35mm SLR - why?

[SilverGlow]

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.

It is sad that you are VERY MUCH like "digitalistas".

It is exceedingly wrong, backward, and stupid to be a "digitalista".......AND a "filmista" too!

It is far better to be an admirer of art, a creator of art, a person that can be called an artist, or in your vernacular an "artista".

Be an "artista"...get into pictures, be a "picturista", and be open, tolerant, and respectful of other forms of photography

And as to "digitalistas" and filmistas? they BOTH are all fools, and BOTH miss the point ;-)

Not all film lovers are of the exact same mind!

We all have our own opinions and not all of us attack, belittle, or pass on outright lies about other mediums. Some of us film lovers are respectful of other forms of photography, other formats, other techniques.

 

[totalmotard]

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'll give you another insight. I have a Nikon D700, it is an amazing piece of equipment. Now I have the perfect set of lenses to use with this camera. All full-frame and none of which are AF-S. 3 are AF-D and two are G but not AF-S. Now for casual shooting this D700 is a bit of a beast. Solid metal frame, built like a brick *house. It doesn't fit in my motorcycle's tail pack. I want something light and full-frame that works with all my lenses. A D90 is a crop frame, works with my lenses but it's not full frame. If I want to go wide I'd need a different lens. D3000 and D5000 won't even auto-focus the AF-D lenses besides being crop frame. Answer? Nikon N80, all the features I need and I'm used to shooting with, works with all my lenses and weighs about half of what the D700 weighs. I get an almost new one for $89. So I run a roll of Tri-X through it and I'm hooked on film again. I pick up a Nikon FE cheap and then a couple of MF lenses, and now I'm having real fun and I'm looking for more bargains. So I guess the N80 functioned as gateway back to film, I'm even thinking about selling the D700. The only thing holding me back is there ain't any film that will shoot like D700 does at 12800 iso.

 

[Naples]

It is sad that you are VERY MUCH like "digitalistas".

It is exceedingly wrong, backward, and stupid to be a "digitalista".......AND a "filmista" too!

It is far better to be an admirer of art, a creator of art, a person that can be called an artist, or in your vernacular an "artista".

Be an "artista"...get into pictures, be a "picturista", and be open, tolerant, and respectful of other forms of photography

And as to "digitalistas" and filmistas? they BOTH are all fools, and BOTH miss the point ;-)

Not all film lovers are of the exact same mind!

We all have our own opinions and not all of us attack, belittle, or pass on outright lies about other mediums. Some of us film lovers are respectful of other forms of photography, other formats, other techniques.

That's nothing but a response ad hominem. Thanks for the compliment.

All I have done here is point out the fact - denied or at least challenged by digitalistas - that digicameras do not produce images but rather mere computer files comprised entirely of 1s and 0s (apparently that undeniable fact drives digitalistas batty).

Sorry, but I don't consider the creation by a computer of a string of 1s and 0s to be "photo[light]graphy[image]". It can't be. There is no image.

Now, I have nothing against computer generated files. In fact I use them all the time, via my wife's digicamera.

But I'm not going to sit idly by while digitalistas come here and try to claim that their digital files (1s and 0s) are the same as the extant, physical images created by light upon film. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

 

[MattKing]

I must admit that I do find the most recent, top-of-the-line film SLRs to be somewhat intimidating. I tend to prefer something more straightforward (no screens or menus or multiple defaults).

I probably would be more vulnerable to the digital siren's call if they came out with an OM2n with a full frame digital sensor.

I might even accept auto-focus (heresy!)

 

[totalmotard]

Sorry, but I don't consider the creation by a computer of a string of 1s and 0s to be "photo[light]graphy[image]". It can't be. There is no image.

Maybe digital should be photo-[light]-logos-[information]-ophy. Photologosophy, now that's a mouth full.

