Photographers- are any of you still using film?

highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I was checking my cameras yesterday to see if the batteries had leaked and while I looked online for replacements, I saw that Kodak still makes their Ektar film and people called it "the best color print film available", even recently. I used Ektar 25 in the early-'90s, but kind of lost interest in photography after buying a digital camera. I guess life got in the way and I didn't go to places where I would want to shoot, so there my cameras and lenses sat. Another problem for me is that most of the places that did the best work with prints, enlargements, etc have closed.

What seems to be a good option for films, development and paper?

Thanks.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
35mm film still has a couple of advantages of mid-range digital, but convenience isn't one of them.
For film development, I'd recommend your local Costco store. You won't find cheaper prints and scans.
 
Last edited:
MR.MAGOO

MR.MAGOO

Audioholic Field Marshall
film, what is it? Haven't seen it in a long time...:cool:
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
I am looking into a Medium Format film system, to go with my Full Frame Digital setup. I have a friend who is very into film, both 35mm and Medium format. This will be a very old Mamiya or Pentax setup, nothing crazy like the newer stuff.

SheepStar
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
35mm film still has a couple of advantages of mid-range digital, but convenience isn't one of them.
For film development, I'd recommend your local Costco store. You won't find cheaper prints and scans.
What advantages are they? Besides the effects of film, I don't see one measurable area where a digital sensor is bested by film anymore. BSI CMOS sensors have pushed the capabilities of digital cameras to the point of crazy dynamic range and very good high ISO performance. Some 35mm sensors are rivaling Medium format digital sensors for dynamic range.

SheepStar
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
What advantages are they? Besides the effects of film, I don't see one measurable area where a digital sensor is bested by film anymore. BSI CMOS sensors have pushed the capabilities of digital cameras to the point of crazy dynamic range and very good high ISO performance. Some 35mm sensors are rivaling Medium format digital sensors for dynamic range.

SheepStar
Resolution or sharpness: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
Last time I've checked, modern 35mm full-sized camera sensors aren't capable of 175MP just yet.
Of course this is mostly theoretical only. You'd need amazingly sharp glass to get anywhere near it. But that applied to both of em.
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
The lens is the limiting factor when it comes to how much detail will be resolved in a photograph. Considering there isn't many lenses that can max out the best sensors we have on the market (46-50mp for 35mm) I don't really see that as an advantage. Also, you need a VERY expensive scanner to convert that file into a digital copy (if you want to edit on a computer). With some digital cameras, you can sensor shift (pixel shift) to get upwards of 80-90mp files with relative ease, but not every manufacture has this capability.

Overall, to think you're at any real disadvantage by shooting digital, when film has many disadvantages in comparison, is not that accurate. I do really like film cameras though, an old range finder or MF would be really cool to play around with and slow things down. I think that would be good for me, to have a camera where you take your time and respect the process of photography, instead of just firing stuff off a 7fps knowing that you're going to get one that works (in situations where you can't setup, like action).

SheepStar
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
Don't get me wrong. I do not recommend shooting film instead of digital. I agree with you that march of progress allowed us already to come very close to (theoretical) sharpness of 35mm film.
In reality, vast majority of case the theoretical resolution advantage of film, stays purely theoretical and as you've said - DR improvements of sensors have been vasts in last decade.
Not to mention convenience to skip film chemical development.
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
Totally agree. What are you shooting with these days?

SheepStar
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
What advantages are they? Besides the effects of film, I don't see one measurable area where a digital sensor is bested by film anymore. BSI CMOS sensors have pushed the capabilities of digital cameras to the point of crazy dynamic range and very good high ISO performance. Some 35mm sensors are rivaling Medium format digital sensors for dynamic range.

SheepStar
Film can be more sensitive in dark areas but if you were to auto-bracket with a digital camera in groups of 4-6 shots, it could be manipulated in some kind of program to show more detail in the dark.

I had some slides and negatives scanned on a Nikon CoolScan 4000 and the files are in the 29MB range, but I would have to have prints made to tell if they look the same, better or worse than the ones I had made from the negatives in '91, which look freaking amazing. Those prints are 20x24 and I have been told that scans from 35mm are good to about 12x18.
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
Film can be more sensitive in dark areas but if you were to auto-bracket with a digital camera in groups of 4-6 shots, it could be manipulated in some kind of program to show more detail in the dark.

