LittleWolf
New Member
Who has that mindset, the camera or the user? Whose fault is it then?
Who still uses fil in the Digital era of 2008/2009
- Thread starter NE clicks clicks
- Start date
- Status
Who has that mindset, the camera or the user? Whose fault is it then?
There's nobody's fault really....but digital technology. Given people who used film
when they switch over to digital am sure will apply the 'film' mindset of shooting. It's
only newbies (no offense) that whose first touch is a DSLR will employ this rapid shooting
mindset because of the technology provided with the camera.
Oh yes, still use film negatives, now mainly Kodak UC100 and UC400. My systems are all dead so no digital body available for me. To switch system will be too expensive. To shoot film is more straight forward for me as I have no time for post-processing files.
Also I like the extra long battery life of film cameras, easily 6 months to 1 year
This is exactly what is holding me back to switch to digital.
I will disagree with the notion that shooting film is the only way to make a 'better' shooter. One can enforce the same mentality with digital. I learned on digital, but I have no problems nailing a one-shot-one-kill with slide film. I can pepper at events on drive mode and I can shoot film frame by frame on a tripod. So I think that it really depends on the user. Some people find film facilitates the process of learning, others find the same with digital. I feel there is room for both.
I returned to film (having started as a film compact user, but it was so auto that it would hardly be fair to say I "learned" on it) in the middle of last year. A Contax645 with a (real, not those handphone camera) Zeiss 80/2.0 Planar drew me back out of the digital realm with a roll of stunning Provia 100 shots. What an awesome camera.
Unable to afford my own I settled for a little less, a Pentax645, which is really not bad. The 45/2.8 is a nice lens. Also picked up a Bronica SQ for 6x6 work.
For B&W, Ilford Delta 100, Delta 400, Kodak 400TX, Fuji Neopan.
Slides: Provia 100F, Velvia 100, Velvia 50, nothing else comes close
Negs: Whatever I can get cheap. Currently getting good results from Kodak 160GPX.
There will always be a place for film if one desires. (but there is also nothing wrong with going 100% digital)
I returned to film (having started as a film compact user, but it was so auto that it would hardly be fair to say I "learned" on it) in the middle of last year. A Contax645 with a (real, not those handphone camera) Zeiss 80/2.0 Planar drew me back out of the digital realm with a roll of stunning Provia 100 shots. What an awesome camera.
Unable to afford my own I settled for a little less, a Pentax645, which is really not bad. The 45/2.8 is a nice lens. Also picked up a Bronica SQ for 6x6 work.
For B&W, Ilford Delta 100, Delta 400, Kodak 400TX, Fuji Neopan.
Slides: Provia 100F, Velvia 100, Velvia 50, nothing else comes close
Negs: Whatever I can get cheap. Currently getting good results from Kodak 160GPX.
There will always be a place for film if one desires.
(but there is also nothing wrong with going 100% digital)LittleWolf
New Member
So it seems you agree that the argument that film lets you do this and electronic sensors don't doesn't hold any water. I don't mind if people prefer one or the other, but I can't stand it if people create nonsensical fake arguments to justify a personal preference.
Does my post sounds argumentatively fake in context ? It's just sharing some thoughts,
did I seem to shove the idea of my preference on still using film to others ? I dont think
so and to say 'people create nonsensical fake arguments to justify personal preference'
is totally absurd. It's about choices and to each his own period !
NE clicks clicks
New Member
Interesting!!
I am pretty surprise that with all the publicity,promotion, advertising that all the camera makers are spending on, there are still a number of Csers who has not been tempted to give digital a try. However that said, it's ones decision and preference to switch over to digital, to embrace both technology, or remains a staunch supporter of film.
I am pretty surprise that with all the publicity,promotion, advertising that all the camera makers are spending on, there are still a number of Csers who has not been tempted to give digital a try. However that said, it's ones decision and preference to switch over to digital, to embrace both technology, or remains a staunch supporter of film.
synapseman
Senior Member
Those who have been brought up in the digital era, it's hard to explain the joys of shooting on film. Yah, shoot less on digital, don't review your pics, keep your CF card in the drawer for one week...etc. These are some of the suggestions that digi-enthusiasts have made. True, the end result is the same. Well, sort of. There's something just different, a kind of "x" factor that the digital experience cannot replicate.
