Film need NOT be dead - it's up to you!

[tonymp]

Hi everyone - a new to the forum poster here who still uses neg film for their work.
As a neg film user for 30 years, I have been using digital prosumer cameras for the last three as 'polaroids' for my MF neg film work shot with Bronica's, which consists mostly of boudoir, glamour and portraits in monochrome.
I also shoot some shots in 35 mm ( 3 Canon A1's and a dozen FD's) and it's this which forms the basis of this post.
I have recently bought a D200 for my first foray into DSLR-land - it's a decent enough camera but a DX format rather than Full Frame.
However, during my last trip to Russia (South Urals/Siberia), I took some walkarounds with the A1 and a modest 35-70 and scanned in a couple of frames on a humble Epson Perfection 4990 flatbed scanner @ only 2400 DPI and I was well surprised with the outcome.
The Canon A1 can still produce some excellent results ( as I am sure other manufacturers cameras can) and if I use my f1.2 50mm or such as the f1.8 100mm et al, I can get that wonderful shallow DOF and bokeh - comparable to FF digital cameras for a fraction of the cost.
I've put together a couple of scanned 35mm frames and details on a web page, (URL included in this post). You can ignore the rest of the web page as it was originally written for another forum, but the relevent part may be of interest to some posters here.
Basically, for the cost of a very modest pro-sumer in the form of a decent scanner, film users can have the benefit of both analogue AND digital to a very high standard. If you're a film user, you'll be used to the
Anyway, I'd like to hear your views and opinions.
Regards...
Tony
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/tsphoto/poy2006.htm

[cyclohexane]

Hey, welcome to the Camel.

I'm still shooting film too, but that's mostly because digital isn't accepted in art school land. I don't do enough good work in film to justify a scanner yet, but who knows...

[tonymp]

Hi Cyclo,
thanks for your welcome.
Well film isn't too bad at all - I've been using it long enough LOL.
I am progressing onto digital but I think I will use both digital and neg film alongside each other, as I doubt whether I will be able to get decent 30 x 20 monos from digital!
At the moment neg film wins out for me - but colour is another story.
I hope you do well in your schooling and I'm sure you're being too modest about your work and I'm sure you'll get that scanner soon!
Take care and thanks again...
Tony

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Hey, welcome to the Camel.

I'm still shooting film too, but that's mostly because digital isn't accepted in art school land. I don't do enough good work in film to justify a scanner yet, but who knows...

[cyclohexane]

I hope you do well in your schooling

Thanks. =)

I'm sure you're being too modest about your work

Well, personally, I've found that when using anything new, I have to take quite a bit of time (and in film's case, quite a few rolls) to learn how to maximize it's output. For example, the only film I feel somewhat comfortable shooting is Fuji Superia 400, the cheap color negative stuff one can get for a little over $1 a roll in bulk packages, and even then when I get the prints back from what I feel to be a great roll I get smacked with a nasty surprise. Haven't had any conclusive evidence regarding whether to blame the processing yet. =)

With two of my digital cameras, I've gotten to the point where I can pretty know what I'll get without looking at the screen after the first shot. It took me over a year to learn to optimize my Nikon D70's images (operating the camera side proved to be the easy part) and about eight months to really learn the sensor in my D2H. I figure, the sensor is like film, and since I haven't spent nearly close as much time shooting and learning the idiosyncracies of film, I find myself worrying too much about the film side instead of spending time on what matters- composition and whatnot.

Hey, my dad's shot film since he was a kid, and the only ones he's really happy with loading are Kodachrome and Kodak Gold.... =)

[tonymp]

Hi Cyclo,
as far as I am concerned, I love embracing new technology and techniques, but it doesn't mean I will use them unless it's called for.
I use Fuji Reala - that is one of the best films I have found if you want a neg image to 'pop' as they say in digital. I use NPS for all the softer stuff.
I'm sure we all get 'nasty surprises' from time to time, even with digital. However, if you know your film well enough you can predict the outcome of the shot most of the time.
I've just got the D200 but it will be a while before I introduce it into my work - like you I need to get to know it's predictable and unpredictable side before making it earn it's keep!
Regards..
Tony

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Thanks. =)

Well, personally, I've found that when using anything new, I have to take quite a bit of time (and in film's case, quite a few rolls) to learn how to maximize it's output. For example, the only film I feel somewhat comfortable shooting is Fuji Superia 400, the cheap color negative stuff one can get for a little over $1 a roll in bulk packages, and even then when I get the prints back from what I feel to be a great roll I get smacked with a nasty surprise. Haven't had any conclusive evidence regarding whether to blame the processing yet. =)

With two of my digital cameras, I've gotten to the point where I can pretty know what I'll get without looking at the screen after the first shot. It took me over a year to learn to optimize my Nikon D70's images (operating the camera side proved to be the easy part) and about eight months to really learn the sensor in my D2H. I figure, the sensor is like film, and since I haven't spent nearly close as much time shooting and learning the idiosyncracies of film, I find myself worrying too much about the film side instead of spending time on what matters- composition and whatnot.

