Dose anyone out there still use film slr's.
I was thinking of getting my dad's out and having a play...
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 0
Dose anyone out there still use film slr's.
I was thinking of getting my dad's out and having a play...
of course, it is the cheapest way to shoot with the full 24x36 frame and it is more convenient than digital in a lot of ways. grab yourself some provia 100f and some hp5+ and go for it. what is your Dad's slr?
Grab a "cheap"F65 Nikon, match it with your existing lenses and have fun.
AndrewNikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.
Threadstarter
I can't be sure on models but they are all nikon. I know he brought a new film slr not long after nikon stop making film and went digital.Originally Posted by TOM
Threadstarter
i was looking at afew on ebay nikon f3, f100, f4 just reading up on them. Maybe the f6 would be good but, i think the price is still like digital price.
i've owned the f3, f4, f5, f100. if i was to go back to any of those, it would be the f4 without hesitation. the f6 would be a good, but too many features that aren't required.
Duh? Nothing against film, I'm sure there are still lots of uses for it, but I can think of exactly zero ways it's more convenient. I'm quite serious here, I cannot think of even one single way in which film is more convenient.
shoot film, drop or post to lab, pick up developed film, with high res scans on dvd. done. no photoshop, no battery charging, no buying of ps if you don't want, no raw conversion, no sharpening, no computer, no backups, no layer masks to drag out more d.r, no portable storage device such as laptop, no international power adapters, no inconvenience of the unavoidable urge to chimp....
i shoot weddings with film and it is so easy compared to when i shot with all digital. only thing i need to do is arrange shots in chronological order and i'm done.
i did say 'in a lot of ways', not always.
Last edited by TOM; 31-05-2009 at 9:02pm.
no offence, but how many rolls of film do u shoot per wedding then? I used to work in a print lab which does film and we charge $15.95 to develop and print a 36 roll, plus $6.95 per roll scanned onto CD after. I suppose the client doesnt really get many wedding photos then, or do you sell it to them individually? Not really cost effective in the long run.
there is a reason 99.99% wedding photographers use digital now, mostly for opposite reasons of what u just stated.
- no photoshop - sorry but this is 2009, not 1960 anymore, the standards of wedding photography has risen to unheard of heights, its not about capturing photos anymore, its about creating.
- no raw conversion - no offence but I myself would prefer control of the end result and product over my negatives be it digital or film. I rather do it myself than let a lab technician do the post processing, film or not.
- no sharpening - ummm........what if you need to sharpen an unsharp photo, or for bigger enlargements..........
- no computers, no back ups - there is so many wrong things about this I dont even need to argue about it.
- no layer masks to drag out more DR - u know this technique was used in film too right in the lab? but dont expect a lab technician to do it simply because they do not use traditional dark room techniques and chemicals anymore, but scanners. If this gets u results and improve on a photo, then embrace it dont forsake it.
- unavoidable urge to chimp - nothing wrong with chimping to know where u went wrong and improve upon it. It is an evolution and something photographers 50 yrs ago wished they had the ability to do so. So high end shoots which are shot sync'ed with a computer for preview of the raws is considered chimping too?
you either charge very very low and dont feel the need to 'chimp' as you do not care about the quality and results, or you simply know about the exact exposure settings to get the right result at every press of the shutter!
Digital battery charge = 1000 shots (give or take)
Film canister = 36 shots
Advantage digital.
Film development: business hours, have to go to a city or post box, long delay before you get it back
Digital development: insert flash card into laptop, press button. Practivcally instant, works everywhere, 24/7 service.
Advantage digital.
Film PP: requires commercial scanning and loading into your system before you can start
Digital PP: already on the system, just do it.
Advantage digital.
Film "raw conversion". You can't do it. Unless you are going to go to a lot of trouble, there are no development options worth mentioning. (And no, we are not going to consider custom development labs here: we are talking about convenience here.)
Digital "raw conversion" (method 1). You don't have to do anything. You shot in JPG and the camera itself does everything for you, with lattitude and dynamic range similar to what you get with film.
Digital "raw conversion" (method 2). You can do it, if you want to, and if you wish you can do all sorts of stuff that you haven't been able to do with film since you gave up running your own darkroom plus a lot more as well.
Advantage digital.
Film sharpening: you still have to sharpen appropriately for your output media - i.e., same as digital, except for when you are using old-style photographic reproduction, in which case he word "convenience" is not even on the radar.
Digital sharpening: one of the easiest parts of the entire PP sequence. Takes 3 mouse clicks, unless you batch process or automate it, in which case it's even easier.
Advantage digital.
Film backup: tedious, expensive, and subjec to generation loss.
Digital backp: simple, cheap, retains 100% quality every time.
Advantage digital.
Film DR: not very different to digital, assuming you are shooting reversal film (as most serious camera users did until digital arrived).
Digital DR: not very different to reversal film, but it [i]can[i] be improved with PP tricks, where to do the same with film is much more difficult.
Advantage digital.
Sorry Tom, I don't want to be a film basher, and there are many good reasons to still use it, but "convenience" is most certainly not one of them. The only one that holds any water is the DR argument, and that's not really a convenience issue. (Would I like more DR from my digital bodies? Blood oath I would! Sooner the better.)
