why do you guys still use film?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Mike Henley, May 20, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    k Guest

    simple.

    ILFORD HP5

    k.
     
    k, May 20, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Henley

    k Guest

    oh and i almost forgot.

    FIBRE.

    k

     
    k, May 20, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. The main difference? I don't see the real-world benefit in digital cameras.

    :)
     
    Martin Francis, May 20, 2004
    #43
  4. Mike Henley

    Roger Guest

    Mike,

    I use film because I find it convenient and less expensive. The
    digital camera that might suit my needs is now about $3200US. I have a
    boatload of other cameras that are paid for.

    My wife shoots digital and our work flow now involves a computer and
    some processing before we hand it over for printing. Also with her
    camera the highest resolution images are slow to write to buffer. My
    experience with the lower priced tier of cameras and my current use of
    professional film cameras (F5/F100) points me in the direction of much
    higher priced digital bodies that I don't care to drop the money
    right now. The fact that I also have to buy an additional WA (zoom?)
    lens to take the place of my compact 24mm f2.8 lens also is a
    detractor.

    My best lenses are single focal length lenses. Changing lenses on a
    digital SLR body runs the risk of introducing dust on the sensor.
    Perhaps there's a better work flow, but a friend of mine who owns a
    camera repair station says his sensor-cleaning business is running
    very high. That means to me further use of bulky zoom lenses to cut
    down the changing interval. That also means more weight and more back
    pain. I do my shooting on the street, at events, on holiday or during
    business travel. That's bulk, weight, dust, etc.

    Another reason and perhaps the biggest at this moment is the
    convenience of film. When finished shooting, I just drop off the film
    at the lab and pick it up the next day. It's far faster than
    generating prints through the computer - for me. I just don't care to
    devote the post-shoot time to that kind of processing. After I examine
    the 4x6 results from the lab, if there photos that I want to add to my
    8x12 portfolio, I just re-submit them. If they are destined for my
    walls, they go to the professional printer (11x14), if they need some
    manipulation, they get scanned and then sent to the appropriate
    printer. I transmit images either digitally or by UPS. The
    professional lab results are returned by UPS. And all that happens
    while I'm doing something else, taking more pictures, etc.

    For me to go digital right now the price tag is $6500. $3200 for a
    D2H, $1500 for a 17-35mm zoom (would prefer the 17-55, but it's not
    available), $400 for a flash, $500 for digital media. Think that's
    close. By the time I'm done writing this, the D2H is out of date.

    Digital some day, but not now.....

    Regards,
    Roger
     
    Roger, May 20, 2004
    #44
  5. Mike Henley

    Nick C Guest

    LOL ..... I'm being humorous in saying, two grammatical views may indicate
    the possibility of two grammatically incorrect views being expressed..

    From the Oxford Dictionary:
    media1 /"mi;[email protected]/

    · n.

    1 plural form of medium.

    2 [treated as sing. or pl.] the main means of mass communication (especially
    television, radio, and newspapers) regarded collectively.

    – USAGE The word media comes from the Latin plural of medium. The
    traditional view is that it should therefore be treated as a plural noun in
    all its senses in English. In practice, in the sense ‘television, radio, and
    the press collectively’, it behaves as a collective noun (like staff or
    clergy, for example), which means that it is acceptable in standard English
    for it to take either a singular or a plural verb.

    nick
     
    Nick C, May 21, 2004
    #45
  6. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Beautiful and beautiful again -- loved what you said! :).
     
    Lewis Lang, May 21, 2004
    #46
  7. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    "I'll underline that" (my phrase for I agree whole-heartedly with what you
    said)! :)
     
    Lewis Lang, May 21, 2004
    #47
  8. Because I can
     
    Tony Parkinson, May 21, 2004
    #48
  9. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    Sheer waxing on analog poetry, ironically delivered via a digital medium. :)
     
    Lewis Lang, May 21, 2004
    #49
  10. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Because digital is mediocre and I am not ;-).
     
    Lewis Lang, May 21, 2004
    #50
  11. You like plenty of fibre ? Wow, you sound like a Regular Guy !!

    ;^)
     
    Tony Parkinson, May 21, 2004
    #51
  12. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    Everyone else is an idiot. A world so hyper to make a number real and leap into
    the next century/millenium that everyone agrees to celebrate the millenium one
    year early and virtually nobody knows nor cares that they're celebrating on/for
    the wrong year. The phrase "good enough for government work comes to mind" but
    in this case even the governement wouldn't be that stupid. Hasn't/didn't anyone
    hear of "2001: A Space Odyssey"? Does anybody even have the slightest cue why
    it wasn't called "2000: A Space Odyssey"? Stanley Kubrick would be rolling over
    in his grave laughing at the sheer lunacy as society is acting more like "Dr.
    Strangelove" each day ;-).
     
    Lewis Lang, May 21, 2004
    #52
  13. Mike Henley

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: why do you guys still use film?
    SNIP

    ...."two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear tree" ;-)
     
    Lewis Lang, May 21, 2004
    #53
  14. Mike Henley

    Jan Keirse Guest

    .... well, you know what he wrote ;-) ...


    Why I use film?

