Anyone still shoot film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Patrick L, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    I don't think my dad was really much of an expert but he was a reporter
    & photog before I came along:
    http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/Tokyo-Optical-Co
    He died when I was 10 and I don't remember him even having any gear left
    by that time, though some family pics when I was a toddler were home
    printed b&w.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 1, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Patrick L

    Peter Chant Guest

    I tend to shoot things and landscape and people very rarely. I suspect,
    that on the occasions I did I would have been better off with Astia (or
    Sensia).
    In 35mm I've been very happy with Provia. More punch than Sensia (shot one
    roll of Astia, but I'd become a Provia fan by then). However, a couple of
    years back I got hold of a TLR and went 6x6. Since I could not project 6x6
    and Kodak Portra scanned well I changed to that. Different beast to Provia!
    yet I was happy with the colour that way.

    I do have some 6x6 in provia / velvia - pity I can't project it, it would be
    awesome.
    I suspect it depends is the answer here on what was intended.
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 1, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. I can understand the sentiment. Seven years back I discovered that my
    aunt had thrown out the negatives of my grandfather's pictures. These
    included box-brownie pictures from the early 1920's. Of those we have
    prints only at a size with a longest dimension of maybe three inches.
    There are also some contact prints from WW1.
     
    Stephen Harker, Feb 2, 2010
  4. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 11:07 AM:

    Yes you did. I never said Astia did not have enough colour for me.
    Exactly. Can't you read?
    Amazing!!!
    No, not possible?
    My offence is not at the misplaced word "you".
    Read again.
    The fact it states something I didn't say.
    No, it's not a typo. You and many others continue to perpetuate nonsense and
    mistruths about film with those "typos". Contrast is not the same as
    saturation. You used the terms interchangeably. They aren't.

    No, it's simple truth.

    Good. It's also good you didn't mention the Provia write-ups. I suggest you
    keep reading them. Stay away from actually using film, because clearly
    write-ups are all you need.

    Since when is BW a middle option between Velvia and Astia? Can you make sense
    for once?

    Once more, to see if you can understand the basics:
    - if you want correct colour balance and high colour reproduction and density
    (saturation), use Astia.
    - if you prefer high contrast as well as strong colour saturation, use Velvia.

    Simple, really.

    Now, if you prefer washed out blues/greens, and reds that look magenta, use
    Provia. Just like you've been told by the "experts".
     
    Noons, Feb 2, 2010
  5. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 1/02/2010 4:05 PM:
    For once he agrees with facts, while disagreeing.
    Unreal...

    Agreed 100%.
    Hmmm, here I disagree. In the sense of looking at a slide, not a scan or a
    projection. I can usually tell Velvia from all others, provided there is a bit
    of sunny green and/or yellow somewhere.
    As well as Provia and old Astia, if there is sky visible.
    Kodachrome can be a strange beast. K64 can be very obvious, but seldom K25.
     
    Noons, Feb 2, 2010
  6. Patrick L

    Peter Chant Guest

    You are taking sentence, a very short one at that, one that I have already
    said was perhaps not my best worded of sentences, an imbuing it with far
    more importance than was every intended.
    Ok, you are deeply offended that I appear to state that YOU should consider
    Provia, not the poster you followed up. But the issue is trivial, see
    above. This is unnecessary pedantry and bullishness.
    You are put out that I implied that Astia did not have enough colour
    saturation to reply that strongly to my post?
    Come on, how am I perpetuating nonsense? I have already stated that I made
    one typo. If I had written a long treatise where I showed no comprehension
    of the difference yet tried to appear authorative, fair call. However, a
    simple response such as ' "Contrast", don't you mean "satuaration"? ' or
    visa versa, would have sufficed.
    No it is not. It was a undeserved rant.
    The assertion made was about the relative merits of Astia and Velvia. There
    was no need to add Provia, it would just complicate the response.

    I actually used film exclusively up to spring last year. I did not shoot
    digital at all. (5 snaps on a camera phone do not count!). Up until I I
    got the TLR for colour I primarily used Provia. Occasionally used Velvia in
    both 35mm and TLR. Have used a fair amount of Sensia in the past.
    Admittedly only one or two rolls of Astia, but it seemed similar to Sensia
    which I was much more familiar with, and is widely reported to be similar
    to.

    So, whist not being the most active or technically sound member of the
    newsgroup I clearly don't fall into the armchair category you ascribe me to.

    There is evidence on line I actually use/have used film. However, all
    immediately apparent from you is bluster.
    To use your own argumentative style, can you read? Fistly I reprise the
    idea of an option between Astia and Provia. The next sentence is clearly a
    widening of the discussion, using a related subject, colour
    saturation/presentation, to illustrate that there are a wide range of
    personal choices. It presented a number of options on colour presentation.
    Nowhere did it draw parallels between B&W, Astia and Provia.
    Sorry, I fail to see why you are repeating these?
    Ah, so you simply take offence at the suggestion of using Provia.

    Perhaps this is am apt observation:

    http://xkcd.com/386/

    I don't think there is a useful purpose for taking this conversation
    further.
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 3, 2010
  7. Patrick L

    Peter Chant Guest

    Unfortunately negs end up in the dump as well. Seriously, if I passed on,
    probably relatives would keep a few of the more important (to them) things.
    The rest would be flogged, or go in the dump.
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 3, 2010
  8. Patrick L

    Peter Chant Guest

    My solution, two separate backups. At first hint of at hard drive failing
    replace it.
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 3, 2010
  9. I have many family photos from around 1900 on.
    All the B&W negatives seem to be in perfect shape and the colour ones
    give good results. Some slide have faded, but that is almost always at
    least partly recovered by the scanning software or similar.

    I think most people will have some type of scanner capable of scanning
    negatives, even in the distant future.

    Dream on...

    You know, negatives can be "looked at" to see more or less what the
    subject is and if it might be worth scanning/printing. Try doing that
    with a long-obsolete (and possibly defective) digital medium!

    In your "sales pitch" you conveniently ignore technologies such as
    digital ICE, which can eliminate most dirt & scratches.
    Yes, definitely the fault of film....
    And for ever az the quality level of the camera it was taken with (1.5
    megapix? Phone camera?). Again, digital ICE eliminates dust, dirt &
    scratches. Various types of software restore colours very well.

    You never did answer the question of whether you have an economic
    interest/stake in digital. That would explain your constant "sales
    pitches"...
     
    Christopher Loffredo, Feb 3, 2010
  10. On 2/2/2010 10:17 PM Christopher Loffredo spake thus:

    [regarding Scott W.'s constant pushing of digital photography]
    Indeed.

    Funny thing; if digital is so all-fired good, why does he feel compelled
    to defend it at every opportunity? Sounds a bit defensive to me. To hear
    others here tell it, digital is implicitly so much better than film that
    it's not even worth discussing it.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 3, 2010
  11. I looked at that picture; I don't think it really says anything one way
    or the other about resolution of details. The shot would probably look
    much the same on film.

    It is weird, though: why *do* the tiles on the left side look so
    different? They look *flat*, when we can see from the tiles on the front
    that they're curved. (Hey, maybe the homeowner had that side roofed with
    flat tiles for some reason.)

    So what is going on in this pic? My guess is that this strange
    appearance of the left-side tiles is just a consequence of viewing them
    side-on instead of head-on.

    I suppose the tiles *could* have been somehow digitally altered, but why
    on earth would anyone do that?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 3, 2010
  12. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    35mm camera lenses work for projecting. You just need a bright light and
    a fast wide lens and/or dark room. 35mm f/1.4 works nice.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 3, 2010
  13. Well, duh; that's just what I suggested. Thanks for paraphrasing.

    An interesting test would be to do the same thing I have done here but
    Well, duh again.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 3, 2010
  14. If one really wants an answer to this question, all one needs to do is
    to look at auctions of 35mm equipment on eBay, as I've been doing
    lately. The answer to "how many?" is tens of thousands, perhaps. Lots,
    in other words.

    And again with the lazy-ass excuses which, as someone else pointed out,
    *must* be the fault of film ("Oh, it's such a hassle to _________").
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 3, 2010
  15. Non sequitur.

    You suggested scanning a 35mm exposure and a MF exposure and comparing
    them. All this does is prove how much better the MF scan will be. Let's
    say you choose 6x6 for your MF format: that's 4 times the area of the
    35mm frame. Of course it's going to be much better. What does that prove?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 3, 2010
  16. Patrick L

    Tim Conway Guest

    On the other hand it also means there are tens of thousands of people
    dumping their slide projectors. And how many people who are dumping
    their projectors are just taking them to the dump? A quick look at
    ebay and I see a number of projectors with just minutes left and no
    bets. BTW I did see a MF projector with the current bid at $18.27
    could be a good buy for someone with MF slides, all I have are MF
    negatives so it does me no good.

    I wish I had some MF slides and projector. I've heard they're awesome
    projected. Digital is fine for instant gratification and ease of
    retouching, but doesn't compare to a projected well exposed slide. IMHO.
     
    Tim Conway, Feb 3, 2010
  17. Patrick L

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    You happen to have the equipment necessary to view the digital pictures
    you're getting. Now imagine that digital had become viable much earlier,
    and you found yourself in possession of a bunch of old family pictures --
    on a Syquest cartridge, or an Apple ][ floppy disk, or a reel-to-reel
    data tape. Or even a SCSI hard drive.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 3, 2010
  18. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    And the stitched digital shot is probably about the same.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 3, 2010
  19. Patrick L

    K W Hart Guest

    I believe that in 20 years time negatives will be close to worthless
    for passing down family photos. I have a my grandmother’s slides from
    the 60s and my fathers negatives from the 50s. It is a pain in the
    ass working with the slides and a huge pain in the ass working with
    the negatives. And I have a film scanner, so I can do the scanning
    here. I rather doubt that I will have a working film scanner 20 years
    from now, and I doubt many people have either a working scanner or
    slide projector now.


    Imagine you have a box full of negatives and you have no good way to
    view them, who is going to take the effort to sent them off to be
    printed? As it is as I scan my dad’s negatives 9 time out of ten I
    have no clue who the people are in the photo. The negatives need a
    good washing before scanning and even then they are pretty dirty.
    There is no way I am going to be able to view all that he shot on
    film.
    snip
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But you can hold a negative or slide up to the light to get the gist of the
    subject matter and make a decision as to whether to scan it or not. On the
    other hand, try making that decision about the photos that I have stored on
    5" floppies. Twenty years from now, will you be able to view the images
    burned on a CDROM? I feel certain I'll be able to view the images on my
    properly-stored negatives. Might need new reading glasses, but...
     
    K W Hart, Feb 4, 2010
  20. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    The way I copied my old slides was to rent a slide projector and
    photograph the screen with digital. It was good enough for web use. I
    scanned prints from mom's collection with an ordinary flatbed scanner
    and grabbed some others from aunts & uncles by just snapping a digital
    shot from their wall.
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 4, 2010
    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.