Why I like Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been into photography for over 50 years, strictly amateur. Used TLR, 4x5 Speed Graphic, 35, etc. Done my own processing and enlarging. It is my understanding that film cannot come close to the dynamic range of digital, and thus more and more pros are going digital. I have a printer that I can print 13 x 19 inch prints, and they are amazing. No dust from the enlarger, no grain. My problem with printing digital is I can never quite get the color the way I want, too many adjustments, too many choices. I was at a wedding recently and the photographer, using digital of course, took over 900 pictures!!!!
Hasselblad has announced a new digital camera, don't know the price but 50 Megapixels. A model below the newly announced one costs $40,000! 300 mb files. link
 
Mori,

Please don't take what I said the wrong way. All I was saying is that your 6x7 image is not comparable to what most people are using in the digital world. The plastic look, that you can't stand, may exist with point and shoot cameras, but not with the more modern crop of cameras that are more comparable to 6x7. In fact, some of the world's great photographers are switching to digital because digital is able to produce an "analog look" that film lost a long time ago.

For example:
William Albert Allard is a legendary National Geographic staffer, who has shot mostly with Leica, and who has often been obsessed with colour palettes, and emulsion textures. He has now switched to digital because modern emulsions are incapable of capturing the world with same depth and control that he can produce with digital. One of Allard's favorite films was the Kodachrome of the 1960's. With each of the successive batches that Kodak made, it lost some of it's muted quality. Allard now uses digital to recapture that feel that has long since been lost.

Billions of [censored] pictures have been made with film, and countless more will be made with digital cameras, but as always, it is up to the artist to create the art.

And..." It is the poor craftsman who blames his tools".
 
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
I thought I had read that to compare to a 35mm negative you needed approximately 40 megapixels.


Nope. It really depends on which qualities you're trying to compare. I found that the 3 megapixel Canon D30 that I used 8 years ago made excellent, film comparable, 8x12" prints when shot at ISO 400 or lower. Above ISO 400, the image lost detail in the shadows and began banding (horizontal colour noise lines) in the shadows.

The 6 megapixel Canon 10D could produce D30 quality at 11x17", with waaaay better autofocus and had much less shutter lag. The only problem? Natural greens (like grass) would go almost radioactive.

The 8 megapixel Canon 20D (circa 2004-05) could produce the same quality as the 10D at 11x17, but it would do it at ISO 800, with much less shadow noise. This was a breakthrough camera for me, because I finally had a camera that could outperform 35mm Fujicolor 800 (a staple press film of the late '90 early '00) in every way.

The Canon 5D (circa 2005-present) is a 12ish megapixel pro SLR that, when used properly, produces film-like grain, that is superior to every 35mm film I've ever used. I can shoot at ISO 1600 with this camera and get better results than any 35mm ISO 800 film and get Velvia results at ISO 400. 16x24 inch prints from this camera can be gorgeous. I particularly like the full frame (24x36) sensor on this camera, that allows me to exploit the specific traits of all of my lenses, like vignetting.

The simple fact, is that modern digital SLRs can do everything 35mm used to do, and a whole lot more. Furthermore, modern, full frame, D-SLRs can outperform virtually any film 645, providing you're using the right optics.
 
Originally Posted By: Yuk
Mori,

Please don't take what I said the wrong way. All I was saying is that your 6x7 image is not comparable to what most people are using in the digital world.


Please understand that high-end digital equipment and printing, are not what most people are using in the digital world.

Of course a good image is a good image, no matter with what camera it was taken. You say "It is the poor craftsman who blames his tools". And yet here you are, going on and on, pixel counting and talking about your high-end gear which isn't comparable to consumer and prosumer gear.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman


Please understand that high-end digital equipment and printing, are not what most people are using in the digital world.


Um... last time I checked, you were comparing 6x7 film to digital files. Whether used with a film or a digital back, 6x7 can only be considered "high-end". Any novice willing to invest the kind of time and money needed to produce fiber-based, b&w prints can not be considered "most people".

Originally Posted By: moribundman
And yet here you are, going on and on, pixel counting and talking about your high-end gear which isn't comparable to consumer and prosumer gear.
wink.gif



I was only giving a brief history on when digital cameras became comparable to film. The D30, 10D and 20D were all consumer-grade cameras, not " high-end gear". The current price for a 5D is under $2000 and way less than any new 6x7 body. There are currently many digital SLRs available which are capable performance superior to 35mm film, all are well under $1000.
 
