how many of you still shoot film....

Noons wrote:
I'm starting to look at B&W again as well: can't get the effect
I like with digital.

I've played around with scanned 6x7 slide film (Provia & Astia) and
Reala as a B&W media. The "filters" are built in if you desaturate
selectively. An example is at http://chasfs.com/landscape.py - Columns
3, Caesaria - 2002. This prints very nicely at 24" x 30".

Peace,
-chasfs

chasfs wrote:

I've played around with scanned 6x7 slide film (Provia & Astia) and
Reala as a B&W media. The "filters" are built in if you desaturate
selectively. An example is at http://chasfs.com/landscape.py - Columns
3, Caesaria - 2002. This prints very nicely at 24" x 30".


yeah, thanks. I've tried that but it just ain't working
for me. Somehow I just can't get the deep contrast
I like with desaturation of a colour scan. I've tried
scanning directly to B&W and that sort-of works.
I'm probably doing something stupid or wrong,
but a direct scan of a B&W negative still beats
the lot.

For the Day Job it is all digital and being a progressive enterprise, I
regularly get better and better hardware.

For the rest, it is all film of 6x6cm to 8x10inch using cameras made at
least fifty years ago (and there's a lot of them available quite
reasonably.)

Why? First, I began with film so the regime is familiar enough that I know
what I'm getting. Second, once on film I've no electronic dependencies, no
modern uncertainties and for the most part, the quality is better than
contemporary digital means. Most important - for images that require
perspective control and quality, there's nothing in digital on earth yet
that can beat a Large Format camera with film. Scanning backs don't work for
so many subjects, and the microcontrols necessary with MF digital are truly
not ready for prime time - they are a 'tween solution and unacceptably
expensive, transitory.

I continue to shoot film for the following reasons:

1) DSLRs have a 2x3 aspect ratio. I prefer something closer to 4x5.
2) No waist level finders. Composing on the groundglass is great!
3) Digital b&w just cannot match film no matter how much effort you put
in.
4) There are problems with the resolution of canon's lenses which
makes me wary of investing in a system
5) 6x7 beats the 1dsmkII
6) Gear depreciates like crazy. I can sell my film cameras for what
I'm bought them for off ebay.

I'm having a great time with my RB67 and mamiya 7 which I never could
have afforded a few years back. If I was shooting professionally
however, I'd have a 1dsmkII on order tomorrow. Film workflow is slow,
time consuming and expensive. I would still use film for my own work
though.

You need to join apug.org you will be much happier.

I'm sure one day in the future I will have a dslr. That day is some way
off yet.

On 29 Aug 2006 13:14:31 -0700, "MLIDDELL"
wrote:

I continue to shoot film for the following reasons:

1) DSLRs have a 2x3 aspect ratio. I prefer something closer to 4x5.
2) No waist level finders. Composing on the groundglass is great!
3) Digital b&w just cannot match film no matter how much effort you put
in.
4) There are problems with the resolution of canon's lenses which
makes me wary of investing in a system
5) 6x7 beats the 1dsmkII
6) Gear depreciates like crazy. I can sell my film cameras for what
I'm bought them for off ebay.


What would it take to put item #3 to the test?

I hear people make the claim all the time but I don't buy it.
I've seen a fair amount of counter-evidence, in fact.

If there's any systematic, measureable difference at all it
will have to do with the nature of the print, not the
imaging apparatus.

It's obvious you've thought about this and rationalized
strongly against a DSLR. I say, don't knock it till you've
tried it.

I shoot film of all shapes and sizes (up to 4x5") But I do
love my DSLR, and may be done forever with 35mm film.

If I can get 90% of the results with 10% of the effort
I call that a bargain. I use film for days when
photography is the main event. For almost everything
else, (like, say, hiking, beach, vacation, parties) it's
digital.

PS: with regard to Item 4:
a) Canon L optics not good enough for you? U serious?
b) So get a Nikon.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

If I can get 90% of the results with 10% of the effort
I call that a bargain.

With all due respect, sir...

If I can get 100% of the results with 100% of the effort *I* call that a
bargain. It all depends on where one's needs and priorities lie.

Ken

Ken Nadvornick wrote:
"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

If I can get 90% of the results with 10% of the effort
I call that a bargain.

With all due respect, sir...

If I can get 100% of the results with 100% of the effort *I* call that a
bargain. It all depends on where one's needs and priorities lie.
What are you calling 100% of the effort?

Scott

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote:
"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

If I can get 90% of the results with 10% of the effort
I call that a bargain.

With all due respect, sir...

If I can get 100% of the results with 100% of the effort *I* call that a
bargain. It all depends on where one's needs and priorities lie.

That only makes sense if you have a glass ceiling on your imaging
technology.

If you shoot one format larger than the actual needs of the job, 90% of 150%
is still 135%, and 10% of 200% (assuming the next format up is twice the
work) is still 20% of the effort.

While this may sound like a cutesy joke, making killer 13x19s from 6x7 is
like falling off a log, but from 6x6 or 645, it requires almost a 9x
enlargement, which is beginning to stress most films, if you are targeting
grain-sniffable prints.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

you know i never thought i get the responce that i have gotten with this
post.......there are still die hard film users out there..... i just
tried Fujis PRO 160 S 220......i can't believe that with digital being
so strong( to some maybe) that they spent the time and money on this
product.
if they did this they knew film was not going to die.....the color just
pops out at ya and the flesh tones are unreal.....this film put there
old NPS 160 220 TO SHAME....JMO....the bizis coming back and i'm finding
a lot of brides are looking for the film users yet...anyways here in
Milwaukkee, WI.....so i glad i didn't trade in the HASSY for
digital.........i'm here to say that i'm going to use film till they
stop making it...but if fuji came out with a new film....i think its a
long way away ...................wayne

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:59:51 GMT, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:

"Raphael Bustin" wrote:

If I can get 90% of the results with 10% of the effort
I call that a bargain.

With all due respect, sir...

If I can get 100% of the results with 100% of the effort *I* call that a
bargain. It all depends on where one's needs and priorities lie.


The part you snipped is important. Purpose is everything.

When photography is the main event, I shoot MF or LF film.
For almost anything else, film is just too much bother.

As I write this I'm nearly packed for a 100+ mile hike, to
commence within a few days.

There will be no film on this trip but there will be a small
Canon digicam, all 10 oz. worth. Where I'm going,
efficiency matters -- weight, volume, ease of use.

Later this fall I'm sure there will be local day hikes with the
4x5 and/or MF kits. Purpose is everything.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com