35mm SLR - why?

[Sirius Glass]

Unless I blow the money on a Hasselblad or a Mamiya RB67 or something like that first...

For less than the price of the top of the line Nikon or Canon digi-snapper and lens [~$8k] I purchased:

• Nikon N-75
• Nikon F-100
• Nikon AF 28mm - 200m zoom
• Nikon AF 20mm - 25mm zoom
• Tamron AF 28mm - 300mm zoom
• Nikon SB-800 strobe
• Voightlander Vito II [35mm folder]
• Certo Dolly SuperSport 120 folder with a Zeiss lens
• Hasselblad 503 CX
• Hasselblad CF 50mm lens
• Hasselblad CF 80mm lens
• Hasselblad CF 150mm lens
• Hasselblad CF 250mm lens
• Four Hasselblad extension tubes
• A collection of Hasselblad filters
• Hasselblad 2x extender
• Hasselblad 903 SWC
• 1919 Rotation Back Auto Graflex with 7 inch lens
• Omega Chromega 5D-XL enlarger
• Rodenstock 50mm enlarging lens
• Rodenstock 80mm enlarging lens
• 135mm enlarging lens
• Arkey 26" wide drum print dryer
• Various pieces of darkroom equipment

and I still have money left over!

Steve

 

[SilverGlow]

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.

Your argumments are a tempest in a teapot....you are a rebel without a cause ;-)

You write what you write, yet there are thousands of old timer film shooters that have successfully added digital photography to their toolbox and are making awesome images that way.

Go ahead, fight your windmills Don Quixote....

 

[lxdude]

I tend like the weight and quality of something a bit older.

Now if I can get some of the women around where I live to think the same way...except the quality part...

 

[SilverGlow]

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

It is as simple as this: I have my criteria for what I want from an "imaging system. Right now, digital is nowhere close to meeting my criteria," while film meets them (because it has, in fact defined them). When digital meets them, and does it affordably and enjoyably, I will switch.

...and any gallery owner or publisher I want to deal with will feel exactly the same way, or I won't deal with them. I am not going to be a slave to what gallery owners or publishers want. It should go the other way, in fact. They pick you because they want to sell your pictures; because they fit in to their gallery, and they believe they can make money. You don't change your work to be what they want. They represent/publish you because they think your work as it is can make them money. At the very least, most will understand and respect my views, even if they do not hold them.

I am not interested in having anything better than the results I get from film, in the photo rag definition of better. I am interested in having these film results, exactly. In fact, these results are what causes me to shoot film. Most people in this day and age just do not get this point of view. They feel that the technology available should constantly redefine what one wants. Certainly, technology available can have a huge impact on what one wants, as it did with me, learning on film. I'd probably want different things if I was born and bred on digital. However, I cannot so easily redefine my aesthetic preferences when new technology comes along, nor should I be expected or forced to. So, I like what I get from film. It is perfect for me and for my work. SO, when digital can give me exactly what I get from film, and the equipment is as affordable as is film equipment, and the equipment will last me 20 to 30 years after I buy it (I refuse to treat cameras - or anything, for that matter - as disposable consumer electronics as apposed to high-quality, long-lasting, serviceable tools.), and all of my old cameras are broken and all the people who know how to repair them are dead, and film stops being made, then digital will be my primary way of taking pix. Till then, I will not be holding my breath. I will just shoot what I have until I feel that there is something that exceeds it in all respects.

In the commercial world, what clients want is almost totally defined by the technology that is available, as opposed to actual aesthetics. Therefore, it is no surprise that film is all but gone from the commercial world. The sad thing is that artists don't spend enough money alone to support the market, so a whole bunch of great materials went out the door when commercial work went digital. The only way to keep film alive, IMHO, is for it to have a BIG resurgence in commercial work. Artists have always largely been forced to use the materials that the commercial world makes available, and it is no different with photography.

You have somehow lost your way, friend. You think it's about the medium.

It's about the picture!

It's the composition, and if the comp is heart moving, who cares what the medium is?

It's the Picture.

Pick Ture!

 

[BradS]

You have somehow lost your way, friend. You think it's about the medium.

It's about the picture!

It's the composition, and if the comp is heart moving, who cares what the medium is?

It's the Picture.

Pick Ture!

Did you even read what he wrote?

 

[wblynch]

I have the finest full-frame image sensor available in the world on my $50 camera. I get a fresh sensor with every shot and if I'm not happy with my sensor, I can change to any other sensor from multiple manufacturers in 30 seconds.

Can't do that with digital.

 

[lxdude]

Your argumments are a tempest in a teapot....you are a rebel without a cause ;-)

You write what you write, yet there are thousands of old timer film shooters that have successfully added digital photography to their toolbox and are making awesome images that way.

Go ahead, fight your windmills Don Quixote....

I don't really see much of a tempest. The point was that film gives a physical object which can be examined without having to be decoded by a machine. There is an image which exists in physical form. I think that is a valid reason. It is for me. I much prefer looking at a piece of film to looking at an image on a screen.
You have your reasons for using film. They are valid for you, and might not make sense for someone else. But they work for you.

 

[2F/2F]

You think it's about the medium.

This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what I stated.

 

[elekm]

Lately, I've been shooting a lot with a Rolleiflex SL 35 E and various lenses. Love the viewfinder and very pleased with the images.

It can do some things that a rangefinder can't. The opposite also is true.