It's about nostalgia, it's about history, it's about soul.
With film, there is no safety net. You know you only have 36 (or perhaps 38) shots in the roll, and that's it. Yes, you can try it all with digital, but it's still different. Walk on a 10cm wide plank 10cm off the ground is not the same as walking this same plank 20m off the ground.
Anyway, FWIW, 90% of my shooting is done on digital format now. But I still go back to film occasionally for no reason other than "just for the heck of it". Sometimes I even get paid for it.
It's about nostalgia, it's about history, it's about soul.
With film, there is no safety net. You know you only have 36 (or perhaps 38) shots in the roll, and that's it. Yes, you can try it all with digital, but it's still different. Walk on a 10cm wide plank 10cm off the ground is not the same as walking this same plank 20m off the ground.
Anyway, FWIW, 90% of my shooting is done on digital format now. But I still go back to film occasionally for no reason other than "just for the heck of it". Sometimes I even get paid for it.
Its tough for those still on Rollei 6008 or Hassleblad 500CM bodies and do not have enough dough to go digital.. Full frame would still be a long way to go.. 6cm x 6cm sensors anyone? :sweat: I think can buy many many rolls of 120.
Battery life? You'd be asking what's that if you shoot FM, FM2, FM3, Pentax LX or other mechanical/hybrid bodies. ;p
Last edited:
scanning back?
When u started shooting in film era, back them everything is $$$ and cost of living vis-a-vis expenses are high. therefore u think before u shoot to maximise yr $$$. so this is the"feel" u developed back then when using film. this is the 70s and 80s film era.
Tranquilsoul
New Member
Well i feel that it's up to the individual users, be it digital or film the final outcome is most important. Yes the idea of film photography might be lost to the new but there still has to be a basis to which a camera is used and if one doesn't know how then what's the point?? It's like saying that we should stick to old ways of thought just because it has always been this way and new methods although providing a better and more efficient outcome, should not be followed. I feel that as long as it serves it purpose, anything in between should not be blown out of proportion.
Learnt on digital.
No problems shooting film.
For those who have learnt on digital, and mastered the basics, I am sure they are equally capable of nailing one shot one kill photos. Its just that digital gives you an incentive(its free) to shoot more for assurance and security. Why scrimp when you paid a few K for the body that is MADE to do that?
And for the machine gunning mentality.... lets just say that its BOUND to happen with 10FPS cameras and bracketing and 8GB CF cards
Only difference between the 2 kinds of shooters is that one spends 3hrs shooting, 45 minutes to process, the other spends 1 hr to shoot, ends up with more photos and spends roughly 2 hours at the table doing editting.
me?
I really hate editting, basically, I shoot and do not really edit(small bit of levels, colours if needed and BW conversion), not that there is anything wrong with editting. But I am confidant enough of my technique to shoot and not look at the LCD screen
No problems shooting film.
For those who have learnt on digital, and mastered the basics, I am sure they are equally capable of nailing one shot one kill photos. Its just that digital gives you an incentive(its free) to shoot more for assurance and security. Why scrimp when you paid a few K for the body that is MADE to do that?
And for the machine gunning mentality.... lets just say that its BOUND to happen with 10FPS cameras and bracketing and 8GB CF cards
Only difference between the 2 kinds of shooters is that one spends 3hrs shooting, 45 minutes to process, the other spends 1 hr to shoot, ends up with more photos and spends roughly 2 hours at the table doing editting.
me?
I really hate editting, basically, I shoot and do not really edit(small bit of levels, colours if needed and BW conversion), not that there is anything wrong with editting. But I am confidant enough of my technique to shoot and not look at the LCD screen
Well, I still use film but it's like once in a blue moon? It's loaded in my holga which lurks in the car boot most of the time. The counter probably stucked at three?
It's real fun to play with a film body, meddling with the levers and latches but you'll hoped you've never done it especially when you still have a undeveloped roll inside! It was so painful!
It's real fun to play with a film body, meddling with the levers and latches but you'll hoped you've never done it especially when you still have a undeveloped roll inside! It was so painful!
- Status
