Any of you guys still shoot with film cameras?

[Arkitech]

just curious

I recently started shooting again with my Rebel EOS 2000

 

[alkemyst]

unless you are doing special effects with film, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[speedy2]

I think this thread is more about the appreciation of film than trying to say "film is better" or anything like that. lol

 

[alkemyst]

he didn't really qualify it...hence why I said if he's doing special effects.

IMHO if you are shooting on film and not doing your own darkroom work, it's a waste.

 

[Arkitech]

meh, not all of us can afford digital slrs

its actually kind of fun though, I'm re-learning which speed film to use for different lighting situations. although it sucks not seeing the finished product right away

for the film experts, which speed should I use for low light settings? 400 maybe?

 

[NutBucket]

Depends on what you're after. If you intend to make large prints, anything over 400 is probably going to be a bit grainy. 800 is fine for 5x7 and such....maybe 8x10 depending.

I prefer my film camera (Elan 7E) to my digital (T1i) but it just doesn't make sense financially. Creatively, I think using film makes you think more as a photographer before just snapping away.

 

[alkemyst]

meh, not all of us can afford digital slrs

its actually kind of fun though, I'm re-learning which speed film to use for different lighting situations. although it sucks not seeing the finished product right away

for the film experts, which speed should I use for low light settings? 400 maybe?

how much you going to spend on film and are you doing the post processing?

10+ years ago was why digital won...

What's your end game in this? If economy, you are going down the wrong path.


If artistic, there is some really cool stuff you can do, but pricey in the end.

 

[Cattykit]

I do.
Medium format and slide films.

 

[Arkitech]

how much you going to spend on film and are you doing the post processing?

10+ years ago was why digital won...

What's your end game in this? If economy, you are going down the wrong path.


If artistic, there is some really cool stuff you can do, but pricey in the end.

No end game here, I just don't have the money for a digital SLR, although I really, really want one. Maybe I'll get lucky and find a cheap one at a pawn shop or on Craigslist.

 

[finbarqs]

just got back from both the antelope canyons, brought my nikon FE with 2 rolls of Veliva 100 (which I think is superior to Velvia 50), my canon 5D Mark 2 w/ 24-70 f/2.8L, Leica D-Lux4.

Just got my slides processed, and boy oh boy... I can't imitate the coloring of the slides w/ post... could be my lack of photoshop skills... But Wow! is my impression when i looked at my slides through a loupe on a light box.

What I'm going to do, is find a REALLY GOOD SCANNER, because film to digital is based on what type of scanner is used... can be good, can be shitty. But Get a good scanner, and compare side by side. This comparison works because I had the intent of doing a comparison . Same focal length, aperture, shutter, film speed, FOV (since it was stationed on a tripod).

Of course, when I looked through my Canon, it wasn't nearly as "wow" as the velvia 100. I immediately thought "this will be good to in post"

 

[Arkitech]

Hey Finbarqs, post those pics when you get a chance. I'd like to see them

 

[Eug]

The favourite camera in my personal collection is a Yashica-Mat 124G, but I never use it.

meh, not all of us can afford digital slrs

Digital SLRs are much cheaper since there's no cost to develop the "film".

The main risk is getting too used to the shotgun approach. With film I often would spend time to carefully plan out each shot. With digital I just take 50 shots.

 

[ElFenix]

how much you going to spend on film and are you doing the post processing?

10+ years ago was why digital won...

What's your end game in this? If economy, you are going down the wrong path.


If artistic, there is some really cool stuff you can do, but pricey in the end.

economy? do you know how much film you can shoot for a decent digital camera with the featureset of a 7E?

 

[Eug]

economy? do you know how much film you can shoot for a decent digital camera with the featureset of a 7E?

Not a lot actually, if you include processing.

 

[speedy2]

Used Rebels XT or XTi goes for about $300 or less.

 

[996GT2]

economy? do you know how much film you can shoot for a decent digital camera with the featureset of a 7E?

1 roll of Velvia 50: $7
Cost to develop that roll: $8.50

At that price, you can only shoot about 900 pictures before you have spent more in film and developing costs than the price of a DSLR.

 

[alkemyst]

Not a lot actually, if you include processing.

QFT

like I mentioned (and even then) unless you are doing your own processing it's not going to make sense as far as it being a savings.

You can pick up an ebay dSLR for $200-300 with a decent lens or two.

a D40 is a very good low price choice.

 

[angry hampster]

I used to still shoot film at my weddings with me Canon Elan IIe (with eye-control focus!) but then I discovered AlienSkin. Their film effect actions are INCREDIBLE!

 

[Cattykit]

just got back from both the antelope canyons, brought my nikon FE with 2 rolls of Veliva 100 (which I think is superior to Velvia 50), my canon 5D Mark 2 w/ 24-70 f/2.8L, Leica D-Lux4.

Just got my slides processed, and boy oh boy... I can't imitate the coloring of the slides w/ post... could be my lack of photoshop skills... But Wow! is my impression when i looked at my slides through a loupe on a light box.

What I'm going to do, is find a REALLY GOOD SCANNER, because film to digital is based on what type of scanner is used... can be good, can be shitty. But Get a good scanner, and compare side by side. This comparison works because I had the intent of doing a comparison . Same focal length, aperture, shutter, film speed, FOV (since it was stationed on a tripod).

Of course, when I looked through my Canon, it wasn't nearly as "wow" as the velvia 100. I immediately thought "this will be good to in post"

Clear Picture Style with contrast all the way down, saturation 2-3 steps down, and +1 of exposure compentation would give the look Velvia.

 

[ElFenix]

1 roll of Velvia 50: $7
Cost to develop that roll: $8.50

At that price, you can only shoot about 900 pictures before you have spent more in film and developing costs than the price of a DSLR.

i'm not shooting velvia, if i want hyper-realistic fine grain stuff i'd just get out something digital. besides, ektar is very nice and is half that price. (and 120 film is a bargain, 5 rolls of ektar 120 for $20)

i get cheap film, develop it cheaply at costco, and then scan what i want myself. total cost is under $4 a roll. if i'm feeling arty i get something dirty like delta 3200, but that's not very often.

 

[alkemyst]

cheap film or not, with processing if you are taking pictures regularly you will exceed the cost of a dSLR quickly.

 

[corkyg]

If you do your own processing and darkroom work, it still costs more than digital imagery. In the old days, there were photo hobby shop darkrooms and equiment available, but those have gone away. I have three good film cameras sitting on the shelf - two have unprocessed film in them - probably 15 years old now.

 

[alkemyst]

that's so niceCheap HID Kits

hey mary, when we wanted to see your headlights, we meant tits.

 

[finbarqs]

Clear Picture Style with contrast all the way down, saturation 2-3 steps down, and +1 of exposure compentation would give the look Velvia.

Gonna use Nik Software... I think it has a closer look to Velvia than trying to simulate it in picture styles. And when you say "down" you mean +Contrast, + Saturation right?

 

[finbarqs]

alright, I spent hours doing this, but here it is!!!!

One of the images used nik software's "Fujichrome Velvia 100" preset to simulate the "actual" fujichrome veliva 100 positive slide film. Which is digital simulating velvia 100, which is the actual film?