35mm SLR - why?

[telyt]

We obviously have different criteria for judging our images, and different ideas of what looks good. ...

When I show my prints to gallery owners there's no label identifying the camera or recording medium. My digital photos are printed on the same RA-4 photographic materials my film photos are printed on. The gallery owners simply prefer the photos from the DMR. (After their speech centers recover from the shock of seeing the prints they always ask what camera I'm using.)

Perhaps the digital camera you're using is the problem. The DMR's image files are typically described as more film-like than any other small-format digital camera. I know it's heresy on this forum, but as much as I like the tangibility and 'real-ness' of film and the rock-solid simplicity of 1960s - 1970s film cameras, for print quality film is a relic of history for me. YMMV.

 

[eddie]

I'm with 2F and Sirius on this... I don't shoot 35 SLR often, but film gives me a sense of satisfaction, and accomplishment, that I don't get from digital. I enjoy the necessity of "pre-editing", due to the limited amount of film I have with me. I still get the magic of watching a print appear in a tray; the subtle variation from print to print; the glow of the safelight during those hours I can escape to the darkroom, unencumbered by outside intrusions.
What film gives me is a sense of creation through the entire process. I never got that from PShop. I sell a few hundred prints, in an average year, and feel an obligation to deliver an image which is hand-crafted, from start to finish.
I realize I'm probably in the minority concerning my definition of "hand-crafted" ( well... maybe not here...), but, in the end, I create images for my own satisfaction, and only film delivers it. I'm fortunate that my buyers find them worthy of purchase.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Boy, Rippo really does know how to push buttons, and to "stir up the hornet's nest!"

However, in deference to him, I also offer the following, even though they may seem to be contradictory:

Most of what I am doing now does seem to involve a fair quality digital camera, in part because that is what many people seem to want. Last weekend I took three photographs at about 2130 that Saturday evening. Two hours later after I was at home, they were on the way over the Internet to the main person associated with the group. Early the next morning, she contacted the son of the man for whom those photographs had been taken, and forwarded the image files on to him. That Sunday he took the files with him to get 16 by 24 large prints made. That Sunday afternoon he took those prints to the hospital where his father was dying. Later he told me that his father really did enjoy the photographs of the group of which his father had been a member, and he credits that whole process with helping his father make it through another day. His father died 48 hours almost exactly after those photographs were taken, and about 30 hours after he was shown the prints. With the transportation involved in this case, I could not have accomplished that with film.

In addition to the digital SLR cameras, there are also several film SLR cameras here, including a Minolta Maxxum 9 and a small selection of lenses for it. I am already on record as saying that anyone who has experience with a modern digital SLR camera will feel right at home with the Minolta Maxxum 9. So many of the capabilities that are found on the modern digital SLR cameras are also in the Minolta Maxxum 9. The main difference is in how the light image is recorded. I like my Minolta Maxxum 9. It is one of the finest Point and Shoot 35mm film cameras ever made, or at least I can set it up to work that way.

If I may offer an automotive analogy, the European automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s seemed to expect that the vehicle driver would be an engaged participant in the automotive driving process, while the American automobiles of that era seemed to be designed to isolate and insulate the driver as much as possible from that process, and to replace it with "a living room like experience." The "modern dSLR cameras" and many of the late film cameras seem to be of the philosophy that the tedium of being involved in the process is be eliminated, "for the benefit of the photographer." I also feel that I am much more involved, and I much more enjoy the experience of being part of the photograph taking process when I am the one deciding each facet of how the image is to be recorded. My Minolta SR-1b is a fine example of this, as is my Kiev 88C. The SINAR F and F1 I can only describe as humbling. I am still relearning photography with "a full featured view camera."

Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.

 

[flashgumby]

... That Sunday afternoon he took those prints to the hospital where his father was dying. Later he told me that his father really did enjoy the photographs of the group of which his father had been a member, and he credits that whole process with helping his father make it through another day. His father died 48 hours almost exactly after those photographs were taken, and about 30 hours after he was shown the prints...
... I like my Minolta Maxxum 9. It is one of the finest Point and Shoot 35mm film cameras ever made...

Ralph, that's a really touching story. Thanks for sharing.
Not sure I've ever heard a '9' described as a P&S before though but I understand your point. Does that make my 7 a "camera for newbies"? Or maybe even a disposable?