 

[jphendren]

After selling my Nikon F5 to finance a Nikon D2H in 2004, and going through a Canon 5D, and a Canon EOS-1Ds, I have returned to film exclusively. I have decided that I just don't enjoy the digital workflow that is associated with shooting DSLR's; I much prefer looking at Velvia 50 slides on a lightbox. I currently own all of the top dogs in the 35mm SLR world; the F5, F6, and EOS-1V. You simply cannot buy a DSLR that is built as well, and with all of the features of these cameras, for anywhere near the price of the above mentioned cameras. When 35mm Velvia 50 is scanned on a Nikon Super Coolscan it rivals the best DSLRS for detail, but the color is FAR superior IMO. I could only imagine how much detail can be captured with a drum scan! I also do not miss those stupid dust bunnies on the sensor, what a pain.

Jared

 

[Pumal]

I do not accept Digital nor AF

 

[e-k]

Sorry, but I don't consider the creation by a computer of a string of 1s and 0s to be "photo[light]graphy[image]". It can't be. There is no image.

Your etymology is a little off . -graphy is to write/record; it does not mean image.

Now, I have nothing against computer generated files. In fact I use them all the time, via my wife's digicamera.

But I'm not going to sit idly by while digitalistas come here and try to claim that their digital files (1s and 0s) are the same as the extant, physical images created by light upon film. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

They're not a physical image in the same way as film but it does not follow that they are not images.

e-k

 

[Naples]

Your etymology is a little off . -graphy is to write/record; it does not mean image.

They're not a physical image in the same way as film but it does not follow that they are not images.

My source says "graphy" is derived from the Greek "graphein" which means “to draw". A "drawing" is an "image". Hence "photo[light]graphy[drawing or image]" is defined as "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface". This excludes digicameras, as no image is produced on a surface sensitive to light; rather a computer file of 1s and 0s is generated and placed on a disk.

Yes it does follow that digital files are not images. How is a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s an image? It's not. It's mere code that can be read by certain software to create an image, but the computer file itself is not an image. Conversely, a negative or transparency is itself an image.

 

[2F/2F]

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

What does this have to do with what I said, originally, or in response to your prior comment to me? We are not discussing our opinions of others' work based on the medium used. We are discussing why 35mm film is still useful to us even though digital cameras can do so much.

What you said I said (that it is "about the medium") is in fact the opposite of what I said. I said that it is about the results and about the process, and that these are why I usually use film: because digital usually does not meet my criteria for either results or for process, but film does.

How does that equate to me saying it is "about the medium," or to me "[losing] my way," as you say that I have?

 

[keithwms]

I'm even thinking about selling the D700. The only thing holding me back is there ain't any film that will shoot like D700 does at 12800 iso.

Same here, I also don't have much use for mine except for high ISO color, 800 and up. For that it is a true weapon.

Lovin' my 35mm film cameras though, especially for astia 100f and b&w in general.

 

[BradS]

I'm just asking: why, in a digital age, would a photographer specifically choose a modern film SLR camera such as those mentioned above?

I think your question is a little like asking "why would one choose to eat a banana when strawberries are available?".

The answer is simply that one chooses what tastes better and obviously, what tastes better, what one wants to eat at any given moment is completely subjective.

I think that the answer to your question is kinda the same. One chooses a 35mm SLR because one wants to shoot film. Why would one shoot film in such a small format given the current state of the art of digital SLR? Obviously, one shoots film because one wants the look and the experience that can only come from film. Further, one shoots digital because one wants the look and experience that only comes from digital. There is nothing in there about one is better than the other...that is all subjective. The two produce completely different results and require completely different skill sets.

