Anyone still exclusively with regular film anymore?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by LadySycamore, May 19, 2004.

  1. LadySycamore

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Because you don't have to pay "thousands", and the conveniences are many,
    from instant picture feedback to digital file storage and retrieval.
    Digital isn't for everyone, but you're dismissing it awful easily.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jun 3, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. LadySycamore

    Chris Guest

    Ok, they're both convenient, both can be cost-effective, and both can
    produce some quality photos.

    Does it really matter whether someone switches to digital? Isn't it
    personal choice?

    Feel free to disagree, if you like. :)
     
    Chris, Jun 3, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. I actually stardet with digital but few weeks ago i changed to film and
    i immediatly stardet with medium format. I will still shoot with digital
    from time to time but theres something different when shooting film,
    maybe it's bit more difficult to shoot with this Rolleicord V and it
    gives much more challange.

    But it's a matter of taste as usual, but i just think that digital
    cameras need 3 to 4 years of development with those sensors.

    But hey film camers are damn cheap now cause of digital camers, so i
    guess there are some good sides that they are here ;)
     
    Aleksi Mehtonen, Jun 4, 2004
    #23
  4. LadySycamore

    traveler Guest

    You DO have to pay thousands for the kind of digital camera that will
    equal a professional quality 35mm SLR. The optics just aren't there
    on the cheaper models. Of course, the better film cameras aren't
    cheap, either. I didn't intend to "dismiss" digital cameras. One day
    I'll probably buy one. Just not right now.
     
    traveler, Jun 4, 2004
    #24
  5. It's not the optics, it's the sensor! Sometimes both, in the case of
    point and shoots but...

    You're right, to get true 35mm film quality with a 35mm field of view
    you need something like a Canon 1Ds or a Kodak 14n. That will set you
    back at least $7,000 grand for the Canon, $5,000 for the Kodak.

    However, if you're never going to make prints over 11x14 (or at least
    not examine them up close) and you don't mind losing true 35mm field of
    view, the current crop of dSLRs from Canon and Nikon in the $1,000-
    $1,500 range do a great job.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 4, 2004
    #25
  6. LadySycamore

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Of course. I was merely answering the question.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jun 4, 2004
    #26
  7. LadySycamore

    Mike Kohary Guest

    True for the point and shoots, but on a digital SLR, the optics are the same
    as a film camera (i.e. you can use the same lenses you would on a film
    camera, for the most part). You can get a digital SLR, such as the Canon
    Digital Rebel, and a superb lens, such as one of the Canon "L" series, for
    under $2000.

    I won't deny it's expensive compared to a film camera setup overall. It is
    and will continue to get cheaper, though. :)
    Gotcha.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jun 4, 2004
    #27
  8. LadySycamore

    Chris Down Guest

    I assume you mean used gear.. once "everyone" goes digital new darkroom
    equipment will shoot up in price as there will no longer be the economies of
    scale from volume production.

    Some makers of darkroom supplies may go out of business altogether if there
    is a big take up of digital in pro and semi pro
     
    Chris Down, Jun 25, 2004
    #28
  9. LadySycamore

    ed Guest

    I thought that until recently "going digital". A bad picture is still
    a bad picture, and photoshop will only make it look stupid or cheap.
    Granted, if you are off a stop or two, a good Raw editor can make a
    big differance. I think the digital editors are basically trying to
    get you back to the beauty of a good film, which is sorely lacking.
    My A2 is still a wonderful camera and I take it with me whenever I
    need to be sure of getting a good photo. My 10D can take pictures that
    I can easily print at 8x10, but is an inconsistent pain in the ass.
    At this point Canon employees can now start their tirades of how it's
    the photographer , not the camera.
     
    ed, Sep 7, 2004
    #29
  10. LadySycamore

    C J Campbell Guest

    There is a reason Ilford is in receivership and Nikon and most of the other
    major camera manufacturers have said that they will be phasing out their
    compact film cameras.
     
    C J Campbell, Sep 7, 2004
    #30
  11. LadySycamore

    Rob Novak Guest

    What I don't understand is why the digital folks have this undeserved
    superiority complex, like they've "won" some sort of contest, or
    something. The camera's a tool, guys.
     
    Rob Novak, Sep 7, 2004
    #31
  12. LadySycamore

    C J Campbell Guest

    Haven't noticed anything like that. Of course in my case, if you saw my
    pictures you would understand why I would not have a superiority complex....
     
    C J Campbell, Sep 7, 2004
    #32
  13. I want to get into film photography and am trying to learn the ins and
    outs. I do agree a lot of things are happening and perhaps the reason
    why some companies like Kodak and Nikon are phasing certain products out
    is because they're ready to move into the digital age. Thats not to say
    that film is going out by any means, small steps towards something greater.
     
    Perfectlyblurry, Sep 7, 2004
    #33
  14. LadySycamore

    Kay Guest

    I have a lot of customers who are die hard film fanatics and are already
    stressing that film may become obsolete sometime in the future.

    There are other people who are moving to digital because they think it's
    time to make the move because "it's the thing to do", rather than because
    they want to.

    The bottom line is this, if you can't take a good photo then whatever medium
    you are using you won't be taking a good photo. Where I work we always
    adjust for colour and density before printing the photos and it is the same
    with digital.

    Last week I had a customer who took a photo of his wife against the sun and
    wanted to know why she was so dark (and it had been lightened 2 stops at
    that) and what was the circle on her face (it was a sun flare). According to
    him, he had the best camera money could buy and no he wasn't going to listen
    to any advice about backlighting shots because his camera had automatic
    flash and he didn't need to use fill-in flash because the camera was the
    best and knew when to trigger the flash, and I obviously knew nothing.

    I rest my case.

    I thought that until recently "going digital". A bad picture is still
    a bad picture, and photoshop will only make it look stupid or cheap.
    Granted, if you are off a stop or two, a good Raw editor can make a
    big differance. I think the digital editors are basically trying to
    get you back to the beauty of a good film, which is sorely lacking.
    My A2 is still a wonderful camera and I take it with me whenever I
    need to be sure of getting a good photo. My 10D can take pictures that
    I can easily print at 8x10, but is an inconsistent pain in the ass.
    At this point Canon employees can now start their tirades of how it's
    the photographer , not the camera.
     
    Kay, Sep 7, 2004
    #34
  15. LadySycamore

    Rob Novak Guest

    The point-n-shoot market has been ceded almost 100% to digital. I
    have no problem with that. The prosumer market is shifting to
    digital, and that's fine for those that want to go that way. Certain
    segments of the pro business (wedding candids, photojournalist, news &
    magazine) are also turning to digital because of the cost saving in
    film and processing.

    The problem I have is that as goes the consumer, so goes the pro
    market. The holiday-snaps consumer droids have a lot of market
    influence because of their sheer number. As the product lines shift
    to accommodate the demand, semi-pros such as myself and professionals
    are herded into a place where we don't _necessarily_ want to go. I
    like being able to rip off a 20-frame series if necessary, without
    having to wait for the 5-frame CCD buffer RAM to dump to the CF card.

    Film's served me well for a loooong time. Fewer film users equals
    fewer choices for those who really don't see digicams as the Savior of
    All Photography. That's why it gets up my nose when folks with
    digital kit blow their trumpets and wave their "Film Is Dead" banners
    like some sort of conquering heros. It's not because I dislike
    technology, believe me - I just don't get the hype.

    In the meantime, I'll enjoy being able to pick up high-end pro 35mm
    bodies for rock-bottom prices while the digimavens drop a grand for an
    entry-level model. Hell, if you can still pick up fresh Super-8 and
    110 Instamatic stock (and you can), I don't think you'll have any
    trouble getting film for your 35mm bodies. <grin>
     
    Rob Novak, Sep 7, 2004
    #35
  16. LadySycamore

    C J Campbell Guest

    That is the thing about it. At some point it becomes no longer profitable to
    keep making film for a minority of users, no matter how much they need it.
    Even if film does not go out of production entirely, the price is going to
    go way up. Also, processing options, especially for color film, will become
    more limited and more expensive. This is a great tragedy, but I don't see
    where anything can be done about it. I hope someone manages to come up with
    some kind of solution for it.
     
    C J Campbell, Sep 7, 2004
    #36
  17. LadySycamore

    BillB Guest

    Where digital is concerned, patience can reward amply. Comparing
    today's cameras and computers spec's with those available several
    years ago suggests that in 4 or 5 years, some higher end cameras
    might use CCDs & buffers (if they haven't been replaced by improved
    technology) that could handle a 40 frame burst. And do it with 20
    m.pixel images.