I started in the Box Brownie days then onto SLR (Pentax) and then to Nikon and a heap of glass. I learned a lot of discipline because of the long lag time to seeing results, fixed and low ISO (64 ASA then), and no option for PP (35mm trannies were what I sold). So all in all the image had to be right first time.
Man I love the digital era!!!
Canon EOS 50D, EF 16-35 f2.8L II, EF-S 60mm f2.8 macro, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 430 EXII.
Panasonic FZ28, Raynox 150 & 250 close-up, Nikon E15ED TC.
www.mypikkies.com.au
hey i do ok out of weddings JM. i shoot 5 rolls of film and i try to make every shot count. i don't mind being in the 1% JM, it is what gets me my clients.
hey if that works for you, great. it's not my style. a client asked me the other day if i could superimpose a shot of the b&g at the alter over top of an outside shot of the church.......i said no.its not about capturing photos anymore, its about creating
?no sharpening - ummm........what if you need to sharpen an unsharp photo, or for bigger enlargements.........
i use computers, sorry to confuse. If Chad were to use his Dads SLR, he won't need to use the computer, unless he gets some scans and then wants to use his high res 16bit scans to tweak in CS3.no computers, no back ups - there is so many wrong things about this I dont even need to argue about it
we're talking about high end shoots now? I was talking about what works for me, not everyone. I don't think Chad is a pro shooter (correct if i'm wrong Chad). I happen to think that using a film camera is the best way to learn photography.- unavoidable urge to chimp - nothing wrong with chimping to know where u went wrong and improve upon it. It is an evolution and something photographers 50 yrs ago wished they had the ability to do so. So high end shoots which are shot sync'ed with a computer for preview of the raws is considered chimping too?
I do sometimes shoot film - but hardly any 135. MF mainly, 6x6 and 645. All B/W. The 35mm gets used just as a curiosity from time to time at which it usually is loaded with some nice Fuji Provia or Velvia.
No, digital is easier, faster and more convenient in all ways imaginable except power - there are no batteries in my Mamiya C220 and the ones in my Mamiya 645 last for over two years now...
Ciao, Joost
All feedback is highly appreciated!
Tannin, i just installed Google Chrome and i am still getting used to it. however i just lost a post where i had rebuked every claim that you made stating clearly that film was indeed more convenient. I cannot be bothered retyping
i like film, i like digital, but film works better for me for my weddings.
ooh, just thought of another one.........16 bits yay.
Tannin, i just installed Google Chrome and i am still getting used to it. however i just lost a post where i had rebuked every claim that you made stating clearly that film was indeed more convenient. I cannot be bothered retyping
i like film, i like digital, but film works better for me for my weddings.
no please type it again, I, we would like to see your debate over it.
same for digital, yay?ooh, just thought of another one.........16 bits yay.
no, except for medium format. i did get off topic, it really has little to do with convenience.same for digital, yay?
Last edited by TOM; 31-05-2009 at 10:38pm.
Getting back to the OP, I shoot film now as well. Its not for convenience (I don't want to get into that argument), its simply because I actually enjoy it.
As a matter of fact, I think that shooting film will actually IMPROVE your photography, especially for those who have only ever shot digital. I think taking away the temptation to chimp every shot makes you think about shots more and gives you more incentive to get it right in the camera.
So, yes, get some decent film (if you like colour, maybe some Fuji Pro 160), get it processed and enjoy!
(BTW, I believe and a comment on the OP as well. I still believe that Nikon make a film camera. Am I wrong?)
but I can say the same for different types of films too, you would need to use specific pro grade films to make the most of that, I dont expect the same amount of latitude and depth from a cheap roll of Kodak Gold at kmart to a roll of Velvia slide film.
a 5DmkII shooting at native 14 bits, not much diff to 16 bits by the human eye!
but since you said you dont process your negatives nor edit them, mentioning 16 bits is a moot point.
you forgot to mention high ISO performance and the ability to change ISOs. How do a wedding photographer shoot outdoors on a bright sunny day at 100ISO film than suddenly find himself indoors in a dimly lit church as he follows the bride inside, and needs to crank out that 800ISO roll? well they tend to use 2 cameras with 2 different ISO films in it.
how do digital wedding photographers change ISO? with a smile on their face.
i use four to five cameras for a wedding JM. i do process my own film as well, and also scan and edit, just not weddings. i shoot with prime lenses and use rfinder cameras so i can shoot at much lower iso's than most wedding photogs that use zoom lenses on slr's. but we are digressing into a film vs digital arguement. i don't want to do that, my op was simply to point out that film isn't always a disadvantage to everyone. i would go as far as saying that most people who take family snaps and the like would be better off shooting compact film cameras.you forgot to mention high ISO performance and the ability to change ISOs. How do a wedding photographer shoot outdoors on a bright sunny day at 100ISO film than suddenly find himself indoors in a dimly lit church as he follows the bride inside, and needs to crank out that 800ISO roll? well they tend to use 2 cameras with 2 different ISO films in it.
Last edited by TOM; 31-05-2009 at 11:00pm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