Hey, my dad's shot film since he was a kid, and the only ones he's really happy with loading are Kodachrome and Kodak Gold.... =)

[cyclohexane]

I use Fuji Reala - that is one of the best films I have found if you want a neg image to 'pop' as they say in digital. I use NPS for all the softer stuff.

I'll check those out. Thanks =)

I've just got the D200 but it will be a while before I introduce it into my work - like you I need to get to know it's predictable and unpredictable side before making it earn it's keep!

A little tidbit to speed it up a little: watch the shadows! The D200, like the D2H, doesn't really like having it's shadows brought up in post, and will exhibit pronounced changes in noise levels in the shadows if you lighten them.

[tonymp]

A little tidbit to speed it up a little: watch the shadows! The D200, like the D2H, doesn't really like having it's shadows brought up in post, and will exhibit pronounced changes in noise levels in the shadows if you lighten them.

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

I'll check those out. Thanks =)

A little tidbit to speed it up a little: watch the shadows! The D200, like the D2H, doesn't really like having it's shadows brought up in post, and will exhibit pronounced changes in noise levels in the shadows if you lighten them.

Thanks Cyclo,
I'll watch for those shadows probs! Actually although I've not really had time to test it since I got it about 4 weeks ago, I did notice what you've described on a few shots I managed to shoot! I'll take my time and get it right eventually! (LOL)
Tony

[Jeffo]

I use film for wedding photography and have the negs scanned to digital when they are processed. My customers seem to love it. For a minor increase in cost I can give them the best of both worlds and you better believe I promote it that way too.

Jeffo

[malkav42]

I don't think I'll be the one to save film from the grave, but I think I'm definitely doing my part to try, and help keep it's head above ground for as long as possible. I say this because I have 12 SLR and 15 Rangefinder film cameras, and 1 digital Phd camera.

Yeah, I may not save film from it's eventual beating by digital, but I'll give it my best.
Edward

[Douglas]

As much as I love my camera (Nikon N90s w/ SB26 flash, mb vert grip), its really hard to not want a digital slr. You see your picture right then. You know if little sally blinked, or if your horizon was off a degree or 20. Plus the cost of developing film and either storing the negatives, or the additional cost of scanning the negatives. And the film costs.

On a trip to Egypt/Turkey in the summer of 2000, I shot about 60 rolls of film. From 100-800 iso. When I came back, I had them all developed and printed (doubles too) and it cost me over $800 bucks.

Digital I could of just upload the cards to my computer, see the ones I wanted, copy them to a cd and get those printed. (and not worry if the 20 times I went through a security checkpoint if the x-ray was going to ruin the film)

As much as I love my film camera (and I was anti digital too), I know its going to be my next big purchase.

[Thunderhawk]

Film will be around for a wile. Too many one use 35mm get sold to walk away from that kind of money.

[heartseye]

Film really IS dead....it just doesn't know it yet.......yes, there are still horse drawn carriages, and blacksmiths too, but they are echoes of the past.

[Bunyip]

It isn't either film or digital: it can be both.

My wife, brought up on oil painting, now dabbles in watercoluring. (There's also guache, pastels, colour pencils and crayons) She's a bit jealous that I can take several pictures in the time it takes her to set up her easel!

One could say, "Paint is dead", but there are more painters now than ever.

One could say, "Film is dead", but once the novelty of digital wears off, film becomes another option.

I use both; for different reasons.

[heartseye]

I am in the business of creating photographs, and other types of visual presentations dependant on photographs. I've been a photographer for over 40 years, and I used virtually everything in the photographic arsenal over that time.........
Fact is though, that digital can do everything that film ever could, and much more besides. Photography, and the sharing of visual images, is far more broad in scope for everyone than it ever was in the film only years.
There will always be people who love to make their own prints in their own darkroom using the traditional materials.....just as there are people who enjoy making pottery, musical instruments, etc.
But, for virtually all serious photographers the digital aproach is the only one that makes economic AND artistic sense. Cheers...Bob

[blumesan]

Originally Posted by heartseye

But, for virtually all serious photographers the digital aproach is the only one that makes economic AND artistic sense. Cheers...Bob

Economic sense, especially for commercial photography, digital wins hands down. However regarding artistic "sense" it is still possible to produce the same aesthetics with film, albeit more time consuming.

Cheers/Mike

[Paul Shields]

Film was pretty much dead for me as I sold my last film camera earlier this year, but - I just picked up an Epson V7000 scanner today () and have started to scan some of the countless negs and slides I've accumulated over the years. It's refreshing to see a nicely scanned image on the big screen and enjoy the different look and feel compared to my digital shots. I'm now thinking of picking up a cheapo MF camera just for shooting and scanning slides again...

[heartseye]

I still have a couple of my old Nikon film cameras.......the only use I have for them is I do have some very wide lenses which I enjoy using.....but the whole scanning and resurection of old images I find tiresome....it's just how my mind works....nothing wrong with the system for those who enjoy it...cheers...Bob