May 29, 2016, 03:14:31 PM

Author Topic: Film is still hard to beat  (Read 45637 times)

smithy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 290
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2012, 08:29:17 AM »
You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta VHS wasn't better than VHS Beta, VHS just won the marketing war.  Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though?  I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera.  I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100.  There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course ;)
I edited your words to help your post make sense :)
5D Mark III, 40D, 1V.  Bunch of strobes, lenses and other bits.
They're, their, there, it's, its, too, to, than, then, you're, your.  One lens, two lenses, the lens's aperture.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2012, 08:29:17 AM »

itsnotmeyouknow

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 244
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2012, 10:37:56 AM »
You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? Beta VHS wasn't better than VHS Beta, VHS just won the marketing war.  Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes film digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though?  I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera.  I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100.  There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course ;)
I edited your words to help your post make sense :)

Oops don't know how I managed that. Thanks!

So this is what I meant:

You do realise that much of what you see on TV has been recorded on Beta tape don't you? VHS wasn't better than Beta, VHS just won the marketing war.  Beta and its successor Digital Tape (which is based on Beta) is far superior to VHS.

On the other side of things, yes digital is more convenient, and yes it is easier to learn at the beginning as you see your results. Does it make us lazy though?  I believe to an extent it does: shoot away and it can be fixed more easily in post so many don't bother to get it right in camera.  I shoot all medium format in film mix of black and white and Reala/Ektar 100.  There are still some qualities that I like in the film that isn't present in digital. Other views will vary of course ;)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 10:40:18 AM by itsnotmeyouknow »

markd61

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #107 on: June 24, 2012, 10:25:20 PM »
Those are beautiful images.

What is ironic is that the scans from your negs are probably better than what can be achieved by optical printing on photo paper.

When I first started scanning negs on a Kodak RFS 3570 back in the 90's I was astonished to see the dynamic range of the scans that far surpassed the quality of printing conventionally. I was able to create prints from my scans that left my clients speechless. The best part was when they took their negs to other labs and could never get prints to equal the range in our prints.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2012, 09:30:58 PM »
Some days i'm in a film mood, some days I'm in a digital mood.  The digital days outweigh the film days probably at least 100:1 these days, but I still have a film camera and some film waiting to be used.

My decision is based on liking to shoot black and white with chromagenic film now and then, I love xp2 and 400cn.

The grain is lovely, quite pronounced, yet doesn't get in the way of detail, quite unlike digital noise, the contrast and gamma scale is totally different too, and the biggest bonus of all: I can optically filter the lens.

When I've tried this on digital the results are very flat - post-processing being better for digital mono's- but a red or yellow or occasionally green filter over my lens renders my viewfinder 'momo' to all intents and purposes, certainly it makes it far more easy for me to see in mono: with an unfiltered viewfinder I struggle to see visualise a good mono shot.

There is the argument of shooting RAW with the mono picture style on (giving me a mono live view, but colour RAW if I really need to tweak) but I find this less immediate, ironically.

My shots on film tend to be more rigorously planned an executed, I think technical merits of the medium aside, film forces you into a different way of working : sometimes it's great to have space for 500 RAW files at 8fps.  Other times it's great just to take your time.  Not that this is exclusive to film users of course.

I'm not looking to be corrected as it really is just an opinion and it is what works for me, but thats the point, these debates always come down to which is 'better'.   I reached the conclusion that they are different, and folk who write one off against the other are potentially missing a trick.

On the Beta / VHS debate (It really isn't the same thing, Beta / 16mm would be a better comparison) VHS won out because it was cheaper to make, had higher profit margins and the studios got behind it.

Beta was technically far superior (component colour vs composite colour) but the decks were more costly and the distributers never really got behind it.

I have a Sony J3 deck (pro betacamSP/BetacamSX/Digibeta) which still gets daily use and a JVC S-VHS deck which is used occassionally, normally for friends looking to dub their 1980's holiday videos to DVD.

Ultimately, Beta derived formats won....   Which reminds me, I have 2 rolls of S8 ektachrome I need to use up!

gary samples

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #109 on: June 27, 2012, 09:38:48 PM »
do they still make film?

dr croubie

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1401
  • Too many photos, too little time.
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2012, 10:13:31 PM »
do they still make film?

Making it isn't the problem, everyone here still sells it, even the local supermarkets and Big W.

It's the processing that's a bitch, I get my normal-colour and colour-B+W (like Tmax) films done at the 1 Kodak Express between here and Melbourne, even they can't do slide (like Velvia) so they post it to someone else. The 'true' B+W films like BW400CN I get done at another shop called (funnily enough), Black+White Photographics (who also, funnily enough, do process Velvia and slide films).
Besides those two shops there might be another one or two around the place, if they close then it's postage to Sydney or Melbourne or start mixing my own chemicals...
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2012, 10:43:32 PM »
@drcroubie

Think you got your true and colour bw films mixed up there old chap: 400Cn is chromagenic (c41 process) TMax's are old school mono.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2012, 10:43:32 PM »

slclick

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1362
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #112 on: April 02, 2016, 04:58:08 PM »

My EOS 3 just kicked the bucket and took me out of the film business (for a while) unless you count 120 Holga which I next to never shoot any longer.
5D3, Rokinon 14 2.8, 24-35 Art, 40, 100L, 135L, 70-300L Lensbabies, Holga 120

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1701
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #113 on: April 02, 2016, 08:24:24 PM »
"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.   ;)
I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?

100 rolls, or 3600 shots.
For a professional, probably 5 weddings (or less)?
So, a 5D3 pays for itself pretty quickly.
Maybe you should argue about other advantages of film?
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

slclick

  • 5DSR
  • *******
  • Posts: 1362
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #114 on: April 02, 2016, 08:37:55 PM »
"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise.   ;)
I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?

100 rolls, or 3600 shots.
For a professional, probably 5 weddings (or less)?
So, a 5D3 pays for itself pretty quickly.
Maybe you should argue about other advantages of film?

Film is expensive. That is a given. But a bigger issue for me is space/darkroom availability. I'm accustomed to too professional of facilities from Community College to have a go (again) at a home setup. The only darkroom to rent is 12+ miles away with limited availability. So besides the fact that my film body just broke, it's not the real problem here, it's infrastructure.I have a ton of film, paper, toner, and other goods to produce alternative prints but just not the place. Oh, send it to a lab you say? And who is going to do my dodging and burning? My toning? .....I won't scan unless it's drum scanning and it's just not available here. I love it, I am very passionate about it but it's just not feasible. Maybe when the kids move out, lol.
5D3, Rokinon 14 2.8, 24-35 Art, 40, 100L, 135L, 70-300L Lensbabies, Holga 120

pwp

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2062
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #115 on: April 03, 2016, 01:23:20 AM »
Wow another resurrected 2012 thread singing the praised of film on the same day. What's going on? Must be a Kodak led conspiracy. This has been solidly argued for just about all of this century. I thought the dust had settled.

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

N2itiv

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #116 on: April 03, 2016, 03:10:17 AM »
........

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr.

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.

CanonFanBoy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 793
  • If I can't be nice don't post anything at all.
    • flickr
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #117 on: April 03, 2016, 03:54:01 AM »
........

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr.

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.

While film isn't completely dead, it is mostly dead. The fact that when I go to Walmart and can only find one brand, one speed, and only in color... and the fact that they no longer process the medium tells me that film is mostly dead. It is a niche market just like vinyl records and jiffy pop popcorn.

Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago. :)

In my opinion, film is easy to beat because it is so got dang scarce and cumbersome to find processing. Yes, I could process it myself, but I don't have room for a darkroom setup.

With digital, things move at lightning speed and I can get any look I want... including a film look, whatever that is.
Canon 5D Mark III, Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, Canon 135mm f/2L, Canon 2X III, Canon 600EX-RT (x7), Canon ST-E3-RT, Flashpoint Streaklight 360ws. Mirror-less Voigtlander VITO CL with a LANTHAR 50mm f/2.8 PRONTO-LK lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #117 on: April 03, 2016, 03:54:01 AM »

d

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #118 on: April 03, 2016, 06:00:11 AM »

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer....


Film is practical?  Ha!  You have to have to buy it, unpack it, open your camera, fit it inside correctly.  Then 24 or 36 images later you rewind it, open your camera and remove it, store it, install your next roll, then 24 or 36 images later...

Took a group photo...did anyone blink...dunno, no way to check.  Take some more photos just in case...

Do I need to talk about the development process? Scanning to obtain a digital version?

Doesn't sound like a very practical medium to me, when with a digital camera I can snap, review, upload, edit and print a bunch of photos in practically no time.  And with the low cost of computers and cameras these days, it doesn't take many photos at all before you come out cheaper than an equivalent number of film images.

I do like film and still shoot it occasionally for a bit of fun, but I don't think it has much to offer these days other than warm feelings of nostalgia.  Practical, it ain't.

d.

N2itiv

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #119 on: April 03, 2016, 08:38:41 AM »
........

Re: Film is still hard to beat...nah, Film is so easy to beat. It was ten or more years ago, it was in 2012 and it is today.

-pw

Get a clue, pw.
Film is still practical w/much to offer. People w/your opinion are a laugh because no matter what you say film just won't die. The message an image conveys is more important than medium. That holds true w/digital. Portra, Ektar, and other film brands have improved greatly since the years you've used it. Professionally or otherwise. Digitize it and you can do the same w/it as one can do w/an dslr.

Most members here do photography for their enjoyment. What you or I think about what gives them pleasure isn't our business. I use both. I used film as a full time professional through the end of '08 and will use it again as I re-enter business. There's no difference between a film dollar or digital dollar. Get real and quit being a killjoy.

While film isn't completely dead, it is mostly dead. The fact that when I go to Walmart and can only find one brand, one speed, and only in color... and the fact that they no longer process the medium tells me that film is mostly dead. It is a niche market just like vinyl records and jiffy pop popcorn.

Now, can anyone recommend a good 35mm black and white film I can get from Adorama or somewhere? I just got a 56 year old Voigtlander Vito CL (mint condition) that I want to play around with. Also, I need a good recommendation for where to process. Got rid of all my amateur darkroom stuff 20 years ago. :)

In my opinion, film is easy to beat because it is so got dang scarce and cumbersome to find processing. Yes, I could process it myself, but I don't have room for a darkroom setup.

With digital, things move at lightning speed and I can get any look I want... including a film look, whatever that is.

I've already stated I use both, so I understand them both well. Anyway, back to your post.
Film users are a thriving community, however, obviously not equal to the # of dslr users. What do you really expect to find at Walmart film wise? Go to a real camera store like B&H where you will get the best prices.(and over 200 entries for available film) Do you do all your camera shopping local? Film is no different
Read the reviews there and select whatever ISO's you need.

Scarce? Do you get out in the internet world much? Not trying to give you a hard time but this is much too simple. Here's a link: Do your own homework. You'd be surprised what's still available.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/labs_services.php?doc=custom . You may also want to see apug.com for other film suppliers.
Here's a couple others not listed: PhotoTech labs in Richmond, VA. Moon Photo, and Panda Photo Lab in Seattle, and Richard photo lab. Good luck!
« Last Edit: April 03, 2016, 08:50:21 AM by N2itiv »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Film is still hard to beat
« Reply #119 on: April 03, 2016, 08:38:41 AM »