Anyone burned out on digital and going back to film?

Starmapper said:
To me, mourning the death of film is similar to missing the characteristic style of quill written letters verses the document my canon printer spits out. Not to suggest in any way that you're mourning, you just enjoy the look and process of film and to quote Martha..."That's a good thing" :)
Click to expand...

Hi Starmapper:

Just goes to show how misleading assumptions can be from on-line. I had you pegged as a caffeine addicted 20 something, not someone more my age ;-)

I don't know, I think it's a bit like vinyl (I used to be in the high end audio business). Never totally died, definitely went down in popularity though. But just as vinyl is enjoying a resurgence of sorts and not just from oldsters, lots of kids bough Radiohead's "In Rainbows" on vinyl, so too I think film is still there. Sure, not popular with amateurs in general, but most pros still shoot medium and large format film and a lot of more discerning amateurs are liking at least experimenting with film. I don't think one is the ultimate way, especially 35mm.

I love my iPod, literally have fallen in love with my new Touch. But relatively speaking, it sounds like crap. But you have to weight the lousy sound with the convenience and flexibility of it, which is brilliant. Records are a major hassle and they degrade each time they are played. Low bit rate MP3s sound like crap. Low bit rate AACs sound better but in comparison to a SACD or DVD Audio, they still sound like crap. Regular CDs, with a few exceptions, sound worse than vinyl. Digital audio, sampled at 44.1kHz for music, sounds pretty bad, there is something missing there. On a killer Linn-Sondek turntable through a high end amp through killer speakers, yes, vinyl sounds leagues better than any CD IMHO. SACD and DVD Audio at least get in the neighborhood but both of those formats were a flop because consumers, even the audiophile kind, would not pay more for better audio. CD audio and now MP3s and AACs are "good enough". But there will always be a core of listeners and in photography, shooters who want something that is better.

In still photography, 35mm film still looks better than DSLRs. Not by a lot, but by enough to where some of us are crazy enough for it to go through the loss of convenience in using film instead of digital or in addition to digital.

And I may also be a luddite with my still shooting, but sorry, I still really enjoy prints, handling prints, framing prints and looking through my portfolio on prints, not on the web. Computer screens just don't really do images justice if you want to get technical.

I agree with Frank. Humans are analog and the world we exist in is analog. All digital technology is merely a "sampling" of the real world isn't it?

Dan

But just as I can co-exist with my iPod
 
Postmaster said:
I think all this comes from the fact, that the human body is a analog system.So analog input pleases. Like most everyone preferes the sound of a tube amp over the sound of a transistor amp. There is a reason why hifi amps in the upper price league use tubes.

Frank
Click to expand...

You are a very wise Sage Frank!

Dan
 
Hey Dan,

You do bring up a great point. You have figured out what is best for you, And it is a solid direction if you want to go down that road. I'm probably speaking from a professional point of view on how things work in the commercial/advertising world.

But here is a counterpoint to your method, Or a road I would take before I went back to film.

- First off if were talking money..... How much time and money does it cost to make 5000 exposures on film/with scans vs. digital. (I don't know the answer)
I'm sure glad I don't have the $2000 film bill from the camera store and the $2000 bill from the lab every month.

- Were getting to the point that you do not have to have the latest and greatest camera or computer. I am just now switching to Intel chip Macs.

- Buy cameras that are one generation back. Heck, I paid $5000 for a Nikon D1x when they were new, Now that camera is worth $200...... I still use it to shoot my nephews Baseball games at dusty fields out in the boonies.

- I don't know where your getting you info from and not saying your wrong..... But my high megapix dslrs make much better images for me than I could ever get with 35mm SLR's. Don't get me wrong..... Remember I've shot film since the seventies and I have all my little tweeks, favorite films and secrets to get certain looks. (I don't hate film)

- My first impression is that the New 5D dosn't blow away the 1dsMklll. A very nice camera and will be fine for most.

- I have the Leaf Aptus 75s It's a 33 megapix medium format back that I've been using for a couple years now and I bet I could use it for another 5 years.

Keep in mind also I was one of the last ones to switch over to digital. I still have Nikon F4's, Hasselblads, Fuji 680's, Sinar P 4x5, 5x7, 8x10.

