Do you miss anything about film?

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

  1. Les Johnstone

    Gavin Cato Guest

    I only use it for landscapes etc, I like the "disney" saturation of colours
    for that sort of stuff.
    Gavin Cato, Aug 4, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Thanks all for the comments, I'll take on board and explore the options. I
    checked out the site and think I'll try some ofthese

    Some people mentioed using film when needed, but i guess som people like me
    will have to sell theirfilmcameras to fund the DSLR, still i guess i could
    pick up a cheap 35m SLR on Ebay.

    Finally the best advice from Godefrey - along the lines of "its the picturs
    that matter". I agree, this techie stuf is just finding the besttool for
    each job

    Les Johnstone, Aug 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Les Johnstone

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Try a Kodak DCS 760M, which has a 6 megapixel monochrome CCD
    (otherwise same camera as 760). I think it's 12 bits though. I doubt
    anyone can distinguish more than 4096 different shades on a silver
    print anyway.
    Paul Rubin, Aug 5, 2003
  4. It's not the 8 bits that are the limitation (even the fussiest of B&W
    printers use less than 4 bits, i.e. ten zones), but the tonal range, i.e.
    the latitude. Silver-based, and even C-41, B&W films hold a lot more shadow
    and highlight detail than current digital.
    I've seen a small amount of lovely and powerful B&W done with digital. One
    doesn't get the tonal range that the great B&W photographers of the mid-20th
    century did, but there's a lot of powerful art that can be done within the
    latitude limitations imposed by digital. (Another problem with digital is
    that you lose 75% of your pixels if you put a red filter in front of your
    Again, the latitude constraint is a limitation. But all it really means that
    you have to think a bit harder, and look a bit harder to find appropriate

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 5, 2003
  5. Les Johnstone

    JK Guest

    When shooting digital I miss:

    running out of film
    paying for film
    paying for processing
    having my favorite negatives or slides scratched by the lab
    (why do they always seem to scratch the best images? :-( )
    having 100 film in the camera when I needed to use 400 film
    (for a while I carried around 2 slr bodies, one with 100 film the other
    with 400 film)

    accidentally setting the camera at 400 ISO when using 100 ISO film
    (or visa versa)
    accidentally opening the camera in mid roll and losing images
    (okay, that was quite rare. I haven't lost any important digital images yet)

    The loud noise of my film slr when taking a photo. Often I could get at most
    one candid photo.(my digital camera is so quiet. (are digital slrs quiet?)
    JK, Aug 5, 2003
  6. Les Johnstone

    Don Coon Guest

    They DO have to move the mirror out of the way -- so they're not as quiet as
    a non-SLR digicam but there's no motor drive to advance the "film."
    Don Coon, Aug 5, 2003
  7. Les Johnstone

    jeff liss Guest

    I miss having to buy film...lots for a trip and paying $5.00+ per
    roll. I miss having only 24 or 36 shots then having to reload. I miss
    not being able to preview my pictures before I process the film. I
    miss storing my unused film in a dark, cool place. I miss the expense
    of processing and printing all my shots. I miss having scads of
    negatives to care for and store. I miss scratched negs and the
    heartbreak of seeing a scratch show up in a print. I miss the limits
    of not being able to switch films without having to rewind midway
    through a roll. I miss being stuck with one ISO until the film is
    shot. I miss the limits of 35mm film and the size of the quality print
    it will yield.

    Now that I think about it, I guess I don't miss film as much as I
    first thought. :)
    jeff liss, Aug 5, 2003
  8. Les Johnstone

    JK Guest

    One would think that they could come up with better technology than the
    old method of moving a mirror out of the way?
    JK, Aug 5, 2003
  9. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    There's nothing "old" about the mirror. SLRs, by definition, include a
    viewfinder that looks directly through the "taking lens." The easiest
    way to provide this is with a moving mirror. Replacing film with an
    electronic sensor at the focal plane changes absolutely nothing in this
    respect, and a mirror is no more obsolete than a lens.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 5, 2003
  10. Les Johnstone

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Oh, that's disappointing.
    Try a more specialized place like asking on
    Retail of the 760M was something like $10K.
    Paul Rubin, Aug 5, 2003
  11. Les Johnstone

    Rafe B. Guest

    Canon did it with a pellicle mirror in one of their SLRs
    years ago. But of course that has its own problems.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Aug 5, 2003
  12. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    You can move the film/sensor out of the way and view the image on-axis,
    but that is even less practical (view cameras do it, however).

