Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR

[compur]

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

Hey, don't forget the film fangirls. They deserve equal consideration.

 

[Neil S.]

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.

Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched.

Let's be honest. The reason the vast majority switched is because they
perceived digital to be easier, faster and cheaper.

And, since you enjoy using analogies -- eating at McDonalds is popular because
it is easier, faster and cheaper then preparing one's own meals. But, does
that make McDonalds better? Not to me it doesn't.

Watching TV is also easier, faster and cheaper than going outside and
doing things in real life. Does that make watching TV better than outdoor
activities?

Buying one of those keyboards that plays music at the touch of a button
is also easier, faster and cheaper than really learning to play. So, is buying
an automated instrument better than actually learning to play a real one?
Since it is easier, faster and cheaper should we dispense with all manual
musical instruments and just have those automated things around? Does
the invention of automated keyboards make a person a fool if he wants
to learn to actually play a real instrument? Or, is the fool the one with the
automated instrument who thinks it makes him a musician?

There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?

Look -- we film photographers know that digital is easier, faster and
cheaper than film photography. It's not necessary to keep telling us
that.

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.

Your 1st post here was slightly useful and not biased really.

But then your 2nd post here (quoted above) was just a mess.

Lets see if I missed anything:

You compared shooting digital to eating at McDonalds...

You compared shooting digital to watching TV (over going outside)...

You compared shooting digital to using a musical keyboard...

Saying the whole time that these things weren’t "better".

Then you keep saying things like "The point you seem to be missing is that there are other reasons for doing things." While not even saying what the other reasons are, or what you even like about film.

And since then every post has been more and more absurd...

This post had zero facts in it, just 100% opinion.

Now try and tell me honestly that you didn’t come into MY thread with the intent of starting something by bashing digital SLRs.

I double dog dare you.

Mega-dots lol...

 

[Neil S.]

I can see where digital makes complete and total sense in commercial settings where time is of the essence

See this is the kind of garbage that I am talking about.

You are very shrewdly implying that digital in somehow not artistic, and that film is.

You and compur are masters at dancing around something, and implying it without actually saying it.

Ill be honest, I can’t stand this.

What honor is there in this type of approach to an argument?

If you think something, just come out and say it.

You can’t just come out and say "film is better" though can you?

You would get shut down in an instant, even worse than you already are by only implying it.

 

[compur]

Lets see if I missed anything:

You compared shooting digital to eating at McDonalds...

You compared shooting digital to watching TV (over going outside)...

You compared shooting digital to using a musical keyboard...

Yes, I did imply all that. Shocking isn't it?

Then you keep saying things like "The point you seem to be missing is that
there are other reasons for doing things." While not even saying what the
other reasons are, or what you even like about film.

I said I shoot both digital and film and prefer film with some applications. I
do shoot film as do most others who post on this forum. That's why I
asked you if you knew this was a film forum because the fact that I said I
shoot film seems to have boggled you and elicited demands from you that
I tell you why I shoot film.

This post had zero facts in it, just 100% opinion.

Yes, it's true that I expressed opinions. I confess.

Now try and tell me honestly that you didn’t come into MY thread with the intent of starting something by bashing digital SLRs.

OK -
I didn't come onto YOUR thread with the purpose of bashing digital SLRs.

I double dog dare you.

Woof, woof.

 

[supraman215]

At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.

 

[Neil S.]

compur,

Why did you come here then?

I am tired of hearing what you are not doing and not saying.

Tell me what you ARE saying.

Whats your point?

Film is...

 

[Overread]

At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.

Large formate film bodies are still cheaper (significantly) than digital ones. Also film still manges to have a dynamic range bonus over digital so its got some use still in landscape work (esp if you move up to medium and large format)

Of course those areas are shrinking all the time as digital advances and cheapens

 

[compur]

Personally, I think pistachio is superior to butter pecan. But, don't tell Neil
because he's sure to double dog dare me to prove it.

 

[Neil S.]

At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.

Large formate film bodies are still cheaper (significantly) than digital ones. Also film still manges to have a dynamic range bonus over digital so its got some use still in landscape work (esp if you move up to medium and large format)

Of course those areas are shrinking all the time as digital advances and cheapens

See...

Now we are having a discussion. You make some good points here.

Are you film fanboys taking notes on this?

I was wondering when someone would mention dynamic range...

Still though there are so many downsides to shooting film that have already been stated in this thread.

 

[supraman215]

At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.

Large formate film bodies are still cheaper (significantly) than digital ones. Also film still manges to have a dynamic range bonus over digital so its got some use still in landscape work (esp if you move up to medium and large format)

Of course those areas are shrinking all the time as digital advances and cheapens

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?

 

[Neil S.]

Personally, I think pistachio is superior to butter pecan. But, don't tell Neil
because he's sure to double dog dare me to prove it.

I take this as you conceding...

 

[compur]

compur,

Why did you come here then?

To meet chicks.

I am tired of hearing what you are not doing and not saying.

I'm not doing or saying that.

Tell me what you ARE saying.

Give peace a chance.

Whats your point?

Film is...

... flat and sticky when wet and attracts dust like a magnet.

I take this as you conceding...

I take this as you making good on your promise to give up
arguing with film fanboys.

 

[Overread]

High dynamic range is one that comes to my mind you might also use film for something very specific such as doing infra red photography with infra red film - possible with digital but it requires that you have your sensor physically modified to achive (essentially removal of the sensors IR filter).
Of course a lot of these areas are far harder in some areas because getting hold of film and getting a good quality lab to process them (or even home chemicals) can make things tricky or more expensive.

 

[Neil S.]

I take this as you making good on your promise to give up
arguing with film fanboys.

This is such a weak attempt at trying to laugh it off and make a graceful exit that its pathetic.

Hey at least its better than having a meltdown like some people do when their absurd arguments get shut down.

To be clear you came in here trying to bash digital SLRs with your absurd analogies and one-sided views.

Then you were trying to keep it going by making ridiculous statements based on nothing but your own biased opinion.

Finally you were exposed for it, and now are trying to act like nothing happened.

You can laugh all you want but it will not change these facts.

Better luck next time...

 

[compur]

This is such a weak attempt at trying to laugh it off and make a graceful exit that its pathetic.

Exit? I'm not going anywhere. You said you were leaving.

Hey at least its better than having a meltdown like some people do when their absurd arguments get shut down.

Ah, you are such a master of argument. You must tell me how you do it
sometime.

To be clear you came in here trying to bash digital SLRs with your absurd analogies and one-sided views.

I did? Gosh I thought I came here to post something about the criteria
used in digital photography not always being applicable to art photography.
In fact I distinctly remember saying that a number of times. Oh well, I must
have dreamed it.

Then you were trying to keep it going by making ridiculous statements based on nothing but your own biased opinion.

Imagine that. A person having opinions! I can't believe how foolish I was to have an
opinion.

Finally you were exposed for it, and now are trying to act like nothing happened.

Oh, I feel so naked the way you exposed me and all.

You can laugh all you want but it will not change these facts.

Better luck next time...

Speaking of the facts would you mind answering a question?

Since you obviously possess superior knowledge in the art of photography,
please answer me this.

In the digital realm how would you represent the differences in image
rendering of a negative shot on Pan F+ @ ISO 25 & developed in Rodinal
1+100 via stand development vs. the same scene shot on FP4+ @ ISO
50 and developed in FX-2?