 

[Naples]

Your argumments are a tempest in a teapot....you are a rebel without a cause ;-)

You write what you write, yet there are thousands of old timer film shooters that have successfully added digital photography to their toolbox and are making awesome images that way.

Go ahead, fight your windmills Don Quixote....

And your argument is but an ad hominem attack that fails to controvert a single fact I wrote. Thanks for the compliment.

Once again:

"I can see the images on my film negatives and transparencies, because they are there.

But I can't see any images on or in my RAW, jpg, or tif computer files, because there are none there."​

And, "thousands of old timer film shooters" who are now digitalistas can't change that fact.

 

[Naples]

I don't really see much of a tempest. The point was that film gives a physical object which can be examined without having to be decoded by a machine. There is an image which exists in physical form. I think that is a valid reason. It is for me. I much prefer looking at a piece of film to looking at an image on a screen.

Spot on.

Although, if I may, I would reword your last sentence as, "I much prefer looking at a piece of film to looking at a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s."

Image on Film ≠ 1s and 0s

 

[lxdude]

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.

An excellent example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.:rolleyes:

Oh funny, indeed.

 

[lxdude]

Spot on.

Although, if I may, I would reword your last sentence as, "I much prefer looking at a piece of film to looking at a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s."

Image on Film ≠ 1s and 0s

Well, I was referring specifically to examining the images in the forms in which they first appear. As you say, the digital images don't exist until they're on the screen.

 

[lxdude]

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

And so they are with an image on a screen.
BTW, the silver halides are there when you buy the film. Development converts them to metallic silver if they have been exposed to light.

 

[film_man]

"I much prefer looking at a piece of film to looking at a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s."

Personally I neither like looking at 1s and 0s nor trying to decipher film negatives. I might go into the trouble of looking at slides with a loupe, but that's about it.

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't on a piece of paper or on a screen (either projection or computer/TV) it is not a photo.

 

[Naples]

Well, I was referring specifically to examining the images in the forms in which they first appear. As you say, the digital images don't exist until they're on the screen.

This brings to mind a misconception held by many digitalistas. The vast majority of the digitalistas I know (and love) think (or at least thought at one time) that the "thing" created by their digicamera and residing on their corruptible hard drive is an actual image, a "digital negative" if you will. Almost invariably they are surprised to learn that there is no image there, no "negative", but rather only a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s that software must decode to produce an image for display on a screen or to send to a printer.

To me, this has been the true marketing genius of the digital camera manufacturers and their cronies at Ritz et al. - get people to think their digicameras are creating and storing "images".

 

[telyt]

This brings to mind a misconception held by many digitalistas. The vast majority of the digitalistas I know (and love) think (or at least thought at one time) that the "thing" created by their digicamera and residing on their corruptible hard drive is an actual image, a "digital negative" if you will. Almost invariably they are surprised to learn that there is no image there, no "negative", but rather only a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s that software must decode to produce an image for display on a screen or to send to a printer.

To me, this has been the true marketing genius of the digital camera manufacturers and their cronies at Ritz et al. - get people to think their digicameras are creating and storing "images".

And what are real photographers - the ones who use glass plates - saying about floppy negatives?

 

[Naples]

And what are real photographers - the ones who use glass plates - saying about floppy negatives?

They can't deny the extant image on the film negative; nor can they claim a computer file is an image.

So you're out of luck.

 

[danegermouse]

but the image isn't available to be seen until it is developed (decoded) by chemicals (software)...

d.

 

[wblynch]

This is APUG, a supposed respite from the "digitalistas"

Please go away.

 

[Naples]

but the image isn't available to be seen until it is developed (decoded) by chemicals (software).

Chemical development of an image already physically embedded in film from the interaction of light upon the film ≠ Computer software decoding a computer file comprised of millions of 1s and 0s to create a digital image for a computer screen or digital printer.

More, once film is developed, it always has an extant, visible, physical image; computer files never do ... notwithstanding what that salesman at Ritz told you about "digital negatives".

 

[telyt]

This is APUG, a supposed respite from the "digitalistas"

Please go away.

Here's my favorite camera:

They can't deny the extant image on the film negative; nor can they claim a computer file is an image.

So you're out of luck.

Glass plate photographers used to say: "film cannot be optically flat and for the miniature formats (smaller than 4x5) you need a machine to make a print. If you have to use an enlarger or projector to see it, it's not a real photograph." Do you notice any parallels? Or is there too much sand in your eyes?

 

[rippo]

I'd just like to remind everyone that:

a) this is my thread. Mine! I'm in charge!!! (well ok not really)

b) the thread is not about digital vs film. Really, it's not. Check the original post. It very specifically is NOT about digital vs film. The question is: what benefit does high-end 35mm SLR cameras provide a newbie coming from digital? I know what's special about other film camera types and formats, but wanted to know why one would bother with 35mm SLR (since it seems "almost digital" in use). I've been enlightened thoroughly. Thank you. But please, no more digital vs film arguments here. Surely there must be another thread for that?

 

[telyt]

I'd just like to remind everyone that... The question is: what benefit does high-end 35mm SLR cameras provide a newbie coming from digital?

The high-end 35mm film camera I'm using can use either a film back or a digital back. Aside from the controls specific to either recording medium, all the other controls and functions are identical making it very easy to switch from one to the other.

 

[SilverGlow]

This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what I stated.

So then when you admire a fantastic picture shown at a show or exhibit or museum, your opinion of this picture does not change when you find out later that it was made with a digital camera? As to what I'd think, I would not care how it was photographed.