    You can use a partially silvered mirror, but you lose a lot of light
    since part of the light entering the camera is always going up to the
    viewfinder, even during the taking of a picture. This makes both the
    viewfinder and the focal plane darker, so you need faster lenses and so
    A prism would have to move, too, and it would be dramatically heavier
    than a mirror. Getting it out of the way in a few milliseconds would be
    quite an exploit.
    They sure don't use a moving prism.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 5, 2003
  13. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Color digital can't match the performance of 35mm film, and yet that
    doesn't prevent color digital from selling like hotcakes.

    I suspect that there just isn't much of a market for B&W, and the market
    that exists prefers film. The advantage of digital is speed, and I
    doubt that most B&W photographers are doing things that require speed.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 5, 2003
  14. Les Johnstone

    Rafe B. Guest

    Do you suppose that repeating this at least once per day
    makes it more true?

    Can you explain why pro photographers are ditching their
    Nikon film bodies and Hasselblads in droves?

    I've had my 10D for about ten days now, and it's looking
    to me like my FE and 8008 will be idle from here on out.

    13x19 prints from the 10D are as sharp as anything I could
    get from scanned film on my LS-8000.

    The only thing I miss about film is the latitude -- the 10D
    doesn't come close to Reala or Supra on that score.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Aug 5, 2003
  15. Les Johnstone

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I don't know. Why do you ask?
    Some of them prefer speed and convenience to image quality. Most
    applications don't require film quality.

    However, they are not ditching film gear in droves. Some categories of
    photographers are; some aren't.
    I'm happy for you.
    If you say so.
    Mxsmanic, Aug 5, 2003
  16. Les Johnstone

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Don't forget the wideangles.
    Paul Rubin, Aug 5, 2003
  17. Les Johnstone

    JK Guest

    Mostly 35mm equipment is being ditched. Medium format
    film cameras are still popular. I wonder when we will see
    medium format digital cameras that are affordable?
    The immediate feedback of digital is imo the main reason. The second
    reason is avoiding lab costs, and being able to shoot many more images
    at a low cost.
    You might go back to them soon, when you want the best image quality.
    After some people get a high quality film scanner, they decide that
    their scanned film looks so much nicer than digital that they want to
    use film for their most important image making. It may even drive some
    who have only used 35mm film to pursue medium format.
    JK, Aug 5, 2003
  18. It may come as a shock, but being a professional photographer is not
    about making great photos, it is about making a living at photography.
    There is a lot of financial overhead associated with film. If most pros
    had all the money they had spent on processing in one lump sum, they
    would be rich guys instead of half broke and late on their bills.

    For anything digital will do, they will use digital. 35mm never was
    great at image quality anyway, but after a while it got good enough for
    the slicks. I don't see pros ditching their Hasselblad or monorail any
    time soon, though.
    Larry Caldwell, Aug 5, 2003
  19. Les Johnstone

    MJ Guest

    I'll miss the film containers. Useful for storing all sorts of odds
    and ends. Eventually my stock will run dry then I might have to buy
    some more film and give it away.

    MJ, Aug 5, 2003
  20. Les Johnstone

    Rafe B. Guest

    Except you got it backwards. I already have a high
    quality film scanner, one of the best. It's not my first
    film scanner either; it's my fourth.

    I've scanned many hundreds of negatives and slides
    in the last five years, and I believe I know how to make
    a good scan. In that same period, I've sold many
    hundreds of prints derived from those scans.

    From what I've seen so far, scanned 35 mm isn't
    sufficiently better than a 10D capture to be worth the
    bother. In fact, I'd not even accept that the film scan
    is better, in the general case.

    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Aug 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.