    Well, I have a digital camera, took it to Switzerland a month ago, got some
    wonderfull photo's! Fact is, they are on my computer (and on 2 other computers
    and at least 3 cd's so I certainly wouldn't loose them to a crashing hard disk
    ;-))
    That's the problem. A couple more months ago I took my film camera to
    switzerland. Also took some nice photographs (not as much though I have to
    admit). They are also on my computer. But apart from that, they are in a
    photobook and hanging around my house.
    In august I took about 100 photographs on film in Switzerland, I have all of
    them printed (at least once). In april I took 240 photographs in the same
    Switzerland (although it didn't look the same with all that beautiful snow ;-)).
    I have about 20 of them printed. I like printed photographs, but I just don't
    print them that easily if I shoot them digitaly :-( I tend to just print the
    best because I know how much it costs.

    Apart from that there is another problems. After numerous threads on this
    newsgroup I finally decided to buy myself a used SLR in september. It was a
    Canon FT QL with a bunch of lenses. I shot one roll through it to find that the
    shutter didn't work properly and half of the photo's was messed up (obviously
    those I expected most from). Luckily the seller was a friendly men, so he
    replaced it with a Canon AE-1 (probably one of the most reliable cameras ever
    made btw). However I was unlucky. The film advance thingy didn't work as it
    should and the film kept slipping of the spool, resulting in overlapping frames.
    I got my money back from the very friendly seller. (wasted a bit of film though
    but I had great fun shooting so I'll take that for granted)

    After this distressing experience my father had a problem with a database at
    work. He said I could have his 30 year old Rollei Rolleiflex SL35 if I could fix
    it, he had been looking for a sollution for days. I am currently learning
    computer science so it was a piece of cake and I had it fixed in less than five
    minutes :-D
    Result of this wonderfull situation: I have a camera I can fully control with 3
    Carl Zeiss lenses (I used to think the difference between lenses and the
    wonderfullness of Carl Zeiss and/or Leica was heavily exagerated but I had
    to cahnge my mind when I first saw the images I produced with the first roll
    of film I ran through it. It really is amazing how much better the color and
    sharpness are!)

    Anyway, the question was why I still use film. My digital camera is a Fuji
    Finepix 2800Z. It's a wonderfull thing but has a very anoying problem. Actually
    2: The lack of any manual control other than white balance and EV compensation
    is the first and biggest. The second (also very anoying) is the ISO level wich
    is fixed at 100. I tend to like ISO 4/800 and detest flashlight, especially
    direct flash light (the only thing my digital can produce).
    So I have the choice: use film with wonderfull lenses and have full control and
    high sensitivity or use my digital camera, have no control at all over DOF and
    be anoyed by either flashlight or too much blurr caused by camera shake or
    subjects moving.
    The choice is quickly made.

    Why I don't buy a digital that solves my isues? Well, I've been thinking about
    it, there are many prosumer cameras that maybe could if I really worked hard in
    the holidays fit my bugdet. The problem is I bought a finepix that could fit my
    needs perfectly well when I bought it, but now is anoying the hell out of me. I
    bought 2 canons that fit my needs but well, didn't. I'm sick of buying cameras
    knowing that they might not serve me as I want them to for even a year.
    If I'd buy a camera now it would be a Nikon D70. But I'd need a 12mm lens for I
    know I would be anoyed by the lack of anything less wide (I am now). Guess how
    much that would cost me ;-)

    For now I stick my dad's, oh no, my Rollei. It's one hell of a camera. And if I
    need autofocus I'll take my finepix and live with it, but not always, if I can
    set the aperture, I will!

    Kind regards,

    Jan

    ps.: Anyone has a 20mm prime for the rollei rolleiflex SL-35 he doesn't need
    anymore, I could use it very well ;-)
    ps2.: Something close to 20mm will do to ;-)
     
    Jan Keirse, May 21, 2004
    #54
  15. Mike Henley

    Bob Hickey Guest

    Yes, indeedy. There's no look like HP-5 on Ilford warmtone in selenium.
    Beautiful stuff. Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, May 21, 2004
    #55
  16. Mike Henley

    Mark Roberts Guest

    Because:
    1 - No one makes a 10mm lens that will give me the AOV on my ist-D that
    my 15mm provides on my MZ-S.

    2 - I can't get a CF card to go into my 645 ;-)
     
    Mark Roberts, May 21, 2004
    #56
  17. 1. Because $800 to $1500 is too much for a hobbyist like myself.
    2. Because b&w is still better, esp. in 4x5.
    3. Because after April 2005,
    when the (predicted) $400 price point is hit,
    I'll be able to afford the new Pentax 8Mp DSLR.
    4. Even better, I'll be able to afford the even-cheaper used
    istD that will be dumped to get the increased pixel count.

    Collin
     
    Collin Brendemuehl, May 21, 2004
    #57
  18. Mike Henley

    Chris Brown Guest

    Get an 8mm fisheye (Sigma do one for most lens mounts), then defish in
    Panotools to give you a rectilinear projection. Cheaper than a rectilinear
    lens for the same field of view, and with the added advantage that the
    area-preserving fisheye projection reduces/eliminates light falloff at the
    corners.
     
    Chris Brown, May 21, 2004
    #58
  19. Mike Henley

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Huh? Provided you scan the slides (sounds liek a good bet) then in fact you can
    do the same with the slides too. That somebody would bring something like this
    seriously up simply boggles the mind.
     
    Sander Vesik, May 21, 2004
    #59
  20. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    ...I wasn't aware that he had died...



    I was walking in Währinger Cemetery and I heard some strange music...
    after a moment or two I recognized it as Beethoven's 9th symphony ...
    playing ... backwards....

    He was decomposing.
     
    Alan Browne, May 21, 2004
    #60
    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.