Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR

[malkav41]

You know what cracks me up is that Neil S. started this whole film vs digital debate with one little sentence.

I have been thinking lately that I may want to get a Canon film SLR.

And look where that lead to. :roll: Bravo!

 

[Foxwolfe]

Wow, this turned fairly childish.

Lots of close minded vibes up in here.

 

[PJL]

This is rather interesting. I know, it deals with movies rather than still pictures, but it's still a relevant comparison. It's a series done by a professional studio comparing specially-designed scenes captured on film v. the same scenes captured on several DSLR cameras, both crop sensor and full-frame. What's fascinating is where film outshines digital, and vice-versa.

The Great Camera Shootout 2010 - Film Vs DSLR Comparison | Zacuto

Granted, the three episodes together run an 1 1/2 hours, so it's not a quick view, but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[Neil S.]

You know what cracks me up is that Neil S. started this whole film vs digital debate with one little sentence.

I have been thinking lately that I may want to get a Canon film SLR.

And look where that lead to. :roll: Bravo!

Its funny how that works sometimes.

For anyone who cares, I bought a used EOS 1v HS with the booster grip a few days ago.

It was listed on B&H as item condition 9 for $699.

I know it’s probably a lot all things considered but it is the king of EOS film SLRs. It’s likely that they will never make film SLRs again, and this gives it great historical value in my opinion

The thing is built like a tank and is sealed very well too.

If anyone is wondering why I bought it, the reason is that I simply want to shoot some film so that I will understand it better. That and what I said earlier about having a cool Canon keepsake for the future.

I realize that the labs in Japan are probably different in some ways, but I don’t really know what to look for when picking one to get my prints from.

Can anyone give me a few quick tips on getting good prints?

Also when I get the prints back, they give me the negatives as well right?

I can scan them or get more prints made later if I wanted? Is this correct?

I will probably at some point want very high quality prints made, and would like to know what to ask for exactly and what I should be expecting to pay. The sizes will probably be 4x6 or 5x7 and maybe some select 8x10ish prints for myself or my family.

- Neil

 

[PJL]

I realize that the labs in Japan are probably different in some ways, but I don’t really know what to look for when picking one to get my prints from.

Since film is a stone-age technology, you want to see what kind of equipment the lab uses. Better labs use finer chisels to carve the images into the rock plates.

Specific Questions to Ask
Below is a list of some of the questions to ask when looking for a lab. This list is meant to get you started into a conversation with the people at the lab. The best way to start is ask about the services they offer and go from there. You can ask these in any order as the conversation dictates. If at any point you feel uncomfortable with the answers you're getting, than you’re probably not in the right lab. And don't forget to ask other photographers. The grape vine is still a good source of information.

• What services do you offer?
• What if I don't like the way my photographs are printed?
• How long does it take?
• How long have you been doing this?
• Can I see some sample work?
• How often do you monitor the quality of the chemicals?
• How often do you do maintenance on the machines?
• Do you manually correct for negatives that are under or overexposed?
• Do you check the print quality and redo problem prints before packaging orders?
• How many different printers work in the lab?
• Can I request a specific lab tech if I like their work?

Choosing the Right Photo Lab

Can anyone give me a few quick tips on getting good prints?

Expose your film properly, and make sure your lab will give you free reprints if you aren't satisfied. A quick glance at the negative will tell you if you under or overexposed the shot, or if it was a poor print.

That being said, not all films are built the same, even at the same ISO rating. Some color films respond better to over-exposure, anywhere from 1/3 of a stop to a full stop. When you settle on a particular film, play around with that for a few rolls.

Also when I get the prints back, they give me the negatives as well right?

Yes. Some will give it to you uncut, while others will cut it and sleeve it.

I can scan them or get more prints made later if I wanted? Is this correct?

Yep.

I will probably at some point want very high quality prints made, and would like to know what to ask for exactly and what I should be expecting to pay. The sizes will probably be 4x6 or 5x7 and maybe some select 8x10ish prints for myself or my family.

My local lab does 8x10s for a few dollars. A single 4x6 or 5x7 print usually runs 40 or 50 cents. Most places will give you some sort of discount if you do prints at the time of developing. For rolls that I've used to shoot special occasions, I'll get scanning to CD and a set of 4x6 prints done at the time of development.

 

[Neil S.]

My local lab does 8x10s for a few dollars. A single 4x6 or 5x7 print usually runs 40 or 50 cents. Most places will give you some sort of discount if you do prints at the time of developing. For rolls that I've used to shoot special occasions, I'll get scanning to CD and a set of 4x6 prints done at the time of development.

Ty for the info, this really helps me.