As an (extreme?) example, if you want the look of Kodachrome, you must shoot kodachrome. There is really no way to get that look from a digital SLR. There is simply no way for a viewer of a digital image to have the same experience as the viewer of a projected kodachrome slide. (yeah, I know that digital images can be projected...anybody who says they are the same experience has not seen a kodachrome slide show.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

:munch::munch::munch::munch::munch:

 

[derwent]

After selling my Nikon F5 to finance a Nikon D2H in 2004, and going through a Canon 5D, and a Canon EOS-1Ds, I have returned to film exclusively. I have decided that I just don't enjoy the digital workflow that is associated with shooting DSLR's; I much prefer looking at Velvia 50 slides on a lightbox. I currently own all of the top dogs in the 35mm SLR world; the F5, F6, and EOS-1V. You simply cannot buy a DSLR that is built as well, and with all of the features of these cameras, for anywhere near the price of the above mentioned cameras. When 35mm Velvia 50 is scanned on a Nikon Super Coolscan it rivals the best DSLRS for detail, but the color is FAR superior IMO. I could only imagine how much detail can be captured with a drum scan! I also do not miss those stupid dust bunnies on the sensor, what a pain.

Jared

I would have to agree.
I came from playing with 35mm point and shooters as a kid, and wanting an SLR but not being able to afford one (oh how I wanted that nice looking Pentax MZ-50 in the camera shop window...and what a dissapointment it was when I got one for $0.99 on eBay after I had played with some really nice SLRs!) to not messing about with cameras for a couple of years after my camera died, to finally grudgingly joining the digital revolution with a Nikon Coolpix, and then the revelation when I had a play with a friend's Fujica ST605...and he showed me how cheap they were now.
One year on I havec I think 15 cameras at last count, stacks of lenses and light meters and filters and all the junk that goes with them, and all in I have spend around $1k...
As I said earlier, my Canon EOS RT does 95% of the cool stuff a 5D would do, but it cost me $80 for the camera and $60 for the lens...as opposed to $1k+ for a secondhand 5D Mk1...
Also I like the permanence of a real tangible piece of film (except for when the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!) and the colours of a Velvia slide are not quite matched by any digital I have seen (although I am the first to admit I have seen some WONDERFUL images from DSLRs...) and I also like actually projecting slides.
The modern autofocus SLR does for me nearly anything I would possibly ask of a DSLR at a fraction of the price, and lets me shoot film which I love.
I do carry a digi pocket camera, use it most days for snapshots or even to record the settings on a manual SLR for future reference, and I do scan my negs and slides as I don't have a darkroom so I get prints done of the digi files, but the 35mm SLR just gives me great results at a great price so I will continue to use it.

 

[5stringdeath]

Also I like the permanence of a real tangible piece of film (except for when the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!)

Dead Link Removed

 

[e-k]

My source says "graphy" is derived from the Greek "graphein" which means “to draw". A "drawing" is an "image". Hence "photo[light]graphy[drawing or image]" is defined as "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface". This excludes digicameras, as no image is produced on a surface sensitive to light; rather a computer file of 1s and 0s is generated and placed on a disk.

Yes it does follow that digital files are not images. How is a computer file comprised entirely of 1s and 0s an image? It's not. It's mere code that can be read by certain software to create an image, but the computer file itself is not an image. Conversely, a negative or transparency is itself an image.

The real image is formed behind the lens. The light from this real image strikes a surface sensitive to light: film, CCD or CMOS sensor. A latent image is formed.

With film you develop it and yes at that point you have a physical image again (although for a negative it could be argued that this isn't a true image as it isn't an accurate representation of the object that was imaged).

With a sensor, the information is stored physically in some form of memory but remains a latent image until it is subsequently displayed.

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".

I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say here. To the average person, there is no practical difference between the image on a piece of developed film and the latent image produced by a digital camera. One's going to get stuffed in a box somewhere, having never been looked at, or one's going to get copied to some hard disk somewhere.

Both negatives and the latent images stored in files from a digital camera are generally intermediate steps. The negative, in and of itself, is not the end goal, the print is. For digital, viewing on the screen or a print may be the end goal.

e-k

 

[film_man]

So people can read clots of chemicals on a gelatin-based backing sheet and series of electrons on a magnetised surface. I'm missing out in life.

 

[lxdude]

the bloody kitten chews up my bloody negatives!!!

You didn't! Poor kitty...

 

[e-k]

So people can read clots of chemicals on a gelatin-based backing sheet and series of electrons on a magnetised surface. I'm missing out in life.

