a fair comparison?

Even if it was, can you do the same things with 6x7 film that you can do with a FF DSLR?

That would be a big fat no lol...

Can you take thousands of photos on one CF card?

Can you shoot at 8-10 fps?

Why would I want to? Oh wait, that still life (that I typically shoot), or that product is going to run off the shooting table before I can get 10 poorly conceived images of it, give me a fricking break. (or that building, tree, boulder, mountain, etc.) Faster frame rate isn't the end all be all indicator of quality, not by any stretch of the imagination. Another strawman argument

Can you have the camera set the Iso on the fly, making it far more versatile?

Again that’s a no for all of the above.

Digital is faster for both workflow and shooting.

Digital is easier for workflow and shooting for so many reasons.

Digital does not require that you scan to digital in order to edit in the extremely powerful photo editing programs available like Photoshop.

Digital does not require that you either roll the dice on taking the film to the lab (as Derrel already mentioned) or spend tons of time and money making the prints yourself.

I don't need to, so it's a non issue for me.
Yeah, I can see that. Just last week, I had an AD tell me not to bother cleaning the product, I can do it in post, along with about other "issues" I noted. So, as a professional, like the ole Goodwrench commercials used to say, pay me now, or pay me later. He'd rather exchange studio time for post production time, fine for me, as I bill hours either way, and post production is just as expensive as studio time.

Yes all of this does mean digital is better.

The only thing I am hearing so far that is better about film is that it has more dynamic range.

Is there anything else?

Sure, how about a physical archival finished product? To a hobbyist like you, the long term aspects of your work are inconsequential, for those of use who actually earn a living from shooting, it's huge.

And no more of the 6x7 vs. FF nonsense because that is just a ridiculous comparison for many reasons.

If digital is better in 98 ways and film is better in 2, which one do you think is better overall?

Do we really need to list every one of the things that is better about digital?

You try and make it sound like making prints from film is cheap and easy lol???

And you say that we are the ones dropping the cow frisbees?

Really lol?

You still seem to be living in the past…

well, I can set up a nice RB outfit for far less than a D90 or D300 body, so it's a fair comparison, from a cost analysis. Your claim of better is specious at best, different is more realistic. And yes, making prints is trivial, compared to learning the intricacies of Photoshop, color management and the like. I have taught several people color printing in 3 or 4 2 hour sessions, and they left with the ability to exceed what most good labs put out today.

From an artists perspective, as about 50% of my income comes from print sales in galleries, (real galleries that have numerous forms of art, not just a photography website that sells images), you vastly underestimate the marketability of the craft aspect. My hand coated gum bichromate prints, while not as detailed or dynamic as silver gelatin prints, outsell them 4 to 1. Why? Simply because they are hand made. Before you go on blathering about artists and the like, note that my entire (expensive private school) BFA degree program is is being paid for due to a talent grant awarded for artistic merit.

So, to clarify the veracity of your opinions, please tell us:

How much of your income is derived from your photography?
How many galleries do you exhibit in?
How many permanent collections are your work in?
How many classes do you teach?
How many working photographers ask you for your opinion on various creative and technical aspects?
How many Fortune 500 clients have you shotfor?

 

[Neil S.]

How much of your income is derived from your photography?
How many galleries do you exhibit in?
How many permanent collections are your work in?
How many classes do you teach?
How many working photographers ask you for your opinion on various creative and technical aspects?
How many Fortune 500 clients have you shotfor?

I am not a pro, nor do I intend to be any time soon.

Shooting is something that I do for a hobby, and I am very into it.

I am a photo enthusiast and not someone who is trying to sell anything.

You do make a good point that film has a really artistic quality to it, and the craft part is really cool.

What I have been trying to say is that from a strictly technical level, digital is way beyond film already.

Now what we can debate is if you think that digital somehow cannot have an artistic quality to it.

All you are doing here is talking about how much you sold something, blah blah blah.

What does that have to do with being better or not? Are there not shooters making far more than you shooting digital only?

That’s cool that you got the pro thing going, and are selling a lot, etc.

I don’t think you are really talking down on digital here, you seem to just really like film…

 

[epatsellis]

Neil, I use both, and both have their merits. Neither is significantly better or worse, just different. While there are certainly many "fanboys" here, the media I use is based solely upon the desired end result.

To get an idea of just how many working fine art photographers still use film, spend some time googling Jack Stoddart (as in Jammin' at Hippie Jack's Jack Stoddart), Clyde Butcher, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee (who single handedly reintroduced AZO paper), as well as numerous others, add analog photo radio pocast to your podcast catcher, if you use one, and you'll be surprised as how many left film, then went back, either partially or wholly.

The sad thing is that like many photographer's my age, I spent longer working as an assistant in a studio longer than most of the more vocal shooters here have been shooting. (and that was in the late 70's/early 80's).

I've been working as a shooter a long time, and the final decision as a working photographer is based purely on profitability and ROI. Film has and continues to be very profitable to me, and if my client base is any indication, will be so for a long time.

In my experience, film supplements digital, it doesn't displace it or replace it.

 

[Derrel]

This has devolved to a pretty amusing bunch of nonsense being bandied about. Get over it. Film is a lot like vinyl records. A lot like VHS tapes. A lot like horses as the de facto standard of personal transportation. Buying an old, used Canon film SLR...quaint. And super-affordable these days. The market for them is almost dead. Now, excuse me, I need to go out to the stables and give the horses a bit more hay and oats and some water before I go to bed, so that I'll have a ride to town tomorrow. Does ANYBODY remember what the Original Post was about? Not swamp-rat 8x10 view camera wacks like Clyde Butcher (imagine Jed Clampett, but 395 pounds,maybe 425 actually, with a big beard), chest-wader sloggin' through the swamps shooting three frames a day on an 8x10 camera that's older than any member of this board...the yuppies who buy those kinds of old-fashioned landscape pictures expect their creators to look the part and to use antiquated equipment.

Remember the Original Post???????? Seems like you do not. Your bona fides do not win the argument of the OP....not one bit.