 Dr. Robert J. Miller, D.D. |
Is SLR Film Photography History I am interested in becoming a photographer and am at a loss as to what way to go. My finances say 35mm film camera however everything seem to be digital these days. Will my buying a slr camera be worth the money spent? Doc
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I'm no pro, but I say yes, it's worth it for several reasons. 1. It MUCH cheaper to get a fantastic used or even new film SLR for half or what an entry level DSLR would cost 2. Most, if not all photography schools use manual 35mm slr's to teach photography. Learning the basics of shutter speed, aperture, and other principles is much easier in a film slr than a digital one. 3. Image quality. Even though digital gives great quality and getting better all the time, the only camera tested so far that rivals film is the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark 2. That camera costs 8,000 dollars for a body alone.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Cammarata |
The technology of digital photography and how it's compared is based on film. Film is indeed cheaper...(in the long run) but probably will not outlast the public's desire for modern, easier, faster methods in producing their imagery. The choice is yours. (p.s...You can shoot and process a whole lot of film for $8000.)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
maybe he's thinking about 110 film
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Not history yet... but knocking on the door. Film will be history when dSLRs cost as little as film SLRs and do as good of a job. Right now, dSLRs are as good as film SLRs if you're not printing over 8x10. Once 16 to 20 MP (Bayer) gets to be the 'standard' then there will be little reason to buy a film dSLR... so give it five years. If I were buying a camera today to learn how to be a better photographer with, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd go digital. You get instant feedback, unlimited film supply, and the ability to develop, retouch, adjust, and print your images on your home computer. All of these things mean that digital is the better learning tool.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brendan Knell |
Actually in the long run, digital would be cheaper. You don't have to pay 5-10$(or more) for film, then 5-10$ to get them developed, for every 24(I think) photos you take. That's roughly .58$ for every photo you take. Another reason to go digital, is you wont be scared to try new things, because you don't want to pay for something that looks horrible. Steve,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I am with Brendan on this one. Digital is the best to learn from. Instant feedback is AWESOME when you are trying to figure out the ropes. All the same tools on a film camera can be found on a digital camera. You save loads of money by not having to deal with film. (Developing,buying,storing etc) And then you save even more by not having to scan your photos to manipulate them in a digital editing format. (Film users have to pay to get the film, pay to get it developed, pay to get it scanned, pay for prints) Thats a lot of paying to do. By the way you can enlarge a digital file (6-10) larger than an 8X10 and get great results.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brendan Knell |
Yes, you can get great quality from digital cameras. I was told that in TIFF my 8MP Sony F828 can print up to 5ftx6ft.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
DSLR, quality lenses, memory cards, batteries, chargers, a computer that will handle photoshop, photoshop itself, a printer, paper, ink. memory for you computer b/c you ran CS on your comp fine then you upgraded to CS2 and finally saw the flaws in your computer. upgrading to the new standard when CD-R goes bye-bye, then upgrading again when DVD-r goes byebye and the drives for reading these formats and when they go byebye. digital is expensive to. starting out, film is cheaper. long run, digital is cheaper, maybe. we haven't experienced any major changes in archiving formats, but the days are coming. if you think about it, 650MB isn't that much of space on a CD. Some basics (all figures give or take): Film SLR: $300. DSLR: $1400 Averaging: $4550 starting from scratch. Now I know these aren't exact but it's a rough idea saying that getting into digital from scratch is obviously more expensive than film. Film prices ARE going to be going up. There's not a single place in town to develop slides. So as of right now film's cheaper to get started but digital will come down. And there's times when I get p***ed b/c I have film because the turnaround time would be awesome. But for high resolution art pics, still can't beat film. Steve is right on the money, the 1Ds is just now slightly surpassed Fuji Velvia 50.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Justin, I can see you put a lot of thought into that response but I don't think the figures are completely accurate when you are trying to compare digital Digital: Used 10D Body with basic lens: $700 Total cost: $1165.00
Camera with basic lens: $400 2000 pictures: Total cost: You need to look at this like gas. If you buy a really cheap massive suburban that guzzels gas at $3.00 a gallon, verses a slightly more expensive car that gets awesome gas milage. That 'cheap car' is not going to save you money in the long run.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Melissa you're too funny! You picked a used digital against a new film camera. We could do a new 5D at $3300 and compare it to a used film for about $150. So there's a $2800 difference! My figs were for a new Elan with a 28-135 and a new 20D with a 24-105L. I picked L for the digital because digital really shows the flaws of lenses as to where 35mm film doesn't that much unless you're at 11x14 or larger. I picked the Elan and 20D because the are very common cameras in their ranges. I could've picked the EOS 1v at $3500 and the A510 for $150. That's why I said nothing was absolute, I just picked common cameras. Ok you don't NEED a computer or printer but it's nice if you shoot digital. If we want to get technical, you don't even need to develop you're film. Find a local darkroom for $5/hour with free chemicals and develop 4-5 rolls in an hour. Who says you need every print if you shoot film, you don't so you're not wasting money on pics you don't want, everyone gets this impression. Just buy a loupe. Look at them before printing them. The LCD on a digital is just like a loupe. It's too look at the pics before you do anything with them. Dr. Robert M.,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
How to go about listing $400 for a lens when it's film, then jump to $1200 when it's digital?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Not to mention battery and charger, and photoshop, comes with the camera. I'll give you buying a printer. May have one that can print paper, but not photos. But if you buy a printer, it comes with ink. Price of a card that can hold the same number of images as a roll of film, which is close to 36 raw images, isn't $100. Computer is something that's already in possession. Looks like a used film to new digital body comparison. And there are new models below $1000. There's also lower than $400 printers. Paper price is about right, but cd price looks high. Your honor, move to strike all previous testimony on the basis of being totally unfounded and presitdigital.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jay A. Grantham |
which film is $5 per roll? I must be using the really bad stuff!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Hey, you can become a pro for $10, so it's possible.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
50 pack of CD's from bestbuy around $20. yeah you're printer comes with ink yeah duh, but is it infinite? my printer Canon iP5000, was like $400 when I bought it, including tax and shipping though. hmm what else are you getting me on? (lol I don't even shoot digital) who says you have a computer just cuz you want to shoot digital? I bought a computer because of my camera. yeah there are new models that are lower than $1000 but quality isn't all that great. not saying it's bad but its not the best. that would be like me taking my $5.99/roll portra to wal-mart or costco. anyways jay my portra is running at 5.99 and velvia is running about the same. granted sometimes I have to buy from the ONLY camera store in town who thinks its cool to raise prices just b/c there's no where else to buy stuff, but hey. anyways I do save money when I buy 100ft. anyways i'm not trying to bash digital b/c I wish I was shooting it, i'm just trying to make a simple point that it's not cheap to get into. and neither is film, but everyone says digital is cheaper just because you don't have to pay for developing. actually film is cheaper for me. I pay 3 something a roll for fuji acros 100 and up to 16x20 prints unlimited for free. yeah I got lucky but there's opportunities for everythign, everywhere you go. just for the record, do you think if I COULD afford it that i'd be voluntarily shooting 35mm film? heck no. but then again the sacrifices you make for this stupid country *sigh*.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Let's see: dSLR w/2 kit lenses - $1000 (6 to 8 MP) That's realistic and reasonable for a beginner, and for most of us it isn't a lot of money. The difference with digital is that, once you've bought the equipment, you can shoot forever without spending a lot of money (just CDs to archive your images on). With film, every shoot requires at least one roll's worth of developing at $7 a pop, plus the turnaround time and the hassle of driving to the processor (add another $3 for gas) plus the film ($2). If you shoot a roll a week, you'll pay for your digital gear in a little over a year just on the savings on film and processing. Buy used digital gear and you'll save even more. Now, which is the better deal?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dr. Robert J. Miller, D.D. |
