Going back to film

[robert lamont]

Does anyone shoot film here, i know this is digital photography school but i was given a Pentax 645 and after sorting a couple of silly issues ( my fault, not the camera) the prints i have been getting out of this camera have been unbelievable. So much so i haven't got out my K5 for 3 or 4 weeks. Anyone else out there share my opinion? Don't get me wrong, digital has it's place and there are plenty of advantages shooting digital over film. I am making inquiries into acquiring a film processor and a few other odds and ends and we will shake the tree and see what falls out!!!!

Rob
Flickr: the pentax man's Photostream

[OsmosisStudios]

Eh... here's the thing:

Film is nice. I still shoot it. I shoot it for fun, for giggles. Not for quality. 35mm, especially, can't measure up to the sharpness and overall image quality of modern digital sensors, and there's just so much about digital that makes it that much more convenient.

That said: 120 (or 645) CAN be excellent, but again, it has it's place and, in most cases, a digital equivalent will give the same or better.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Eh... here's the thing:

Film is nice. I still shoot it. I shoot it for fun, for giggles. Not for quality. 35mm, especially, can't measure up to the sharpness and overall image quality of modern digital sensors, and there's just so much about digital that makes it that much more convenient.

That said: 120 (or 645) CAN be excellent, but again, it has it's place and, in most cases, a digital equivalent will give the same or better.

If money was no object (for film, developing, printing, scanning to digital) you wouldn't rather shoot on medium format?? If you have a Phase One back would you then? Because, for me, more than just pixel count, there is a look to the medium format that is difficult to render in 35mm...

[bhursey]

Digital SLR's are just now starting to get close to medium format cameras, and are way far away from matching large format cameras. I love the look of film and I use it purely for all my artistic work external to my professional work, IE architecture, city scape, landscapes and so on. If I had a basement 1/2 would be studio space 1/4 would be an office, and 1/4 would be a fully stocked darkroom. If you scan a 120 film or 4x5 on a scanner like a epson v700 or v500. You will be blown away.. I still have yet to do it but I have seen full tiff example scans and they easily beat out digital slr's. I have a 4x5 camera sitting in my bedroom with a 120 back and a polaroid back that was lent to me but I have yet to have the time to go out and shoot. Personally of your going to shoot landscapes, and things like that. From what I have read and seen get a medium format camera or 4x5. If your going to do portraits, events, and so on get a digital slr. Currently I shoot with a 35mm Nikon fm2n but, I still have a 4x5 or a 120 film camera on my dream list.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by zona5101

If money was no object (for film, developing, printing, scanning to digital) you wouldn't rather shoot on medium format?? If you have a Phase One back would you then? Because, for me, more than just pixel count, there is a look to the medium format that is difficult to render in 35mm...

No, but with one exception: If ALL my work was studio, where I controlled the light and so on, I'd gladly shoot film all day long. No hesitation. But because that's simply not the case... the ability to switch from 100iso to 3200iso (or to just ridiculous levels on some bodies) without changing film and still get cleaner images... that's pretty much a deal-maker for digital for me.

Even when Im shooting my MF kit, I do it for the enjoyment of being out there and being creative: I have a heavy tripod, heavy camera and lenses, heavy bag, etc, often working out of a car... it's not something I do often or lightly. And I choose film based on subject matter.

Now, luckily with MF I have 4 backs, so I could, in theory, have 4 different ISO settings at my disposal, but it's still not the same: for one, most of my films dont come in varying ISO settings, and for two, 3200ISO film, even good stuff, cant compare to a 3200ISO digital file, even on a crop-sensor camera.

Like I said, film is fun if you take your time and use it properly, btu for the vast majority of people, it's simply not going to be enough.

RE: bhursey
Large format film is another animal entirely. That said, the issue with digital vs film isnt just the resolution (50 or 100iso film can be scanned to about 12-15mp and be comparable), it's versatility. Ilford makes 3200ISO film, but they're one of the last ones. And let's be honest; it's rough stuff. Contrarily, I can easily is a 52k ISO file from a D3s and have it look comparable, and be higher res, than a scanned 3200ISO negative, and yes, even MF. You have to remember: when your pixels become smaller than your film wells, any added scanning resolution is useless.

[bhursey]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

RE: bhursey
Large format film is another animal entirely. That said, the issue with digital vs film isnt just the resolution (50 or 100iso film can be scanned to about 12-15mp and be comparable), it's versatility. Ilford makes 3200ISO film, but they're one of the last ones. And let's be honest; it's rough stuff. Contrarily, I can easily is a 52k ISO file from a D3s and have it look comparable, and be higher res, than a scanned 3200ISO negative, and yes, even MF. You have to remember: when your pixels become smaller than your film wells, any added scanning resolution is useless.

Yep fully agree with you on the 12-15mp on 35mm. Once you scan to a certain size its not gonna get any better. . Also regarding ISO. I hate even touching 200iso film LOL. So If your going to be doing anything you need a higher ISO than umm no. So it has its purposes. This is why I use it just for my art...

Heres Fuji Film NPZ800 Pro not bad but look at under the over hang...

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6067/6...47eb9525_o.jpg

[milosh]

I use 35mm film (but would love to try MF for landscapes) on a low-level Yahica body, mainly for street photography. One reason, I like the fact that I have to think creatively and watch what I'm doing, I like the fact that I can't see the result immediately, and it's the only camera I have that's smaller than my dSLR.

That being said, I only shoot ISO400 films (Fuji Neopan 400CN and recently Konica VX400) because those are the only "b&w" films I can find (labs around here can't process true b&w anymore, so I have to settle with b&w films designed for colour process).

All b&w photos in my Flickr photostream are film photos (all are from ISO 400 films).

[zona5101]

eventually MF digital backs will become affordable. The IQ will be no question, it will come down to "can i shoot fast enough" with MF, the same decision in film days. Perhaps by then all the crop bodies will be as loved as the APS format...

[doctorjames]

Originally Posted by milosh

I use 35mm film (but would love to try MF for landscapes) on a low-level Yahica body, mainly for street photography. One reason, I like the fact that I have to think creatively and watch what I'm doing, I like the fact that I can't see the result immediately, and it's the only camera I have that's smaller than my dSLR.

That being said, I only shoot ISO400 films (Fuji Neopan 400CN and recently Konica VX400) because those are the only "b&w" films I can find (labs around here can't process true b&w anymore, so I have to settle with b&w films designed for colour process).

All b&w photos in my Flickr photostream are film photos (all are from ISO 400 films).

Why dont you have a go at developing your own b&w. God I miss that.

[doctorjames]

But seriously.... going back to film.......

There is no way I would be able to afford the expense, or the time required to scan in the negs.

I use my digital cameras in a very different way than I used to use film.

I once came back from a holiday with 8 or 9 rolls of exposed film so thats 9 x 36 = 324 shots. At the time I thought that was a crazy number of frames.

On my honeymoon trip across america, which was only a bit longer than that holiday, I kept 3500 frames, and shot at least double that. And bearing in mind it was a honeymoon, photography wasnt the first priority :P