- Neil

 

[iamacyborg]

good point. you brought up the medium format. Let me clarify my question. When comparing 35mm DSLR to 35mm film SLR, in what situation would one chose film SLR. High dynamic range situations? Sounds reasonable. Is there anything else?

When one wants the look of film.

I know a pro that recently did a shoot with Kate Moss (the supermodel chick). He shoots 35mm film almost exclusively, and is doing very well in the commercial markets in London and New York. Oh, and he just directed a video for Nike, based on the strength of his 35mm work.

It's quite sad to see pro-digital nuts going off on film without seeming to have any real education on the subject, or any sort of artistic bone in their body.

Digital has uses, film has uses.

Whoever mentioned film not shooting fast is an idiot, you can get 8 FPS out of an F6, and 10 FPS out of an EOS-1v (and back in the day that sports pros shot film, you'd have multiple cameras set up, and an assistant loading and emptying film for you as you changed between them).

What it comes down to is use whatever medium achieves the aesthetic you're after, and shut the **** up if you don't know what you're talking about.

To the OP, good to see you picked up a EOS, any idea what film you're looking to shoot, or just want to experiment?

 

[supraman215]

...or any sort of artistic bone in their body....

Why am I not surprised at this statement? and why are you continuing this pointless argument?

 

[iamacyborg]

...or any sort of artistic bone in their body....

Why am I not surprised at this statement? and why are you continuing this pointless argument?

Just read the below statement:

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.

What a load of absolute tosh. Noone's mentioned Man Ray yet, but let's.

What did he need for his rayographs? Well, he definitely didn't need a camera, that's for sure.

Solarisation? Well, the photo itself was almost unimportant, what was important was the effect achieved, and back then, there was no "cmd z".

Other artists have also been mentioned, so I won't bother repeating those.

As far as continuing the pointless argument, isn't that what you're doing by replying to me? Here's a good quote.

Is it lonely on your pedestal?

 

[supraman215]

LOL that comment was directed to those who feel superior, as you obviously do, based on the "artistic" comment, because they use film and know how to process it. They tend to have this, as you have shown again, this "holier than thou" approach and stick their nose up at digital, saying "it has it's place" which based on the vibe I'm getting here is in the hands of inexperienced non artistic types, who are "...without...any sort of artistic bone in their body"

A story about a photographer using 35mm film. That's a story. One using digital, that's not a story. What you are producing, that should be the story.

 

[j-dogg]

Film guy checking in

Does digital have its advantages? YES, I can fit 1700 RAW images on my 16gb card vs 36 shots on a roll. I process it myself in my own home in minutes.

Now, does film have advantages, YES. Not all of us are filthy rich and can afford a Nikon D3x, so we get the next best thing, a 35mm SLR. I have three of them. NO digital camera to date, not even the Nikon D4x that isn't even out yet, can accurately reproduce the look of film. I almost shoot it exclusively for portraiture.

Plus, hard drive crashes don't ruin negatives and in some legal situations digital images can get thrown out in court. They both have their downfalls and highlights instead of swearing by one or the other embrace both formats and appreciate them for what they are.

 

[supraman215]

hard drive crash won't ruin my images. Fire won't ruin my images but it would destroy my negatives.

 

[Einherjar]

Coming back to the first post, film SLR's flagships are still in production, Canon EOS 1-V and Nikon F6 are still being made, but only those, and are quite expensive since they didn't received any significant price drop.

About the film x digital thing, my 2 cents are:
Digital is more practical because you shoot without much concern regarding treatment, thinking of those only later, while in film you need to think in what filters, type of film, to use before hand, and that requires time (to change them) that can be critical in some situations when you don't have it(time).
Film has a better quality than sensors, the "white balance" is not such a great issue, color deformation due to lenses are a lot bigger in the sensors, the colors that the sensors records are quite lifeless(this compared to chrome). Although this issues can be bypassed by Photoshop, for many people, some times called "purists", thats also is a critical variable that needs to be considered.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I find it funny that the OP after asking about film cameras is making fun of film shooters mid way through his thread. Not only that but he goes from asking if Canon still produces film cameras to making a BS statement about why Canon stopped making film cameras…

Then he just insults the people he originally asked for help. WOW! Neil S., I’m sending it right back at you. You are an idiot you digital fanboy!

In the space of 3 pages you’ve become an expert. I’m amazed.

That said, I agree with two statements that have been made here:

1/ Not much point in shooting film if you’re not going to do the darkroom work yourself.
Because the biggest difference you will see when comparing film and digital is in the print. To me that also means shooting B&W since the only color prints I’ve ever liked were Cibachrome (now known as Ilfochrome) and the last I checked it was not a process one does at home. Although printing color at home is far from unheard of, as Superman seems to think.

2/ It makes very little sense shooting film for commercial work today.
Commercial clients want the ease of dealing with digital files because it makes the process of going to press much simpler.