Greetings all, Doc here, I thank all of you for your insight into the question I recently posted. I see I still have considrable research to do before I actually purchase my equipment. I also see that this will probably be the most important photographer's site for me to visit daily, wow what minds you all have when it comes to photography. I am looking forward to asking lost of elementary questions since I am a complete novice. The last camera I purchase was in the late 70's! Once again thank you all for sharing your wisdom and knowledge. Peace Always, Doc
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
I don't know where you got those figures lol but most places to develop is only around $2. my pro lab only charges $2. hmm $3 for gas at 25 mpg that's 75 miles. only few who don't have the luxury of city living have to drive 37.5 miles one way for their lab. and no you can't shoot forever. digital things die and the get outdated. film does too but not to the extreme that digital does. the only thing with digital is you pay for quality. you pay cheap you get cheap, you pay big you get big. film you can buy an ae-1 and an eos 1v and get the same pic if you use the same film and lens. I mean there's pros and cons to both sides. i'm not jumping down the throats of digital. and ps. 1300 dollars is a hellofalot of money. if I had that kind of money laying around i'd be in heaven. but no, for the most of us, that is a lot of money.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Wow! A great digital vs. film debate! Although I love digital, film is where my heart is. (I have yet to see a digital shot that can compare to TMax, but I digress) My problem is, even if I dont "Go digital", my favorite camera brand is. I just found out at the Photo Expo in NYC that Minolta has stopped making the 7 and 9 model Maxxums. On top of tha, one of my favorite films, Ilford SFX 200 is going from full production to a once yearly annual release. All this debate may be moot if in the near future we cant even buy a film camera. Minolta has abandoned the pro film market, and many predict the others may follow.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
You're right Steve. I believe Kodak is stopping film. Agfa is declaring bankruptcy. lol. Maybe in all this digital hype, these manufacturers can put an "open-mindedness" course in the tech manual! I love film and I got no problem with digital but why are people so against film. I mean it's almost as if they are threatened. oh well. and the looove how their pic looks on a computer screen. whoopti doo, 500x750 at 72dpi. of course it's going to look great. that's like me getting an awesome 2x3cm pic from slow film. T-Max is great film. In our photo store they have a 20x30 printed from Velvia, holy cow can't beat it. It takes an $8000 camera BODY just to compare to it (as previously mentioned). oh well I think i'm done on this thread with all of the closed-mindedness. that is unless someone else really ticks me off. p.s. i'm not wrong b/c I shoot film so get off my back. soon it will be www.betterdigitalphoto.com, lol but i'll still smell like dektol. shoot half the people in this thread won't even get that.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
You are too funny Justin, LOL LOL. You will just be left with the people that are still using 8-tracks. But, maybe you won't know what that was either? LOL Take care Justin!! :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jay A. Grantham |
Yeah Justin, half the people in this thread won't get that.. but if it were 15 years earlier that would probably stand true.. what is funny to me is the 8-track comment.. wonder how many are wondering about that!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
lol good stuff. I don't think i'm up to the technology of 8 tracks yet. I have some 45's! for you NRA folks gun control IS using both hands. for you oldies they have the best music ever created on them! anyways I hope to have a 20D soon (maybe even a 5D) but my wife and I don't believe in going in debt so I have to save up for it, and trust me e-3's aren't exactly bankin' it. lol but i'm also looking at a 67 format and getting rid of my 35mm so I don't hate digital it just IS pricey to get started (or i'd already be there!)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
lol the other day I was sepia toning and I accidentally got it on my shirt a little and it stunk so bad my wife wanted to hit me when I came in the door! lol. one of my fellow "guild-mates" so called, told me the quickest way to sepia tone is to use a mouse. I tried that but the little thing just didn't want to get wet for nothing, until I put some cheese in the chemicals! he was dead instantly. just playing!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
LOL Poor little mousy!! :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I have stayed out of this debate until now (hard to believe, ain't it?). Doc, I say the answer to your question is NO. Most of the reasons posted in favor of either film or digital have revolved around which is cheaper, in the short or long run. Heck, I could have bought a 20D for a LOT less than I have in my Pentax 645N. I bought the film camera for reasons other than price. When digital can match MF in quality of print, dynamic range and latitude (without mortgaging my house), I will consider the change. For now, I will stay with film. BTW, yes, Dektol stinks. So do D-76 and fixer but you can't beat them with any digital for B&W.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I was wondering when you would pop your nose into this conversation Kerry!! :) My response to you ---- THHHHHHUUBBBBBB LOL LOL LOL
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Let me see, the ink isn't infinite. Well exactly how many exposures are up that infinite 'one' roll of film? Bought a computer just because of your camera? Well many people already had the computer. Kinda like there was already a $50,000 Moristsu machine somebody had to print your pictures. Good thing they usually have a film developing machine to go with it. Whether it's on a record or not, what you can afford is what you can afford. The closed mindedness is the cut&dry discussions of one over the other. As well as slanted examples. Which usually comes from the film side as in being taken in by hype. When it's usually the ones who use digital as a choice that fits. So open your mind and make a choice, if you actually have to make one, on what you want to do, end up doing, and everything else. It may take an $8000 camera to make a 20x30, then again it may not. Because I've read just as many stories of mural sized prints from digital that had the same doubters thinking it was film. So who's to say you've had a 'good' digital poster as your comparison. Make your choices on what you want to do. Basing on just cost is too narrow.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Dr. Robert J. Miller, D.D. |
Make your choices on what you want to do. Basing on just cost is too narrow. Thank you G. LaGrange I will do just that.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Great points G. Lagrange! I had to laugh when I read this statement from above. By Steve W. 2. Most, if not all photography schools use manual 35mm slr's to teach photography. Learning the basics of shutter speed, aperture, and other principles is much easier in a film slr than a digital one. LOL LOL LOL: WHERE is this guy comming from!!???!!!??? Ha!!! :) So, logging in a book what you just did and analizing your prints days latter is easier than seeing what you just did on an LCD immediately and making proper adjustments????? Tooo Funnny!!! :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Uyen |
"Make your choices on what you want to do. Basing on just cost is too narrow." I like this bit of advice best, Gregory. I'm putting in my order for a Hasselblad H2D immediately. :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Uyen |
