|
Discuss how to buy, fix, clean, and use all the old manual focus photography kit you can find. M42, Pentacon 6, Contax, Leica, Canon, Nikkor, Carl Zeiss Jena, Asahi Pentax Takumars etc! |
|
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I wish to see a list of reasons to shoot film without any mention of digital.
Digital is the de facto standard now. No need to be defensive or offensive about it.
I shoot film because:
1. It allows me to use old cameras
2. I enjoy the process of developing and printing (darkroom) B&W myself
3. I like the resulting images
4. I can use large format film
5. It's relaxing, not in a hurry
And yeah, I shoot digital also.
PAULJOHN:
To conclude, i take more pleasure to shoot with a LEICA M6 rather than with a 5D II.
and this for me what is the most important, photography has to be a pleasure.
Absolutely!
shadowfox,
These are subjective reasons I share with you (even if the #3 reason isn't always true...!).
I am new to this forum, I shoot both film (I have three Nikon SLR's- F2, F4, FE2 with six Nikon lenses, have one Canon original F-1 with two lenses and the booster T finder) and digital (nikon D300, three lenses, Metz 58AF flash, P&S, Leica M8 and 5 lenses, prior Leica M6 owner); and see both sides of the argument here for film vs. digital. The ability to correct/manipulate photos in photoshop and immediate feedback on the rear LCD screen will always make digital the preferred medium. But like others here, I just like using my mechanical film cameras. I grew up with them in high school and feel they are built to last- especially my Nikon F2 and original Canon F-1 (so was my Leica M6 when I owned it). They are mechanical works of art and after 40 years are still going strong with a good CLA. You cannot say that about any DSLR- where will it be in 40 years? If they still make film in another 40 years I will still be using my cameras.
The fact that you camera lasts forever has little to do with the choice of shooting film or digital as the alleged quality (or non-quality) of the medium has no impact on the process you prefer.
I beg to differ. As stated the cameras are mechanical works of art, and contribute to the feel of using the camera. Today's DSLR's are sophisticated point and shoot cameras- push the button, let the computer do the work. The feel of my mechanical camera adds to the look of the film and THAT is why I still shoot film. If the instrument makes no difference to the artist and the pleasure of the task, why have expensive paint brushes or pots and pans? Does your omelet taste different made in a $5 pan or a $200 pan? No, but the art of cooking is benefited by it.
Cooking an omelet in a $5 or $200 is the same process. Shooting digital or film is somewhat different. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people loving cameras (mechanical or not) but IMHO it has nothing to do with the photographic practice.
I don't want that thread reaching 15 pages, with everyone re-digesting the same arguments all over again, 12 times, getting angrier arguments etc etc etc
This is a pointless exercise, devoid of any interest. I created this forum here to escape the "is the f1.8 better than the f1.4" sort of garbage, and this discussion would be better on APUG or something.
Personally, I shoot both, and I consider anyone being 100% digital/film to be a poor soul.
***and I consider anyone being 100% digital/film to be a poor soul.***
Huh! Some people shooting film for donkey's years have no reason to change...which includes me.
Heh, what can I tell you, you're missing out. The same way people who shoot just digital are misding out. "No reason to change" has never been a good reason in my book :-)
I don't want that thread reaching 15 pages, with everyone re-digesting the same arguments all over again, 12 times, getting angrier arguments etc etc etc
This is a pointless exercise, devoid of any interest. I created this forum here to escape the "is the f1.8 better than the f1.4" sort of garbage, and this discussion would be better on APUG or something.
Personally, I shoot both, and I consider anyone being 100% digital/film to be a poor soul.
I agree 100% with you.
I consider anybody who believes film or digital will make them a better photographer, or that the topic of film vs digital has any interest to be a very poor souls
I don't want that thread reaching 15 pages, with everyone re-digesting the same arguments all over again, 12 times, getting angrier arguments etc etc etc
This is a pointless exercise, devoid of any interest. I created this forum here to escape the "is the f1.8 better than the f1.4" sort of garbage, and this discussion would be better on APUG or something.
Personally, I shoot both, and I consider anyone being 100% digital/film to be a poor soul.