Originally Posted By: Yuk
Um... last time I checked, you were comparing 6x7 film to digital files. Whether used with a film or a digital back, 6x7 can only be considered "high-end". Any novice willing to invest the kind of time and money needed to produce fiber-based, b&w prints can not be considered "most people".


In my original post, I wasn't comparing formats but only the two media as such. My point, which was clearly missed, was that in order to match the, let's call it "technical quality," of a 6x7 image captured on film, one would need digital equipment that's out of range for most amateurs.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: buster
As technology improves, will digital ever be on par with film?


I can assure you that the number of properly exposed and sharply focused, poorly composed pictures will increase. If someone asks, "What camera did you use?" he really expresses his desire of taking more bad pictures more conveniently.

lol (I never say "lol," but this really deserved it)


your comment is the reason I can't stand reading photo forums. people nit pick lens and camera issues that they'll never encounter. They spend more time coming up with "tests" in their basement then they do actually composing photos.

The instant feedback of digital allows you to learn exponentially faster how to make better photos if you are paying attention.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
The instant feedback of digital allows you to learn exponentially faster how to make better photos if you are paying attention.


Excellent point.
 
Originally Posted By: John K
I have been into photography for over 50 years, strictly amateur. Used TLR, 4x5 Speed Graphic, 35, etc. Done my own processing and enlarging.

I learned processing and printing B&W and color film when I was 12.

Quote:
It is my understanding that film cannot come close to the dynamic range of digital, and thus more and more pros are going digital.

In film it's called "latitude," and as anyone intimately familiar with conventional film knows, latitude can be influenced greatly through exposure and processing, and of course when printing, if one knows what he's doing.

Dynamic range of the better electronic sensor may match or exceed that of film. However, dynamic range is not the measure of all things. The high-end gear is pretty much irrelevant to the consumer market, because they can't even get a decent print. if dynamic range of most digital cameras would match the latitude films offers, then we wouldn't see so many clipped highlights and shadows in prints made from pictures taken with digital cameras. I also don't consider dye-based prints acceptable.

Quote:
I have a printer that I can print 13 x 19 inch prints, and they are amazing. No dust from the enlarger, no grain.

I'll grant you that dust is a pet peeve of anyone who prints. As for the lack of grain, well, I happen to like grain. Grain gives life to an image, wether it is fine, smooth, rough, or coarse. Grain adds texture, and extra dimension if you will, and I enjoy choosing a film with characteristics that for for my subject matter.

Quote:
My problem with printing digital is I can never quite get the color the way I want, too many adjustments, too many choices.

Color correcting couldn't be any easier.


Quote:
I was at a wedding recently and the photographer, using digital of course, took over 900 pictures!!!!

Imagine having to sift through all that. I also wouldn't want my memories on a chip, a disc, or on a dye-based print.


Quote:
Hasselblad has announced a new digital camera, don't know the price but 50 Megapixels. A model below the newly announced one costs $40,000! 300 mb files.


As I have been saying, it's irrelevant for the consumer market!
 
Originally Posted By: tom slick
The instant feedback of digital allows you to learn exponentially faster how to make better photos if you are paying attention.


That works if someone has aptitude and is willing to learn. The ability to take a vast number of pictures at very low cost and to see the result on the spot can be a great tool -- for most people it isn't.

For any photographer who has to deal with a model or an AD, showing a proof instantly is of course useful, and digital is great for that. We used to use Polaroid backs on or 35mm, medium format and 4x5 cameras for that. In motion picture making, while filming on film, often a video camera would simultaneously run piggy-back style, for instant replay for the cinematographer and director.

The convenience of digital image taking is also very tempting people to be sloppy. I can't tell you how often I have heard even professional photographers say "I will fix that later" (in Photoshop). At that point I wonder why anybody would hire that "pro" in the first place?

What I see notice when observing most people taking pictures:

1. They never get down low or up high to take a picture. They shoot everything from eye level hight. There is no willingness to be a bit more creative.