Hey Justin, I don't think anyone's arguing with you just because you use film. I think they're just disagreeing with your assesment on the cost of digital. You said, "My figs were for a new Elan with a 28-135 and a new 20D with a 24-105L. I picked L for the digital because digital really shows the flaws of lenses as to where 35mm film doesn't that much unless you're at 11x14 or larger." A novice can get a new canon 350D with a 1gb card for $795 right now from B&H. Or you can get a nikon D50 body with a 1GB card for $675. They come with software and batteries. Plus, many digital shooters like me don't even own a photo printer. I send my best images to a lab for prints. So I guess the difference between me and someone who shoots film and gets prints from a lab would be the price of film. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say you need better lenses because digital shows the flaws of lenses more? If 35mm film has more resolution than the standard consumer digital cameras (6-8mp) then these digital formats wouln't show off the quality of a really killer lens as much as a 35mm film camera, right? If anything, I'd think digital would be more forgiving of lenses with poor edge resolution, because most digital sensors aren't full frame. Honestly, I have nothing against your using film or anyone choosing to work with film instead of digital because they like it better. Some day, I'd love to give a film SLR a try and learn how to develop my own prints just for the experience, myself. Just saying I disagree with some of your estimates is all. Happy shooting!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"Is SLR Film Photography History" I have always loved history - guess because I have lived so much of it! LOL BTW, is there a new format that has replaced 8 track? I really need to check into that.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jay A. Grantham |
Yepper.. cassette tapes.. they are sweet.. you can even rewind them.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
You could check out those things called CD's or DVD's Kerry. But then again you might have to invest in a computer....DARN! :) LOL LOL
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Hey, I've got a computer. Apple IIE with two floppy drives & 127 K RAM (use to be 128 K RAM but, like me, it's memory is fading.)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Melissa, What's so funny about learning to develop film? But keep laughing. I develop my own REAL BW negatives and then scan and print, so I get resolution as good as or better than any digital camera (at least those that cost less than a used car) AND I can do all the scanning, photoshop, emailing and other electronic fuddy-duddy you megapixel types seem to enjoy. Ok, so I dont get "instant" feedback, but from exposure to scanning can be less than 2 hours, and what I get in return are real negatives, better image quality, and REAL black and white. On top of that, I get the same benefits you digital people have since once I scan my self-developed negs, I can get a file larger than even the 1DS mark 2. So yes, there are advantages digital has over film, but film has it's advantages too. Since I'm not rich, and enjoy the highest quality images possible, film is the better choice for me. Oh, and I'm coming from NYC, where there are TONS of photo schools that use film for their student beginner classes.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
funny how it gets to "you digital people" and "you film people".
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
But to add, learning by doing your own film is very good because doing the printing teaches a lot about exposing properly. Before the ability to already see when meters are fooled sinks in, nobody starting out is going to get much about exposure differences do to printing, just from looking when they first unroll their negs from the reel. Darker or lighter negs aren't going to appear different at first. But once they get to printing, they'll get to wonder why two negs taken a few minutes apart need different amounts of exposure from the enlarger to make a print. It's a unique thing to go thru when one print comes out on one try, but the next picture taken in the same light but a different subject, comes out too light with the same 10secs under the enlarger. Having to do a 2nd try, and finding out why, is a good teaching pathway. And even with film's wide lattitude, a new student will quickly learn that despite what leeway you have, it's always better, and easier to get it as close to right the first time, as you can. Slight over exp with the same contrast filter making whites not quite right, etc... And that's regardless of which step you're own. Picture taking, film developin, print making. It's always going to be a good way to learn. Just not the only way.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Will Turner |
A novice can get a new canon 350D with a 1gb card for $795 right now from B&H. Or you can get a nikon D50 body with a 1GB card for $675. Of course, if you're buying entry-level digital, be sure to get two bodies when the first one breaks and takes two-three months for warranty repair/return. I see photo.net and other forums are experiencing an avalanche of complaints about malfunctioning entry level DSLRS.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I have owned a lot of digitals and not once has one broken down. I had a film and it broke, had to replace the shutter.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Never broke a digit. Broke an ankle once. I would say the same thing would apply to all entry level cameras, film or digital. They are made as inexpensively as possible for limited use - not professional use. Sometimes you are lucky. Sometimes you ain't.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Elisabeth A. Gay |
Melissa was saying that you can enlarge photos much bigger than 8x10 with a DSLR of 6mp or more, and I would just like to say that I have done this and sold photos 28x21 inches taken with my Fuji S7000, and also have a picture for sale right now that is 60x40 inches taken with the Canon Digital Rebel 300D. Mind you, one of these days I want to get a film SLR, just for the hell of it!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
- Darren J. Gilcher Contact Darren J. Gilcher Darren J. Gilcher's Gallery |
Elisabeth, How sharp is the 40x60? I have an 8mp and once I figure out what I'm doing would like to do some large photos but never expected 40x60. What's your secret?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Uyen |
Will, like Melissa, my entry level dSLR had no problems and I have had it for two years. If you look at the forums, of course you will see an avalanche of complaints. You see many complaints about "bad copies" of very good and reputable lenses too. No product is without its share of problems. That's no reason to avoid purchasing anything that anyone has ever had a problem with.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I go into B&H and check out teh DSLRs. most seem pretty solid, including the Maxxum 7D I plan to get, But I still would never give up film
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Will Turner |
A modern DSLR is like a TV set, crammed with fragile electronics and microcircuits, and very, very sensitive to impacts and moisture. That's just a fact. When you add pricepoint materials and construction to the mix (and that includes iffy AF lens construction), you get a very fragile camera. Ever taken apart a camera, film or digital? Most people take construction issues for granted, just like it was a car seatbelt. But they should. If they did take apart a modern camera (or a seatbelt for that matter) they would be amazed and shocked at the quality of parts, or lack thereof. People who report trouble-free DSLRS have a statistical base of 'one'. I'm not talking about personal anecdotes, I'm talking about an unprecedented avalanche of complaints never before seen in the camera world, even surpassing the bad old days of compact 35mm point & shoots. Camera shops are reporting constant geometric jumps in camera returns. Factory repair centers are being inundated with cheap entry level SLRs and digicams, so much so that the companines are having to greatly expand and relocate new centers. Parts are a big problem, sometimes people are waiting for sensors and parts to come from Japan or distant inventory centers. Web Forums are reporting MANY more problem cameras. On photo.net you can visit the Canon EOS forum and see a malfunctioning digital Rebel post every 50 entries or so. That's unprecendented. Even lenses are affected, with vastly expanded demand, especially for the now-mandatory zoom lens, production problems such as bubbles in glass, lens aberrations etc. have unfortunately become relatively commonplace. It's true that in the last 10 years or so that entry-level 35mm AF SLRs have also become more trouble-prone. Use cheap electronics and plastic gearing, you're bound to have problems. But since high quality 35mm MF and AF cameras with quality construction (metal gears, bearings instead of bushings, high-quality electronic parts) are now available inepensively used, there's no need to saddle yourself with a poor 35mm camera. For those unaware of what film users are used to in terms of reliability, there are cameras such as the Nikon FM3a, F3, F4, Canon F1N, Contax 139q, etc. that report no servicing downtime in 15, 20, sometimes 25 years. Now THAT's reliability. I've said this time and again, but I'll have to say it again - there's no free lunch, people. Get a state-of-the art DSLR with lots of MP, features, big display, etc. and a great low price - and there has to be a catch. These days the catch is the quality of build inside. Sure, if you're lucky, nothing will happen, if you're not, you'll join the long list of plaintive photographers waiting for a sensor or display or circuit board to arrive so you can begin shooting again. One reason 35mm film SLR cameras are not history is because DSLRs will not reach the standard of better film camera reliability until the vast majority of DSLRs are reaching the 15 20 or 25 year of operating longevity. So far, we are no where near that milestone.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Uyen |
