Anyone into film photography?

66chevyIISS

When you should really be going here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

shack

66chevyIISS wrote: »

When you should really be going here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

Seems we already have a few CP members already at POTN as well....

BUT...don't tell the Nikon guys...or there goes the neighborhood.

Serendipity

Isn't film better than digital with regards to picture quality? That's what I was told by a well-respected photographer/magazine editor...

VSchneider

shack wrote: »

Seems we already have a few CP members already at POTN as well....

BUT...don't tell the Nikon guys...or there goes the neighborhood.

Yes, I am registered at both

mhardy6647

appadv wrote: »

Isn't film better than digital with regards to picture quality? That's what I was told by a well-respected photographer/magazine editor...

Yes, of course... but there is value to digital in terms of image manipulation, convenience, ease-of-use, stuff like that. Just like analog vs. digital hi-fi.

jdhdiggs

appadv wrote: »

Isn't film better than digital with regards to picture quality? That's what I was told by a well-respected photographer/magazine editor...

Totall depends, the pro level FF SLR's from Nikon and Canon are as good/better than most/all 35mm film cameras. Especially as you go to higher and higher iso. Plus all the junk you can do to it in post is bigger than what you can do while developing film. Film still wins in the medium format and higher though. Of course your opinion is the one that counts most.

VSchneider

appadv wrote: »

Isn't film better than digital with regards to picture quality? That's what I was told by a well-respected photographer/magazine editor...

In terms of dynamic range or number of colors or shades of gray - yes, no question - film is analog and in theory has an upper edge.

In terms of resolution... Well... what film format are we talking about?
Pro SLR's are approaching the resolution of the popular 35 mm film, but pro photographers do not limit themselves with 35 mm and shoot medium or large format.

In practice, printed on modern *digital* equipment (so there goes the analog advantage) in less than gallery wall-sized prints you cannot tell a digital vs. film shot apart.

edit: for certain applications (landscape or fashion, for example) digital has a very long way to go still

shack

appadv wrote:

Isn't film better than digital with regards to picture quality? That's what I was told by a well-respected photographer/magazine editor...

For image quality of digital vs film, there are four major factors IMO – resolution, noise, dynamic range and color quality.

Resolution - The sharpness and the visibility of the image. Film used to be the standard because it took a 6 MP digital camera to match 35mm film resolution. Now all but the cheapest P&S cameras are more than 6 MP.

Noise - The amount of grain which appears in photos. Digital cameras are extremely sophisticated in this aspect when compared to film cameras, and the level of noise appearance is much lower in digitals. Some of the newer bodies can handle ISOs of up to 3,200 (and more) with relatively little noise.

Dynamic range – This is one of the main weaknesses of a digital camera due to the nature of the sensors. Dynamic range issues are normally caused by widely contrasting light and problems occur in the form of blown-out highlights or too dark shadows in the image. It is the hardest thing to get "right" with a digital camera. Technology like HDR (when used correctly and not cartoonish like some want to do) is closing the gap.

Color quality - Digital images tend to be sharper, brighter, more vivid, etc and have better color quality than film IMO.

Both digital and film have characteristics of their own and it depends on the individual as to which one they prefer. The technology of digital images (and the cameras that produce them) continues to improve and any advantages film may have once held are long gone.

I know an accomplished (published) nature photographer. He still shoots 100% film. I asked him why. The answer had nothing to do with image quality...it was pure economics. He said he has spent 20+ years accumulating some of the best lenses and cameras he could afford. To replace all of that with digital would take a small fortune. He said if he won the lottery tomorrow...he would go digital in a heartbeat and never look back. Realistically only if something like loosing all his gear in a theft or an accident occurred, could he afford to switch. He can replace a single quality lens or body with top of the line pro-grade gear for a fraction of what he would have to pay for a similar digital compatible item.

Serendipity

shack wrote: »

Color quality - Digital images tend to be sharper, brighter, more vivid, etc and have better color quality than film IMO.

This is one where I would have to disagree. Speak to any ISF calibrator and you'll hear that brighter, more vivid colors are not always desired.

I remember reading posts on another forum in which RPTV owners (Mits and Hitachi in particular) did not like the results of calibration because it was too dark, less intense in color, less vivid, etc. but were told that this is a more accurate image.

I feel the same way with my point and shoot digital camera - the colors are too bright, WAY too vivid, etc. and that is not a reproduction of the actual image. My Nikon D60 does a much better job with regards to that. (except in auto mode which sucks BTW)

jdhdiggs

But with digital, you can always back vividness off in 2-3 seconds before taking the shot and not have to change film and then go back again. I run vivid with high sat for nature adn back it off to soft for people shots. No way to quickly do that with film.

shack

appadv wrote:

This is one where I would have to disagree. Speak to any ISF calibrator and you'll hear that brighter, more vivid colors are not always desired.

I remember reading posts on another forum in which RPTV owners (Mits and Hitachi in particular) did not like the results of calibration because it was too dark, less intense in color, less vivid, etc. but were told that this is a more accurate image.

I feel the same way with my point and shoot digital camera - the colors are too bright, WAY too vivid, etc. and that is not a reproduction of the actual image. My Nikon D60 does a much better job with regards to that. (except in auto mode which sucks BTW)

Then we will have to disagee. These are still images...not video. Ask any magazine publisher/editor to choose between two images and the one chosen will be the one that "pops" off the page. I am not talking about distorted color...but best representation of what that color should be.

Serendipity

My Sony point and shoot and Olympus digital cameras tend to look like the second pictures in the above post.

However, the D60 to my eyes looks much more accurate... (auto mode on this camera sucks though - you have to shoot in aperture priority or manual to get the best pics)

jdhdiggs

So your saying that you would rather have the first rather than second photo's???

I'd rather get the intent and spirit of the photo then make it just accurate...

Serendipity

jdhdiggs wrote: »

So your saying that you would rather have the first rather than second photo's???

I'd rather get the intent and spirit of the photo then make it just accurate...

Yes, the first looks like a reproduction of the actual image.

It looks more "real" to me.

shack

To each their own I guess...

ckphoto

appadv wrote: »

Right, I was just under the impression that I could set the aperture to min and use it with this camera.

F22 is the minimum aperture the lens should work with manual focus.

66chevyIISS

The ability to fix mistakes on digital vs film is rediculous as well.

This is a picture my dad took fairly recently. His settings were all wrong so the picture didn't turn out great. I was able to at least partially salvage it.

jcaut

I'm more of a gear-head than an actual photographer (I'm not a very good photographer), but I've been "into" photography since my parents bought me a Pentax K1000 when I was about 14. Over the years I acquired other 35mm SLR bodies and a few lenses. I shot loads of color print film until I bought a little Canon G2 digital camera whenever that was that they came out. I was astounded at the quality I got from that camera versus my film pictures, not to mention the ability to process the pictures like I wanted, and print the results that looked like I intended. Missed the speed and versatility of an SLR though, so when Canon came out with the first Digital Rebel I bought one as soon as I could scrape up the money. Now I've still got the G2, the Rebel, a 30D and a 5D and I still use all of them- heck they all use the same battery and CF cards! - along with a nice assortment of lenses, couple of speedlights and all the other associated equipment.

The only film body I kept is that good old full manual K1000 and I can't remember the last time I loaded any film. Honestly though I've been tempted several times to purchase a used Canon 35mm body so that I can use some of the nice lenses I've got now to shoot some slow speed color slides or B&W. I think those are two areas where 35mm film still has something on digital.

Serendipity

jcaut -

Are you the same guy that built my Definitve BP10B crossovers?

jcaut

Maybe. If you got them from Trey, then yes it was probably me.

Serendipity

jcaut wrote: »

Maybe. If you got them from Trey, then yes it was probably me.

Who's Trey? j/k

I got them from some kid in NC. (Vr3MxStyler2k3)

Serendipity

jcaut wrote: »

Honestly though I've been tempted several times to purchase a used Canon 35mm body so that I can use some of the nice lenses I've got now to shoot some slow speed color slides or B&W. I think those are two areas where 35mm film still has something on digital.

I want to do the same too. Have been using my Nikon for some time now, and still nostalgic for film.

35mm film is kinda like vinyl compared to CD. Or tube amps vs. solid state. There's just something about analog that I like.

skipf

I've got both film and digital. One thing I really like about my old Nikon FM is that I can drop it in the lake and not toast the camera. It is getting hard to find quality film though. My favorite ASA 25 film is no longer made.

shack

skipf wrote:

I've got both film and digital. One thing I really like about my old Nikon FM is that I can drop it in the lake and not toast the camera. It is getting hard to find quality film though. My favorite ASA 25 film is no longer made.

If you can find any quality film that you like, buy as much as you can and store it (keep in the refridgerator...NOT the freezer). I know several pro's that are still using film that have been told by the product reps that virtually all mfgs will cease production in the very near future.

Serendipity

Shack:

I've always bought Nikon lenses but this seems like a good deal. Do you have any experience with using Sigma/Tamron/etc. lenses? Are they a good buy or should I save up my money for a Nikon?

For example, something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550953-REG/Tamron_AF017NII_700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html

Thanks!

Serendipity

shack wrote: »

If you can find any quality film that you like, buy as much as you can and store it (keep in the refridgerator...NOT the freezer). I know several pro's that are still using film that have been told by the product reps that virtually all mfgs will cease production in the very near future.

I guess I will have to start stocking up...

Still have film in the fridge (you just reminded me of that) but it has expired a LONG time ago

mopar paul

I have had good luck with Sigma, especially for the money. There are a lot of lenses out there and many are better than others, you just have to read the reviews. I'm not going digital anytime soon-even though I would like to have the option of both. I have been doing a lot of research on this lately.
I love film, and to replace what I have in film quality Nikon stuff would cost around $4k. I take a lot of macro close up shots-as in 1/16" letters I need to take up a whole print. I spoke to a magazine photographer and he said it would be hard to duplicate what I do with digital. People who see me at car shows taking 100 shots of a car with film think I'm crazy.
I also realized lately, that film is a prized posession, when I accidently deleted some photos I would love to get back, and really wished i used my 35mm that day!

Serendipity

mopar paul wrote: »

I have had good luck with Sigma, especially for the money.

They seem very competitively priced so thanks for the heads up!

shack

Serendipity wrote: »

Shack:

I've always bought Nikon lenses but this seems like a good deal. Do you have any experience with using Sigma/Tamron/etc. lenses? Are they a good buy or should I save up my money for a Nikon?

For example, something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550953-REG/Tamron_AF017NII_700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html

Thanks!

That is not a very good lens IMO. Slow, soft, not very sharp at either end of it's optical range. I know because I have a Tamron 80-210mm 1:4.5-5.6 and they are very similar. It was inexpensive and usually you get what you pay for. Save money for something better.

Occasionally you will find an inexpensive lens that is better than it's cost would lead you to believe it could be. Good examples from Canon are the "nifty fifty" a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens, or the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. Each of these lenses can be had for between $100 -$200 and can take excellent photos, but their build quality is not the best.

There are probably some Nikon lenses that fall into that category.

But just because they say Nikon or Canon...doesn't guarantee quality build or results. Canon has made some real dog lenses (typically cheap kit lenses) that are so poor, one can hardly give them away when they upgrade to better lenses. I'm sure Nikon has a few of those as well.

Tamron has made some good lenses. I've had a Sigma or two over the years that were pretty good. I currently have 3 very nice Tokina lenses that I like a lot. Not as good as Canon's "L" lenses (pro grade), but not too bad...especially for the money.

However, If you want the best glass possible...best build, best optics, fastest, best motors, etc...you will get the TOL Canon or Nikon lenses. They will be pricey...but they simply are the best. The other mfgs make good lenses...but at the top...they are just a notch or two below the big boys.

Here are a couple of sites that tend to have good lens reviews, but just like audio, everything is subjective, so take them with a grain of salt.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests

http://www.dpreview.com/

I hope this helps.

piper

Gotta love the Pentax system. I agree that they are the most overlooked camera out there. I have a new digital slr with probably 15 lens of various years, a Pentax Optio pocket camera. Really rugged, really good cameras.