If your just gonna be shooting kids soccer games and Disneyland pictures, Just buy something digital for less than a thousand dollars new or used and just use it.

frisco


puredrifting said:
I gotta disagree Frisco. For me, spending thousands of dollars a year for digital camera gear that is outdated right after I buy it seems more stupid. I know that you are going to say, you don't HAVE to buy the latest and greatest but go to a soccer game or Disneyland and look around, you don;t see a lot of 3 and 4 year old DSLRs, you see a lot of the latest and greatest besides the point and shoots.

The D90 came out three weeks after I bought the D300. Same imager, better features, almost half the cost. D300 is built better but essentially it was outdated as soon I bought it. And if you bought the D3, same issue, the D700 came out and it had the sme imager, same basic features and cost a LOT less. Canon 5D MKII blows the EOS-1ds MKIII at almost half the price. That is all well and good for working pros who pay off a camera instantly but it is stupid from a smart consumer viewpoint. DSLRs are a moneymaking machine for the camera manufacturers, which is great and 99.8% of amateurs are happy to keep Canon and Nikon going and I say more power to them, but in these economic times, it is crazy to waste so much money with planned obsolescence on such a tight scale of 8-12 month cycles.

There is a lot more to it than convenience for me. Film quantitatively looks better than DSLRs, ask any measurebator. D3X is the newest, baddest state of the art 24 megapixel DSLR that costs a ridiculous U.S. $8,000.00. But at an equivalent of 25 megapixels, still 35mm film has more resolution, much better latitude and superior colorimetry. If you care about quality, why would you not shoot film?

I totally respect your opinion, I am just trying to refute it with facts. ;-)

Dan
Click to expand...
 
This is a curious topic to me.

As someone who has taught digital photography classes at the community college I normally start my classes with a rant on why camera really doesn't matter, in a digital environment. I truly believe that while each new model offers small conveniences at the end of the day they are all basically the same.

That being said, I do find myself more often pulling out an F100 or F4 (if I want a work out carrying a camera) to shoot more often. Now that I'm married I appreciate taking my film down to the The Light Factory (a photography location here in Charlotte) to develop my film and enjoy a couple of hours of technical darkroom work.

Film does have a place but the reason why I continue to pull a digital body out more often than a film body is because of the archiving ease. I have boxes upon boxes of negatives and slides and prints... Digital is just easier on the space concerns.

All things being equal I am actually selling on of my digital camera outfits though because of size and weight. For all the benefits that a big heavy latest and greatest offers a lightweight camera is still a big selling point to me.... Then again, I spend a lot of time in the woods.
 
I think it all comes down to what you need the camera for/what type of photography you are doing.

If you are shooting events and taking 700-1000 photos twice a week then I think digitial is for you. You will save money in the long run, the quality is sufficient and clients have come to except tons of photos, they won't respect 150 great shots, they want 150 great shots and 800 ok shots that have everyone and everything that attended their event. Its annoying to change film at an event anyway.

If you are shooting carefully calculated landscaped shoot large format and scan it in at crazy high resultion if you need it. A dslr can take nice landscapes but if you care about extremem quality and detail then a large format negatvie can be scanned in at an incredible resoltion that wont have interpalation at 100%.

If you are shooting the family on vacation, bring a a low end lightweight dslr (or film SLR if you want to shoot carefully but end up with slightly superior quality that will last longer)

Studio work...well its a toss up in my opinion. High end DSLRs, the dynamic range of digital MF or regular MF are all good options.
 
Just the opposite of me! I spent 18 years shooting still film from 35mm-8X10 commercial and personal stills. During a workshop with AA we heard the master lament the side effects and environmental impact of chemical photography. In 1996 I gave up the chemicals completely and turned to a point and shoot digital for transition. I've never looked back .My only regret was that early digicams were poor resolution for the investment. I'm a technology consultant now and use digital media in still & video for everything. I have sold and still have a decent collection of my personal work in print, which I look at and marvel at the sacrifices we had to make to produce a compelling archival image. Sigh! Time marches on and it rides on the digital super highway!
All I have is a Nikon Coolpix 5000 on the still side of the equation.
 
