Do you miss anything about film?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Les Johnstone, Aug 4, 2003.

  1. Hi All,

    I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
    great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.

    There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the list. It
    might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
    guess they might be opinions rather than questions.

    I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.

    A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.

    1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
    the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
    Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
    look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get a
    "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for me.
    Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?

    2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just accept
    as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give a
    big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
    bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
    will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
    inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
    you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
    of a big digital print.

    Many thanks for any advice

    Les
    Les Johnstone, Aug 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Les Johnstone

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Les Johnstone" <> writes:
    > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
    > the picture you want?


    Sometimes. I also miss super speed films, think TMZ 3200 pushed to
    6400 or even higher, shot with that 35/1.4 MF Nikkor that I got on
    Ebay just before the price of MF stuff completely collapsed...

    > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know
    > that enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which
    > I just accept as part of the look of B+W.


    It's not just a grain thing, you just can't get quite the same spectral
    response by converting color images into B&W as you can with panchromatic
    film, careful use of filters, and control over exposure and development.

    Generally speaking though, at least for a snapshooter like me, the
    main thing I've missed about film is you can get higher image quality
    from a small film camera (e.g. Ricoh GR1 or even Minox EC) than you
    can get from a digicam of comparable size.
    Paul Rubin, Aug 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Les Johnstone

    Gavin Cato Guest

    A D100 is ready to go as soon as you turn it on, and a D1h will give you the
    sort of speed you'd expect from a F100.



    "Opentoe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I miss the speed of a film camera. Super fast and ready to go in seconds.
    >
    > "Les Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f2da9a3$0$965$...
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > > I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
    > > great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.
    > >
    > > There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the

    list.
    > It
    > > might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
    > > guess they might be opinions rather than questions.
    > >
    > > I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.
    > >
    > > A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.
    > >
    > > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look

    of
    > > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and

    Fuji
    > > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the

    one
    > > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to

    get
    > a
    > > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for

    > me.
    > > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
    > >
    > > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    > > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

    > accept
    > > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it

    give
    > a
    > > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so

    a
    > > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the

    print
    > > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a

    24
    > > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative,

    do
    > > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft

    look
    > > of a big digital print.
    > >
    > > Many thanks for any advice
    > >
    > > Les
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Gavin Cato, Aug 4, 2003
    #3
  4. Les Johnstone

    Gavin Cato Guest

    For the velvia question, you'll find it's actually far more flexible with
    digital once you get accustomed to post processing your shots in photoshop.

    If you aren't an expert on photoshop - there are a few fantastic actions at
    www.fredmiranda.com

    In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia" action - it's
    fantastic. You can achieve the same results manually in photoshop if you
    know how, but the action is cheap and simplifies it greatly. I use it a fair
    bit to boost up the colours in an image when I need to, in the same way I'd
    load a roll of velvia into a film camera if I wanted the colour saturation
    of velvia.

    Also grab the intellisharpen action as well, you'll need to sharpen the
    files from the d100 a fair bit, they are intentionally soft for post
    processing.

    Gav




    "Les Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    news:3f2da9a3$0$965$...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
    > great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.
    >
    > There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the list.

    It
    > might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
    > guess they might be opinions rather than questions.
    >
    > I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.
    >
    > A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.
    >
    > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
    > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
    > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
    > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get

    a
    > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for

    me.
    > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
    >
    > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

    accept
    > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give

    a
    > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
    > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
    > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
    > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
    > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
    > of a big digital print.
    >
    > Many thanks for any advice
    >
    > Les
    >
    >
    Gavin Cato, Aug 4, 2003
    #4
  5. Miss anything? No. I still shoot film when I want the imaging qualities
    of film. That's very rare for 35mm and APS, a bit more common for Minox
    submini or 6x6, when compared with digital. I just waste a lot less
    time developing and scanning film, that's all.

    The answer for both questions is Photoshop or other image editing
    software. Any real photography with a digital camera requires the
    photographer become conversant and skilled with the use of image
    processing software because that's where all the options are. The
    camera is a capture device, image processing is where the magic
    happens. Just like the darkroom is where film images used to become
    photographs...

    Digital cameras have a different kind of versatility compared to film
    cameras. Use each for its strengths and work around its weaknesses,
    that's all. What's important are the photographs you produce.

    Godfrey


    In article <3f2da9a3$0$965$>, Les Johnstone
    <> wrote:

    > ...
    > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
    > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
    > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
    > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get a
    > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for me.
    > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
    >
    > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just accept
    > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give a
    > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
    > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
    > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
    > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
    > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
    > of a big digital print.
    > ...
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Aug 4, 2003
    #5
  6. Les Johnstone

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Les Johnstone wrote:
    >
    >>

    > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
    > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
    > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
    > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get a
    > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for me.
    > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?


    In a way, I miss that sometimes. I have my favorite films and know how
    they will behave in various situations. But instead, Photoshop allows
    me to give my pictures a variety of different looks, fairly easily.
    It's not quite exactly the same as shooting different kinds of film,
    IMHO, but it's a very similar capability. And I DO like very much
    having all film speeds available at all times.