Will, Yes, it's true. Your TV set, your computer, and your dSLR are electronic, and that makes them more delicate. Funny though, I don't see this as a reason not to own these devices. Especially if you feel the convenience overrides the minor risk that your computer, TV, or dSLR might die on you. If you prefer film and it is your ideal format, fine. But the vast majority of dSLR owners enjoy their dSLRs in spite of their fragility. You might as well tell us to stay away from computers, because they are so prone to fail. I've had 3 computers die on me, but there's a snowball's chance in a fiery place that I'd give up computing. Also, I would not be so quick to dismiss the conveniences and advantages of a dSLR, even an entry level one. Perhaps digital offers no advantage for you, but other people have good reasons to own them. My entry level dSLR helped to ease my entry into my first stock agency. The major agencies are digital now. Since the end format needs to be digital, there is a quality loss one needs to worry about with scanning. I appreciate the fact that I'm not just saving money on film, but also on the cost of high-quality scans or a scanner. Your needs and means may be different, but for what I and many others want and need, we will accept the small risk that we might have to send our cameras back for servicing.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Will Turner |
"But the vast majority of dSLR owners enjoy their dSLRs in spite of their fragility." That's a different argument. Before your post, the implication in the responses to my first post was the perception that DSLRs, even entry-level cameras, were equally as reliable as older 35mm film SLRs. Now that that point has been implicity acknowledged to be false, my point is made. I never intended my arguments to convince people never to buy DSLRs, only to point out one reason why film cameras are not 'history' yet. There is a DEFINITE gap in comparing service life and repair downtime which some, but by no means all people will find significant. At some point I may well purchase a DSLR myself. But it will be built a heck of a lot better than current efforts, I assure you. "Your TV set, your computer, and your dSLR are electronic, and that makes them more delicate. Funny though, I don't see this as a reason not to own these devices" The difference is, of course, that you don't generally take your home computer or TV set unprotected into real-life outdoor environments with rain, cold, impacts, etc. You also don't expect them to last 20 years or more without being replaced or repaired. Whether a risk of breakage is 'small' or not is in the eye of the beholder. But those of us who use a competitive older technology (film) are accustomed to tough and reliable outdoor devices with long trouble-free service lives, and the 'new normal' that is increasingly evident doesn't impress us in the least. As to the other arguments, they're kind of scattershot. Film can of course be scanned with equal or better results to digital SLR imaging, depending on what you're comparing, and scanners are decreasing in price - the difference is the scanner stays indoors. So the fact that may agencies now require digital submissions is inconsequential. I've yet to encounter one person who had a digitized film scan rejected for 'quality loss' concerns, though many for the usual reasons of lighting, composition or lack of demand for the subject. And did you know, other photo customers such as some magazine publications still require film, so it film still isn't 'history'. Not all of us require the purchase of a scanner to stay competitive, of course, you can purchase a pro scan almost anywhere, sell prints, sell transparencies, and the advantage of affordable used film SLR bodies means more money to spend on such things as drum scanners, more lenses, etc. And with a jump in format, using very affordable used MF cameras, the quality improvement is very noticeable. I think these discussions are very useful because in the end, most people who examine the facts presented will I think become more accepting of dual-use of film and digital imaging technologies as necessary - sort of, 'whatever works'. They will have a genuine ability to appraise the limitations of both types of cameras. That is all I can expect, and it's enough for me.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Uyen |
I do not believe anyone here ever asserted that entry-level dSLRs are as rugged as older film SLRs. My point was to clarify that they are not as delicate as you make them out to be. From your first post, "Of course, if you're buying entry-level digital, be sure to get two bodies when the first one breaks and takes two-three months for warranty repair/return." I felt this was overstatement, and was concerned it might mislead people. "Film can of course be scanned with equal or better results to digital SLR imaging." I'm not convinced of this statement, can you point me to evidence? My "scattershot" arguments are based on image comparisons of good 35mm film scans vs. native digital files I've seen on sites like the luminous-landscape. I've seen some very enlightening comparisons of various dSLR images vs. 35mm drum scans, and even MF scans. But hey, maybe that guy's test wasn't a good one, so show me another. I'm also basing my assesment on advice from stock photographers I know who have switched to digital format from film, and their opinions on how much easier it has made their workflow. I'm willing to look at other tests and consider the evidence if you offer it. I'm always interested in seeing these comparisons. Just to clarify, I have never been dismissive about film in any of my comments here or called it "history." I have only offered my reasons for using digital myself for what I currently do. There are photographers I respect who use film and those who use digital. I'm sure both camps have different needs and preferences, and good reasons for preferring the format they use. I would never be dismissive of anyone based on the type of camera they use. Photography isn't supposed to be about gear in the end anyway.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
people say they don't make cars like they used to. How old is your ride?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I've put my trusty K1000 and AE-1 through stuff that would have eaten an *ist D or D Rebel for lunch.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
My kids have stepped and dropped my digital camera! It still is beating.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Yes, the more you drop a camera, the better your pictures look.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
I think you might be onto something Gregory!! LOL LOL!! :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Joseph Cisneros |
Wow, the war goes on. I see logic sides of this argument, but if we are talking about learning photography, why can't you learn both? I happen to be taking my first film photography class right now. I spent $100.00 to get a EOS Rebel XS in fine condition with a 28-80 lens. I spent another 70 bucks on e-bay and bought a 200mm Canon telephoto. It isn't really about the expense. I also shoot digital and actually prefer it. My first couple of times in the darkroom, I kept asking myself "Why why why. Why do I have to go through all of this to get a picture?" It is frustrating to not have the immediate feedback of my Olympus digital. Then again, it may make me a better photographer to understand manual controls and be able to use them with confidence. I want to be able to obtain great results without the crutch of PS. I don't know if I will always shoot film, there are costs associated with developing, but in the long run I think it comes out about even. I do have to buy film and paper, or I do have to buy ink and paper. Whatever. My point is you can learn both somewhat inexpesively and go on from there. It doesn't have to be done with $8000.00 camera bodies or a top flight film SLR. You can learn both without breaking the bank. Then you can have the best of both worlds.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
