35mm film photography comeback?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Cursitor Doom, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. Cursitor Doom

    Whiskers Guest

    [...]

    So should art schools cease to teach drawing and painting too? What
    about charcoal and ink? Every medium and technique has something unique
    to offer, as a learning experience as well as a production method in
    itself.

    Quite apart from matters of 'vision' and 'imagination', who will
    maintain the vast number of 'chemical' photographic prints and negatives
    already in existence if no-one learns how the processes work?
     
    Whiskers, Apr 6, 2014
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Do you not think, though, that the finite number of shots you have
    from a roll of film plus the processing cost etc means that film
    photographers automatically put more thought and effort into the shots
    they're taking?
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 6, 2014
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I agree. How many people brought up on digital only know the first
    thing about concepts like ASA to name but one aspect.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 6, 2014
    #23
  4. If it becomes do-able to fit say a 12Mp digital sensor together with
    some sort of interface into a classic film camera, you might suddenly
    find the price of the old classics going through the roof? I mean, the
    build quality of some of the old film cameras just doesn't exist in
    today's digital equivalents. For those of us who appreciate solidity,
    weight, feel, longevity and ruggedness this kind of hybrid arrangement
    could be a really attractive proposition.
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 6, 2014
    #24
  5. I'm toying with the idea of taking only B&W shots with my film
    cameras, developing the negs with a tank and then digitally scanning
    the negs to print out on a high resolution printer. I can't be doing
    with all the bother of dark rooms, developing trays and enlargers, so
    this seems like a nifty alternative.

    Any tips/observations/suggestions, gents?
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 6, 2014
    #25
  6. Why would anyone need to know about ASA?

    I'd try ISO just for starters... and my bet is that very few
    photographers actually know much about it for one very good
    reason: they don't need to!
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
    #26
  7. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    very convenient.
    there hasn't been a debate about quality for around a decade.

    digital surpassed film long ago, and today's top digital slrs (35mm
    format) surpass *medium format* film.
    you can't compare a nikon digital slr with a large format film camera.
    that's a completely invalid comparison.

    a nikon digital slr blows away any 35mm film slr ever made (or compact)
    and the higher end digital slrs surpass medium format film cameras
    (entry level digital slrs not so much but hard to tell anymore).
    then you need to revisit your technique.
    you only prefer it because you haven't learned digital yet.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #27
  8. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    those who want wider dynamic range choose digital, without question
    (assuming they know what they're doing - anyone can screw up anything).

    dynamic range on digital is *much* better than film, plus it's very
    easy to do hdr for even wider range (although hdr is often poorly
    done).
    you're absolutely right. it's not close to good film because the nikon
    d300 goes well beyond good film.

    for a nikon d300 slr to be close to a good film camera would be a step
    *backwards* for the d300.
    there's nothing to solve.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #28
  9. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    drawing and painting are useful skills.

    film is not. they're teaching things that won't ever be used.

    teach the concepts with digital cameras, not film cameras, and it's
    much easier to learn the concepts that way too.
    maintaining them is not the same as creating them.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #29
  10. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    first of all, it's been called iso for a *really* long time (long
    before there was digital), and second, it's about the same percentage
    as with film. casual users probably won't care and advanced users will.


    and the cool thing about digital is iso is another parameter in
    exposure, something you *can't* do with film. that opens up a world of
    new opportunities.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #30
  11. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    digital is finite too. memory cards fill up.

    bring a 32 meg card (that's meg, not gig) and you'll be even more
    limited than with a roll or two of film, especially if you are shooting
    raw with a high megapixel camera. you might only get just a few shots
    on a card.

    digital does not mean shoot 1000s of photos of a subject, hoping for
    the best. you can put as much or as little thought into digital as you
    want. take hours to compose a shot, or take seconds. whether you use
    film or digital doesn't change that part.

    however, with digital, you have the option of shooting a lot of photos
    should the need arise, without concern about cost or lugging film (and
    keeping it cool).
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #31
  12. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    do it with a digital camera and the results will be better and with
    less hassle.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #32
  13. Cursitor Doom

    Guest Guest

    not only will that never happen for a *lot* of reasons, but today's
    digital cameras do so much more than any film camera ever could, and
    more reliably too.
     
    Guest, Apr 6, 2014
    #33
  14. Cursitor Doom

    philo  Guest



    I don't see the point
     
    philo , Apr 6, 2014
    #34
  15. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest

    Same here.


    Go to www.apug.org, make yourself a member - really not that expensive! - and you'll be amidst heaps of fellow b&w film users, with all sorts of ideasand "recipes" already cooked and ready to use. One of the best resources available for film info and all "digital trolls" are promptly kicked out.
     
    Noons, Apr 6, 2014
    #35
  16. I agree there's no comparison between the best DSLRs nowadays and the
    best old classic film cameras. Digital wins hands down in so many key
    respects, I admit. HOWEVER, sports motorbikes win hands down over
    Harley-Davidsons in so many key respects, too. But Harleys, despite
    their archaic design, clunky mechanics and poor handling still have a
    rabidly entusiastic following and cost considerably more than their
    faster, more refined rivals on balance.
    So it's not all about performance. There's that indefinable
    'something' that the top film marques provide for certain camera
    connoisseurs. 'Feel' has a lot to do with it - plus it helps to be
    over a 'certain age.' ;-)
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 6, 2014
    #36
  17. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest


    Total bullshit.
     
    Noons, Apr 6, 2014
    #37
  18. Cursitor Doom

    Noons Guest



    Actually, ISO in digital has NOTHING to do with exposure.
    But I'll let you continue to expose your "digital expertise":
    it's amusing.
     
    Noons, Apr 6, 2014
    #38
  19. What's digital got to do with that? ASA/ISO isn't a parameter for
    exposure with film either...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Apr 6, 2014
    #39
  20. Very interesting..... THanks!
     
    Cursitor Doom, Apr 6, 2014
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.