Why shoot analogue colour photos?

[koraks]

Not all pixels are created equal.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Also keep in mind the perceived higher resolution of monochrome sensors.

 

[loccdor]

Some technical films can capture more details than sensors, but there are diminishing returns on the amount of effort expended to extract it.

Although the pixel shift technology is changing that. 400 MP is possible from a 45 MP sensor.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4707700

 

[koraks]

Not all pixels are created equal.

Perhaps I should have said, "there's more to a photo than pixels".

Or, "it's sometimes hard to see the photo for the pixels".

 

[George Mann]

In terms of technical quality (resolving power, acutance, color fidelity, defect rate etc.) digital has a very big edge in my own experience. Anecdotal reports from others involve similar experiences, with FF digital rivaling what they could previously achieve with MF or LF film, in particular for color.

You would be surprised to learn how few photographers have actually produced an image on slide film, let alone viewed it directly.

Ektachrome is capable of better (more natural) acutance and color accuracy than any known commercially available digital camera, and at 35mm achieves the same resolution as a Nikon D800.

The Nikon D2x holds the record for digital color accuracy according to my tests.

The highest resolving commercially available digital cameras capture no more than 160 lp/mm which several 35mm films match or outresolve.

 

[George Mann]

Although the pixel shift technology is changing that. 400 MP is possible from a 45 MP sensor.

An imperfect parlor trick.

 

[George Mann]

Perhaps I should have said, "there's more to a photo than pixels".

Or, "it's sometimes hard to see the photo for the pixels".

Suffice it to say that not all digital cameras are created equal regardless of their specs.

 

[Chan Tran]

Depends on the sensor, of course. I have wondered how many 200MP 24x36 sensors will be made and sold. Currently, I know I could not afford it. So what is possible and what's affordable is part of this "equation".

Sure but I said so because you only need the basic 24MP to have better details than a frame of 35mm film.

 

[George Mann]

Sure but I said so because you only need the basic 24MP to have better details than a frame of 35mm film.

The slides I have shot want a word with you.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here we go again. If you want the most pixels possible, there are astronomical observatories and space telescopes into that kind of thing. If you want to compare film detail to DLSR results, well, I happen to shoot 8x10 as well as smaller 4x5 and 6x9 film, so there's no comparison there either. Even "MF" digital lags behind that - I don't give a damn about the megapixelated math - just look at the outcome.

 

[koraks]

I think the recent pages of this thread demonstrate mostly that overall, most of us are really happy about the choices we've made. That's nice.

 

[Milpool]

For color I continue to shoot film (chromes) only because I don’t have any digital equipment (aside from a cell phone camera which is probably good enough at this point) and don’t have the time to get into learning digital, unfortunately.

Other than that I think the only reason anyone can give that really holds any water is they simply enjoy using film. Things like nostalgia, trends etc. fall under that basic umbrella. Enjoyment is a good enough reason for doing any hobby.

 

[Chan Tran]

The slides I have shot want a word with you.

So?

 

[George Mann]

So?

It isn't that simple. You need to see them for yourself.

 

[Chan Tran]

It isn't that simple. You need to see them for yourself.

I shot an saw many slides.

 

[George Mann]

I shot an saw many slides.

Shot on a sturdy professional grade tripod using the best prime lenses and viewed directly on a properly calibrated lightbox with the highest quality loupes?

 

[Chan Tran]

Shot on a sturdy professional grade tripod using the best prime lenses and viewed directly on a properly calibrated lightbox with the highest quality loupes?

Shot on a tripod using the same lens used on the digital camera on whatever light box.

 

[koraks]

@George Mann I don't doubt your slides are fantastic. I've shot many slides, seen many more, and I think I'm fairly well aware of what the medium is capable of. Whether or not it can surpass digital (or other types of film) in terms of resolving power or acutance - well, let's assume for sake of the argument that this is the case. Even so, what good would it do me if I'm looking to make a reasonably large print with good acutance? Consider two possibilities.

I could shoot on MF or LF transparency film - indeed carrying a heavy-duty tripod and $5k in equipment (which I'll just have to pray will never break or require the CLA virtually nobody can provide anymore) and accepting the limited dynamic range and lack of forgiveness of the medium. It'd be somewhat cumbersome, somewhat expensive both in equipment and consumables, technically demanding, but also conceivable.