ag, my post was too long, it didn't go though. I'm just getting my name up here so I get notifications. I may regret that when I start getting 10 every hour...I'll post my trunk...um, reduced response soon hopefully. Just to say something quickly, I believe you can learn more printing in the darkroom than being a slave to the LCD review. That's what ticks me off more than anything is when somebody snaps a shot and immediately pulls the camera away from their head to look at the review. I'd rather trust what I know is right so I have turned the review off and only check it to assure that what I show was correct, not to check if it was correct. Night...I have a 20 image B&W portfolio due tomorrow that I need to organize.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Joseph and Andrew make great points. I am not against digital at all, but do see how so may digital shooters say things like "fix your exposure in PS" or "remove that element in the'digital darkroom'". I've even seen an article in one of the major photo mags about how to blur a backround in PS. In that article there was NO mention that it can be done with opening up the lens aperture thus saving the time to do it in PS. I do it all the time without the aid of a computer. I just open up my trusty 50mm 1.7 lens and Voila! No computer, no PS, no "digital darkroom", just basic technique. Again, I am not against digital, but feel like technology is fast becoming a crutch for learning basic photography. Melissa, this is what I meant by film being easier. Maybe I should have been clearer, but when you are "forced" to learn the "old fashioned" way, you become better at both. After all, arent most of the commands in PS named after darkroom terms? How could someone not benefit from learning how they work? By the way, whoever came up with the term "Digital Darkroom" should be flogged....it's a COMPUTER! :)
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
lol,lol, Good Morning all ! Doc, Always a VERY HEATED discussion! as you now have witnessed. there are so many good and bad points on either side. I went through all this myself two years ago- digital won, only to do what "I" wanted to do. but now even today it is eaiser, film or digital if you have a computer , you don't need ps or a printer of any kind if you don't want to, just upload your images to photo reflect ( a "digital Darkroom Company" site) IT'S ALL FREE: your membership, domain name, image storage all free- you can put them into: * event folders,sceduale how long(2 weeks to forever )you want them hosted -then they fall off automaticlly.even in code secure folders. * you do ALL enhancement(including + or - f-stops)in the photoshop provided. * pick a lab- make your own packages and YOUR clients can pick what they want ,order and the lab does the work(some drop ship,so you don't have to mail) and the company sends you a check in two weeks less 15% * you can use it just for accross country viewing. all you need to do is go to the SAME developer you would with film and have images put on disk. The scales will tip very far up or down depending who your talking to- Kerry , has been very good in his answer to this and he is a hard and true Film Professional, who at times ( and only short times) softens a bit in the idea of digital. If I had to do it again I would make a list-contact a few coise members here on both sides and ask for thier opinion as to why they stay film or chose digital- then realize the money still had to come out of my pocket and NO MATTER what you deside it WILL be bitter sweet! by the way the R300 Printer is (after talking to a execu. from epson about ALL thier printers) the best they make untill you hop to the $400.00 one. I OWN 4 of them.just a note.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Hey, I only soften on digital when I want to be fair and reasonable. When I want to have some fun, I bash the heck out of it. Doc, you need to make the choice that is best for YOU. For the work I do, film is better for ME. My customers don't mind waiting for about 2 weeks for the results. Neither do I. (2 days to the lab, 3 days in lab, 2 days back, plus weekends and a few days for me to sort and put them into the proof books, etc.) If I was working for someone like a newspaper or weekly magazine, I would definitely have to have digital. If I only wanted to shoot for my own use, and wasn't so picky about the latitude (hard to get good blacks and whites in a narrow latitude), I could be happy with digital. IF I wasn't such a computer idiot I might could actually work in a "digital darkroom" (turn off the lights and work by the light of the monitor only and I guess it is a dark room). It's all really a matter of personal preference and needs. Now, if you want to have some FUN with a film vs digital debate, I will say DIGITAL IS TRASH and let's get it on!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
lol,lol,lol You can't get a good opinion with out the jokes-but always a good opinion! Good Morning my friend-I do hope it's a beautiful one on your side of the states!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Uyen |
Okay, I swear that this is my LAST post on this thread because I've got way much else to do and don't need another way to procrastinate. :\ Anyway, this is a response to Steve and Andrew, and the notion that digital encourages sloppy shooting. I think that it can be true to an extent because a lot of people who shoot digital never bother to expose differently from what the camera suggests, and just rely on the LCD to make sure it looks okay, or try to fix it in photoshop later. On the other side though, there are also a lot of people who shoot film who never learn to develop their own photos or expose properly. They just shoot happily and send their film off to the lab, and then they keep the photos that look good. So really, I think if you have something against sloppy shooting, it should really be a bias against sloppy shooters whether they be film or digital shooters. And besides, it's not just like you can magically fix anything in photoshop. If you overexpose and blow stuff out, well, that's pretty hard to fix. And if you underexpose and try to fix it, what you get is a really noisy photo with posterization problems. Sure, you can get by with slop. But if you actually care about your end product, then it's really best to get it right in the camera, even if you shoot digital. By the way, for anyone who's interested, here are some really neat articles on why the ideal in-camera exposure for digital is actually different from the ideal exposure with film, because of the different way in which digital sensors capture information. This isn't related to the film vs. digital debate, but those of you who shoot digital or both film and digital might find it interesting if you haven't come accross it already: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf I've been trying this exposure tehcnique lately, trying to see whether it gives better results. It's something I never would have learned from reading a film-based photography book. I think what this means is that digital photographers might want to exposre differently than film photographers. But does different = bad/sloppy? I don't think so. I think it's important to try and understand your camera and your medium, no matter which one you chose. Wow, this is all really straying from the question the doc asked. I think Debby makes a good point in that no matter which you choose it will be costly. And I like Kerry's point that its really down to a matter of personal preference or needs. Choose which ever format you think you could learn to love.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
There is no war, only individual soldiers left out there who'll swear to keep on fighting until they get orders not to. Like Yosemite Sam did in that Bugs Bunny cartoon. Andrew, that lcd is a light table. But you probably didn't feel enslaved to one choosing frames for your portfolio. Warren, fixing exposure in photoshop is exactly what you do when printing times are adjusted with an enlarger, or density is adjusted by the machine. Mostly automatically by the machine. The article would not need to cover f/stop and shallow depth if it was about what you could do with photoshop, and not basic photography. Because it would be talking about something many people already know and do. I'm sure there was no mention about panning. You're not being profound or nostalgic about any of that, because it isn't something that has stopped. You complain about crutches while you have a firm grip on a hand rail. I think the dentist went on about his business a few days ago. Yosemite's still out there some where.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
sorry I neglected to put the site on: the company " Digital Darkroom" maker of very fine programs for photographers and Studio Photography Corps.,now hosts a web site for photographers: Photorefect.com
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Jay A. Grantham |
I believe Debby meant to say: Express Digital.. maker of "Darkroom" and other programs for photographers has a site... Photoreflect.com **I am not affiliated, nor do I use the products mentioned.. was just really confused when using her link and when I cross checked by "Googling" the company named mentioned.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debby A. Tabb |
**** just a note( I was reminded when I ran into trouble after I had to wipe my laptop and reload) John and I both told you that the epson R300 was a wonderful printer and IT IS! how ever- if you have one or just got one that maybe printing much ,much darker then your images- you may need to check if you have " service pack 2" on your computer-then you need to go to the epson site and download the new drivers-this is supposed to be fixed in the new CDs coming with the mashines - but who knows when. just a note
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