2. They don't walk up to their subject (also see 1.) or away from in in an effort to find the best vantage point. They use a zoom instead. That means they do use a zoom merely as a cropping tool, without realizing the importance of focal length as it relates to image composition. That's why we have 10x zoom lenses. A complete idiocy!

3. They do not know how use focus, apertures and focal length effectively. They rely on program automatic or scene modes (Which nobody who knows anything about how a camera works needs). Technology and automated fuzzy logic to the rescue!

4. Their photo albums are a nightmare fit only to agonize the people with whom they choose to share their pictures.

All in all, people don't care about image quality. On a professional level there has been a similar decline. Look at current magazine covers and compare them to covers 10, 20, 30, 50, 60 years ago. The quality of photography has widely dropped since the advent of digital photography. Everybody is a photographer! But as I said, bad pictures get sharper and more detailed all the time.
grin2.gif
 
Mori, you an I have alot in common!

If you've ever seen his work, James Nachtwey does an outstanding job of using all elements of composition to convey emotion. He documents the atrocities around the world and you can feel the emotion in his photos. In his documentary film it shows him right next to his subjects, almost in their face.
 
Originally Posted By: tom slick
James Nachtwey


Sorry to probably sound like a jerk, but who doesn't know Nachtwey's work?

Any Salagado fans around here?
 
I figured you'd know about him. The folks you are complaining about could learn alot by studying his style though.

I am not real familiar with Salgato, but his work almost doesn't look like phototography.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman

Sorry to probably sound like a jerk, but who doesn't know Nachtwey's work?

I haven't.
 
Originally Posted By: tom slick
I am not real familiar with Salgato, but his work almost doesn't look like phototography.


Beautiful pictures of people in pain. He is a great photojournalist and artist. His work is very emotional and as such it is inherently manipulative. You should go see an exhibition of his work if you get a chance. You should also go to Borders and check out 'Workers' and 'An Uncertain Grace.'

PS: He shoots almost exclusively on Tri-X in 35 mm, developed in AGFA Rodinal.
 
Thanks for the tip. I'll certainly check it out.
I certainly enjoy photojournalism but landscape/wildlife is what interests me the most.
George Lepp (local guy) shoots in a style I really enjoy.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: tom slick
The instant feedback of digital allows you to learn exponentially faster how to make better photos if you are paying attention.


That works if someone has aptitude and is willing to learn. The ability to take a vast number of pictures at very low cost and to see the result on the spot can be a great tool -- for most people it isn't.

For any photographer who has to deal with a model or an AD, showing a proof instantly is of course useful, and digital is great for that. We used to use Polaroid backs on or 35mm, medium format and 4x5 cameras for that. In motion picture making, while filming on film, often a video camera would simultaneously run piggy-back style, for instant replay for the cinematographer and director.

The convenience of digital image taking is also very tempting people to be sloppy. I can't tell you how often I have heard even professional photographers say "I will fix that later" (in Photoshop). At that point I wonder why anybody would hire that "pro" in the first place?

What I see notice when observing most people taking pictures:

1. They never get down low or up high to take a picture. They shoot everything from eye level hight. There is no willingness to be a bit more creative.

2. They don't walk up to their subject (also see 1.) or away from in in an effort to find the best vantage point. They use a zoom instead. That means they do use a zoom merely as a cropping tool, without realizing the importance of focal length as it relates to image composition. That's why we have 10x zoom lenses. A complete idiocy!

3. They do not know how use focus, apertures and focal length effectively. They rely on program automatic or scene modes (Which nobody who knows anything about how a camera works needs). Technology and automated fuzzy logic to the rescue!

All in all, people don't care about image quality. On a professional level there has been a similar decline. Look at current magazine covers and compare them to covers 10, 20, 30, 50, 60 years ago. The quality of photography has widely dropped since the advent of digital photography. Everybody is a photographer! But as I said, bad pictures get sharper and more detailed all the time.
grin2.gif



Here is a tutorial about the lenses and their impact on composition:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm
 
Good article. I need to get a f 1.8 prime for my Nikon SLR since I try to shoot close to 50mm anyways. Starting to abhor flash shots - except for outdoor fill flash. Something like this is ~$140 locally.

50mm%20f1.8D%20AF%20Nikkor.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom