Any of you guys still shoot with film cameras?

[alkemyst]

the colors are different.

 

[angry hampster]

I'd say the one on the left is Velvia film.

 

[finbarqs]

left = 5D mark 2 with the 24-70 f/2.8L @ f/16 w/ Nik Software simulated Velvia 100
right = Nikon FE 28mm f/2.8 @ f/16 w/ velvia 100

yeah... They look "similar" but you can't get all the proper tones of velvia, and the dynamic range of film. Wow, this was also scanned with a flatbed epson v600 scanner. Obviously @ 100%, film falls flat on it's face. But that could be the scan... If I would've gone done a drum scan, the slide probably would've came out to be as sharp as the digital shot!

 

[aimvideo]

o m g .

 

[cparker]

I love film cameras. I used to do a lot of darkroom work myself with tri-x B/W film. I still have many film cameras but lately haven't used them hardly at all. The last one I picked up was an Elan 7N so I could have a full frame slr for some of my Canon EOS lenses for very little money (120 bucks including the battery pack/grip a few years ago). I love the camera, and I hope to be using it more someday. But in actuality, I find myself using my D40 and Rebel XT just about all the time. It's just too convenient not to have to deal with film and the pictures are fine for my mostly people/animal shots.

 

[Kommander_Kink]

How can I still use film cameras when they don't even sell the film anymore? I haven't seen a roll of film since 2002.

 

[Muse]

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.

This is a big part of the reason I went digital. In fact, since doing so I have paid $0 for processing, many thousands of pictures ago. I had some color film in my freezer I got somewhere but I tossed it a few months ago.

 

[bobdole369]

We've shot more film than digital in the past few months. Its just a preference. We really like the lomo stuff and its more artsy than anything. In fact my wife had her Canon F-1 out more than anything on our honeymoon out to the pacific coast. I spent most of my non-digital time with a diana shooting 120 or my ancient Zenobia.

Its certainly not the same thing as shooting a hundred pictures and getting a few. You spend a long time making sure evvvverything is right before you hit that shutter cuz it costs like $0.60.

In that same vein i can say that when I shoot film I end up with a much greater percentage of keepers than with digital. Gotta think that its the extra setup and making sure its right time that goes into it.

Yes and we tend to develop our own film, but not make prints (though we do have the capability with an enlarger). Simple development usually runs about $2.50 in the 1 hour labs, and less iwth a large amount at the pro labs. Instead we scan negatives with an epson v500, and the sellable ones will get redone at the pro lab on a drum scanner, or just printed directly from there.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Got a Mamiya 645AFD (the first version that takes about a month to autofocus, and that's in ideal lighting conditions) and an early-80s Hasselblad 501cm which I shoot on for fun sometimes.

For my real work? Never. Just not worth the effort.

 

[Anubis]

i would shoot a lot more film (4x5) if i still had access to a darkroom to develop/print

 

[angry hampster]

i would shoot a lot more film (4x5) if i still had access to a darkroom to develop/print

God I hated developing 4x5. I always just mailed mine to E-Six in Atlanta to have it processed.

 

[Anubis]

4x5 B&W is reallly no harder to dev then anything else
color yea id send that out

 

[finbarqs]

yeah... color send it out! B&W, go to your trusty bathroom

 

[angry hampster]

Yeah I was referring to color. Never did much B&W 4x5.

 

[spikespiegal]

Explain why the hell you'd want to shoot film and then scan it, which is nothing more than taking a digital capture of a piece of film? A film scaner *is* a digital camera.

I'd rather take a digital capture of the original scene than a digital capture of a second generation copy made of industrial film dye.

Anybody who makes up these bizarre myths about B&W film needs to view the callenge galleries over on Dpreview and note the amazing quality of monochrome digital work mostly taken by amatuers. It's very imressive, and it surpasses anything I've seen posted by disgruntled film shooters in a long time.

 

[angry hampster]

Color film has more dynamic range than damn near any digital camera. Scanners can capture this at high DPI.

 

[finbarqs]

The most obvious difference can be found in the highlights of the film vs. the digital. However, this comes back to the question: Which camera is better for a person, Canon Rebel T2i, or a 5D Mark 2? I've seen some shots on a T2i that'll blow away a 5D Mark 2. So that means, it's actually the photographer, not really the equipment.

i've posted a direct comparison using my Nikon FE using Velvia 100 film, and a 5D Mark 2, using a 24-70 f/2.8L in the same scene, using a tripod, and a "Very Similar Focal length". And as much as I try to get that Digital File to represent the Velvia, it just wouldn't have of it. (I used Nik Software's Color Effects Pro 3.0)

 

[misle]

I'm still rocking my old Nikon N60 with some Sigma lenses. I've been considering a DSLR, but I know nothing about them. Heck, I don't even know if my lenses will work with DSLR's.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I love film. I pull out the old AE-1P every now and then. I also often bring a refurbished Trip 35 on jobs for one of my sons to use for "retro" snapshots I always take it on vacation as it is instantly ready and needs no battery. I am considering getting a Diana Mini just for soft-focus "toy camera" fun.

http://www.holgablog.com/2009/05/16/the-olympus-trip-35-a-classic-everyone-should-own/

http://microsites.lomography.com/dianamini/about

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Explain why the hell you'd want to shoot film and then scan it, which is nothing more than taking a digital capture of a piece of film? A film scaner *is* a digital camera.