    I read in a book once the suggestion that the student of photography
    should select one film that they like, and learn intimately how that
    film will render the types of subjects one shoots. I took this to heart
    and found it very helpful in becoming able to know, as I shot, what a
    photo would look like in the end. Up to the last films that I shot, I
    would use a very small selection of films that I knew very well. I'm
    just taking a break from film shooting, just for a short while I'm sure
    :)


    >
    > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just accept
    > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give a
    > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
    > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
    > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
    > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
    > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
    > of a big digital print.


    I am not fond of B&W, having been allowed to shoot only B&W for the
    first few years of learning photography :) Even so, my impression is
    that digital B&W is farther from matching 35mm than digital color is to
    matching color 35mm film.

    Lisa
    Lisa Horton, Aug 4, 2003
    #6
  7. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Gavin Cato writes:

    > For the velvia question, you'll find it's actually
    > far more flexible with digital once you get accustomed
    > to post processing your shots in photoshop.


    It's far more flexible, but within narrow limits. The CCD is indeed the
    limiting factor. A given CCD will produce images with certain
    characteristics. There are significant constraints on what you can do
    with those images, no matter how much you fiddle with them in Photoshop.
    To go outside those constraints, you need to replace the CCD.

    In the case of film, you simply changed film, which had the same effect.
    Current digicams don't have interchangeable image sensors, so this is a
    drawback to digital for now.

    > In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia"
    > action - it's fantastic.


    It's nothing compared to real Velvia.



    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Les Johnstone

    Gavin Cato Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > > In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia"
    > > action - it's fantastic.

    >
    > It's nothing compared to real Velvia.


    I've used both a fair bit - you'd be surprised! Takes more fiddling than
    loading a roll of velvia though obviously.
    Gavin Cato, Aug 4, 2003
    #8
  9. Gav,

    I also just purchased a D100 and am wondering why it's default
    sharpness level is so relatively low. Could you explain what you mean
    by saying the D100 is "intentionally soft for post processing?"

    Thank you.

    In article <3f2dc3b3$0$95047$>,
    Gavin Cato <> wrote:

    > For the velvia question, you'll find it's actually far more flexible with
    > digital once you get accustomed to post processing your shots in photoshop.
    >
    > If you aren't an expert on photoshop - there are a few fantastic actions at
    > www.fredmiranda.com
    >
    > In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia" action - it's
    > fantastic. You can achieve the same results manually in photoshop if you
    > know how, but the action is cheap and simplifies it greatly. I use it a fair
    > bit to boost up the colours in an image when I need to, in the same way I'd
    > load a roll of velvia into a film camera if I wanted the colour saturation
    > of velvia.
    >
    > Also grab the intellisharpen action as well, you'll need to sharpen the
    > files from the d100 a fair bit, they are intentionally soft for post
    > processing.
    >
    > Gav
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Les Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f2da9a3$0$965$...
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > > I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
    > > great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.
    > >
    > > There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the list.

    > It
    > > might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
    > > guess they might be opinions rather than questions.
    > >
    > > I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.
    > >
    > > A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.
    > >
    > > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
    > > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
    > > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
    > > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get

    > a
    > > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for

    > me.
    > > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
    > >
    > > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    > > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

    > accept
    > > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give

    > a
    > > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
    > > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
    > > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
    > > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
    > > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
    > > of a big digital print.
    > >
    > > Many thanks for any advice
    > >
    > > Les
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Woodward Price, Aug 4, 2003
    #9
  10. I miss being able to use cheap 3rd-party all-in-one 10x zooms, 400 speed
    film, and a flimsy Velbon tripod, and liking the results because I was
    only printing 4x6's. Nowadays my DSLR shows up all the defects in my
    equipment and technique.

    --
    David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
    David Eppstein, Aug 4, 2003
    #10
  11. It sounds like you're in total agreement with the portion of my post
    that you elided:

    > Digital cameras have a different kind of versatility compared to film
    > cameras. Use each for its strengths and work around its weaknesses,
    > that's all. What's important are the photographs you produce.


    Godfrey

    In article <%7kXa.57425$>, Ron Andrews
    <> wrote:

    > I agree that Photoshop can produce a wide variety of "looks" but it
    > can't do everything. I can create Kodalith and B&W effects in Photoshop. I
    > can boost the color to get a Velvia look or suppress it to get a Portra
    > look. I can filter out some of the sensitivity on the CCD, but I can't add
    > to it. One of the things I enjoy about film is the ability to change sensors
    > (film) at will. I can choose a film with long red sensitivity like Kodak Max
    > 800 when I want to shoot star pictures. I can choose a film with short red
    > sensitivity like Ektachrome EPN to shoot morning glory pictures. I will
    > choose an infrared film when I want that ethereal look from foliage.
    > Another aspect where film has advantages is in the wilderness. I can
    > carry a completely mechanical film camera for weeks in the wilderness and
    > not worry about batteries. Of course some of my film cameras today require
    > batteries, but I have some that don't.
    > I don't want to get too deep into the image quality discussion. That
    > has been debated ad nauseum. I'll just say that I've not seen a digital
    > camera that can produce image quality anything like my 4x5 camera (except
    > for some scanning backs that can only shoot still subjects).
    > I don't "miss" these aspects with digital because I shoot film when the
    > situation calls for it.
    >
    >
    Godfrey DiGiorgi, Aug 4, 2003
    #11
  12. Les Johnstone

    gsum Guest

    Yes - I was lugging a bag of primes round the Lake
    District yesterday thinking exactly that myself.