I totally agree,
All the arguments are known and similar, I can really learn nothing from this discussion. IMHO much better is to discuss some shots/tests/experiences from certain lens whatever digital or film it is, it's where I really learn something.
Amen.
***IMHO much better is to discuss some shots/tests/experiences from certain lens whatever digital or film it is, it's where I really learn something.***
Well I've always wondered if old MF lenses gives the same/better/worse quality results on a DSLR compared to a film camera, many DSLR owners praise certain lenses that I think are quite ordinary using film........of course I could have bad copies or they are better using Photoshop than me.
***IMHO much better is to discuss some shots/tests/experiences from certain lens whatever digital or film it is, it's where I really learn something.***
Well I've always wondered if old MF lenses gives the same/better/worse quality results on a DSLR compared to a film camera, many DSLR owners praise certain lenses that I think are quite ordinary using film........of course I could have bad copies or they are better using Photoshop than me.
This might be related to the fact that most DSLR owners try MF lenses on a cropped frame, so if the lens have soft corners it would look better just because they are cut off compared to a FF film camera.
in general too much depends on how they are used, choice of light for example, the flare in the old lens can be used to make the image look romantic but the same flare can completely destroy the image... It's why it is difficult to make general conclusion.
I usually type the lens name in the flickr search line and try to find both digital and film images to see.
To conclude, i take more pleasure to shoot with a LEICA M6 rather than with a 5D II.
and this for me what is the most important, photography has to be a pleasure.
Indeed.
I shoot film because:
1. It allows me to use old cameras
...
That' my main point, I guess. 
pauljohn wrote:To conclude, i take more pleasure to shoot with a LEICA M6 rather than with a 5D II.
and this for me what is the most important, photography has to be a pleasure.Indeed.
shadowfox wrote:I shoot film because:
1. It allows me to use old cameras
...That' my main point, I guess.
Let's take another example: music.
You can get the sound of a spanish guitar from a computer,
but is it the same feeling playing with a computer and with a real spanish guitar ?
Well, like Buze I shoot both. I don't see the point in limiting myself to one technology or the other. I cut my teeth on mf film cameras and grew to love the great 35mm workhorses of the 70s. To me the finest era in 35mm film photography. I still own a small collection of cameras that date back to that era, and still use them regularly. But it's just plain silly not to use a good DSLR when the situation best calls for one. And there are many situations that I actually regret to admit in which my DSLR simply blows my best film SLRs into the weeds -- well it isn't so much the cameras as it is the differences in sharpness and clarity between digital and film -- and I'm specifically referencing extremely fine-grained slide film here. Wish it weren't so, but it is, and I have the images to prove it.
Still, for me, film will always have its place, and I will continue to use it as long as I can continue to buy it. I miss Kodachrome. Long live Ektachrome and Fujichrome.
Wow! I can see some are very passionate about their choices. But really, isn't it a matter of personal choice? If you like digital with it's advantages and disadvantages, then shoot with it and enjoy. If you like film with it's advantages and disadvantages, then shoot with that.
I personally enjoy film. I get the quality I expect from my film choices and I dislike spending time on the computer. Let's face it, if you don't spend the money on a high end computer monitor and video card you can't really adjust your images and know what to expect when it prints. Oh yeah and you need a good high quality printer or send it out for printing. Hmm. Sounds a lot like what you'd have to do with film anyway.
OK this one made me laugh.
After a certain number of exposures, digital will always be cheaper than film.
PAULJOHN:
if you shot one roll per week, = 53 rolls per year, let assume price for film + development = 10 dollars
let assume Lifetime for a DSLR = 3 years.
so total cost for film for 3 years = 3 * 530 dollars = 1590 dollar. it is still lower than the price of a 5DII.
Really? Where's the calculation for computer, monitor, and printer? Software? External hard drives for storage? Cd's to burn to? SD cards to buy? Extra batteries?
If you're starting with nothing, film is a lot easier on the wallet. I've picked up complete camera outfits on eBay for under $50. You couldn't touch a descent digital camera for that new or used. I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather put out $10 a week rather than $600 or more in one shot. Then still have to buy additional equipment.
