Film Cameras

[Logo]

Although I have a couple of digital cameras, I like playing around with film. Was wondering if anybody else here still use film cameras and if so what are you using equipment wise.

I recently found some real bargains when it comes to lenses for these old cameras and taking into account the money I save between these and the prices for digital cam lenses, film is actually working out cheaper

For the record I develop my own negatives then scan and print so saving a fair bit on the developing costs as well. Also anybody here use Diana F cameras. They are really fun !!

 

[bwana]

I vowed a long time ago that I would never go back into the darkroom and there's nothing I've remembered about film photography, that's lacking in digital, that has been able to sway my decision (even though I've probably got three 35mm's within 10 feet of me right now).

The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[Dolby]

Doesn't film capture a greater dynamic range than digital - hence the need for HDR photos?

 

[bwana]

Doesn't film capture a greater dynamic range than digital - hence the need for HDR photos?

The goal of HDR is to encompass the entire range of the scene, something that might even be beyond the scope of film.

Different kinds of film also have different dynamic ranges so a comparison between "digital" and "film" is difficult.

 

[Logo]

You can't compare film with digital at all they are two different beasts.

What I did find with using a fully manual film camera is it really helps you to grow as a photographer. There isn't the chance to take a photo look at it and reshoot it if it is wrong. It really makes you think about the composition, lighting, the settings such as f-stops, exposure and such.

 

[noxibox]

What I did find with using a fully manual film camera is it really helps you to grow as a photographer. There isn't the chance to take a photo look at it and reshoot it if it is wrong. It really makes you think about the composition, lighting, the settings such as f-stops, exposure and such.

On the other hand I always took numerous safety shots on film, which I might also do on digital, but I don't have to use up reams of film to do it. Count me amongst those that liked film, but not enough to use it instead of digital.

Doesn't film capture a greater dynamic range than digital - hence the need for HDR photos?

The negative has very good dynamic range, but you cannot make a print at a particular exposure and get it all. That mean taking two scans of the negative and blending them.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I still take my Pentax K1000 SE out from time to time, but more out of nostalgia than anything else. I do enjoy tinkering with Fuji Velvia 50 film and have a roll in my Canon 500N that goes with me when I travel to new places. In part because I like the look of Velvia (although I can easily replicate it with Aperture) and in part because I like the idea of having a single roll of film, where every frame is from a different part of the world. I hope it comes out! The advantage of the 500N is that it's an EF mount body, so I can use my nice glass on it. I've been lusting over a EOS 3 to replace it, but I can't really find a sane reason to do it.

The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

Nice I'll remember that one...

Doesn't film capture a greater dynamic range than digital - hence the need for HDR photos?

I doubt if there's any film that has more DR than the latest digital bodies. The Pentax K5 captures 14 stops. IIRC colour negative film, which has about the best DR in the film world, gets around 9 stops, but I may have the numbers wrong. Neverhteless, the thing that does bother me in digital, which film still does better IMHO is the transitions from highlight to blow-out. I have many pictures - sunsets/sunrises mostly, where it looks like a broken egg almost - clear borders between colours instead of a smooth transition. It doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen under the right circumstances.

 

[bwana]

You can't compare film with digital at all they are two different beasts.

What I did find with using a fully manual film camera is it really helps you to grow as a photographer. There isn't the chance to take a photo look at it and reshoot it if it is wrong. It really makes you think about the composition, lighting, the settings such as f-stops, exposure and such.

You could just put a piece of tape over the LCD.

 

[undesign]

You could just put a piece of tape over the LCD.

LOL

 

[koffiejunkie]

Mine is usually in the mode where it shows the exposure information and the histogram, with the thumbnail of the image rather than the full-screen image. I find this far more useful.

Speaking of which, I was watching a documentary on the guy who's Obama's photographer. I didn't see him chimp once!

 

[bwana]

Mine is usually in the mode where it shows the exposure information and the histogram, with the thumbnail of the image rather than the full-screen image. I find this far more useful.

Speaking of which, I was watching a documentary on the guy who's Obama's photographer. I didn't see him chimp once!

I decided the histogram is only useful when I'm shooting JPG but the blown highlight warning does a better job.

 

[Goobie]

Although I have a couple of digital cameras, I like playing around with film. Was wondering if anybody else here still use film cameras and if so what are you using equipment wise.

I recently found some real bargains when it comes to lenses for these old cameras and taking into account the money I save between these and the prices for digital cam lenses, film is actually working out cheaper

For the record I develop my own negatives then scan and print so saving a fair bit on the developing costs as well. Also anybody here use Diana F cameras. They are really fun !!

I still hang on to my Bronica square medium format camera for taking star trails in BW. Also does my own development.

 

[chau]

Mine is usually in the mode where it shows the exposure information and the histogram, with the thumbnail of the image rather than the full-screen image. I find this far more useful.

Speaking of which, I was watching a documentary on the guy who's Obama's photographer. I didn't see him chimp once!

That was a good documentary. I chuckled a bit when he ran out of memory while trying to photograph Obama and someone else after a speech.

 

[genetic]

Film is still superior.

A 35mm film frame, with proper exposure and processing, still offers an equivalent resolution in the range of 500 mega pixels.

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

 

[koffiejunkie]

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

Holy smokes!

 

[ponder]

Film is still superior.



http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

This is what worries me about those shooting hollywood movies in digital HD 1920x1080 (rather use 4K). Couple of years down the line when we have even higher definition tv you won't be able to extract any more resolution out of it. But with movies shot on film you will be able to get much higher resolution when using a decent drum scanner.

 

[noxibox]

This is what worries me about those shooting hollywood movies in digital HD 1920x1080 (rather use 4K). Couple of years down the line when we have even higher definition tv you won't be able to extract any more resolution out of it. But with movies shot on film you will be able to get much higher resolution when using a decent drum scanner.

Will it matter for film? Although there is talk of higher resolutions how likely is that to happen any time soon? And if it happens in 20 years it won't be that different to the situation we have today where older films need restoration. Ultimately films are being shot on equipment that is available whether that means the best technology money can buy or the best technology they can get for the money they have.

A 35mm film frame, with proper exposure and processing, still offers an equivalent resolution in the range of 500 mega pixels.

Basically bull****.

 

[bwana]

Film is still superior.



http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

That is just one aspect and even if it's not desperate marketing claims from a dying industry player it's easy enough to counter a claim from one medium with an equally important one from the other camp. In reality film does somethings better and digital others.

 

[genetic]

Basically bull****.

You say its bull****? Evidence?

That is just one aspect and even if it's not desperate marketing claims from a dying industry player it's easy enough to counter a claim from one medium with an equally important one from the other camp. In reality film does somethings better and digital others.

It's as simple as that.

 

[BigAl-sa]

You say its bull****? Evidence?

You ever tried shooting at ISO 20? The advantage shown in the article disappears as the film crystals get bigger. With ISO 400 film, you're prolly better off with a modern P&S

On topic: I recently exchanged my film cameras, with lenses and bags, for a couple of bottles of Bells