Who here still shoots primarily film?

What format do you primarily shoot?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.
whoelse said:
Quoted from Mr Spielberg:
"There's a magic about chemistry and film. Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies."

....and that quote is supposed to say something for the quality of film? Nostalgia is one thing, fidelity is another, I guess there are folk who still like the noisy scratchiness from an LP......
 

with regards to spielberg's quote, he was talking about movie film, moving at 24fps (right?)
grain takes on a different character then, because the position of the grain constantly changes so you get this beautiful organic effect.
Now, grain in a single photo is a different thing. firstly, enlarge a 35mm negative to 11x14 and look at those spots of coloured grain on your picture, staring back at you. It is not the same effect as what spielberg is talking about because the grain is not moving, it's just these distracting spots staring back at you.
For that matter, take a single frame from a movie and enlarge it to 11x14 and you'll see that the grain is ugly and distracting when it's not moving.

and student, yeah I like black and white grain I still do my black and white work on film. but dynamic range is extremely important when you're taking colour photos and you get clumps of colour instead of smooth gradual tones.
digital black and white still has a long way to go
 

mattlock said:
and student, yeah I like black and white grain I still do my black and white work on film. but dynamic range is extremely important when you're taking colour photos and you get clumps of colour instead of smooth gradual tones.
digital black and white still has a long way to go

My reference was strictly to black & white! I do not shoot color.
 

B & W...Way to go....!!! ;)
 

Go B&W! I just got me Tmax 400, Delta 400 & 3200, 120 rollfilm. Plus... I got Ilford DDX =) Watch as how a newbie screws up the whole developing process :) Anyone got the dilution tables for it? I don't wanna use it @ 1+4...

Seriously, as a hobbyist I see only two reasons to shoot film, slide film and B&W. I really wonder how many digital cam users have ever seen a slide under a 10x loupe... that's what converted me. For shooting in colour, I think dslrs are much better, especially when you hit the high ISO range. But colour rendition wise is another story.

That said, I would still shoot colour negs at events/weddings. The cost of the dslrs + lens to get the equivalent on my 35mm film slr is still more expensive, given the rate I shoot such stuff (letsee... only 5 of my friends getting married this year! 2 rolls, 3 max. The last wedding I could only shoot 1 roll as it was quite.. boring :sweat: and I actually brought 5 rolls haha! ).

Alvin
 

shoots film, because I can't really affor d a digital camera.
but I might go digital if I can somehow afford it.
but it doesn't really matter as long as if gave me what I'm looking for?

again does black and white look & smell as good in print from digital?
 

I still use film. But I have nothing against digital.
 

I also mainly shoot Film.. am using Nikon FM, FE10 and CP5700.. no money to buy DSLRs... ;p
 

Ashleyy said:
I also mainly shoot Film.. am using Nikon FM, FE10 and CP5700.. no money to buy DSLRs... ;p

Same here...no $$$ to buy DSLRs! ;)
 

Me also shot mostly firm,except wildlife and sport which need loads of film to get a good one.
 

Well its only a matter of time before "film grain" mode is added to DSLRs. Choose the type of film and grain look you want.
 

even on film, grain/color defer from roll to roll...
 

Using a conventional film camera, I have the say to use whatever film in order to achieve diff mood, grainy or higher contrast or whatsoever.

In digital camera, diff camera with diff CCD will deliver diff image quality. In order to do like the film does, you need to change the CCD or simply the camera :bigeyes: (Of course, this is not 100% true if you are very good in PS skill plus the $ to get all the applications to correct/improve the things that your CCD cant give u).
 

sumball said:
Using a conventional film camera, I have the say to use whatever film in order to achieve diff mood, grainy or higher contrast or whatsoever.

Yes, but once you've loaded that film, you are stuck with that roll until you finish it. With a digicam I can shoot B&W one frame and high ISO colour the next.

sumball said:
Of course, this is not 100% true if you are very good in PS skill plus the $ to get all the applications to correct/improve the things that your CCD cant give u.

You don't need to be "very good" in PS skills nor spend "lots of $" to get the right applications. A lot of good freeware out there that help with sharpening, B&W conversion etc, and a small amount of time learning some post-processing tricks will get you to a decent level, much less time needed than to learn dark-room technique I reckon ;)
 

i think it really depends on the market you're based in...

Spore mainly sees 80% of its commercial photogs going digital, with the exception of posed shots where med and large format chrome shots still RULE...

even for sph and the press agencies here, they're all converting to digital due to the cost..

whereas in other parts of the world, the various departments of huge press agencies still rely solely on film for the detail and hardiness of media esp if their assignments are based out in ridiculous locations.

I do know that here in San Francisco where i'm based, the press company i work with still rely largely on film for their non time sensitive shots... even the general population here largely still fall back on the basics of film....

i guess the ang mohs here still prefer the detail and richness film will ALWAYS offer.

as for myself, i've used film to earn my bread and butter for the past 30 years, and well, even though i use digital now and then for work, i still rely largely on my film based systems for everything else that isn't time sensitive.

Regardless of whether it's full frame, a 60 k 645, 6x7 digi back (yes, it exists), Digital media with even the best editing software, will never ever be able to compete in the detail, richness and naturality film has and will always offer.

my rb67s have served me well for 20 yrs...
i don't see my 1dmk2 serving me beyond 2006.

;)
 

dkw said:
Yes, but once you've loaded that film, you are stuck with that roll until you finish it. With a digicam I can shoot B&W one frame and high ISO colour the next.

Not 100% correct, what you need to do is a film picker and get ready many films. The worse, scan in the film and PS it?
 

F5user said:
my rb67s have served me well for 20 yrs...
i don't see my 1dmk2 serving me beyond 2006.

;)

Agree with you man! Digital cameras lifespan is short!
But many ppl that I had seen still believe that theirs DSLR can last them for lifetime! :think:
 

Shoot slide film here... Scanners are A+ and archiving is simply a label and putting in a box.

Got Ekatachrome slides that go back 35+ years.... Scanned in, they look like new.... My 3MB cam photos from 4 yrs ago cant compare....
 

I guess it's only a matter of time when there will be a clear line between those that shoot for convenience, and those that shoot for quality.

And yet again, there are those that think 18 mp is quality, like how we thought 3.2 mp was quality 3 years ago.

I can clearly say that chromes will never be matched in quality and natural colour rendition; at least not within these 10 years or so. Back here in our studio we even have a View camera with a digi back (4x5 full frame) and sadly, the 80 mp picture cannot be compared to a simple 6x7 slide.
:dunno:
 

So film will never die then. :thumbsup:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top