Most of the rest of the thread is as much nonsense as the dreaded Nikon vs. Canon, Ford vs. Pontiac, Black vs. White, Mac vs Windows machines BS.

Yes, shooting film is a pain in the neck compared to shooting digital, in many ways, but when it comes to my art work I will take film over digital any day. And anyone who says that a digital print is as good or better than a print from film is either a moron or has never seen the two next to each other. Or maybe they’re just blind.

(Kind of like people who think CDs sound better than LPs. And today, most people don’t even listen to CDs, they listen to MP3s which are about as good as cassettes, lol. One needs to keep in mind that the common denominator in today’s society is going towards lower and lower quality in everything. In the name of the great god, Ease/Cost!
And in case you don’t know, sales of vinyl have gone up at the same time that sales of CDs were crashing. Not only that but the big recording studios who went all digital were soon buying analog equipment back for at least one studio because there was a demand for it.)

Of course, I am not talking about drugstore processing/printing… That will get you cheesy results. But it will whether you’re printing digital files or from negatives. The best prints from digital are made by pro printers just as it was with film. And in the pro printer’s world there are many levels of quality.

But since most people don’t care to spend the money needed to get those good prints, most prints are as crappy as they ever were. And unfortunately, that is not the only problem with the digital revolution in photography.

Another problem is that people shoot so much they barely even look at what they have shot before moving on to the next shoot as is obvious from multiple threads on this forum.

Yet another problem is that most people never bother to print anything at all. They look at their photos on the computer. Funny considering that photography is still, despite the internet, mostly a printed media.

And, to Derrel, the longevity of digital photos (and media in general) is such a big problem that the government is trying to set up some sort of standard for archiving it. This problem was mentioned big time when Eastwood’s movies about Iwo Jima came out because they were called the last movies of this type that will ever be made. Thanks to digital.

Yes, today’s soldiers communicate with their families via email and since those emails will not be saved for long we will lose this kind of historical record. The same is true with photography and this is not the first time I talk of that. I own 2 amazing collections of glass photos that would simply not exist if they had been shot in digital, considering how they were stored.

Those two sets were shot by amateurs who didn’t a single thing about preserving them. Not to mention they didn’t care because they didn’t see them as anything special. But because of how well film (glass in this case) lasts, those images are still with us.

The average digital shooter on the other hand will do no more to save his/her files but the files are so fragile, they’ll be gone in no time. How many threads about multiple back ups which end up costing a fortune do you need before you can admit that?

Btw, damaged negs are better than no photo at all.


Quote: Originally Posted by supraman215
People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?

The result won't be the same if you don't know how to do it on paper and you won't know how to do it on paper for long unless you continue to do it on paper at least some of the time.

Anyone who’s been in line at the grocery store when a customer handed over 17 cents to the cashier to round up what their change will be after said cashier rung up the $10 bill that was first given can attest to that. The brain is a muscle that needs to be used if you want to keep it, lol.

Now, this is an argument from someone who really doesn’t have an argument: “Is it lonely on your pedestal?” And my response usually is: Do you feel better as part of the herd? Do you have a problem thinking for yourself? Or are you so brain dead that you will listen to a Sears photographer as your God?

I find this really funny because I have never seen a film shooter trying to force anyone to shoot film. On the other hand, I see plenty of digital only shooters trying to convince people that film is stupid. And they rarely are the best of photographers.

In the US we’ve been taught for years that progress is good, is the way to go but we haven’t been taught to actually think about why because that would be dangerous to the corporate mindset that sells the newest thing no matter how it makes our life better… or not.

Quick example and then I’ll leave you to your BS: My parent just bought a new washing machine. The one that finally just died was 30 years old. Do you think your brand spanking new washing machine is going to last a third of that?


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

And since you have never used film, what the fook do you know? You’re a joke. Get over yourself and , mostly/also, get over Derrel.

Derrel is the equivalent on this forum of the silent majority in our political life. He is neither the majority not silent.

 

[supraman215]

1/ Not much point in shooting film if you’re not going to do the darkroom work yourself.
Because the biggest difference you will see when comparing film and digital is in the print. To me that also means shooting B&W since the only color prints I’ve ever liked were Cibachrome (now known as Ilfochrome) and the last I checked it was not a process one does at home. Although printing color at
home is far from unheard of, as Superman seems to think.
...
I am not naive enough to think that film is “better” somehow though.

And since you have never used film, what the fook do you know? You’re a joke. Get over yourself and , mostly/also, get over Derrel.

I was the first one to say #1.

Printed B&W film and developed B&W negs. Never worked with color film other than taking pics. this was something I heard over 20 years ago forgive my ignorance on the color film subject.