All I know is that, months after this one went around, I have spent under $350 dollars on eBay to COMPLETELY outfit 2- Minolta XG-M's (including 1 of the bodies) and also a Minolta SRT101. I have had enough to lend a camera setup to a friends fiance for school. Is film worth it? What about Spotted Owls? Dodo Birds? Ford Edsels? Who cares. But for as long as it here, I will be the one using nothing but.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You dug up an old thread with same old example of buying used equipment.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
I keep seeing this debate. LOL Digital will take over eventually. All of us die hard film user just have to get use to the idea. I dont own a digital that comes close to the prints I get with Bronica. (I cant afford a DSLR that comes close.) I do own a Nikon cool pix. It's o.k, but I prefer to shoot with my N70 or FG. Comparing price is a joke. (If your looking for the best quality.) I set myself up with film much cheaper than the digital. Also a cheap SLR will still yield excellent prints, while a cheap digital isnt worth buying. Keep that in my while deciding.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You didn't really make a new point. You don't get good prints if that cheap slr has a cheap lens. You can't justify the price of a Bronica when it's purpose is to be a carrier for a bigger slice of film.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
Greg, you've been on my a** all week. What gives? You gotta CMOS caught somewhere tricky? Can't ANYBODY differ in opinion without you considering your Corn Flakes peed in? Geez.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Because I responded to one post of yours on an old thread that counts as all week? You're beyond a drama queen.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brock E. Litton |
and just how many new film cameras is nikon making? canon?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
Greg, As you can see when you read my last post, I was poking fun at this entire thread. I've been over this many times in the past. As for cheap, I mentioned the cameras I use. (Nikon FG and N70)I bought the FG used for 100.00 with a nice Nikon lens.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
Brock, Nikon released a new Film pro SLR, the F6. Nikon is still making the F100 the N65, N55 and two FM cameras, the FM3A and the FM10. I was surprised to see the addition of the F6. Nikon must still believe that people want pro film cameras. Hows that for a new point Greg?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brock E. Litton |
kevin, I said NEW...the F6 is the only one and we can all see how well thats selling, they have also dtopped production of large format lenses and canon has already stated that they are probably stopping production. Nikon, Canon, fuji, kodak,olympus,...no new point and shoots. Oh wait there point and shoots are all digital. I didnt say film was completely dead it like everything else in technology has evolved into something better. by the way I also plan on bying a 4x5 camera in the near future which for 500 bucks will make a 8000 dollar canon look like a throw away camera as far as image quality is concerned. I didnt say film was dead just 35mm. I find this post thread rather amusing and informative. Its great seeing the passion that some people have over their medium choice, just dont get so worked up that you have to go out and buy a gun and an airplane ticket to the location of a poster who has a different opinion than yours. well I have ranted long enough. Everyone here including myself should get out from behind the computer and express yourself with whatever camera you have. bye
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I'm not trying to convince you of anything about your prints, your camera, or anything else. The point of stating comparing price is a joke, then following it with how you set yourself up cheaper with the price of used equipment as compared to the price of digital dosen't fit. The price of a Bronica is going to be close to $1000. And it may not seem over priced to some, but it may to a lot if you look at it from the point of it's the size of the film that plays so a big part in making the print quality higher, there's not many good reasons for it to be that much higher than a 35mm that will cost about $300. Your own witness is what is your determining factor. But that's also true for others that have used the 14mp version of the CanonIDS who made mural size prints that had other people convinced it was done with medium format. The convincing attempts always comes from the side of those that only want to use film. There's more than price that involved with which one you want to use. If someone argued that they got set up with digital for $0 because they were given a camera as a gift, how many would say that dosen't make a good argument.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debbie Del Tejo |
I just came from a photo shoot where I had to photograph 10 families that were receIving an award...I took the photos (the families separate and then THE KIDS SEPARATE), showed the photos on my laptop right away to them and made over $1.200.00.00 selling these prints....now I could not do that with film because I would have had to go develop, print etc etc....you be the judge....
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
My Bronica cost me 400.00 used and in perfect condition. My Nikon Coolpix dosent come close. I spent 1000.00 putting that little system together. Big difference. And yes. the price of a good digital is a BIG STINKING JOKE. The price was brought up by others, I just responded with what I know and what I spent. Anyone can say what they want. But I use both digital and film and the price difference is a factor. My FG is a ROCKET when it comes to getting decent prints. As I said I spent 100.00 dollars and it came with the nikon lens. The Coolpix dosent compare to that old little dinasour when it comes to picture qaulity. The Coolpix is great fun and easy to handle plus it has great user functions but the 8meg dosent hold up even to 35mm. SORRY! The proofs in the halide and the megs. Just dosent compare. I know the new digitals are comming along at a good clip but so is the price tag. Until I see a pro digital selling for 500.00 I'll save my real shooting for film and continue to use my Coolpix for family and friends. Dont get me wrong. I'm not blind. I know digital will eventually reach the level where consumers can afford a pro grade camera. That will be the day digital conquers and film paks it in.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
George R. Bard |
What was the question? Oh, yeah. I shoot both but prefer film. I'm not sure I could ever justify the initial cost of a DSLR with enough megs to match what I now get with my old Pentax and Minoltas. As far as learning: If you are still in the dark about aperature v. shutter etc, it won't make much difference. If, in the end, all you want is nice pictures, get a digital p&s. Also, with film you end up with hard copies, not image files. If you print your own digital pix on a good printer they will cost more than a film print. IMHO. George
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Debbie Del Tejo |
At least here in the East Coast it is a fast food kind of world....and they want the product NOW........IF you want to make money at being a photographer........it is a no brainer
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Hey Gregory; I have a 110 SLR. Pentax Auto 110 to be exact. Still works, too. Have fun and keep shooting,
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Let's try my film startup figures: Minolta X700-125.99 on ebay 50mm f-1.4 lens-included 19-35mm ultrawide zoom-49.99 on ebay 135mm f-2.8 portrait lens-29.99 on ebay 28-80mm zoom-49.99 on ebay MD-1 3.5 FPS motor drive-59.99 ebay 70-210 f-2.8-4 zoom-49.99 ebay 500mm f-8-32 telephoto-49.99 ebay Promaster 5750DX flash w module-40.00 ebay dedicated cable for flash-25.00 ebay Vivitar grip-25.00 ebay Fotima case to fit all-5.00 ebay Total-455.94 for professional quality 35mm SLR outfit. I think that's not bad.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Did you know that before the Katrina jump in gas prices, when you factor in the changes in average income, gas cost about the same now as it did in the mid sixties. It's not a revelation that you bought used film equipment real cheap off ebay.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
Man, Greg. You are such a pain in the ARSE! Since when did BP declare that you were one of the Gods of the Camera? Ashes and wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth on you! (how's that for drama?) You shall be banned to the hether regions of FURTHER stupidity never to be seen or heard from again. Thou shalt not commit thyself to further diatribes upon they whom you shall consider inferior. Nay. I say nay. Woe upon you and your forebears. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits. et al. et al. Idubitally yours . . .
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Well, lets see. The good doctor visits this site and post a question on the forum, so I think we can assume he owns or at least has access to a computer. The question of film vs. digital, for most people in part, is a question of money and time. How much money they're willing to pay vs. how much time they want to spend waiting to see thier results. For most of us who aren't what you would consider pro, but rather hobbyist, I don't know that we're really concerned about getting razor sharp 16x20 prints. I don't know that there is that many of us hanging posters around in the house. For most hobbyist, 8x10 is just fine and if you can afford the wider format printers and want a bigger size, then 11x14 or 13x19 is certainly plenty big enough. For those who are shooting to make money or are making a living from it, then you would definitely want the absolute best you can give your clients. And for the moment, I have to agree that digital still cannot rival film. It's really all a matter of what the good Doctor intends to shoot and for what purpose. I would agree too that it seems that digital would be the way to go for the learning aspect because of the almost instant results. But as I beleive someone stated, most schools require that you shoot film because they still teach darkroom work as well. BTW - Last month I shot a wedding in NJ with a Canon 20D with a 17-85mm lens and a single Sunpak 544 flash. The images turned out great and the bride & groom were extrememly happy with the album. I was very surprised at how well the autofocus worked in the dimly lit atmosphere at the reception. So here again, it really depends on what you're shooting and for what purposes. While not trying to get into the film vs. digital debate, the one thing I can say in favor of digital is complete control of how your final image looks. You send a negative out to a lab for an enlargement, there is no telling what you'll get sometimes. Maybe you want the image printed down for the mood. Maybe you want it printed high key. Plus there are so many things you can do to a digital image on a computer, that you simply can't do in the darkroom. Granted, you can have your film images scanned and put on a disc, but here again, you going through an extra step and paying an extra price.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I was suprised to see this old thread light up again, especially as I was the first to respond. Well, it's 8 months later and things have changed so much. As a dedicated Minolta Maxxum user, I was curious to see what Sony would come up with when they took over the "A Mount" from Minolta. Since seeing the new 10.2 megapixel $899 image-stablized SLR from Sony I have to admit that the quality is increasing and the price decreasing in digital much faster than I anticipated. As a matter of fact I am giving one serious consideration as a purchase after seeing some reviews. Even I as a beloved film user, can admit that digital will will match film in price and quality in the near future. However, as close as that day may be, I still feel it's not quite here yet. eBay is listing F5's that are built like tanks for what a flimsy plastic DSLR costs. And that F5 would survive conditions that eat similar-priced Rebel XT or D70s for lunch. I freely admit that the day when digital catches up with and surpasses film in image quality and initial cost is approaching VERY rapidly, but film is, for now, a better value when image quality, camera build, and initial costs are concerned. After all, it STILL costs 8K to get ISO 100 film quality images. By the way, am I the only one wondering why they took the most expensive pro-caliber DSLR and compared it to a Kodak roll of film that could sit for weeks in room temprature on a Wal-Mart shelf? If they meant to compare apples to apples, they would have used a pro slide film like velia 50. The exposure latitude and pro target market make it a much better basis for comparison.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
yeah, wasn't it kodak gold? That's definitly a consumer grade film and doesn't have the sharpness and as fine of grain as even something like Kodak UC100 or probably even a portra 160 film. It doesn't say which film it was in the article that I had but that's really misleading, not saying exactly what film it was and still saying that it's better than film. I like using my 20D for my portraits that I'm doing but I don't really have to make anything larger than an 8x10 but if I were using it for anything else like fine art or other such stuff, the latitude just isn't there. I love using black and white film and printing in the darkroom because you can deathly over expose some things and sometimes even underexpose them and they come out excelent! I'll try to post a picture on here sometimes that shows just how much detail there can still be. I remember in my first photo class I had a street light that was very close to a light stone building and after making a test print and balancing out the exposure for the most important part, I can tell you that digital definitly would have blow that out but I was still able to get great, sharp lines seperating the individual stones. I'll try to get to that soon, the scanning that is.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
I didn't read through all the responses to see if anyone else made this point, so I'll toss it in anyway. Most of us already know that back in Feburary, Nikon announced thier plans to discontinue film camera manufacturing. And now, Canon has almost jumped on the same wagon. They announced that they will not be adding any 'NEW' film camera models to the line up. They will however, continue to produce thier current models. For how long, depends on the market for them. I suspect within the next year, they too will be dropping thier entire film camera line and going 100% digital. I agree, the arguement isn't whether or not film is going to be replaced by digital. The real question is, how soon. The fact that the two top SLR manufacturers have already announced thier plans to discontinue film cameras, plus the fact that their are now more and more digital backs being offered for medium and large format cameras, pretty much sums it up. Now the questiong is, are there enough diehard film users out there to keep the market demands high enough, so film manufacturers will continue to produce it? Or will all the dieharders eventually have to all go large format and make thier own paper negatives?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Ok, I enjoyed film for a number of years. I got some great images on film. I got about half way through this thread then decided I couldn't read anymore without responding so I hope this isn't redundant. Steve said, "But keep laughing. I develop my own REAL BW negatives and then scan and print, so I get resolution as good as or better than any digital camera (at least those that cost less than a used car) AND I can do all the scanning, photoshop, emailing and other electronic fuddy-duddy you megapixel types seem to enjoy. Ok, so I dont get "instant" feedback, but from exposure to scanning can be less than 2 hours, and what I get in return are real negatives, better image quality, and REAL black and white." Then Will said, "That's a different argument. Before your post, the implication in the responses to my first post was the perception that DSLRs, even entry-level cameras, were equally as reliable as older 35mm film SLRs. Now that that point has been implicity acknowledged to be false, my point is made. I never intended my arguments to convince people never to buy DSLRs, only to point out one reason why film cameras are not 'history' yet." I still have reasons to use film, BUT I prefer digital. I have color negatives about 20 years old that are beyond use. Somehow I doubt digital files will suffer the same fate. Ok, so I didn't store them in a vault with temperature control but they were kept all these years in a dark, cool and dry place. Hundreds of rolls of film not longer useable. Some were rendered useless by storing them in "archival" negative sleeves and some have just simply faded beyond use. Give me digital any day!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Here's an interesting link comparing a 4x5" view camera to the Canon 300D. http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/paris-rebel.shtml
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
hahahah, that's rediculous lol. digital rebel on par with 4x5, lol. yeah, anyways....
