Why shoot film

[tomfrh]

One big reason for me is being able to own and use all the great cameras that I could only dream of owning as a young guy. They were great 30 or 40 years ago and still are today

This is a big one for me too!

As a kid I had a plastic kodak camera. It was ok, but my mums AE-1 program and then EOS systems were much cooler! I wanted a real camera like that! She also told me stories of these exotic cameras that rich people used on her hiking trips - hasselblads, big pentaxs etc.

Now I can have any of them for a relative pittance!

 

[LAG]

I made this short video (several years ago), months after a conversation with a friend of mine about all this, and I say now what I said then to him: Perhaps by way of analogy it may not be the most exact or appropriate way of expressing the idea, but right or wrong, it's a reflection of me, it sounds like me. It's my reason. That's pretty much exactly how I see my great passion for Film. ("It was enlightening and detailed for him", he said)

​

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Excuse me Marcelo Paniagua

Digital cameras have only one ISO (the "native" ISO, and not always corresponds to the "lowest" in the camera, and not always is available to the user) because there is a limit in the number of the photons for each cell, the rest is signal amplification. The size of each cell is what makes that limit (that ISO) for each sensor. The biggest the sensor, the biggest are (or can be) its cells, and the bigger the cells the more amount of photons he gets. Because is not the energy of the photons (that doesn't change) what marks the ISO, it's the number of them. When you increase (push) that signal (S) native number (and the ISO with it), you're creating/inventing a gain (taking new data) ... affecting the final result with electronic noise (S/N), lower colour quality, reducing the contrast range, bla, bla, bla those are the "extreme" digital ISO numbers. With that being said, you should know what are you doing when you select 102.400 ISO on your 6D.

Now, to answer your second question, my top film ISO so far was 25.000 (pushed from K. p3200) where 3200 was EI / and 1000 was the "native speed as starting point". That's why my "False" answer.

View attachment 167947

Hello LAG. Just back from my hometown and brought my 6d with me.


Took this pic last night, just a small light bulb (about 40watts I think) Illumination:

ISO 102k, 1/15 sec at F13.

It depends greatly of the kind of scene but I think results are kinda usable.


At least, the thread had rekindled my interest on high ISO film (my favorite film ISO is 100). Getting some Delta 3200 this weekend


Regards.

 

[LAG]

Hello LAG ... It depends greatly of the kind of scene but I think results are kinda usable.

Honestly, no offense but I can't see what's your intention with that example (one thing is setting up your speed to that value 102.400 and other thing is what the sensor can do - like I've said before and quoted by you - and the starting point of it) Take that photo and enlarge it to 100%, look for any kind of salt-and-pepper noise, if any, that was the (amount) forced labour on your sensor, and I bet you it was not a real 102.400. So, that pic isn't a good reference. As you've rightly said, it depends on the type of scene, so you should try to use that speed configuration on a different escenario even more demanding, or in other words, you should try to take that speed to the real skill. Thank you anyway

At least, the thread had rekindled my interest on high ISO film (my favorite film ISO is 100). Getting some Delta 3200 this weekend Regards.

I'm glad to hear that Marcelo!

Kind regards

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Honestly, no offense but I....


Kind regards

None taken LAG . Like you said, the sensor gets more stress on more demanding scenarios. In that respect, I will take film over digital, because film, IMHO, gives more consistent result.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm .... Delta 3200 in my Nikon tucked under my parka for a nice walk in the rain, yep, it's that time of year again!

 

[Prest_400]

I made this short video (several years ago), months after a conversation with a friend of mine about all this

I like that expression... Random grain vs tiled through the bed under water.

Amusingly enough, I shoot film by (and in) the sea at times. My childhood was around the digital revolution of the past decade yet film looks very alright on beach scenery plus I like the way it renders and balances harsh light.

And who'd tell me as a kid in 2004 that:
I'd have a (digital) slab device in my pocket. that takes videos, photos, calls, browses internet, sends messages all around and can establish a live videoconference to anyone in the world!
And I'd have a Nikon F80 kit that sure wouldn't be able to afford as a kid, and could try to take all the parents convincing back then but now costs less than $100! (And that Portra looks so wonderful in a Mediterranean environment)

 

[LAG]

I like that expression... Random grain vs tiled through the bed under water.

Thank you! ... or Muchas gracias

 

[xtolsniffer]

The way I see it is:

Digital is all about the destination: to create high quality clean images for fast digital distribution for sharing on social media or commercial use. The end product is king.
Film is all about the journey: to use my experience to choose the film, filters, developer, paper and toner (for monochrome) to create a print that I can look at in a real form. The learning is the reward.

Both have their uses, but I know which one is more fun and rewarding.

 

[Agulliver]

The way I see it is:

Digital is all about the destination: to create high quality clean images for fast digital distribution for sharing on social media or commercial use. The end product is king.
Film is all about the journey: to use my experience to choose the film, filters, developer, paper and toner (for monochrome) to create a print that I can look at in a real form. The learning is the reward.

Both have their uses, but I know which one is more fun and rewarding.

