If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
Given how the photography magazines abandoned film overnight a few years
ago, it's surprising to see this article. Reason #2 is the most important to me. SW http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...hoot-film.html 5 Reasons to Shoot Film Five cases when film beats digital hands-down. By Russell Hart December 2006 Digital is the earnest child of photography, always striving to better itself. Film is the adult, having had more than a century to mature. That's why there are times when film -- and only film -- is the best insurance that you'll get the result you want. Here are five arguments in its favor. 1) ULTIMATE IMAGE SHARPNESS For most purposes, digital will do. But unless you're shooting with an ultra high-resolution digital back or top pro-level DSLR, film still produces the sharpest possible images. A 35mm frame converted to a digital file by today's desktop scanners simply clobbers the sharpness of a typical consumer DSLR. Yes, you can sharpen a digital image in software. And with most DSLRs you must, because images are considerably softened by anti-aliasing filters that keep their sensors from recording jagged edges and moiré patterns. Yet if you overdo your sharpening, the image can take on a distractingly "crispy" appearance. The sharpness you get from film is more natural looking. 2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK" Films have personality; DSLRs don't. While many DSLRs let you dial in higher or lower saturation and contrast, those crude adjustments can't compare to the richness of film, whether Velvia's crisp, saturated look or the delicate tonal shoulder of Tri-X. (Black-and-white is a particular challenge for digital, especially in-camera.) You can always mess with curves and other factors once you get a digitally captured image into editing software. There are even programs that mimic the qualities of specific films. Whether they succeed is a judgment call, but you won't get the inimitable look of Kodachrome out of the box. 3) WIDEST TONAL RANGE Digital SLRs are dynamically challenged. In contrasty light they have a hell of a time with highlight and shadow detail. Sure, they've improved, and RAW helps. But they have far to go before they match a color negative's ability to lasso photons high and low. Film can be manipulated to soak up even more of a scene's tonal extremes. You can rein in highlights by "pulling," or shortening, the development of b&w film. You compensate for this by adding exposure when shooting, improving shadow detail. You can overexpose color negative film by as much as four stops to increase shadow detail and reduce contrast, without damaging highlight nuances. Again, some super-duper digital backs claim to match or exceed the range captured by film. If you can afford them, go for it -- and bring along your laptop. 4) ON A FIXED BUDGET At a given level of quality, film is still less costly than digital. On the low end, a single-use camera loaded with color negative film costs under $10; the cheapest digital point-and-shoots run nearly $100. On the high end, consider what a well-appointed 35mm SLR will set you back these days: a couple hundred bucks with lens. Color film and processing costs maybe 15 cents a shot. Compare that to the price of the least expensive DSLR, still about $600 (though over time it will save you a lot in film and processing costs). 5) WIDEST ANGLE OF VIEW WITH YOUR EXISTING LENSES True, camera makers have created some excellent wide-angle zooms, and even fisheyes, for their digital SLRs. These lenses offset the smaller-than-35mm image sensor found in all but a couple of DSLRs. But many photographers choose the same brand of DSLR that they used for 35mm because they can shoot with their existing lenses. The problem is that the DSLR's smaller image sensor puts horse blinkers on those lenses, wasting much of their available image circle. For example, the nearly 75-degree angle of view produced on the full 35mm frame by a 24mm wide-angle (maybe my all-time favorite 35mm focal length) narrows to just over 50 degrees -- in effect, a 36mm or 38mm lens -- when you put that same lens on a DSLR with an APS-C-sized image sensor (Nikons, Pentaxes, the Sony, and most Canons). So if you want the full goodness of a made-for-35mm lens' angle of view, put it on your aging Canon EOS A2E instead of your Digital Rebel XT, or even your old Nikon F3 instead of your spanking-new Nikon D200. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
What a bunch of bunk!