But then what? I could hardly jerry-rig a projector to the living room door so it pops on every time someone steps through. I want a print - so somehow, the beauty of those hard fought-for transparencies needs to materialize onto paper. This means scanning in some way, which in turn means that whatever acutance and resolving power of the final print is mediated by the equipment and processing that sits between the transparent piece of plastic at the front and the opaque piece of plastic at the back of the process. Not to mention additional cost (in equipment or farm-out of scanning) of having scans made that do justice (is this possible in the first place?) to the original.

Alternatively, I could throw $1k into a somewhat aged piece of silicon with a chunk of glass in front of it and know for a fact (as that's what I do on an almost daily basis) I can get prints with excellent resolving power and acutance up to let's say 25" wide - which is technically and noticeably better than what I can do with a 35mm camera and the best film money can buy. Do I want to go bigger, let's say 40", I again know for a fact I can get there by dumping $3k in a slightly less geriatric pile of molten sand (I gotta hand it to you @gary mulder, but those prints never cease to impress me, no matter how many I've seen already). In both cases, I have a tool that I can shoot under a wide range of lighting conditions, that weighs less than just the tripod I'd rarely (if ever) need, that allows for the comfort of being able to do the whole process in daylight, without fretting over if the sole remaining supplier of my material will finally kick the bucket, and with a decent fudge factor for my inevitable level of incompetence to boot.

So, even if you're right about what you said about slides (and that's a big if as far as I'm concerned), the practical relevance of that caveat is still contestable, at least for me, personally. Your slides may be awesome, but regardless of what they may have to say to me if I ever come within hearing distance, they're not going to put a decent print onto my wall.

 

[RezaLoghme]

For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.

 

[Pieter12]

For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.

Mired in the process, ignoring the actual image or real-life practice.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's what the TSA says about film:

Film​

Carry On Bags: Yes
Checked Bags: Yes
We recommend that you put undeveloped film and cameras containing undeveloped film in your carry-on bags or take undeveloped film with you to the checkpoint and ask for a hand inspection.
For more prohibited items, please go to the 'What Can I Bring?' page.

---

The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint.

Film | Transportation Security Administration

We recommend that you put undeveloped film and cameras containing undeveloped film in your carry-on bags or take undeveloped film with you to the checkpoint and ask for a hand inspection.

www.tsa.gov

Does anyone know if checks are waived if you are in TSA Pre-Check or TSA Trusted Travelers programs?

 

[koraks]

Here's what the TSA says about film:

Does that mean that it's safe for the film to put it into checked baggage, or that the TSA has no problem with you destroying your film that way?

 

[George Mann]

@George Mann I don't doubt your slides are fantastic. I've shot many slides, seen many more, and I think I'm fairly well aware of what the medium is capable of. Whether or not it can surpass digital (or other types of film) in terms of resolving power or acutance - well, let's assume for sake of the argument that this is the case.

Well we were referring to 24mpx cameras, and I purposely left out the Nikon D3x resolution champion because few people own one.

Even so, what good would it do me if I'm looking to make a reasonably large print with good acutance?

Slide film is probably not a good candidate for this.

So, even if you're right about what you said about slides (and that's a big if as far as I'm concerned), the practical relevance of that caveat is still contestable, at least for me, personally. Your slides may be awesome, but regardless of what they may have to say to me if I ever come within hearing distance, they're not going to put a decent print onto my wall.

I suspect that you know the answer to this one already.

 

[George Mann]

For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.

This is akin to trying to explain the true value of an expensive high end audio system to someone who has zero interest in the hobby, and would never want spend the kind of money required to own it.

 

[MattKing]

For me, slides were something for very boring family parties, with awkward holiday snaps. I would love to understand why some people cherish that workflow so much.

My youth was recorded on Kodachrome film - mostly slides, but some movies too.
And I have seen many, many, many enjoyable "slide shows" over the years.
Some that I've put together seem to have been appreciated by the viewers.
So like anything else, it isn't the medium itself, but how it is used.
Here (in multi-coloured shirt) I'm probably about 15. Doesn't the dog look happy that the camera has Kodachrome loaded in it?