Anyone still shoot film?

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

  1. Well, you know, Bill, there are these things called "books" ...
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 29, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Patrick L

    K W Hart Guest

    Absolutely. Use the gear that gets you to your final result in as few steps
    as possible. But if your end result is a high quality, long-lasting wall
    portrait, then an optical print from a film negative is the obvious choice.
    K W Hart, Jan 29, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    I've got an 80mm f/5.6 that'll infinity focus on my bellows with a
    recessed mount.

    Maybe I was thinking of infrared film?
    Paul Furman, Jan 29, 2010
  4. Not odd at all; they've simply drunk the "digital must be better" Kool-Aid.
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 29, 2010
  5. Patrick L

    K W Hart Guest

    Odd that if the choice was so obvious that the White House
    photographer is shooting with DSLRs.



    I'm not sure that I would cite the White House as an authority on
    photography, or many other things for that matter!

    But since the White House photographers are probably shooting mainly for
    news publications, most of which are probably composing their pages with a
    computer rather than a pot of paste, digital is probably the better choice.
    OTOH, I ceratinly hope the official Presidential portrait and First Family
    portrait have been shoot on film for maximum quality and longest life.
    K W Hart, Jan 29, 2010
  6. Dunno; he still could have drunk the Kook-Aid.

    It also occurred to me, and this is a long shot, that there may be a
    political aspect to this: after all, the last thing the Obama
    administration (or any administration for that matter) would want would
    be to have it revealed that someone in their entourage is
    using--Horrors!--an antiquated technology. My god--the president must be
    a Luddite!

    [note post trimming]
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 29, 2010
  7. Patrick L

    Peter Chant Guest

    I got a Aldia Tutor 1000 - made for lecture halls with a 1000W (serious)
    ancient bulb. Worked well, but had to feed a slide at a time. Got a Leica
    Pradovit 150 - and found that after a while more than a five magazines of my
    own unedited slides in one sitting bored me as well!

    One thing to note, the Aldis blew cold air over the slide and it never
    popped whereas the Leica all slides popped.

    Peter Chant, Jan 29, 2010
  8. Certainly not claiming they did, but I agree w/Noons that there's
    nothing magically secure or particularly believable about EXIF data.
    It's just some fields in an image file header: seems trivially easy to
    rewrite it to suit one's purposes. Any programmer worth his or her salt
    should be able to do that.
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 29, 2010
  9. Patrick L

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Dude... he's the White House photographer. He's essentially doing
    photojournalism, shooting hundreds of images per day, which need to
    be edited and annotated and filed, released to the press, and printed
    and sent to people as quickly as possible. If I had his job, and I'd
    love to, I'd be using digital, too.

    I mean, you know, not with Canon gear, but still. :)
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 30, 2010
  10. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Peter Chant wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 9:01 AM:
    I didn't say Astia didn't have enough colour for me. Can't you read?
    I said underexposing it is an error. Comes from the old adage that E6 should be
    underexposed by 1/3 stop to "enhance" colour. Don't do it with Astia. Simple,

    I'd *never* use Provia except for the new 400X. The rest of the Provia range is
    old emulsion technology that Fuji has not updated in years, due to the low
    demand from professionals. They concentrated instead on improving the Superia,
    Velvia and Astia film, which is nowadays vastly superior to any of the older

    The often cited quote that Provia is the best slide film comes from folks who
    last experimented with film 10 years ago and have no clue what is available
    today. But they continue to propagate their old fashioned information as if it
    was gospel.
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  11. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Michael Benveniste wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 12:36 AM:
    Actually, those make a lot of sense. I can't stop a slight smirk everytime I
    hear folks claiming developers are toxic. Vastly more toxic is used fixer.
    And that regulation points it out clearly. Ah well, back to the old jerry can
    for the disposal of the used fixer then!
    Not to be unexpected, most such council "regulations" in Australia forbid
    disposal of developer but don't mention fixer! Shows what really happens when a
    country allows bureaucrats to pose as "authority"....

    Impressive specs! Thanks for that. My biggest problem with the entire Agfa
    colour range, negative or positive, was always the same: longevity. Most of my
    Agfa colour negatives and slides have turned to mush over the years. They were
    already bad a coupla years old! I have 50 year old Kodachrome slides that look
    as good now as they did back then, with perfect colour. And I have Fuji slides
    dating back from the same time as the Agfa that look as good as new now.

    Cut it into 120 roll lengths and farm it out to the Apug folks: there are a few
    there that terribly miss Tech Pan! I'm still using Technidol LC and have a good
    stash of it, but it's reserved for Adox CMS 20.

    Ah ok. Thanks!
    Funny you mention 800Z. I heard a lot of good and bad comments on this one.
    Some claimed it had "horrible" grain, others claimed it was the best for night
    shooting. I tried a coupla rolls in 35mm and had mixed reactions:
    1- for daylight, I wouldn't touch it unless with low light interiors. Too grainy
    indeed, weird colour balance.
    2- for artificial lighting and at night, I reckon it is perfect! The obnoxious
    large grain vanishes and all that's left is a fine grain that's easy to get rid
    of with Neat Image.

    This leads me to believe 800Z has a lot of grain in the blue light sensitive
    layer(s) and a lot less in the others. Which makes it perfect as a high speed
    film for interior shooting, artificial light, night shots, flash, etcetc.
    I've since used it as such and am very happy with the results!
    Here is an example:
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  12. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 28/01/2010 10:28 PM:

    I couldn't care less about posting raw files, Scott. Canon or otherwise.
    They mean nothing to me. I don't spend time agonizing over raw files, they just
    get processed to a pleasing image.
    I found the flaws straight away, and I still haven't "found out" that it was a
    single frame.
    And once again, you - intentionally? - totally miss the point, Scott.
    The problem is not a flaw at 150%.
    The problem is the completely uneven resolution in that shot.
    Some areas - the ones you like to point out, like the street numbers - are
    perfect and at the expected resolution, others are absolute mush.
    When I see a digital shot - Canon or otherwise - that looks consistent with the
    claimed resolution across the *entire* frame, I'll believe I'm looking atthe
    claimed image quality. Until then, I prefer the even resolution of film,with
    no surprises.
    No, I don't want anyone to view it at 150%, never claimed such. But I'llshow
    and point out the uneven resolution of that shot, using whatever magnification
    is needed to perfectly demonstrate it. There is a difference between a
    demonstration and asking folks to look at it at a given magnification, and you
    know perfectly well what I mean so don't try to wordsmith out of it.

    I'm glad you pulled out something I did years ago. You see, Scott: unlike you
    and the other "film experts" around here, my workflow and what I do with my film
    and scanners has not stopped in time. It has progressed. Reminds me to go and
    redo that one with my current workflow, it'll blow your socks off. Stay tuned.

    Perhaps. One never knows. Funny though, you have "seen" sharper 35mm film
    shots than mine but you have never been able to produce evidence of such.
    Interesting theory...
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  13. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 29/01/2010 5:41 AM:
    Buddy: I *eat* Skippy - in sausage form - everytime we do a bbq.
    One of the best lean meats anyone can get.

    Very true. I just found it funny because Araldite is one of those things I grew
    up with: it found use since a very tender age, fixing fishing rods and all sorts
    of toys. Didn't even realize it wasn't a universal brand!
    Ah well, learn until I die, I suppose.
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  14. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Jeremy Nixon wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 11:42 AM:
    Yeah, after all you'd need to have *some* images in focus!
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  15. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 9:41 AM:
    Just like the small jpg I posted with the exif from your image?
    Yes, indeed.
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  16. Patrick L

    Noons Guest

    Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 30/01/2010 11:01 AM:
    But just because it can be easily faked it means it should *never* be used as an
    example of truth.
    And because the person in question has a long history of faking shots,
    backgrounds, exifs, etcetc. There is such a thing as context Scott, in case you
    have forgotten it.
    Noons, Jan 30, 2010
  17. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    OK, thanks because I would have tried that, from memory...
    Paul Furman, Jan 30, 2010
  18. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    I am having second thoughts about the practicality of slides. I showed
    super-8 movies on my projector well past their obsolescence and it was
    cool but has been a long time... I traded the (nice) projector to a film
    student in exchange for digitizing my old films. I have a digital
    projector but I don't use it any more either, partly because of the low
    res and awful contrast problems.
    Paul Furman, Jan 30, 2010
  19. Patrick L

    Paul Furman Guest

    They will *all* be flawlessly archived online for a fraction of a penny
    and accessible through our 180-degree VR implants at the flick of a finger.


    Pixel-peeper's heaven...
    Paul Furman, Jan 30, 2010
  20. Heh; shows how much you know (and makes my point): Skippy here is a
    brand of peanut butter. Kinda messy on your grill, I'd think.
    David Nebenzahl, Jan 30, 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.