why shoot 35mm film

eddie gunks · Apr 1, 2006

film is better for all the reasons listed above. i like film. i like looking at it, processing it, loading it, winding it, and i love that 90% of my cameras do not use batteries! as a matter of fact recently my most used cameras do not even have a lens! so i am able to make photos with NO batteries, and no lens. lets see digital shooters do that.

eddie

johnnywalker · Apr 1, 2006

[QUOTE
And finally, an imaging system whose sensors are removable, replaceable, updateable, by the user, and diverse in character is a stroke of genius as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]

Exactly Right.

JBrunner · Apr 1, 2006

I can't shoot Velvia, Provia, Sensia, Agfa, Efke, TriX, Adox, APHS, Tmax, Acros, Foma, Berger, Forte, FP4, FP5, Delta, Fotomika, Maco, Rollei, infrared, Plus X, Portra, 64T, Ektachrome, or Kodachrome and so on and so forth in a DSLR.

Dave Parker · Apr 1, 2006

Cooki said:
If you go to any event where there are photographers, you will invariably hear the roar of digital cameras all firing at a cyclic rate just a little quicker than a Browning M2 machine gun, while over in the corner you will hear the slow but steady click of a true photographer sniping away with her TX or K1000, taking 10 good photos vs the 200+ deleteable images taken by the gunners.
Cooki
primis avrilis

I don't know about that, I am a wildlife and sports photographer, and when you get a bunch of us lined up at a bear jam in Yellowstone, fireing off our 35mm's, with high speed motordrives, we probably sound like a machine gun going off as well! And with the 1/12,000 top shutter speed I have in my 9xi's, with the right light, I can pretty much catch just about any action!

LOL

Dave

roteague · Apr 1, 2006

JBrunner said:
I can't shoot Velvia, Provia, Sensia, Agfa, Efke, TriX, Adox, APHS, Tmax, Acros, Foma, Berger, Forte, FP4, FP5, Delta, Fotomika, Maco, Rollei, infrared, Plus X, Portra, 64T, Ektachrome, or Kodachrome and so on and so forth in a DSLR.

I see you started your list with Velvia ....

You got your priorities straight...

gnashings · Apr 2, 2006

Why do you shoot in the first place? If you do it, like me, for your own pleasure - then the answer is right in your head (or heart). Which gives you more "smiles per mile"? Pick that one! In my case, its film - and I have a 35mm system because of its flexibility, adaptability, compact size (thus ability to go places where others may not). Besides, its also a matter of how good a picture can I afford to make: I don't want to start a pointless debate that has been beaten to death (digital vs film), but on my budget a 35mm camera far surpasses anything I could afford to make with a digital outfit. I am not speaking in absolutes - although I have my opinon on that too, and it favours film - but for the amount of money that I spent on my pro level 35mm slr system, I couldn't get a decent digital point&shoot.
In the end I know, if I really wanted to, I would make the concessions and save the cash to get a decnt digital outfit, I am throwing that practicality/affrdability argument out there as a rational point, not one that would necessarily make up my mind if I wanted something bad enough - but see the first point I made: I like my way better

jbbooks · Apr 2, 2006

"i would like everyone opinions as to why i should shoot 35mm (slr) film over a digicam (5.2mp..."

The only thing keeping 35mm color film around here is my XPAN and, then, only for slides. In fact, for color prints, where I would have used medium format film cameras before, now I only use digital. That would not be true, however, if I were limited to 5.2 mp.

ricksplace · Apr 2, 2006

mrcallow said:
Cooki
Green and red make yellow.

When did this happen?
When I mix green and red paint, I get brown paint.

My God. I'm going colour blind. I've been shooting too much black and white.

All this time I thought yellow was a primary colour.

I need help.

Andy K · Apr 2, 2006

Primary colours etc.

ricksplace · Apr 2, 2006

Whew. Now I feel better. Thanks Andy. I guess I can keep shooting black and white.

Seriously, (and my odd sense of humour aside) I shoot very little colour film and have forgotten much of subtractive/additive colour theory.

As for 35mm, I shoot it because I like it. Same as med and large format. I like the small, mechanically marvellous machines I have that use 35mm film, from the Retinas to the Pentaxes, Mamiyas, Ricohs, Feds, etc. Of all the cameras I own, only my two Pentax ME supers need batteries to function.

unohuu · Apr 2, 2006

Why not shoot 135; 126; 120; 220; 127 and a host of other available formats. just why not. because we can!

Andy K · Apr 2, 2006

To be more accurate the primary colours are NOT red, blue and yellow. The primary colours are actually Magenta, Cyan and Yellow. Just look at a colour enlarger head.

sanderx1 · Apr 2, 2006

scottwesterman said:
i would like everyone opinions as to why i should shoot 35mm (slr) film over a digicam (5.2mp with full manual features).
as many opinions as possible please !!!!!
thanks for the help scott.