Regards,
Gordon

 

[telyt]

... If I may offer an automotive analogy, the European automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s seemed to expect that the vehicle driver would be an engaged participant in the automotive driving process, while the American automobiles of that era seemed to be designed to isolate and insulate the driver as much as possible from that process, and to replace it with "a living room like experience." The "modern dSLR cameras" and many of the late film cameras seem to be of the philosophy that the tedium of being involved in the process is be eliminated, "for the benefit of the photographer."...

I'm using my digital camera without the @*!% automation. Exposure is manual, focus is manual, I can even cock the shutter manually, and I'm recording as raw files, not jpg. I'm actually much more involved with the final image using a digital workflow than I ever was in the darkroom because the degree of control is several orders of magnitude greater.

 

[lxdude]

Where can one find a forum on composing? I realize one can find threads dedicated to certain genre's such as portraits, landscapes, street, the list goes on....but none of these really discuss composition directly...the elements of a picture, etc...even those specialized threads are still too hardware centric...

Try looking into art forums.

 

[st3ve]

On this subject of automation, sometimes auto is the sensible choice. I am not against automation when I want it.

What annoys me is that there is no really simple, beater d$lr that compares to my fm2n or oly om1 or xa or such- simple, inexpensive little pieces that I can take with me into knee deep saltwater without a care... and still expect topnotch results.

The Olympus E-1, if you can handle 5 megapixel wrt cropping.

Not that I'd know.......

 

[Naples]

I'm using my digital camera without the @*!% automation. Exposure is manual, focus is manual, I can even cock the shutter manually, and I'm recording as raw files, not jpg.

A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.

See "Film: The Real Raw" - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

 

[film_man]

A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.

See "Film: The Real Raw" - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

Oh please, not that idiot Ken again.

 

[telyt]

A raw file is still a computer file, not an image; software is required to "read" the code in the file to generate an image.

And a film image is clumps of silver halides or dye clouds. With film our eyes and brain are the computer.

 

[Naples]

And a film image is clumps of silver halides or dye clouds. With film our eyes and brain are the computer.

Sure, the images on my film are the same as the non-images on my jpgs, tiffs, and RAW files.

Images = Non-images

1+1 = 3

Class dismissed, everyone.

 

[telyt]

Sure, the images on my film are the same as the non-images on my jpgs, tiffs, and RAW files.

Images = Non-images

1+1 = 3

Class dismissed, everyone.

The funny thing is that at the molecular level film is digital and a CCD or CMOS sensor is analog. The film image is invisible until the developer converts the higher electron valence levels to silver halide grains. The valence levels are discrete steps, i.e., a digital representation of electron energy. The latent film image is analogous to the digital raw file, it must be developed before anyone can see it.

A CMOS or CCD sensor records the image with electrons, and requires an analog-to-digital converter to create the image file. Either film or CCD/CMOS, the electrons must be processed before anyone can see the image.

 

[Naples]

The latent film image is analogous to the digital raw file, it must be developed before anyone can see it.

Not analogous. Once developed the image on film is thereafter always an image. Conversely, a computer file, whether RAW or .jpg or .tif, always itself remains a computer file and is never itself an image.

1 ≠ 2

Image ≠ No image

 

[telyt]

Not analogous. Once developed the image on film is thereafter always an image. Conversely, a computer file, whether RAW or .jpg or .tif, always itself remains a computer file and is never itself an image.

1 ≠ 2

Image ≠ No image

Can you see a latent image? Either one requires processing before you can see it.

 

[Naples]

Can you see a latent image?

No.

But I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies. They're there.

And I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files. They're not there.

NM.

 

[telyt]

No.

But I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies. They're there.

And I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files. They're not there.

NM.

So following your train of thought, your words on my computer screen are not real words.

 

[christom]

Too funny by some, to serious by others... A photograph is a print to be viewed, No?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.

The amount of automation that I use is inversely as the square of the longest dimension of the film.

• 35mm can be from total point and shoot to carefully planned and executed photographs with the Nikons and fully manual with the Voightlander Vito II. Thus [1/(1.5 inch)]^2 = 0.444
• MF can be some what fast with the Hasselblad to carefully planned and executed photographs. However there is nothing automated with my c. 1935 folder. Thus [1/(2.25 inches)]^2 = 0.198
• LF is fully manual. and thus [1/(4 inches)]^2 = 0.0625

For the most part, the format size relates to the altimate goal and to a lessor extent to the time constraints.

Steve

 

[rippo]

Boy, Rippo really does know how to push buttons, and to "stir up the hornet's nest!"

However, in deference to him, I also offer the following, even though they may seem to be contradictory:

[...]

