35mm point and shoot vs phone

[Chan Tran]

Film is better in very small size print like 4x6. Even if you digital camera has giga pixels when making small prints you simply can't get the resolution. It's limited to about 300-400ppi.

 

[Pioneer]

Neither is better or worse than the other.

I don't enjoy viewing a photograph because it was captured on film or a sensor.

I couldn't care less.

If this is your hobby then it should be relieving your stress, not adding to it.

If this is your profession then you have other pressures that dictate your method of capture.

Either way it should not be your religion or your politics.

 

[rrusso]

I agree 100%. It's boils down to a choice of medium. My Nikon DSLR beats my Blad in every respect when it comes to image quality. My Samsung S7 beats any 35mm P&S I have. I choose to shoot film because I enjoy it not because it's better. Anyone who thinks film is always better is a moron or delusional imho.

+1

You can get very, very close to simulating in digital whatever film you want, but it takes work (I don't like plugins - most are overpriced, and they don't do anything in the software that you can't do yourself). Sometimes a lot of work, and if that's the case, why not just shoot the actual film (assuming it's still available)?

Film for me is therapeutic, plus it's permanent, whereas digital can be forever gone in an instant.

But yeah, if the choice was between bringing a p&s "just in case I come across something worth shooting" vs. just using my phone, it's the phone every time, no contest.

 

[dasBlute]

We come here to talk about shooting film.

 

[jim10219]

It's funny how people always say film will last 100 years but digital photographs will disappear forever in a few years. Then people will say "don't post anything embarrassing on the internet. It will be there forever!"

In my experience, your average 35mm point and shoot does a poorer job than most of the newer modern smart phones. I don't think it's even close. For vacation photos, friends at parties, and other "we were here and did this with him/her" type of photos, smart phones are vastly superior. Their digital nature (ease and versatility of processing), low light performance, and portability (it's already on you) is unmatched from any point and shoot. That and 35mm film just isn't that sharp, even under the best of circumstances. I basically just shoot 135 these days for fun. Though if quality is my main concern, I wouldn't choose either.

I will say, however, that a 135 P&S camera is a lot more fun to take pictures on than a smart phone!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don' t even care about "better or worse". I just prefer the look of film, even from a negative a hundred years old. Then there's the ergonomics issue. How come even a five buck disposable cardboard camera has an optical finder, but expensive smartphones and pocket digi cameras don't ? It's the most idiotic thing conceivable. You hold the stupid thing at arms length and try to focus on a tiny screen at the same time as being aware of the actual subject. Do I use reading glasses or not? I encounter people on trails who hand me a phone and ask me to take their picture. I am perfectly willing to oblige, but have no way of knowing exactly what I'm shooting in the instant. With an SLR, I do know.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... 35mm film just isn't that sharp, even under the best of circumstances.

In the best of circumstances, Adox CMS 20 will resolve 800 lp/mm, which is beyond the optical resolution of most lenses.

There are plenty of high quality sharp 35mm films - though sharpness isn't the be-all and end-all of what makes a photo worth looking at.

35mm "isn't sharp" is often said by people who look at poorly printed images from a low resolution scan. Not saying that's you by any means, but plenty of people come to that conclusion exactly as a consequence of today's dismissive low-class treatment of film by retail stores.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Let's not forget how much faster a point and shoot takes a photo.

Also, I haven't seen a phone with a flash worth a crap ever. In low light, phones s@ck.

For shooting family, I use either a Fuji DL Mini Super Zoom with film, or a Sony NEX. The NEX is mostly for video but I use either/or, so I take photos with it as well. The color on film is so much better.

I don't know where people get the idea that film isn't sharp. I guess it must be operator error..... Your crappy scans from the crappy machine at the photo lab are just that. Crappy.

To enlarge a photo taken with a phone you need optimum circumstances. Phones are great for convenience, but that is about where the benefits end.

 

[Craig75]

ah yes adox cms 20 ... the shadow eater.

The color on film is so much better.

You have control over the colour of every pixel in a raw. If your colours arent working,it's you not the file.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

ah yes adox cms 20 ... the shadow eater.


You have control over the colour of every pixel in a raw. If your colours arent working,it's you not the file.

Right out of the camera without having to manipulate it? Dream on.

Of course I have no idea what I am doing. I have no experience with this photography thing. Must be me.

 

[Craig75]

Right out of the camera without having to manipulate it? Dream on.
.

Well it would be a bit difficult to control without having to manipulate it..... thats why we have darkrooms and lightrooms...

theres not much you can even do with a raw file unless you actually process it!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

ah yes adox cms 20 ... the shadow eater.
...

Although I mentioned CMS 20, I have no experience with it. But I do have much experience with Kodak Tech Pan and Technodol.

With that, I have a beautiful 16x20 print I made from Crown Point in the Columbia River Gorge about 20 years ago. Nice contrast, good shadow detail, a magnificent aerial view of the river and a distinct view of individual cars 4.5 miles away near Bonneville Dam. I think Tech Pan is a bit less than 400 lp/mm, doesn't really matter because it's an amazingly sharp photo even without putting one's nose an inch from the print.