Regardless of the film body you choose to use your image quality is controlled by the lens and the film. Not as much with digital. Sure if you buy a DSLR you can change lenses but the sensor is part of the body. If you want a higher quality image you need to spend the bigger bucks on the body. If i want a better image on my film i switch from a consumer print film to a higher end professional film.
I can still look at film that was shot 50 or more years ago but I'm not as convinced that digital images shot today will be there in another 50 years. Maybe for those who can afford high end digital equipment that will archive better but not the masses who can't afford that stuff. The real test will be time.
I still enjoy looking at slides projected on a screen. Bought a used projector for $25 at a thrift shop. Try doing that with a digital projector.
All that said I do have a digital camera. It's small, compact, and holds lots of images. It's easier to email shots to friends and family with digital. It's like a raincoat, I only use it when I have to.
OK this one made me laugh.
After a certain number of exposures, digital will always be cheaper than film.PAULJOHN:
if you shot one roll per week, = 53 rolls per year, let assume price for film + development = 10 dollars
let assume Lifetime for a DSLR = 3 years.
so total cost for film for 3 years = 3 * 530 dollars = 1590 dollar. it is still lower than the price of a 5DII.
Well, have to disagree a bit. You're assuming one roll per week, i.e., 24 to 36 shots.
I don't shoot every day, but when I do a typical shoot of my kid, for example, nothing fancy, just the documentation of his first times standing up grabing the furniture, or something like that (notice those are often "Shoot! Quick!" moments, there's no time to get the best camera/flash/whatever), I usually take more than that many in one sitting .
Some say digital allows you to shoot mindlessly, whyle film forces you to think about your framing and composition, but I'd say even with film, if one doesn't force oneself to do so, his/her pics will never evolve. And with digital, you CAN force yourself to think about your shots before you take them, with the added benefit that you can see the result and correct it on the fly, speeding up the learning process (not always good, I know )
Also, you're assuming that your 3-year-old digital is no longer any good, and that's not true: it is simply not as good as the newer ones.
Even that is coming to a point of stabilization, some say. Newer cameras will not have significant advances in photography, only some gadgets one uses twice for fun and then forgets about...
Really? Where's the calculation for computer, monitor, and printer? Software? External hard drives for storage? Cd's to burn to? SD cards to buy? Extra batteries?
Well, that I'll have to agree, even if those are becoming household utilities, like a TV or a Stereo system...
If you're starting with nothing, film is a lot easier on the wallet.
Well, maybe on the wallet, but today, one expects intant bliss (I know, it's kinda sad 
...), and that takes us back to what I've stated above, about the learning curves with digital and film.
The real test will be time.
Couldn't agree more
Just to top all off, I also shoot both digital and film. Mainly digital, since I got my camera(s), but I still dust off my (ever growing collection 
of) film cameras every now and then, and the reason I do so is that I enjoy it .
Cheers!
micwag2 wrote:OK this one made me laugh.
After a certain number of exposures, digital will always be cheaper than film.PAULJOHN:
if you shot one roll per week, = 53 rolls per year, let assume price for film + development = 10 dollars
let assume Lifetime for a DSLR = 3 years.
so total cost for film for 3 years = 3 * 530 dollars = 1590 dollar. it is still lower than the price of a 5DII.Well, have to disagree a bit. You're assuming one roll per week, i.e., 24 to 36 shots.
I don't shoot every day, but when I do a typical shoot of my kid, for example, nothing fancy, just the documentation of his first times standing up grabing the furniture, or something like that (notice those are often "Shoot! Quick!" moments, there's no time to get the best camera/flash/whatever), I usually take more than that many in one sittingSome say digital allows you to shoot mindlessly, whyle film forces you to think about your framing and composition, but I'd say even with film, if one doesn't force oneself to do so, his/her pics will never evolve. And with digital, you CAN force yourself to think about your shots before you take them, with the added benefit that you can see the result and correct it on the fly, speeding up the learning process (not always good, I know
Also, you're assuming that your 3-year-old digital is no longer any good, and that's not true: it is simply not as good as the newer ones.
Even that is coming to a point of stabilization, some say. Newer cameras will not have significant advances in photography, only some gadgets one uses twice for fun and then forgets about...micwag2 wrote:Really? Where's the calculation for computer, monitor, and printer? Software? External hard drives for storage? Cd's to burn to? SD cards to buy? Extra batteries?