Hi Frisco:

Just a few points...

1. I would not qualify myself as a pro still photographer. I do make my living as a DP and producer so I sometimes get paid to shoot stills but it is a once in a while thing. Definitely not a working still photographer so yes, I am definitely not coming from a professional perspective. I mostly shoot for fun and for my portfolio.

2. As far as money, it would cost a lot to shoot 5,000 exposures on film. But that is kind of the point of shooting film, I will be shooting perhaps 100-200 exposures a month, at most. Another reason why I don't really need digital, other than when shooting kids, sports and certain events.

3. As far as cameras though, I agree, you definitely don't need the latest and greatest but most of my friends who are in to photography as advanced amateurs seem to be on this endless treadmill of trading up in DSLRs.

4. I am buying a camera that is about 10 generations back ;-)

5. I am saying that 35mm film has objectively better imaging capability than digital when measured purely in terms of resolution, latitude, shadow depth and color depth. Once DSLRs reach 25 megapixels, those cameras will be equal to 35mm film in pure resolution and closer in latitude.

6. I have only used the 5D MKII for video once, have not shot stills with it so I wouldn't know if it is better, but many of the reviewers on the web are saying that the 5D is capable of better images.

7. Nice digital back, you are obviously a pro. Not saying you should be shooting 35mm film, but for advanced amateurs, it should be considered.

8. Oh yeah, I still have three digital cameras and would definitely use them for Disneyland and soccer games. Film is for my shots, travel, lansdcapes, abstracts, portraits, etc. Stuff where I can easily accomplish what I want to with two or three rolls of 36 exposure film. If I need hundreds or thousands of shots to accomplish that, I am a really lousy photographer.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
Hi Frisco:
5. I am saying that 35mm film has objectively better imaging capability than digital when measured purely in terms of resolution, latitude, shadow depth and color depth. Once DSLRs reach 25 megapixels, those cameras will be equal to 35mm film in pure resolution and closer in latitude.
Dan
Click to expand...

Hey Dan,

This is the part that is totally not correct and does not translate to the digital image. Those specs you mention above may be true if you are evaluating the film itself.
As soon as you scan/digitize the film thats when all hell can break loose and you were better off shooting native digital. Good drum scans can cost as much as $100 each and still have a few issues.
Just so nobody gets fooled here..... If a digital image is your end product to be used for prints or any other reproduction. Modern day digital DSLR will be way better than 35mm film in almost every case.

frisco
 
I plan on making prints directly from negatives, no digital in the chain. That's kind of my whole point, I am sick of digital. I did photography for 25 years without computers and am going back to it.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
(35mm film = about 25 megapixels vs. 12.3 mgeapixels with the D300)
Click to expand...


Not true. The consensus seems to be that 35mm film yields about 6-12 MPix resolution depending on film. There are several factors at work here, just by multiplying theoretical lines/mm figures of film stock is not going to give the real life answer. Lenses are needed also, and they are not as good as film, or sensors. At the moment the sensors are about twice as sharp as best film. Actually we are already in a situation where the laws of physics make more sharpness impossible, even with best lenses diffraction is the limiting factor, not sensor sharpness. To get any benefit from 20+ MPix 35mm sensors only the best prime lenses should be used at f8 or larger apertures.

I have shot digital professionally for 7 years now, and pictures are now much sharper than they were when I was shooting mostly 100 ASA Fuji Astia & Provia. I actually tested my first EOS-1D (4.7 MPix) against EOS-1n and Provia using the same lens and framing at f8. The slide was professionally scanned to 21 MPix resolution (63MB tiff file). Comparing that with the lowly digital image the real detail resolution was almost exactly equal, digital winning overall for less noise/grain. There was no looking back for me.

Luminous landscape did a comparason of 16 MPix EOS-1Ds mkII against 645 Astia and concluded they were about equal. In the same article they found out that 5D at 12 MPix was just as sharp as Ds, as after 12 MPix or so the lenses do not resolve good enough even with full frame sensors. In that light those 20+ MPix 35mm sensor cameras are only a waste of card and HD space. There might be pixels there allright, but no real resolving power.
 
puredrifting said:
I plan on making prints directly from negatives, no digital in the chain. That's kind of my whole point, I am sick of digital. I did photography for 25 years without computers and am going back to it.

