Yet another photographer looking at switching to film

[molested_cow]

Don't have time to read through all the posts so mine probably have been mentioned.

I have always done 35mm until last week when I got my DSLR. I am not a professional and don't do it for money. In the past, I've turned down a few offers to shoot some events mainly because I don't have the right equipment I need. I needed a digital. Why? Because with film, there's too much risk of not getting it right without knowing it. Things like wrong ISO setting, old film, film not winding correctly etc. These are often the mistakes and errors that you will only find out later when it's too late. Furthermore, it is not cost effective as a business tool. On top of that, you need to have your own scanner if you want to scan it yourself. Otherwise, having it professionally scanned will cost a lot.

Weddings are lifetime events that you don't want to screw up for someone else, especially when they are paying you. I'd opt for the safest way to get good results.

One thing I can recommend in your case is to use older lens on your DSLR instead, that's if your camera takes those lens.
For example, I am using Nikkor AI-S lens from the early 80s on the D700. The image quality it produces is just like how it would behave on negative. It retains the same kind of softness. Color is definitely different because the medium is different. In general, it is just like what I want it to be. These lens are mostly MF but if it's short lens like the F1.2 50mm or F2.8 20mm, it's fine as long as you are not trying to catch running kids or dogs. You can get them at great price also!

Guess what, I went out to shoot this weekend with the new digital camera and it is just as much work making sure my settings are correct as me using my F4. Actually, I spent much more time fiddling with the settings. Sloppy? Depends on the shooter.

 

[molested_cow]

Don Beach - you can also look at this way: digital should force you to expose properly and this in itself should give you a good discipline. As you know, with digital you must expose properly or risk blowing out the highlights. With film that usually wasn't a problem. So take your time. Compose your image as you would with film and figure your exposure with hand held ligth meter if you want. Oh, and balance your lighting with the sun, etc, etc.

MarvinH

Works both ways. With film, you learn with PAIN! Each lousy shot you make is like a big slap in your face when you get the negatives back from the processor. It's money wasted. It's opportunity wasted. So the next time your finger is on the shutter trigger, you really think more than twice.

Over time, you build your confidence. I shoot a lot less shots than anyone who I shoot with who does digital, yet my yield is comparable with theirs in quantity, that's because I really think about my shots before committing to it.

 

[Josh66]

Guess what, I went out to shoot this weekend with the new digital camera and it is just as much work making sure my settings are correct as me using my F4. Actually, I spent much more time fiddling with the settings. Sloppy? Depends on the shooter.

I agree. Film doesn't make you slow down or pay more attention... Film doesn't make you do anything. It's just as easy to take bad pictures on film as it is on digital (easier actually, since you won't even know you made a mistake till days or weeks later).

 

[molested_cow]

Guess what, I went out to shoot this weekend with the new digital camera and it is just as much work making sure my settings are correct as me using my F4. Actually, I spent much more time fiddling with the settings. Sloppy? Depends on the shooter.

I agree. Film doesn't make you slow down or pay more attention... Film doesn't make you do anything. It's just as easy to take bad pictures on film as it is on digital (easier actually, since you won't even know you made a mistake till days or weeks later).

And that's the cruel part.

 

[altitude604]

Look to the RB 67s, they're tank tough and hold up well to most abuse.

that seems to be the consensus from the research that i've done. now to stalk my prey on eBay. lol

 

[CCericola]

I think offering film photographs as well as digital is a great idea. It's almost like hiring a painter to paint a portrait instead of taking a photo. It is something people can brag about to their friends.

 

[djacobox372]

Look to the RB 67s, they're tank tough and hold up well to most abuse.

that seems to be the consensus from the research that i've done. now to stalk my prey on eBay. lol

Keep in mind that the RB67 is a very heavy camera--most use it on a tripod.

If you want something lighter in 6x7 format take a look at the mamiya or fujifilm range-finders--more expensive but well worth it. There's also 6x4.5 camera which are a lot smaller then the 6x7 and easier to handhold.

 

[altitude604]

that's one other thing that i saw... the huge debate about 6x4.5 and 6x6 or 6x7.

a 6x4.5 frame is only a little bigger than a 135 frame no? at least that what it seemed to be from what i read... hence why i've been looking at the 6x6 and 6x7 stuff. go big or go home! lol

 

[compur]

a 6x4.5 frame is only a little bigger than a 135 frame no?

The 645 frame is more than 2.5 times the area of a 35mm frame.

And, for printing, the 35mm frame is often not fully used because it has
a longer aspect ratio than the most common paper sizes. So, the 35mm
(normally 24x36mm) frame is often cropped to use only about 24x30mm
which makes the 645 format effectively more than 3 times the area of
35mm.

It's a big difference. If you are accustomed to shooting and printing
(via darkroom) in 35mm and then move to 645 (or any medium format)
the difference in image quality with the bigger negatives on the finished
print is quite obvious.

 

[altitude604]

now THERE is a clear concise answer.

thank you! maybe i will look at some 645 stuff then.

 

[Mike_E]

If you have to take a plane to get there, go as big as you can on the capture. That way you can bring home more.


(6 x 4.5 = 27 ; 6 x 7 = 42 And we all know that the answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. )

 

[altitude604]

Well thankfully I work for the Company with the aircraft so getting back for a re-shoot isn't too big of an inconvenience.

Got some more time to save up and look for the right deal... it's tempting to grab one of those Special Edition customized ARAX-60s. hehe

 

[water ouzel]

Hasselblads are 6x6.

And 6x4.5 if you use the A16 back.

Or 24mm x 65mm with an Xpan.

[says the mildly compulsive ex tech writer]

 

[djacobox372]

Saying 6x4.5 is not much bigger then 35mm, is like saying 24 megapixels is not much bigger then 8.

 

[D-B-J]

There is absolutely NO logic underlying the idea that says that digital capture means lazy and thoughtless photography, and film capture means thoughtful,deliberate photography. That's a load of delusional non-thinking. The end results of both capture mediums are only best realized when the photographer puts forth his or her best effort and uses the best available methods and techniques. One can easily churn out crap work on film. Or on digital.

My thoughts exactly. So, force yourself to be deliberate with digital. It is you, the photographer, who has gotten "sloppy," and it is not a result of the format. If anything, digital allows a greater chance of capturing the perfect face, pose, expression, etc. 8fps versus a set amount per roll of film...