1) ULTIMATE IMAGE SHARPNESS For most purposes, digital will do. But unless you're shooting with an ultra high-resolution digital back or top pro-level DSLR, film still produces the sharpest possible images. Total Garbage. 2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK" Films have personality; DSLRs don't. The advantage of digital is the ability to mimic any film look. With film you have to change films or ISOs to achieve a certain look. With film you're stuck with what you've got loaded in the camera. 3) WIDEST TONAL RANGE Film can be manipulated to soak up even more of a scene's tonal extremes. RAW mode says hi. 4) ON A FIXED BUDGET The only true thing the guy wrote here is "though over time it will save you a lot in film and processing costs." 5) WIDEST ANGLE OF VIEW WITH YOUR EXISTING LENSES The 5D says hi. But even with my 20D I can get wide angles via stitching. There is nothing the film shooter can do, however, to approximate the telephoto benefits I get when shooting subjects at long range. Hardly a day goes past when I don't long for a longer focal length. Rarely have I ever lamented being too close with my wide angles. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
The reasons for killing trees to publish things like this is the same
reason, just before every election, the Republican party brings up an anti flag-burning constitutional amendment. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
Annika1980 wrote:
2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK" Films have personality; DSLRs don't. The advantage of digital is the ability to mimic any film look. With film you have to change films or ISOs to achieve a certain look. With film you're stuck with what you've got loaded in the camera. Film does have a certain nuance that digital lacks, and I seem to generally be more pleased with my results from film than I am from digital, but there is a flip side, too. The flexibility to change ISO or other settings at need cannot be discounted, and is no small thing. I've always prefered 12-exposure and 24-exposure rolls of film rather than 36-exposure rolls for that reason, but they're getting harder and harder to find. That's one great thing about my MF cameras... 10 or 12 shot rolls, depending on if I"m doing 6x6 or 6x7. 4) ON A FIXED BUDGET The only true thing the guy wrote here is "though over time it will save you a lot in film and processing costs." I just don't buy these cost arguments anymore. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. 5) WIDEST ANGLE OF VIEW WITH YOUR EXISTING LENSES The 5D says hi. But even with my 20D I can get wide angles via stitching. There is nothing the film shooter can do, however, to approximate the telephoto benefits I get when shooting subjects at long range. Hardly a day goes past when I don't long for a longer focal length. Rarely have I ever lamented being too close with my wide angles. Again, a flip side. Sometimes I wish my 10D were full-frame, but like you, it's not all that often. Then again, there are times I love the 1.6 factor on the long end. In fact, I've even grown to like my 1.6 crop factor so much, that using my full-frame film camera seems strange when I do use it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
"Summer Wind" wrote in
. net: Given how the photography magazines abandoned film overnight a few years ago, it's surprising to see this article. Reason #2 is the most important to me. Hmmm, I wonder how many of the screaming digiheads who are going to start jumpng up and down and frothing have even the remotest experience in any of the things mentioned in the article. Not that it'll stop them. Picking on digital is like picking on jesus. Always good for yuks. Watch for the throbbing forehead veins. Annika's already piped up. Scott should be along any minute, and Floyd'll make a guest appearance. "Blasphemy! Blasphemy! BUUURRRNNN THEMMM!" - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
"That_Rich" wrote in message
... I have no real preference over film and digital, I just happen to use film because my investment over the last thirty years in film equipment must be figured into the equation. To replace all I've amassed with digital would be silly at this point. When full frame digital becomes reasonable for a weekend shooter, then I'll make my move. Amen! I've been wondering what ever has happened to all those guys that were buying film equipment all those years. It couldn't ALL have ended up on eBay . . . The way I see it, the acquisition of my film scanner has, in a sense, turned all of my film cameras into digital cameras. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
Al Denelsbeck wrote: "Summer Wind" wrote in . net: Given how the photography magazines abandoned film overnight a few years ago, it's surprising to see this article. Reason #2 is the most important to me. Hmmm, I wonder how many of the screaming digiheads who are going to start jumpng up and down and frothing have even the remotest experience in any of the things mentioned in the article. Not that it'll stop them. It seems to be the older guys who have been shooting film for many years that have moved on to digital. Oh sure Bret looks like he is a young fellow but most of us are getting pretty old. FWIW I was shooting LF around 1970, but mostly it has been 35mm for the last 20 years that I shot film. It was 2001 when film scanner finally came down in price enough that I bought one and this breathed new light into film. Now I could do even more with color film then I could with B/W in my darkroom days. Now I am not going to pretend that I have a huge amount of experience in film, but I do have a fair bit and it goes way back to the early 60s when I was just a kid shooting 120 film and making contact prints in my dad's darkroom. Scott |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
On 27 Dec 2006 11:16:31 -0800, "Annika1980" wrote:
What a bunch of bunk! 2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK" Films have personality; DSLRs don't. The advantage of digital is the ability to mimic any film look. HP-5 in Rodinal? Efke PL-25 - 4x5 - in Pyrocat-HD? Infrared Ektachrome? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
David Starr wrote:
: On 27 Dec 2006 11:16:31 -0800, "Annika1980" wrote: : What a bunch of bunk! : : 2) A SPECIFIC "LOOK" : Films have personality; DSLRs don't. : : The advantage of digital is the ability to mimic any film look. : HP-5 in Rodinal? : Efke PL-25 - 4x5 - in Pyrocat-HD? I'm kind of partial to Efke PL-25 - 4x5 in tfx2. Semi-stand development with 5sec of agitation every 3min for 20min. : Infrared Ektachrome? : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. : Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography : Web Site: www.destarr.com : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article
Summer Wind wrote:
Given how the photography magazines abandoned film overnight a few years ago, it's surprising to see this article. Reason #2 is the most important to me. Sounds more like: "One More Reason (among thousands) to NOT Read Pop Photo..." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how many of you still shoot film.... | PRO SHOW_SS | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 57 | September 17th 06 05:22 AM |
Reasons why I bought the Canon 30D | Kulvinder Singh Matharu | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | April 4th 06 01:53 PM |
Why some folks still shoot film .... | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 73 | April 7th 05 01:33 AM |
25 Reasons to avoid the SD-10 | Laurence Matson | Digital Photography | 6 | July 2nd 04 01:55 PM |
Europe's most popular B&W film? | AnGeLuS 2126 | Film & Labs | 8 | November 14th 03 01:24 PM |