Film Vs. Digital

[The Vulcan]

The digital domain does offer much more opportunity for processing.

I remember a film shot, with poor exposure.

The local shops just could not get a decent print from it.

I scanned on my negative scanner, and the standard sw immediately produced a decent image

with no additional processing needed.

That was in addition to removing the orange bias of a colour negative

The loss of detail, and inevitable colour cast from these D+P labs is a joke. I rarely get prints but when I do (for speed) I am always dissapointed and find I can scan and PP a lot better myself.

[The Vulcan]

The digital domain does offer much more opportunity for processing.

I remember a film shot, with poor exposure.

The local shops just could not get a decent print from it.

I scanned on my negative scanner, and the standard sw immediately produced a decent image

with no additional processing needed.

That was in addition to removing the orange bias of a colour negative

The loss of detail, and inevitable colour cast from these D+P labs is a joke. I rarely get prints but when I do (for speed) I am always dissapointed and find I can scan and PP a lot better myself.

"Printing and processing of black & white film has shot up 45% in a year, signalling a resurgence of interest in traditional 'silver gelatin' prints, according to Ilford photo. 'There is still a passion about the darkroom', said Ilford Photo sales director Steven Brierly. Brierley admitted that use of home-based darkrooms among photographic enthusiasts 'has gone'. But, he added, interest from colleges is very robust--boosted by people enrolling for photography evening classes. Brierley said that the firm's sales of 35mm b&w film remain pretty stable, despite a slight overall decline in sales worldwide. Also, Ilford's sales of 120 film have rocketed 18% in value terms, according to Brierly, partly a result of a glut of low-priced second-hand rollfilm calmeras around 18 months ago."

Married with the staggering costs of the digital "latests" this comes as no surprise.

Unfortunately, film camera costs are now rising - glad I've got my selection

[hammered]

Digital Cameras have brought cheap high quality pics to the masses. That is a good thing. Film may be good for the pro's and some enthusiasts but for most .....

[eurasianthai]

Digital Cameras have brought cheap high quality pics to the masses. That is a good thing. Film may be good for the pro's and some enthusiasts but for most .....

Film is dead.

[hammered]

Digital Cameras have brought cheap high quality pics to the masses. That is a good thing. Film may be good for the pro's and some enthusiasts but for most .....

Film is dead.

I tend to agree over time. Digital images will only get better and evetually the enthusiasts will be so few in number it wont be commercially viable but for now we will see a bunch of holdouts.

[eurasianthai]

But for now we will see a bunch of holdouts.

But, as far as I know, argentic films are not manufactured anymore...

[tw25rw]

I'm looking into buying a film camera. Probably an old rangefinder like a Contax G1/G2. The value for money is astonishing for some of the finest cameras ever constructed.

I've been using digital for 10 years. It's convenient, but I don't get the same enjoyment that I get from an old analogue camera. Maybe if I could afford a Leica M9, I would feel different, but I just don't enjoy using a camera that does all the thinking for you and has an array of buttons and menus to do simple tasks regardless of how instant the result or how many I can fit into an SD card.

[VerbalKint]

I miss two things in this discussion that are important factors for me:

1 - With film you could buy a body and know you would be using it for many years. I loved working with my FM's and knowing my equipment through and through. In the digi era you are almost forced to buy a new body every 2-3 years, re-learning where all the different buttons are etc.

2 - dust dust dust dust dust DUST, I hate dust !, instead of having a bit of dust on one frame that you could just clean, now the dust is on the sensor....so on every single shot ....

but,...I'm playing music off cd's (or harddrive) and my FM's are in a box somewhere, gathering......

[phetaroi]

I'm looking into buying a film camera. Probably an old rangefinder like a Contax G1/G2. The value for money is astonishing for some of the finest cameras ever constructed.

I've been using digital for 10 years. It's convenient, but I don't get the same enjoyment that I get from an old analogue camera. Maybe if I could afford a Leica M9, I would feel different, but I just don't enjoy using a camera that does all the thinking for you and has an array of buttons and menus to do simple tasks regardless of how instant the result or how many I can fit into an SD card.

What's the problem...on most SLR cameras you can go fully manual.

[tw25rw]

What's the problem...on most SLR cameras you can go fully manual.

True, but I want an aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on the top plate. I also would prefer an RF to an SLR. In any case, I just like the old cameras.

[aeon]

I miss two things in this discussion that are important factors for me:

1 - With film you could buy a body and know you would be using it for many years. I loved working with my FM's and knowing my equipment through and through. In the digi era you are almost forced to buy a new body every 2-3 years, re-learning where all the different buttons are etc.

2 - dust dust dust dust dust DUST, I hate dust !, instead of having a bit of dust on one frame that you could just clean, now the dust is on the sensor....so on every single shot ....

but,...I'm playing music off cd's (or harddrive) and my FM's are in a box somewhere, gathering......

1 with the film you are forced to buy rolls of film, chemicals, paper or pay the lab fees.

2 true but what about overall sharpness? seems to be impossible to have a perfect flat film inside your camera.

[eurasianthai]

2 true but what about overall sharpness? seems to be impossible to have a perfect flat film inside your camera.

Indeed, digital cameras will soon overtake film cameras as far as overall sharpness of the photo is concerned.

If they did not yet...

[The Vulcan]

I'm looking into buying a film camera. Probably an old rangefinder like a Contax G1/G2. The value for money is astonishing for some of the finest cameras ever constructed.

I've been using digital for 10 years. It's convenient, but I don't get the same enjoyment that I get from an old analogue camera. Maybe if I could afford a Leica M9, I would feel different, but I just don't enjoy using a camera that does all the thinking for you and has an array of buttons and menus to do simple tasks regardless of how instant the result or how many I can fit into an SD card.

Buy into it - but not a G1. The G2 is infinitely more accurate and user friendly.

I'm shooting a pair of G2's and a Leica M6 at present. And just to put things in context I also shoot a Hasselblad 500 CW, a Rollei 6008, and a Canon 5D MK11.

The Contax equals (if not surpasses the Leica) and has the added benefit of AF and 4 frames per second. Manual focus is obviously available.

The 45mm Planar is widely regarded as the finest 35mm lens ever produced and I wouldn't argue with this. I also have the 21, 28, 35 and 90mm. The latter two coupled with the 45mm are also used on my Panasonic GF1 via an adapter - amazing resolution, detail and contrast

However, make sure you have a high end scanner (if this is your route) to fully extract the detail. Flatbeds in 35mm are crap!

Go for Fuji Acros in B+W, and Velvia 100 or Kodak Ektar E100G in colour slide

Film is not dead, it''s still in production, and there are a great deal of eminent photographers still "holding out"

Edited February 8, 2010 by The Vulcan