User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  7
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Film!

  1. #1
    Member Aljenau's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2010
    Location
    Levendale
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Film!

    Hey, I sort of remember this stuff - came on those funny little rolls and needed chemicals to see the pictures...

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    and when you nail the exposure it's breathtaking (talking slide film here)
    Gillian
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Nikon |

  3. #3
    Member geck's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jul 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    65
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    oh yes... have a roll of Velvia 100 in the F5 right now

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    nice. I have HP5 in my F100.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Aug 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    and the grain in b&w

    1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
    Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    *sigh* things look better in b&w film

  7. #7
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fabian628 View Post
    and the grain in b&w
    I reckon a Nikon D200 @ 800 ISO puts just as much "grain" into an image properly converted to B&W

    Quote Originally Posted by vanngirl View Post
    *sigh* things look better in b&w film
    I reckon that you should put "used to" in between "things" and "look" in that last post, the D3, D3x, and D700 Nikons capture the film look better than any DSLR before them and have finally negated the usefulness of film.

    Canon owners will have to wait for a model or 6 to catch up.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  8. #8
    Member Mat's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 2010
    Location
    San Remo
    Posts
    963
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    going to load a roll of Ilford FP4 in a Ensign (Trikon) Ranger
    Mat.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] K-x, Sigma 18 - 125, Vivitar 100 - 300, RICOH KR10Super & KR10M (film), Filters, Tubes
    Flickr, RedBubble, Facebook


  9. #9
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Film has it niche and is fun!
    Enjoy it while you can.
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aljenau View Post
    came on those funny little rolls
    not always

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Dec 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I reckon that you should put "used to" in between "things" and "look" in that last post, the D3, D3x, and D700 Nikons capture the film look better than any DSLR before them and have finally negated the usefulness of film.

    Canon owners will have to wait for a model or 6 to catch up. [/QUOTE]

    lol, my teachers would no doubt disagree but I'm happy to agree

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    have finally negated the usefulness of film.
    yep, poor Ansel Adams. If only he'd have know how bad his prints would look once we'd all seen the beauty of digital. I'm sure he would have overlooked all of digital's drawbacks just to have the ability to look at the image straight away on the back of his diggicam. and he would have figured a way to put that digital sensor into his enlarger so that he could make a proper print.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    people forget (or more likely, didn't know in the first place) that nobody rated the quality of 35mm film too highly prior to the digital age. it was for amateurs...and journalists
    so when the old film vs digital argument comes around...which film are we comparing to? sheet film? roll? large format? medium? 120? 35mm? we've been sacrificing quality for convenience with each milestone.

    do canon/nikon still shoot marketing images of their digital cameras with a view camera?

  14. #14
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post

    do canon/nikon still shoot marketing images of their digital cameras with a view camera?
    I don't think so, most of the recent Nikon advertising shots seem to have been done on Hasselblad and Phase One digital cams.

  15. #15
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TOM View Post
    yep, poor Ansel Adams. If only he'd have know how bad his prints would look once we'd all seen the beauty of digital. I'm sure he would have overlooked all of digital's drawbacks just to have the ability to look at the image straight away on the back of his diggicam. and he would have figured a way to put that digital sensor into his enlarger so that he could make a proper print.
    I reckon that is a really long bow to draw Tom, Ansel had the eye, patience and ability to capture landscape scenes well. He then had the technical ability in the darkroom to make his images shine.
    I don't think anyone could ever say that his prints would ever look bad in any comparison but if he were starting out now with his same artistic sense, a current generation (digital) camera and technical mastery of ( insert appropriate editing software here ) not only would his prints be equally as good but there would probably more of them.

    Personally I would rank a few current generation landscape photographers, some who happen to be AP members, as equals to Ansel and yes, they purely use digital.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the overwhelming majority of professional landscape photographer today still use large format view/field cameras.

    Ansel Adams may have been an unsuccessful photographer had he started out in the digital realm, with computers and LR or PS? Of course his eye for image capture would be the same, but he may not have really engaged medium.....we'll never know. But yes, Ansel's real ability was in the darkroom where he meticulously hand crafted each print. A big part of this craftmanship is why his prints are so valuable today. Had he have used a PC to produce a file, and churned out an inkejt print, I don't know if he would have had kept the passion that he maintained throughout his life. The ability to produce those one of a kind hand made prints is one of the big factors that sets film apart from digital. I know I can get a negative made from a digifile, but I can make a digifile from a negative, with arguably better results..larger resolution, better 16 bit colour et al. But a photographic print is always going to worth more than its inkjet equivalent, all things being equal...which they rarely are

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Oct 2010
    Location
    Tyabb
    Posts
    191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kym View Post
    Film has it niche and is fun!
    Enjoy it while you can.
    I agree with you Kym completely. Film is fun and I have some chemicals waiting for me to finish a roll of HP5 in a box brownie!!.
    I don't quite agree with Tom's suggestion that Ansel would be lost in the digital age because someone with artistic talent will learn the skills of their time.

    I enjoy both media and the argument about film and digital is mostly irrelevant since digital is one layer of pixels on a sensor and film is multiple layers of pixels within gelatin (or other chemicals) . you can't partly change a molecule of silver bromide... sorry if i'm old fashioned.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't quite agree with Tom's suggestion that Ansel would be lost in the digital age because someone with artistic talent will learn the skills of their time.
    sorry if I portrayed that, but it's not what I meant. Ansel loved the outdoors, particularly Yosemite Park, but taking the photo, the negative, was only ever an intermediate step for him. It was all about the print, but I suspect that he wouldn't have enjoyed making inkjet prints from a digital file nearly as much as his hand made one of a kind prints. Hey, he may have enjoyed it even more for all I know.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Oct 2010
    Location
    Tyabb
    Posts
    191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see what you mean now Tom. Thats an interesting thought.
    In the words of Maxwell Smart... Two possibilities!
    If he felt that the camera was used to its best and printed straight from the file with little or no image alteration... absolutely agree with your thought.
    Other possibility... photoshop or gimp etc has exactly the same controls as a darkroom print plus more. Maybe he would have been a manipulation or Photoshop master?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Adams' career in the digital age? ...probably would've lasted 2hrs at the most.
    ...you try and recharge a laptop in Yellowstone

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •