Why isnt there a FILM USERS thread..

infokill

infokill

Well-known member
I guess here it is :)
I'll post some in a bit.
The majority of my shooting is done on film, much much better imop.

On a side note, does anyone know the name of the scan trays for negatives?
I have a normal scanner and want to buy the scanning trays for my negatives.
 
All of the Still Photography is located together. You could certainly start a thread dedicated to FILM much as was done with the Nikon thread and the Canon thread.
 
Part of a Chess series I did for a Photo I course back in college. Tri-x (400ISO) Vivitar 100mm macro f3.5 at probably f5.6
1204046429.jpg


1204046476.jpg
 
Last edited:
once i figured out i can get about 21mp from a 35mm frame, I started using only film for stuff that matters.

snapped from waistlevel (to avoid getting my ass kicked)

1204085973.jpg


Velvia 50
 
Unless you are printing straight from the negative or have a really good drum scanner there is no point in shooting film. A regular flatbed scanner wont resolve your 21 MP. Either way 21MP seems a lot higher then lets say 8mp but in reality the difference is not so impressive.
 
Yes flatbed scanners these days "claim" to scan at really high DPI's but if you compare a 100% crop of a 21MP to the same on a drum scanner you will notice you were lossing a lot. There are also other cons to scanning using a flatbed that can really dimish sharpness clarity.
 
i think you're referring to interpolated scanning on any old lexar flatbed. I'm using the nikon coolscan 5000, and going directly from the negative. Frankly the results are much more than satisfactory, and allow me to still use film cheaply and efficiently while retaining the qualities of it that I desire.
 
Hans, that is a film scanner not a flatbed (I thought you had a flatbed) big difference I think you probably do get really good results with that. I see that your particular model goes for close to $1000, why not save the money on the scanner and film and go for a fullframe?
 
egproductions said:
Hans, that is a film scanner not a flatbed (I thought you had a flatbed) big difference I think you probably do get really good results with that. I see that your particular model goes for close to $1000, why not save the money on the scanner and film and go for a fullframe?
Click to expand...

I can answer that...

If you are shooting film you will get better results than on a full frame DSLR. You get a high dynamic range and you have much better printing options.

Film to a scanner is the best way to go and what I will end up doing once I can afford the medium format system I want :)
 
to get that extra dynamic range you are going to have to scan at a really high bit depth which is going to slow down the process even further. You can make a C-print from a digital image or even an inter-nagative if you really want that film grain and printing options. Yes film is better for certain things and definitely has a quality to it but I think most shoots aren't going to benefit from film and moments could be lost if film is used and $. That being said I think there is something be appreciated about taking it slowly and being careful before taking a shot but digital can do that too. Ive always been a fan of film and was apprehensive to digital but I really see the practicality of it. Not saying I am definitely right but this is just how I am looking at it.

I have heard that B&W films tend to have more dynamic range as opposed to color...not sure if that's true
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top