Well of course they can


Seriously though, I was saying that undeveloped film and a file from a digital camera are similar in the sense that they both contain latent images. Meaning they both have the potentialto be used to create an actual image.

For developed film, yes you can see/read clots of chemicals. However, how often is this done without aid--especially for small formats. You don't see many negatives hanging on the wall of the family home .

e-k

 

[elekm]

Oh good lord -- digital vs. film. Film vs. digital. Each side trying so hard to convince the other.

(actually, I'm a film guy, but even I get tired of watching this unfold.)

 

[Steve Smith]

For developed film, yes you can see/read clots of chemicals. However, how often is this done without aid--especially for small formats. You don't see many negatives hanging on the wall of the family home

But you can project the positive versions onto a wall (or screen).


Steve.

 

[totalmotard]

Let me just give a little greek insight. I spent 20 years studying greek. Graphein does indeed mean to record or write, but that record is a physical object, a grapheis. So a photograph is a physical recording of light. Icon is the word for image however. So an iconograph is a physical recording of an image. A digital camera makes a record of light, but it does not make a physical object until printing. At that point it is a photograph, until then it is a photologos. If you've read Plato, then it is the photologos which is the real and the photograph which is the shadow on the cave wall.

 

[Naples]

The real image is formed behind the lens. The light from this real image strikes a surface sensitive to light: film, CCD or CMOS sensor. A latent image is formed.

No image, latent or otherwise, is ever formed in or by a digicamera sensor. Light does not change the surface of the sensor (that’s why you can use the sensor over and over). The sensor simply transforms the light that enters the lens into a computer file comprised of 1s and 0s. A computer file of 1s and 0s is not an image; it is simply code that certain computer software can read to separately create an approximation of the original image.

With film you develop it and yes at that point you have a physical image again (although for a negative it could be argued that this isn't a true image as it isn't an accurate representation of the object that was imaged).

LOL. So the physical, clearly perceptible image on a negative is not an image, but a computer file of 1s and 0s is an image? You're being absurd. But I guess that’s what happens when one realises his digicamera does not produce images and is forced to argue that his computer files of 1s and 0s are “images”.

In any event, a negative is a perfectly accurate negative representation of the object imaged. It’s an image. I just picked up my TMAX 100 negatives of my children playing on the beach in the summer of 1998, looked at them, and saw perfectly well the images captured at that moment. Real, physical images, captured on the surface of the film. Try that with your strings of millions of 1s and 0s.

With a sensor, the information is stored physically in some form of memory but remains a latent image until it is subsequently displayed.

Information – 1s and 0s – is not an image, latent or otherwise. It’s computer code.

Conversely, when light falls upon exposed film, the light actually, physically, and permanently alters the chemical makeup of the film and leaves a physical, embedded image there. That’s why you can’t use that section of film ever again, but you can always use a digicamera’s computer sensor over and over again – no image, latent or otherwise, is left there.

I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say here. To the average person, there is no practical difference between the image on a piece of developed film and the latent image produced by a digital camera.

Once again, there is no “latent image” produced by a digicamera. A computer file of 1s and 0s is not an “image”, and it does not become one by adding “latent” to it.

 

[Naples]

You don't see many negatives hanging on the wall of the family home.

But negatives (and transparencies) could be hung on the wall of the family home as both are real, physical, perceptible images; conversely, your computer files can never be hung on the wall of the family home as they are not images.

PS. By your logic, my children’s art works are not images because they are stored in boxes and not hung on a wall? Huh? Alas, more absurdity that springs from the acceptance of 1s and 0s as “images”.

 

[Peter de Groot]

So what is the problem? The end result on paper is an image right? Does it really matter which way it travelled to end up on paper? Does that make the final image less if it has travelled the digital path? Doesn't the photographer put in the same amount of visualisation before he pressed the shutter?
To me the sensor is a light sensitive object. Because it reacts to light. Same is my skin is also a light sensitive surface becuase it reacts to light as well.
I don't care that o's and 1's are not an image. When printed the end result is an image. That is what counts.