Dan
Click to expand...
Ok. To reiterate :
Chemical photography is Disastrous for the environment.Digital photography is MUCH less negative on the environment.
Next up. Resolution, Look and Feel and data loss. This gets ugly.
- Unless your images go from film direct to plate and are printed on a 6 color press with stochastic screen technology as gravure, nothing that you do to a 35mm frame will avoid the roughly 25% resolution loss that occurs in a lowly home scan or printing through an enlarger. I repeat. Unless you have access to Million dollar post, you will not get more than 75% of what your 35mm frame can deliver.
- Look and feel? Digital is now indistinguishable from Film. I now often introduce film like flaws ( grain for example) to get the look. everything else is the same except.......
Digital allows for MUCH wider gamma / latitude than film. Anyone casually shooting handheld available light pics knows this well.
 
If your goal is to get the best quality possible then what you want to do is use film. As I said before, this isn't always a worthwhile workflow depending on what you shoot.

That being said film is still superior in its specs. There is no in camera interpolation or NR that is present in all digital cameras. RAW is a great format but its not a negative its an estimation of your photo. If you scan your film in using a professional grade drum scanner, you will have no problem resolving 25MP. Most of us that are looking for this type of quality are willing to spend for professional equipment.

Film is the equivelet of 25MP but remember that is a full 25MP not an interpolated 25MP coming out of todays DSLRs. Dynamic range is still far superior with film. With digital, you are stuck with the current technology but with film, you will be able to scan it in 10 years down the road and your MF negatives from today will be able to keep up with the digital cameras in 10 years from now.

Even though the specs are still better with film doesn't mean in practice its worth anything. 25MP might as well be 10MP if you are printing 4x6s because thats more resolution than paper inkjet or C-prints can resolve. Also dynamic range is nice but a good magarity of the time you don't need the extra information unless something terrible goes wrong.

Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an oppurtunity (thats what I shoot)
 
A few years ago, back in the good 'ol 6mp days, one of my clients hired me to shoot interiors. They did not insist on large or medium format, but became quite upset when I mentioned that I was planning to shoot digital. They heard that digital (at that time) was not nearly as good as film and were adamant that I deliver slides as the final product.

I showed up to the shoot with my trusty D100. They saw a "large" camera that appeared to be a 35mm and were pleased that I saw things their way.

I processed the 6mp images and burned them to 35mm slides with a Polaroid film recorder. Due to the resolution of that particular film recorder the images had to be downsampled by 33% prior to being burned to film.

The client was extremely pleased with the result. One of their comments was "Aren't you glad we talked you into shooting film? Couldn't get this type of quality out of digital."
 
sinapps said:
A few years ago, back in the good 'ol 6mp days, one of my clients hired me to shoot interiors. They did not insist on large or medium format, but became quite upset when I mentioned that I was planning to shoot digital. They heard that digital (at that time) was not nearly as good as film and were adamant that I deliver slides as the final product.

I showed up to the shoot with my trusty D100. They saw a "large" camera that appeared to be a 35mm and were pleased that I saw things their way.

I processed the 6mp images and burned them to 35mm slides with a Polaroid film recorder. Due to the resolution of that particular film recorder the images had to be downsampled by 33% prior to being burned to film.

The client was extremely pleased with the result. One of their comments was "Aren't you glad we talked you into shooting film? Couldn't get this type of quality out of digital."
Click to expand...

Well, and not to discount your story, most clients don't know what they're looking at.
 
Hey EG,

I know we've chatted before and you know my background. I don't dought that most of what you stated has some truth to it. The problem is, It doesn't work out that way in reality.
There are ony a couple reasons I can think of to shoot film these days.
- Most important reason is if you need the "Field of View" of large format. (don't get that confused with angle of view)
- 8x10 film for a high end Still Life shot.

My clients really don't care what I shoot the job on.... They just want me to deliver what I promised..... Which is the best of my ability.

Your Quote:

***Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an opportunity (that's what I shoot)***

This is 99% not true.