I had some slides and negatives scanned on a Nikon CoolScan 4000 and the files are in the 29MB range, but I would have to have prints made to tell if they look the same, better or worse than the ones I had made from the negatives in '91, which look freaking amazing. Those prints are 20x24 and I have been told that scans from 35mm are good to about 12x18.
I don't think film has that advantage over digital anymore. We're seeing dynamic range in the 15ev range now with the likes of the D810/D850 and Sony A7RIII. Film is also very sensitive to under exposure, which is a huge caveat in real world shooting.

My buddy is lending me his Hasselblad 500CM, should arrive next week. I'll post back when i have it and what I think shooting it.

SheepStar
 
MR.MAGOO

MR.MAGOO

Audioholic Field Marshall
unless one is a die-hard photographer with their own darkroom I doubt it.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I still have my Ricoh KR-10 and a few lens' that I bought 35 years ago, but I haven't used it in at least 15. I just can't bring myself to get rid of it. I certainly wouldn't get much if I tried to sell it - if anyone would actually buy it. I lost interest in photography with the advent of digital, when everyone became photographers; especially when the cameras in smart phones became good.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I don't think film has that advantage over digital anymore. We're seeing dynamic range in the 15ev range now with the likes of the D810/D850 and Sony A7RIII. Film is also very sensitive to under exposure, which is a huge caveat in real world shooting.

My buddy is lending me his Hasselblad 500CM, should arrive next week. I'll post back when i have it and what I think shooting it.

SheepStar
How much do the D810/D850 and the Sony model cost? Those aren't mainstream models. Not uncommon, but not exactly what the average advanced amateur might use unless they can afford it fairly easily.

What about the actual resolution of film vs digital?

I saw that Ektar is available for 120 film, too- is that what the 500CM uses? Any plans to get a digital back for it?
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
You can find a D810 for $2000 Canadian used now, the D850 is around $3500, but it's brand spanking new and features an unheard of feature set for it's price.

I'm just borrowing the 500CM, so I won't be investing in any components. It does shoot 120 film, and I think my buddy has a 220 back, but I could be mistaken (he has a few MF film cameras).

SheepStar
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
unless one is a die-hard photographer with their own darkroom I doubt it.
You can send out to have your film processed and then buy a scanner for importing to edit digitally. It's not the cheapest route, but paying 25-30 per roll for digital conversion adds up.

SheepStar
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
So the 500CM arried and I ran 2 rolls through. 1 Ektar ISO100 and one Ilford HP5 ISO400 B&W.

The top down finder definitely takes some getting used to, but it's damn pretty. These are 6mp scans as the film lab screwed up (ordered 18mp, they're redoing them for Monday).

Josephson3119_1 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Josephson3119_10 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Josephson3119_12 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Josephson8080_4 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Josephson8080_7 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

Josephson8080_11 by brianjosephson1, on Flickr

SheepStar
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
Film still has a place in photography, it's just not the cheapest or most convenient place. But resolution, especially with large prints, where you can actually see the difference, is still superior to digital.

The problem is in the Pro world, where 90+ % of all output is to print, that resolution won't ever be evident (the printing process isn't as good as a modern digital sensor in resolution or dynamic range). Even billboards are digital domain since the viewing distance takes away any superior resolution advantages. So the market that bought the most quality film and larger print film is no longer, so the costs and availability has shrunk dramatically.

If you are doing Fine Art there is a place for film, and it still has a foothold in forensic imaging (basically, evidence photos) since it's easier to detect manipulation and most forms of digital manipulation don't have a corresponding manipulation avenue with a negative or print from negative.

I don't see the point in taking film to a quick photo developer to get prints. They don't have the technology to exploit film's advantages, you may as well be doing digital there. To make film worthwhile, especially considering the costs involved in processing and printing, you need to either be printing yourself with a conventional darkroom using selected "really good" images and in large print sizes (at least 20x24, and really they should be even larger) or taking the same quality shots to a professional who would do the same. To make that worthwhile, then, you need to be selling those prints as framed art.

I sold my last film camera, a Polaroid 600SE (medium format, made by Mamiya, interchangeable lenses, and using the film packs that gave a negative as well as the positive Polaroid print) to some hipster from California who wanted it to do "art photography" while he and his GF toured Europe.

I was doing Polaroid dye transfer prints with it.

[Not my image, they are buried in another Hard Drive, but illustrative of the effect.]

Polaroid Dye Transfer.jpeg

.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top