    Graham

    "David Eppstein" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I miss being able to use cheap 3rd-party all-in-one 10x zooms, 400 speed
    > film, and a flimsy Velbon tripod, and liking the results because I was
    > only printing 4x6's. Nowadays my DSLR shows up all the defects in my
    > equipment and technique.
    >
    > --
    > David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
    > Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
    gsum, Aug 4, 2003
    #12
  13. "Les Johnstone" <> wrote in message
    news:3f2da9a3$0$965$...
    ....
    >
    > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
    > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

    accept
    > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give

    a
    > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
    > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
    > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
    > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
    > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
    > of a big digital print.
    >



    It would be very hard to find a consumer grade digital camera today that
    could compare to the abilities of a good 35 mm with TechPan let alone a
    large format camera. However, as time goes on, that may change.

    What will not change (IMO) is some of the fine points of traditional
    photography and digital. Keep in mind however that these are differences,
    not differences in quality. Just as apples are different from oranges.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 4, 2003
    #13
  14. Les Johnstone

    Patrick L. Guest

    Who has to miss anything? I'm not throwing away my film cameras just
    because I own a digital, as well.


    Patrick
    Patrick L., Aug 4, 2003
    #14
  15. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Gavin Cato writes:

    > I've used both a fair bit - you'd be surprised!


    No, I wouldn't. I've done that, too. You don't get Velvia with any
    amount of fiddling with a normal image.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 4, 2003
    #15
  16. Les Johnstone

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Disagree.

    > No, I wouldn't. I've done that, too. You don't get Velvia with any
    > amount of fiddling with a normal image.
    >
    Gavin Cato, Aug 4, 2003
    #16
  17. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Patrick L. writes:

    > I'm not throwing away my film cameras just
    > because I own a digital, as well.


    Traitor!

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 4, 2003
    #17
  18. (Godfrey DiGiorgi) writes:

    > Miss anything? No. I still shoot film when I want the imaging qualities
    > of film. That's very rare for 35mm and APS, a bit more common for Minox
    > submini or 6x6, when compared with digital. I just waste a lot less
    > time developing and scanning film, that's all.


    Yep, I'm not planning on giving up my Yashicamat or OM-4 any time soon.
    Digital is another capability, not a way of life. It makes no sense to
    throw out a perfectly good film camera just because you don't use it as
    much any more.

    I don't miss the developing expense at all.

    --
    http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 4, 2003
    #18
  19. Les Johnstone

    zuuum Guest

    I still use film, along with digicam.. but when shooting digi I miss.....

    Shadow detail in low-light situations
    instant shutter release in action shots
    ability to use my existing decent flash equipt
    resolution and detail for enlarged crops
    and, lastly, even when the digi shot is as fine an exposure, sometimes I
    miss....
    the "analog look" - I often scan film and print the digi file just for the
    difference
    zuuum, Aug 4, 2003
    #19
  20. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Larry Caldwell writes:

    > I think it is more that the 8 bit tonal gradation
    > of digital black and white just can't match film.
    > The contrast runs from 0 to 255, and that
    > is all you get. Digital B&W just doesn't have
    > the range of film. It is pretty easy for the eye
    > to tell the difference.


    For 8-bit data, this is true (although keep in mind that film scans are
    limited in the same way).

    > I don't think there is any technical barrier to developing an art grade
    > 16 bit B&W CCD, but I'm not holding my breath.


    Agreed. In fact, a pure B&W CCD would do a superb job of capturing very
    clean, pure black and white images. However, it would have to be
    dedicated to that purpose--no matrix filter or dichroic prisms or
    anything. You cannot get good B&W from an RGB image; it has to be black
    and white right from the capture forward. This is true for both film
    and electronic imaging.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 4, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. My Phuong Tang

    I MISS YOU

    My Phuong Tang, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,519
    Juan PĂ©rez
    Oct 22, 2003
  2. cw

    Attention YOU cant afford to miss THIS!

    cw, Apr 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    400
  3. dwacon.

    Where is Miss Manners when you need her?

    dwacon., Aug 18, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    436
    mhicaoidh
    Aug 19, 2005
  4. mark.worthington

    Can digicams do anything better than film SLR's??

    mark.worthington, Apr 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    665
    George
    Apr 18, 2004
  5. vidrare

    Thelma Todd, do we miss you!

    vidrare, Apr 19, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    414
    vidrare
    Apr 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page