 

[Craig75]

Although I mentioned CMS 20, I have no experience with it. But I do have much experience with Kodak Tech Pan and Technodol.

With that, I have a beautiful 16x20 print I made from Crown Point in the Columbia River Gorge. Nice contrast, good shadow detail, a view of the river and a distinct view of individual cars 4.5 miles away near Bonneville Dam. I think Tech Pan is a bit less than 400 lp/mm, doesn't really matter because it's an amazingly sharp photo even without putting one's nose an inch from the print.

I was hoping you were going to share your cms20 secret! I have shot maybe 15 rolls of hdp13 (which i think is adox cms 20) in 16mm and you can blow it up to 8x10 with no break up but getting more than 5 or so stops out of it is a challenge. I suspect there are better microfilm brands out there for pictorial use but in very limited applications its definitely very powerful but i only get 1/30th to 1/125th at f2.8 so most of that resolution is lost in camera shake with a 16mm camera.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

A (smart)phone is not a 35mm camera or an accessory. So with all due respect, why is this thread still open?

 

[rrusso]

Right out of the camera without having to manipulate it? Dream on.

Of course I have no idea what I am doing. I have no experience with this photography thing. Must be me.

Well the purpose of shooting RAW is not to get something sooc (though that is the goal, of course), it's to provide the maximum amount of control in post...that's why it's commonly referred to as the "digital negative". In fact, most of the time, the straight RAW files won't look very good at all, but a couple of clicks is usually all it takes to get most of the way there. But...I don't think Craig was trying to dig on you personally, but merely making a point.

But let's be real here...even if you only shoot film, is the straight negative going to give you what you want, or will you have to adjust contrast and dodge/burn to get it just right?

Either way, there's usually some work involved. For me (most of us here?) I prefer to be in the darkroom, rather than in front of the computer screen, when doing said work.

 

[rrusso]

A (smart)phone is not a 35mm camera or an accessory. So with all due respect, why is this thread still open?

It has somewhat devolved, hasn't it?

I'm just as guilty as anyone else.

 

[pentaxuser]

A (smart)phone is not a 35mm camera or an accessory. So with all due respect, why is this thread still open?

I think this thread is still open because in the last few years we have attracted a "new breed" of analogue photographer whose main experience is digital and whose natural home after making the transition to film is hybrid. Their background is such that they do not see this kind of thread as in any way "unnatural" on an analogue forum. APUG is stretching its rules in a way that I believe it would not have done when I joined in 2005. Indeed then, I could count on one hand these kind of threads. Memory can play tricks but for the first few years I cannot recall any such threads.

I will allow the members and mods to decide if, when and how a stop or at least a change of direction is applied. I have to say I see no evidence that APUG wants to effect a change of direction.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Film can be so potentially sharp that in the 1930's there were international contests seeing just how many full texts of the Bible could be put on a single microdot. But forget the geek math. Why put a bunch of "look like film" apps on an electronic device if you can have the real thing instead? Do what you like. I prefer film for both technical and esthetic reasons. But my rules aren't yours, so just go enjoy whatever.

 

[Alan Gales]

Why put a bunch of "look like film" apps on an electronic device if you can have the real thing instead?

Fuji has film simulation options on it's cameras. One interesting one is "Classic Chrome" which is supposed to resemble Kodachrome. You are correct though. People like the "look" of film!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Just to be different, I want a film that gives me the look of digital.

DREW: you're right - I completely forgot about the Bible on a microdot!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! People have been achieving the digital look on film for over a hundred years now, just by smearing Vaseline on the lens! But technically, "extreme" film work has transpired not only with microfilms, but color too. I've seen a number of such color images, admittedly not from point n' shoot devices, but custom lenses twenty and even forty years ago, which probably cost twice as much apiece as a Ferrari at the time. Even U2 spy planes using real film are still in use when they need superior detail to digital satellite images, and an original reference not potentially digi manipulated! Those are point n' shoot cameras - you just fly over your spot and activate the shutter. No need to even focus.

 

[George Mann]

In my experience, your average 35mm point and shoot does a poorer job than most of the newer modern smart phones.

You failed to mention that this is solely do to the quality of their lenses, and the perceived sharpness of film vs. digital is subjective at best.

 

[George Mann]

Anyone who thinks film is always better is a moron or delusional imho.

I am not comparing scans of film to digital when I make this claim!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not really. Since most folks print digital images via inkjet, they're limited to the so-so detail and color repro problems inherent to that kind of media. But if I want sheer detail, I shoot much larger film formats to begin with, and print them optically. It's that simple. When I shoot 35mm, I generally use high speed films for small prints and a deliberately different effect - gritty poetic.

 

[Chan Tran]

Not really. Since most folks print digital images via inkjet, they're limited to the so-so detail and color repro problems inherent to that kind of media. But if I want sheer detail, I shoot much larger film formats to begin with, and print them optically. It's that simple. When I shoot 35mm, I generally use high speed films for small prints and a deliberately different effect - gritty poetic.

I agree. One thing I know for sure that if you make a 4x6 print from a low ISO 35mm film there is no digital print that can have the same resolution no matter what kind of camera used to take the pictures.