"To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive"

Quite often holds true...

 

[LAG]

... the journey ... the film ... The learning ... the reward

 

[DREW WILEY]

I never shoot film. I need that for my camera. I have no problem shooting tin cans or digital cameras or cell phones. A .22 is nice for that kind of
thing. For skeet shooting, you need the computer discs themselves.

 

[David Heintz]

I really started getting into photography with the advent of digital. I was doing a lot of work in desktop publishing (advertising) and the emerging internet, so it was a natural extension. Today I have a Nikon D810 and a Df, and I still find myself going to 100% view in Lightroom as a first step in evaluating an image or a lens. Pixel peeping.

The Df got me interested in manual focus lenses, which got me going, this year, into film. I am skilled enough in Photoshop, etc. that I can make a scan look pretty good at 100%. Not as good as the D810, but pretty good. (By "good" I mean resolution.)

Of course the key here is what you are try to accomplish with your photography. Another overlooked aspect is what you are going to do with the image once you have finished processing it. For most of us that means some form of digital representation: email, web portfolio, Filckr, etc. etc. In this case the image is going to be scaled down for bandwidth reasons, and it is going to be viewed on a monitor with limited resolution. So, seen from an end use perspective, my D810, Df, and F6 images are not going to be judged by their resolution, but by their artistic content...

 

[NJH]

Print them and then compare them to darkroom prints from film. Only way to compare.

Sadly digital can easily look very sucky in print. Local pro round here shoots the coast and nightscapes using a D800, his photographs look amazing on the web but he had a gallery of prints setup in a restaurant and those same images looked pretty awful in print, really dull and lacking in impact. I am sure he could have worked on them more and used a better quality printer but this always seems to be the way with digital, it never looks as impressive as it does on a big graphics quality computer screen. Film the complete opposite.

 

[Alan Gales]

Print them and then compare them to darkroom prints from film. Only way to compare.

Sadly digital can easily look very sucky in print. Local pro round here shoots the coast and nightscapes using a D800, his photographs look amazing on the web but he had a gallery of prints setup in a restaurant and those same images looked pretty awful in print, really dull and lacking in impact. I am sure he could have worked on them more and used a better quality printer but this always seems to be the way with digital, it never looks as impressive as it does on a big graphics quality computer screen. Film the complete opposite.

You ever see digital projected? It really looks bad!

 

[fstop]

Print them and then compare them to darkroom prints from film. Only way to compare.

Sadly digital can easily look very sucky in print. Local pro round here shoots the coast and nightscapes using a D800, his photographs look amazing on the web but he had a gallery of prints setup in a restaurant and those same images looked pretty awful in print, really dull and lacking in impact. I am sure he could have worked on them more and used a better quality printer but this always seems to be the way with digital, it never looks as impressive as it does on a big graphics quality computer screen. Film the complete opposite.

That's the thing, if you shooting for the web lets say, a digital camera is the only way to fly. Using film and then scanning doesn't match a direct image.But we have used digital to duplicate film prints and printed with a decent home printer, side by side you could not tell them apart.If you want to use film go for it, but don't try to slam digital because you don't like it, take it up with Nikon etc, convince them they need to to make film cameras.

 

[David Brown]

Sadly digital can easily look very sucky in print. ... Film the complete opposite.

Sadly, film can suck in prints, too. I see them all the time.

OTOH, digital can look spectacular. One has to know what they're doing.

 

[Alan Gales]

Film and digital each have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You ever see digital projected? It really looks bad!

And bad is not bad in a good way.

 

[MattKing]

The 8K projectors are apparently quite impressive.
How is your wallet?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 8K projectors are apparently quite impressive.
How is your wallet?

Why bother, it will be replaced by 16K projectors in six months.

 

[LAG]

...If you want to use film go for it, but don't try to slam digital because you don't like it...

Bravo!

Sadly, film can suck in prints, too. I see them all the time.

OTOH, digital can look spectacular. One has to know what they're doing.

Oleeee!

 

[tomfrh]

I'll probably move to digital projection if it ever matches 35mm projection.

I bought a large 4K panel some time ago however was very disappointed and returned it.

Interestingly I know a guy who shot and projected a lot of Kodachrome and Fuji and who ended up moving moving to digital and LCD/PowerPoint displays.

He thinks the LCD is much better than projection was!

I can't quite figure that out. Is it a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder, or is he simply having himself on?


One big problem with digital I see is that people do a lot of photoshopping - especially landscape photos. Most of the images look very tarted up, as this is what most people want.

 

[Alan Gales]

And bad is not bad in a good way.

Hi Sirius!

I was a member of a local camera club for a bit. They projected their images and the quality of the projections was not good which was a shame because there were some really nice images being projected. An old Kodak projector with Kodachrome slides would have blown it away.

On another note, I sold one of the members a 4x5 monorail. I brought my Ries J100 in to support the camera. They couldn't believe the huge tripod I had. I told them that was my small tripod. I had left the A100 at home.

 

[paul ron]

because its fun!

love the smell of fixer in the morning!