Rippo, I can only echo the points others have made; 2F/2F, SiriusGlass, agw, kiethwms, and many others. What do you want to do, and how do you want to do it? Each of the two main ways under discussion -- film SLR and dSLR -- have characteristics and qualities that may make it the better choice for one application or another. At this time, I still feel a greater sense of satisfaction with film than I do with silicon, but part of that may be that I have much more experience with film, and I am still judging the results of a digital image in comparison with film. You have posed a very difficult question which is probably being answered in many cases with our own personal history, taste, and prejudice. I am sorry. I do not think that any of us can really do better than that.

Yes I do feel an urge to somehow provide stewardship to a post that has obviously taken on a life of its own. The question was posed from a hypothetical newbie's perspective. Why a modern 35mm SLR specifically? That's the one type of camera/format that has always eluded me, in terms of understanding the benefits as compared with digital. I love playing with rangefinders, old folders, medium format, LF (and despise sub-mini, but understand why it might appeal to some). But somehow, an F5/F6/EOS-1 seemed like they needed a justification that I just couldn't come up with. Like the format was "almost digital" but annoyingly not so. But I've been put in my place, as it were, because of course I was neglecting the recording medium. Film, in any configuration, has a certain appeal and use for some people. The bells and whistles merely make the exposure of that film more convenient.

So really the answer to my question is: because 35mm SLR is 'just like' digital, but with the added benefit of…film!

 

[rippo]

And lest some say that film is just a frippery, a constructed process by which some can feel a sense of elitism, I must offer as evidence to the contrary my "lucky camera". I have a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x6 camera. Every roll yields improbable percentages of excellent images. The yield is staggeringly high as compared to my dSLRs. The reason is simply because, as far as I can tell, I cannot 'chimp' the results, and I only have 12 images to take on a particular roll. So I think about what I do, and let the results stew for awhile before I see them. The process of delayed gratification and enforced diligence seems to actually yield substantive results. I even brought the little Nettar on a fashion shoot a few weeks ago, and one of the images made the final spread. ( http://www.la2day.com/fashion/photo_spread_survival_instinct/ )

 

[lxdude]

Hmmm... rippo..rippo..... weren't you one of those other Marx Brothers?

 

[rippo]

Yes, I was the one who got told he had 'a face for radio'.

 

[derwent]

I got my Canon EOS RT for $80.
I can't get a DSLR for that money that comes anywhere near the image quality that I can get out of the RT with decent slide film.
If (probably when) I get a DSLR I want full frame sensor and I want it to be as durable mechanically as a film camera, so for me that pretty much means I will be saving up for a EOS 5D or similar.
Unless I blow the money on a Hasselblad or a Mamiya RB67 or something like that first...

I use the RT a lot, usually loaded with slide. At the same time it just cannot give the tactile feel and satisfaction of use that I get out of my older manual focus stuff, but it brings home the results film after film after film, so I can't argue with it.
If I had a DSLR I would use it for sure, but I love burning film so I would still use my film cameras, all of them, on a regular basis.

 

[Andrew Horodysky]

If you're asking specifically about late-model, auto-everything, bells-and-whistles SLRs, I agree that they're more similar to DSLRs than different---the main difference is in the recording medium rather than the user experience.

More generally, I think the answer is just that some outstanding cameras have been made in the 35mm SLR format; no wonder considering its popularity. I find myself shooting my AE-1 a lot simply because it's an elegant camera in use, not because it's an SLR per se.

-NT

Exactly. My AE-1 finally reached it's end-of-life in the beginning of this year (I bought it with money I earned from a summer job in 1978). I now use an F-1N.

 

[magkelly]

I like both actually, using digital and film, but to me they're often very different experiences. First off I don't have a very good digital. My Fuji it's okay, upscale for a point and shoot but I have more in terms of lenses with my traditional gear at this point than I do the digital. That means as a learning tool my traditional gear is actually better. When I can afford a DSLR that will level out a lot and I will likely be shooting more with the DSLR and using some of my older lenses on that camera, but for right now I still need the fully manual settings and the good lenses to learn. Also, I just plain enjoy using film now and again. I'm a Pentax fan and my old Spottie is my favorite camera, period. There's something about the feel of that camera and using those lenses that actually feels better to me than my digital.

I tend to like old things in general. When it comes to film SLR's most of my gear is from the 50's through the 70's. I like old cars. I also sew on a sewing machine that's from the 1940's so maybe it's just that too, liking old things. I'm not really a huge fan of plastic cameras. I tend like the weight and quality of something a bit older.