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brendan Knell |
Wouldn't that be like a 1Ds Mrk II compared to a disposable film?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
yeah, seriously, using 4x5 film and scanning it, then printing at 300dpi or even a little more is a waste. The time when it really shines is when you make moderate enlargements with an enlarger or other kind of optical enlargment. I shared a black and white darkroom with a 4x5 black and white class and 16x20's were flawless and still sharp as heck because there was so much info being crammed into a tiny spot. A joke.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=getpage&kw=Hasselblad&Q=newsLetter/digi_photo_hassel-jun2006.jsp&O=RootPage.jsp
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Already have my order in for two. LOL!!!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Lucky you! I have to wait on my lottery win ;)!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Brendan Knell |
I'm thinking about buying one. I still have to convince my parents to mortgage the house though!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Luis A. Rodriguez |
Well, my first SLR I wanted to be film, mainly because of price issues, I don't have $1,000 dls to dish out right now, but if I can buy a SLR film camera around $100 I will take the opportunity, when I post my first pics with this camera you'll see.. LOL
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Did anyone compare a digital to an 8X10 yet?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
LOL Mark! I think it's really only fair to compare film and digital with similar formats. When I make such comparisons I'm not comparing a medium or large format film camera with a DSLR. Wow, can you imagine what an 8x10 back would cost??? :o)! Myself, I've only compared a print from an ISO 100 speed film SLR with a DSLR. My totally unscientific comparision shows the digital print better than the film print in detail, color, clarity and grain/noise. That's my story and I'm sticking to it ;)! BTW, I do still enjoy film. I just don't use it much anymore due to the fact I'm lazy about getting it developed.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
All righty, then. Now, how bout comparing digital to a print taken with, say, ISO 50? I use that film quite a bit. I also just found some Kodak ISO 25 in the deep freezer. How would they compare?
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
Couldn't tell ya :o)! I bet you're compared though so what's the verdict? While I enjoy digital it's all about convenience, storage and instant feedback for me. I'm afraid I just don't understand why film and digital enthusiasts want to argue it to the death. Both formats has it's strengths and weaknesses IMHO.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I don't either. I'm just being a pain in the patute.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Sharon Day |
LOL Mark! In all honesty I have wanted to compare ISO 25 to digital but too lazy :o)!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Where can I even GET ISO 25 film?? I'd LOVE some if anyone can point me in the right direction!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Justin G. |
Ebay up some TechPan. it's becoming more and more rare of a find but when you do, snatch it. Last I checked 35mm was running around $15 or so a roll. I think there's another site that has it, lemme research...
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I bought mine from Porter's camera store www.porters.com. It's not made anymore, I don't think. Konica still makes ISO 50. Not enough people were using the 25 to make it worth Kodak's while to produce it.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Holy Cow! I really need to keep up to speed on this thing. It's getting to be way more than I can handle on just a weekly basis.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Pete H |
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Randall Ackerman |
I'll go D-SLR when they make them with decent Wi-Fi capability, and hey, don't forget that built-in GPS. Until then, I'm cleaning up on eBay on some really decent Pro level film gear!
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
I agree, at least in part, with Randall. Although I'm not waiting for Wi-Fi or GPS, I AM getting steals from ebay sellers dumping used (but top-quality)film equipment for pennies on the dollar. The ironic thing is that the more people "go digital", the better value film becomes for those of us who have yet to make the transition. I have my eye on a new Sony a100 to fit my Minolta lenses. Until then however, I am damn near stealing bargains in film, processing equipment, old Maxxum bodies, and other assorted film items that are too much of a bargain to give up. As a matter of fact, I have seen more than one quality medium-format unit for less than 500.00. That may be my next purchase before I go digital.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Bob Chance |
Sounds to me like you've already made your mind up that sometime in the future you are going digital! So, why waste your pennies on film equipment that someday will be both useless and worthless (except to collectors). By the time you spend all your money on this "quality medium format' gear, you could have had a 1Ds mark II. It's like when DVD's started hitting the market, people bought up all the VHS. Why bother when you know that eventually they were going to stop producing movies on tape and everything will be on disc. Why spend money on film equipment, when you know eventually film will be as scarce as an 8-track tape cartridge? Ever since computers entered the picture, things haven't been the same. Actually it all started with floppy disc. Remember the original 8" floppies. They were replaced by the 5 1/4 and then finally the 3 1/2". And even now, you may be able to buy blanks for personal use, but no one produces programs on floppies anymore. I'm surprised new computers still come equiped with them. BETA replaced by S-VHS replace by DVD replaced by ? And how 'bout the short lived movie laser disc? Remember that thing was as big as an LP record. That was only around for a year or two and it went by the wayside. Seems in this day and age, what's new today is outdated and can't be found with a couple of years. Records were around for a long, long time and since tape came out, it seems each successive medium has lived a shorter lifespan. Technology in the digital photography realm is going to have the same affect on film as disc did to tape. So, what will you do with all this bargain basement equipment when you can no longer find film to shoot in it? I'm not being a smarta@#. Just to me, it really doesn't seem logical to spend money on equipment when all indications are that film is a dying medium. Like it or not, that's the fact. With Nikon discontinuing all film camers and Canon announcing that it will not introduce any new film cameras, which means it's only a short matter of time that they too will take the complete plunge to digital as Nikon already has. I would say that when the two largest camera manufacturers in the world make a decision like that, it's a safe bet what the future holds for film.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Steve Warren |
Well, I see your point, but I honestly feel that there will always be a market, albit a much smaller one, for film. I think it will become a niche market made up by those of us who enjoy the process of developing our own film, but it won't go away. I also think some professionals on a budget that dont have 20-25K to sink into a medium-format based digital system would be more likely to stick with fil for a while. Consider that some fine-art and wedding photogrpahers swear by film and have no intention of "going digital" . Additionally, Fuji has recently introduced some new films. They wouldn't do this unless they saw qa future in it. It's not suprising that Canon won't introduce any new film Cameras, and Nikon is killing their film line, but remember this is AFTER Nikon introduced the new F6. This new model will likely outlast many of the new DSLRs available today. If it's a tough as they claim, then it will be around burning film for years to come. And don't forget Leica. They are making M6s and M7s that are also nearly certain to outlast today's digital SLRs. I met a guy on the subway who had one over 50 years old. how many DSLRs madce today do you think would last as long? I will always love film. There is no feeling like developing my own TMax and wathing the results. There are too many people like me for it to go away. It will surely shrink no doubt, but disappear...no time soon. By the way, I have a good friend that loves music on vinyl. Between having a great selection here in NYC and the internet, he never has a problem finding vinyl. Just as I suspect I'll always be able to find film either here in NYC or on the net.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||||||||