I'd rather take a digital capture of the original scene than a digital capture of a second generation copy made of industrial film dye.

Anybody who makes up these bizarre myths about B&W film needs to view the callenge galleries over on Dpreview and note the amazing quality of monochrome digital work mostly taken by amatuers. It's very imressive, and it surpasses anything I've seen posted by disgruntled film shooters in a long time.

Slide film has a "look" that cannot yet be duplicated. For instance, FUJI Velvia 50 is unsurpassed for landscape photography, especially in medium format.

 

[iGas]

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?

The one on the left is film, because Velvia have an inherit high saturation look and extra blue/ purple boost. Agfachrome (could be Vista) is the only other film that hyper boost purple colour even more so than Velvia if I remember correctly.

 

[iGas]

Slide film has a "look" that cannot yet be duplicated. For instance, FUJI Velvia 50 is unsurpassed for landscape photography, especially in medium format.

Velvia 50 is among the top few film that was developed, so as Kodachrome and Agfachrome.

35mm, I still have about 10 rolls of Agfapan, 1 roll of Agfa chrome, 10 rolls of Velvia, 1 roll of Ilford delta, and 6 rolls of fujifilm.

120, I have 10 rolls of Agfapan 25, 10 rolls of Velvia 50, and 6 rolls of Fujicolor 160.

And, I'm thinking of getting rid off all film cameras and jump on the digital bandwagon.

 

[finbarqs]

The one on the Right was film answer was revealed toward the top!

I believe Velvia 100 is superior to velvia 50, mainly because it has finer grain, and better dynamic range. I use to shoot Velvia quite often, until I tried 100, then realized 100 was even better (IMHO) than 50. I guess because it's newer as well too.... But anyways, there will always be arguments that people like 100 over 50, and 50 over 100. I like 100 over 50, but that's just me.

But yeah, Right is Film, left is 5D Mark 2 w/ 24-70 f/2.8L @ 28mm f/16 right is nikon FE 28mm f/2.8 @ 28mm f/16

Nik Software is used to simulate the Velvia in Post

 

[spikespiegal]

Here's the real funny thing about this and will blow away a lot of this comparison. It also accounts for much of my pesistent hatred towards film and increasing lack of patience with film shooters and their 'film is unique' philosophy.

(1) The quality of pretty much any slide film in my RB67 is better than anything you can shoot in 35mm. I don't care about the technical improvements made with film in the past 5 years - no 35mm film will ever surpass medium format because the molecular structures of the films are the same. Making grain less obvious due to reductions in density range isn't an improvement.

(2) Variances in E-6 processing are legitimate and wreck any side by side comparison.

I spent five years doing Q/C for commercial E-6 lines, and even with a quarter million dollar's worth of lab gear still got better results hand processing Fuji E-6. The reason is that Fuji castrates processing times for their E-6 materials to make them compatible with Kodak control strips, and the result is decreased saturation and density range. Provia for instance when processed with the proper extended color developer and first developer times produces saturation equal to either Velvia emulsion with radically better dynamic range and detail holding. If you don't believe me, try it yourself. I then proved it by sending three rolls of test slides on RVP 50 to three differant labs and got three different results back.

This proves my point yet again that most film shooters are still using film because they lack photgraphic skills and need a random number generator. The reason you can't make digital capture look like slide film is simply because film is so random and the color/density response so non-linear that it's not worth the time.

At worst find a lab that's using single shot E-6 processing because you'll get more robust chemicals than those used in 'fits all' replenishment systems.

 

[iGas]

The one on the Right was film answer was revealed toward the top!

I believe Velvia 100 is superior to velvia 50, mainly because it has finer grain, and better dynamic range. I use to shoot Velvia quite often, until I tried 100, then realized 100 was even better (IMHO) than 50. I guess because it's newer as well too.... But anyways, there will always be arguments that people like 100 over 50, and 50 over 100. I like 100 over 50, but that's just me.

But yeah, Right is Film, left is 5D Mark 2 w/ 24-70 f/2.8L @ 28mm f/16 right is nikon FE 28mm f/2.8 @ 28mm f/16

Nik Software is used to simulate the Velvia in Post

Both have pretty much the same resolve power, however IMHO 50 ISO produce slightly better colour saturation (even more than derate 100 ISO by 1 stop to 50 ISO).