If it were true I would be shooting 80% film. I work with budgets that film, lab and scans would not be an issue.

As far as "Detail" There are times with digital I have to back of on detail and resolution. I never had that with film. With film I have never heard "It's to sharp"

Don't get me wrong.... I love film....I've probably shot well over a million dollars worth of film in my day..... I was one of the last ones to convert.... I still have all my film gear and I can shoot on anything I want.

frisco



egproductions said:
If your goal is to get the best quality possible then what you want to do is use film. As I said before, this isn't always a worthwhile workflow depending on what you shoot.

That being said film is still superior in its specs. There is no in camera interpolation or NR that is present in all digital cameras. RAW is a great format but its not a negative its an estimation of your photo. If you scan your film in using a professional grade drum scanner, you will have no problem resolving 25MP. Most of us that are looking for this type of quality are willing to spend for professional equipment.

Film is the equivelet of 25MP but remember that is a full 25MP not an interpolated 25MP coming out of todays DSLRs. Dynamic range is still far superior with film. With digital, you are stuck with the current technology but with film, you will be able to scan it in 10 years down the road and your MF negatives from today will be able to keep up with the digital cameras in 10 years from now.

Even though the specs are still better with film doesn't mean in practice its worth anything. 25MP might as well be 10MP if you are printing 4x6s because thats more resolution than paper inkjet or C-prints can resolve. Also dynamic range is nice but a good magarity of the time you don't need the extra information unless something terrible goes wrong.

Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an oppurtunity (thats what I shoot)
Click to expand...
 
"Film is better" argument sounds like it was still 2003. The Truth is that digital has already passed film both in resolution, dynamic range and saturation. By far margin.

Cost and convenience are not the only reasons no professional shoots film anymore, it is also the better quality.

I say this after doing this professionally since 1978.
 
I hear what your saying. I love both formats but I see each one being useful for different things. I'm not arguing one is better than the other but I am arguing which is better technical quality. Aside from quality they both have pros and cons. Archival v.s. cost v.s. workflow.

When I said that if you require only the best shoot film. I still stick to that statement although I rarley see instances where only the best is actually needed or worthwile unless you are shooting billboard sized lanscapes or as you mentioned, want the large format FOV (DOF to AOV ratio) and most of the time the benefits you get with digital totally outweight and result in a better photo than the better quality of film.

You said:

As far as "Detail" There are times with digital I have to back of on detail and resolution. I never had that with film. With film I have never heard "It's to sharp"

Thats a reason to shoot film. I'm sure you never said there was too little detail with film either. Film is more organic. If you need to print a 8"x10" print from a MF digital back or MF film back the digital is going to have to be downrezed to match the DPI of the printer (interpolation) and then have digital sharpening added because the original interpolation lost some sharpness. With making a str8 from negative c-print you don't have that problem.

Clients pay attention to the important parts of a photograph not the detail. So thats why digital is useful because it lets you concentrate on the important stuff even though its sacrificing the not important stuff ever so slightly.

I'll rephrase the line you quoted from me. "If you require only the best quality (which you probaly don't) stick with film but if you want to take better pictures stick with digital"

frisco said:
Hey EG,

I know we've chatted before and you know my background. I don't dought that most of what you stated has some truth to it. The problem is, It doesn't work out that way in reality.
There are ony a couple reasons I can think of to shoot film these days.
- Most important reason is if you need the "Field of View" of large format. (don't get that confused with angle of view)
- 8x10 film for a high end Still Life shot.

My clients really don't care what I shoot the job on.... They just want me to deliver what I promised..... Which is the best of my ability.

Your Quote:

***Bottom line, If what you require is only the best and the most detail, stick with film for now. If you don't need the best, digital is great for convenience and not missing an opportunity (that's what I shoot)***

This is 99% not true.

If it were true I would be shooting 80% film. I work with budgets that film, lab and scans would not be an issue.

As far as "Detail" There are times with digital I have to back of on detail and resolution. I never had that with film. With film I have never heard "It's to sharp"

Don't get me wrong.... I love film....I've probably shot well over a million dollars worth of film in my day..... I was one of the last ones to convert.... I still have all my film gear and I can shoot on anything I want.

frisco
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top