    While I'm not predicting this will happen, an adventurous
    manufacturer might include several card slots in their cameras,
    allowing the use of plug-in wifi and other devices, making it far
    easier to control cameras remotely or link several together,
    synchronizing them like a gatling gun, to permit a super high speed
    burst of shots (useful for sports & nature photography among other
    things). And then have the cameras transmit all of their shots (as
    they're taking the pictures) to a laptop computer carried by an
    assistant or one of the other photographers.

    Change a menu setting and instead of taking interleaved pictures,
    the cameras could take them sequentially, permitting "virtual
    bursts" of hundreds or thousands of pictures. A single camera &
    laptop could make an ideal portable timelapse surveillance tool.
    Stop by once a week to pick up a DVD containing pictures with far
    higher resolution than any VCR has ever produced. Sony and HP would
    be in a good position to experiment with this, considering their
    experience with PDAs. You may or may not care to go there, but I
    suspect that a good number of pros and semi-pros would.
     
    BillB, Sep 7, 2004
    #37
  18. LadySycamore

    Carl Guest

    As Mark Twain said, "The rumours of my death are much exaggerated." It
    isn't about majorities or minorities, it's about profitability. So long
    as it's profitable and there's a market, the product will be there -
    there will just be fewer players than before.

    To put it another way - the Apple Mac represents approximately 5%
    (please don't all rush out and tell me I'm wrong - I'm not far adrift
    according to most of the stats I see) of the computer market and
    Windows+PC represents 90%. I see no signs of Apple going down the pan.

    It will be some considerable time before many pro's who currently use
    medium and large format cameras switch to digital. There are many many
    magazines, ad agencies etc etc, who simply do not accept pictures that
    originated as digital images simply because the technology doesn't yet
    meet their exacting standards. Although they don't equal the numbers of
    point and shooters in the world they are the equivalent of the Apple
    Maccers'and will help keep the market afloat.

    As someone said in an earlier post - you can still get super 8 - 30
    years after its demise, for goodness sake.
     
    Carl, Sep 7, 2004
    #38
  19. LadySycamore

    Carl Guest

    If you try to take sports or nature shots like that you'll just end up
    with a burst of shots that have all missed the mark. The only
    consolation is that you can just delete them and won't have to have
    processed the pics to discover they're a pile of cr*p. And do you really
    want an army of your peers at the end of laptops to know that you just
    shot a pile of doggies?
     
    Carl, Sep 7, 2004
    #39
  20. LadySycamore

    BillB Guest

    It's your analysis that is off target. Put a superior tool in
    the hands of a fool and you'll end up with rubbish. Knowing the
    hows and whens is still just as important as it is when using
    traditional film and today's digital cameras. Of course it would be
    foolish to blast off 100 consecutive shots just because you can do
    it. But film cameras have long had accessories allowing
    photographers to load abnormally large spools of film and do the
    same, albeit at a much slower pace, such as 5 frames per second. Do
    pictures taken with such equipment also miss the mark? They very
    well could, if the equipment was placed in the wrong hands. But
    using that argument to disparage either current or future equipment
    capable of taking many shots as rapidly as possible is what really
    misses the mark.

    If you thought I meant such hardware would typically be used by
    the average photographer you are mistaken. I meant only to describe
    what might be possible in a few years without requiring any
    technological breakthroughs. And even then, manual film cameras
    would still have value in the lessons they could teach, so I'm not
    trying to say "digital is better". Digital can be different, so use
    it when appropriate.

    As only one example, try taking shots at ringside during a boxing
    match and you'll see how difficult it is to get the timing down just
    right to capture a dramatic shot. You wait, try to anticipate the
    shot, but if your reflexes were quick enough you'd belong in the
    ring, not outside it, taking pictures. With a long, closely spaced
    burst you'd stand a much better chance of success. Today that
    capability requires using prohibitively large and expensive
    equipment, or by using video which lacks the detail that good
    cameras can provide. And if the timing was off, or your
    anticipation missed the mark, within seconds after a quick delete
    you'd be ready for another run. Today's film and digital cameras
    still space the shots too widely apart to guarantee capturing the
    best possible shot. But again, such future equipment would be best
    used by working pros, who are paid to get the best shots. Not by
    foolish amateurs, although if there were enough of them with cash to
    burn, it would lower the equipment cost and the pros would be
    grateful for that.
     
    BillB, Sep 8, 2004
    #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.