Well, that I'll have to agree, even if those are becoming household utilities, like a TV or a Stereo system...
micwag2 wrote:If you're starting with nothing, film is a lot easier on the wallet.
Well, maybe on the wallet, but today, one expects intant bliss (I know, it's kinda sad
micwag2 wrote:The real test will be time.
Couldn't agree more
Just to top all off, I also shoot both digital and film. Mainly digital, since I got my camera(s), but I still dust off my (ever growing collection
Cheers!
Keep in mind that I quoted another post. Those calculations aren't mine. And i do own a digital camera. The original reason for this topic was why we like to shoot film. It was not supposed to be about why some folks feel digital is better. I happen to prefer film and the results i get from it.
As far as digital forcing someone to stop and think about their shot first we seem to disagree there. With digital it's too easy to take a bad shot and hit delete and try again. There's the instant bliss you speak of. With film you don't have that luxury. If it's not right you don't always get another chance.
Seriously though. Who cares what media anyone likes to shoot with anyway? As long as I'm in the fellow company of other photographers who enjoy the passion for their art, let everyone choose what they want.
As far as digital forcing someone to stop and think about their shot first we seem to disagree there.
No, no, you're misinterpreting me. What I meant is that EVEN with digital, one CAN force his/herself to stop and think before taking the shot, just as with film. And I say "force his/herself", because sometimes/for some people, it IS hard not to indulge in the instant bliss digital provides .
It takes some discipline, I guess 
.
Seriously though. Who cares what media anyone likes to shoot with anyway? As long as I'm in the fellow company of other photographers who enjoy the passion for their art, let everyone choose what they want.
Couldn't agree more .
It's like people saying that if it's not oil paint on a canvas, it's not a real painting. Like someone said, it's only art if it somehow touches the viewer (or listener, or whatever), no matter what the used media is.
Cheers!
Last edited by glimavitor (2010-07-29 07:28:52)
I do not shoot film instead of digital, I shoot film together with digital, there are just times when one media can be better, and then there are times when both will do. Then there's time when they can offer just different take on the same scene.
Then of course there's the matter of different form factor on the media. whcih allow just different approach to the craft and art
I do not shoot film instead of digital, I shoot film together with digital, there are just times when one media can be better, and then there are times when both will do. Then there's time when they can offer just different take on the same scene.
Then of course there's the matter of different form factor on the media. whcih allow just different approach to the craft and art
May I ask please what factors make you choose film?
Last edited by siriusdogstar (2010-07-31 17:30:50)
Digital: I usually shoot a Pentax K20D dslr. I often shoot various Sony p&s's, or a Minolta F300 modified for IR, or an Olympus 770-SW (down to 10m underwater). Almost digital: I used to shoot analog video, then digitize it.
Film: I sometimes shoot various 135/ff bayonet or screwmount slr's, or rf's and p&s's. I occasionally shoot ancient 135 or 6x6 or 6x9 folders, or a Kodak Brownie. In the past I shot various slr's, rf's, tlr's, a viewcam, and misc other stuff. I was even paid sometimes.
Why shoot digital? After buying the gear (including my zillions of lenses), it's pretty much cost-free. I can experiment endlessly. Chimping, I can quickly evolve better techniques. For a 'darkroom', all I need is a laptop. It's all very flexible and usable and interactive.
Why shoot film? Digital IR is NOT like IR film. Wide lenses are WIDE on 135/ff, not so wide on APS-C. dSLR resolution does NOT approach 6x6 and 6x9 negs and 'chrome. Film cams produce results not easily replicated digitally, like using 135 carts in a mf cam for sprocket-hole panos, or shooting 'actinic' to replicate the earliest photo emulsions. Digital pinholes have severe limits. The cost of film, and the discipline needed with those mf folders, force a more careful approach. And I can shoot many film cams even when all the batteries are dead.
Why shoot both film and digital? Because they're varied tools with varied strengths and weaknesses. Why limit oneself to a single wrench?
|
|
[ Generated in 0.045 seconds, 13 queries executed ]