Because 35mm equipment can give fantastic results while being very light and easy to carry around. Because no digital camera gives teh results I want. Because I don't have my own MF equipment yet.

cdholden · Apr 2, 2006

RVP50: The end is near.

roteague said:
Still shoot 35mm film, because the color palette is better, and IMO, Velvia is still sharper than even the best DSLR.

Robert,
Have you started stockpiling RVP 50? The end is near. I've already got some 120 and 4x5 stashed away in the freezer. 8x10 isn't cheap, nor as plentiful.
Chris

Lee L · Apr 2, 2006

Andy K said:
Primary colours etc.

This is mostly about mixing paints. Photographers mix light, which is mentioned briefly with little explanation in the last paragraph.

Here's a more accurate and complete description of color mixing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_colour

There are two sets of primary colors:

additive primaries for mixing light - red, green, blue
subtractive primaries for mixing reflective media - yellow, magenta, cyan

You can make a clean yellow with red and green light.

Not all color enlargers use subtractive filtration. Mine uses the Phillips PCS130 with RGB dichroic filters and three lamps with dimmers. Beseler also makes a 4x5 color head with additive filtration.

Lee

Andy K · Apr 2, 2006

Hi Lee, I was going by an article on the Luminous Landscape.

Nicole · Apr 2, 2006

IMO, True Art is something that evolves from personal involvement on many levels, through touch, feel and something tangible. Film photography and the darkroom gives all that to me. Pixels to me gives as much feeling and tangibility as trying to reproduce sarcasm on the internet. This is something you'll have to decide, how much hands on you want with your own art and does it speak from your heart.

Kindest regards
Nicole

Lee L · Apr 2, 2006

colors

Andy K said:
Hi Lee, I was going by an article on the Luminous Landscape.

Andy,

I see. I was taking a more physical approach. I think you'll find that there are many different theoretical artistic approaches to color. My mom is a painter and was an art teacher, and I've talked with her about a number of approaches to color that I'd term something like "color systems". I also think that artists who work with paints/pigments take somewhat different approaches to color in different media (oils, acrylic, watercolor, etc). I think of these as being similar to different systems for exposing and developing film; zone system, btzs, etc. Most will work well if you understand them and use them properly. Just as with exposure systems, they are a means to understanding and establishing procedures, and do not guarantee "beautiful" results.

Well, I think we're well and truly off topic now. I just wanted to clarify some of the terminology being used in the color discussion, as a beginner could read it and be confused about the more standard terminology.

Lee

Curt · Apr 2, 2006

Some people spray paint a house and some people paint with a brush. Spray paint gets the job done with a quick and often thin paint job that often needs repainting in a year or two. Paint applied with a brush takes more time but the application is thicker and more attention is payed to the coverage and it lasts longer.

Ed_Davor · Apr 2, 2006

The difference between digital and film is not of such nature that requires technical arguments to convince someone.
The choice is purely of intuitive nature.

As soon as someone starts trying to convince to shoot film because of resolution, dynamic range and stuff like that and you see that as your primary reason to shoot film, forget about it, the next generation of CCD's is going to have even more resolution, then the next evern more, in 10 years digital will be so advanced that it will leave any kind of film behind in dust. So sticking with film for technical reasons is a waste of time.

On the other hand, if you look at an image made on film, and you instantly see that film look that you know will never get with any kind of digital camera, if you like the grain, tha analog smoothness, the rugged, organic look of chemical photography, the poetry of the colors and tones, and you find yourself not caring about who has more megapixes and all that crap, then you will know film is the obvious choice for you.

In a nutshell:
Digital is for people who want to make images as real as they can be. And real is often cold to the perception. Digital is pretty much what you see is what you get.
Film is for those who want to make poetry out of what they see, who don't want to copy reality, but give it a special touch and texture of film.

Film is an old technology, too old to be trying to compete as high-tech imaging solution. The future of film is art.
And you don't describe art in numbers

If you look at film images and know its the obvious choice, go for film,
if you find yourself reading technical reviews about film vs. digital, go for digital

battra92 · Apr 2, 2006

unohuu said:
Why not shoot 135; 126; 120; 220; 127 and a host of other available formats. just why not. because we can!

Darn right. Which reminds me, I should get a really good 120 camera someday. My best 120 is an Argoflex EF.

As for the question at hand, I go for digital because it's cheaper. I don't have the time or capabilities (or skill) to make 8 x 10 enlargements so I send them to the lab.

Dave Parker · Apr 2, 2006

darr said:
Shoot 35 mm if only because you have a hard copy. I shoot all formats and then scan my film for my hybrid process of printing and uploading to my blog. I think there is some value in having the initial hard copy for your files.

Just some value?????

I find having hard copies of my work to be of very high value!

Dave

roteague · Apr 2, 2006

Andy K said:
Hi Lee, I was going by an article on the Luminous Landscape.

They are idiots. Why pay any attention to what they say?

Andy K · Apr 2, 2006

roteague said:
They are idiots. Why pay any attention to what they say?

Huh? :confused:

roteague · Apr 2, 2006

Andy K said:
Huh? :confused:

The Luminous Idiots website. Junk science for the most part, blatant bias.

why shoot 35mm film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency