Anyone still shoot film?

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

  1. Patrick L

    tony cooper Guest

    When I scan old family prints, I add text to the image that covers
    what is written on the back. It doesn't take any longer than scanning
    twice, and there are many free programs that add text to an image.
    tony cooper, Feb 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    The slide projector option was crappy but easy and I got the gist of the
    images just fine. For the family photo prints scanned, the important
    thing was going through the box with mom & getting her to comment on who
    was in the pic and approx date. We wrote that on the back then &
    borrowed them to scan & named the files with date and names. I spent a
    lot of time fixing old abused prints at 300dpi from smallish prints.
    Paul Furman, Feb 4, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Patrick L

    tony cooper Guest

    Yeah, I can do the same. I fill my scanner bed with as many pix as
    will fit, and then open them in Adobe Elements>divide scanned photos
    and this produces separate images. I'll crop, straighten, and do some
    minor tweaks in Elements, and then add the text. If the photo
    requires more than Elements can correct, I'll open the file in Adobe
    CS4 and work on it. Sometimes I'll run it through Noiseware.

    The advantage of the text-on-picture is that it makes it nicer for the
    viewer to see the people and know who they are. The advantage of your
    way is that the viewer sees the original notes in the original

    "Chacun à son goût", he said with a shrug.
    tony cooper, Feb 4, 2010
  4. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 11:23 AM:

    Good for you.

    Try looking. It works.

    Because you still haven't got it.

    No. I'm simply stating nowadays it's a film with completely out of date
    technology and it is far behind other modern films. Fuji is not going to spend
    any resources upgrading a "pro" film, when nearly all "pros" are using digital
    and the few exceptions use Velvia or Astia. They are much more likely to
    upgrade non-pro film, which is exactly and precisely what they have done.
    Hence, it is totally useless to propose to anyone of amateur level the
    alternative of using Provia just because once, a long time ago, it was a "pro"
    film. It only serves to increase the "film doesn't work" feeling.

    Oh, was it a conversation?
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  5. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 3/02/2010 1:11 PM:
    and why is that a problem for film users?

    Good. Keep using digital. But stop telling others what they should use or not:
    you are simply not qualified to do so.
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  6. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Tim Conway wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:19 AM:

    MF slides are simply magnificent. Most of the good MF projectors are still very
    expensive, even in ebay. Of course Scott always finds the cheap ones: the
    clunkers with manual operation and a heavy external transformer that no one in
    his right mind has used in 50 years. But to him that is as actual and "normal"
    as anything else film...
    That is why quite frankly his opinions and statements on film should simply be
    ignored. As well as others here, namely Alan Browne, another of the film
    "experts" who shoots 3 images per year on film...
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  7. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:00 AM:
    Across the *entire* image frame it will be free of the artifacts that are
    clearly visible in your "15MP" images. Not just where it is "interesting" to
    show "detail".
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  8. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 6:43 AM:

    Don't expect a direct answer to your simple questions, David.
    Explaining why is it that Canon's dslr images don't have the same resolution
    across the whole frame is something you'll never get out of Scott and the other
    Canon mobsters around here.

    They simply refuse to see and acknowledge the obvious, even when slapped on
    their faces: the problems caused to the Bayer filter when resolving repeating
    high frequency detail that doesn't match the regular vertical/horizontal
    patterns they were designed to handle. And a Canon firmware RAW generator that
    simply can't handle an "unknown" high-frequency pattern or contrast combination
    and just smudges the lot as if it was noise, because that is what it was
    programmed to do.

    Look at the later image with the large boat in the distance. Because that boat
    has a regular high-frequency pattern of vertical/horizontal detail in one of
    the pre-coded contrast combinations, it resolves adequately even though it is
    much higher frequency than the roof tiles.

    What Scott conveniently still avoids like the plague is the simple fact that
    Canon dslrs are unable to resolve uniform detail across the entire frame.
    Canon's RAW firmware uses heavy smudging to create the so-called "clean" images
    these "experts" love so much. Completely obliterating anything that is actual
    detail, if it so much as resembles what the algorithms pre-define as "noise".
    Doesn't matter where in the image it is.

    And their in-camera jpg engine is even worse. That is why the letters in the
    blue cap in this original 5Dm2 shot:
    (funny how this image was removed from direct access at dpreview after I pointed
    out its short-comings! Aren't "coincidences" grand?)

    are smudged, while there is plenty of other areas in that image where much
    smaller detail - conformant to the Canon firmware algorithms - is clearly visible.

    Why? You and other consumers are perfectly entitled to ask such. Don't expect a
    sensible answer from the Canon mobsters, though: more than likely and as usual,
    more obfuscation.

    Rest assured though: in 20 years time, those images will *still* be perfectly
    preserved crap, and pointed out as such.

    Your and my film will still be scanning as good as today, across the entire
    frame and with no pre-coded artifacts.
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  9. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 7:08 AM:
    I never said there were problems with the camera sensor. Try reading, instead
    of the usual nonsense insinuations.
    Again: I never said it was exclusively due to the Bayer filter - althoughthat
    is a contributor. I said very clearly it is due to the crap algorithms being
    used by Canon's firmware to create its so-called "clean" images.
    These brute-force algorithms are called by the extreme post-processing Canon
    firmware imposes into its RAW images to try and hide any semblance of noise.
    When the algorithms identify a contrast pattern that is similar to what they
    recognize as noise they simply smudge the crap out of any detail. Regardless of
    its appropriateness or location.
    Precisely what we see in your images.

    You keep your randomly smudged "15MP" images, while I keep true 15MP images
    across the *ENTIRE* frame, thank you very much.
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  10. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 4/02/2010 8:03 AM:
    LOL! *THAT* was funny!
    Noons, Feb 8, 2010
  11. Do you consider "super slides" (4x4 exposures on 127 film) to be MF? I
    ask because I have a 127 camera sitting with me here, except that it has
    the usual 3x4 format.

    Still significantly larger than 35mm ...
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 10, 2010
  12. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    It was dSLRs that re-awoke my film interest, as I hadn't done much at
    all for nearly a decade. Before I knew it, I was acquiring ancient SLRs
    and Medium Format cameras, but that wasn't enough - my latest kick is
    Large Format (well, what technically comes under that heading, but in
    terms of real LF, mere tiddlers) of 9x12cm and 4x5inches.
    The image quality on MF and LF is stunning, just stunning (with
    something half-decent on the front, of course).
    The thing I like about film use is I slow riiiiigghhttt down - with
    digital I tend to rattle them off but with MF and LF it's much more
    methodical and LF especially, I can take half an hour before a shot just
    setting things up.
    Mind you, the old 9x12s can be used as P&S - it's a hoot that way.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 11, 2010
  13. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest

    I use 4x5". I'm not familiar with the 9x12cm format. Sounds like fun!

    Where did that format originate? Can you still buy pre-cut film? What
    camera and film do you use?
    Bruce, Feb 11, 2010
  14. 9x12 was the European size counterpart, roughly speaking, to the North
    American 4x5 size. (You have to implicitly remember that 9x12 is in
    centimeters and is smaller than 4x5 inches. But you knew that.)

    Historically, the cm size films were descendants of the earlier plate
    sizes; early formats were full plate, half plate, quarter plate, etc.
    There is also 12x18 and a couple other standard sizes. (6x9 is exactly
    half of the 9x12 format.)

    I have a bunch of 9x12 cameras, all of which are in the standard
    "folding plate" style. These are compact cameras that fold out of
    rectangular boxes (mostly metal, though I have one wooden one). The
    front door becomes the bed along which the lens standard slides out.

    They're still very plentiful on eBay, and probably "in the wild" as
    well. They are capable of taking *fantastic* pictures.

    Film is getting a little hard to find, but it's still available. I know
    J&C Photo, which had several brands of 9x12 film, is out of business,
    but there are other suppliers. The film one can get these days seems to
    be limited to Euro stuff, Foma or some such. But it's good film (black
    and white only).

    These cameras are cheap enough that they are easy to experiment with. I
    highly recommend them. Keep in mind that these are *not* full-blown view
    cameras; they have limited movements (shift and rise, but usually no
    tilt). But you can get amazing results from them.

    (The ones I have are Zeiss [Maximar], Voigtlander [Avus and Vag], a
    couple Icas, a couple Patent Etuis, an Ica Favorit, and some assorted
    mongrels. I've also been lucky enough to score lots of film holders,
    which can be difficult to find. Actually, most of them are plate holders
    with film inserts.)
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 11, 2010
  15. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest

    In that respect the UK followed the USA standard rather than the
    European. 4x5 is very popular here.

    That's the advantage of 4x5. There is a surprisingly good range of
    film available.

    Bruce, Feb 11, 2010
  16. Except that they call it "5x4" for some strange reason. Guess they just
    won't use the same terms those damn Yanks use ...
    David Nebenzahl, Feb 12, 2010
  17. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest

    We Brits always put the larger dimension first. That's why standard
    prints are 6 x 4 inches, and the most popular large(ish) print size is
    10 x 8 inches.

    But the majority of English speakers do it the American way, as Brits
    are very much in the minority.
    Bruce, Feb 12, 2010
  18. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    Germany, from the early 1900s onwards, up until the '40s, I believe. I
    have a couple of Weltas and an Ihagee focal plane shutter press camera -
    pretty much the German equivalent to the Speed Graphic. The film is
    still available from
    Various colour emulsions were also available until recently, but all
    that's left is old stock now.

    The only hassle is getting the film holders, as most of these were
    produced before much in the way of standardisation took place - but
    holders do come up on the 'bay regularly, just a question of taking a
    bit of a chance. It's best to buy a camera that comes with some holders.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 12, 2010
  19. Patrick L

    Bruce Guest

    Thanks. It's a useful size, with a 4/3 ratio. It just isn't one that
    I have come across.

    Now I know why. Thanks again.
    Bruce, Feb 13, 2010
  20. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    No problem.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Feb 13, 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.