Anyone still shoot film?

On 1/26/2010 1:10 AM Bill Graham spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

Ended up with one in downtown Berkeley ........

That explains a lot..........

Just *what* does that explain, pray tell?

[another badly attributed post from the genius Graham]


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 1/26/2010 6:48 AM Annika1980 spake thus:

On Jan 26, 1:37 am, Jeremy Nixon ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote:

After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film.
I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money.

How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and
cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason
I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film
and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll.

So what do you print on: ether? You pay nothing for prints?

Oh, you never make prints. That explains it.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 1/25/2010 10:37 PM Jeremy Nixon spake thus:

Patrick L wrote:

I've got four dSLRs, but I miss shooting film, so come Christmas, my mom
wanted me to take pictures so I dusted off my old ElanII, 28-105 lens, and
bought a roll of Kodak Gold ( nothin' particularly fancy about this rig )
with a 580ex flash took some snaps and had the pictures developed at a local
drugstore. The shots were beautiful, or at least I thought so and so did my
family.

After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film.
I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that
digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually
trying it.

Well put.

I would just add that it's trivially easy to get from the analog to the
digital domain when necessary (for web use, digital printing or
publication) by means of a marvelous machine called a "scanner".


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

On 1/25/2010 9:47 PM Noons spake thus:

Ektar 100 is great indoors with tungsten light. The colours are
superb. Try a roll with a wide open small tele and get it processed
by someone who knows what they are doing: you'll love it.

But doesn't that leave you with a distinct orange cast?

Not saying that's necessarily the end of the world; I've done plenty of
shooting (in days past) using daylight film under tungsten, with
pleasing (to me, at least) results.

In fact, some of my best pictures, done when I was a 17-year-old
snot-nose, were of a theater group's performance under hot tungsten
lights. Some of the picture actually came out *red*, not just orange,
but it suited the subject matter (Jean-Claude van Itallie's "The
Serpent") perfectly.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

John McWilliams wrote:
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film.
I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that
digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually
trying it.

What were you shooting with in your digital moments?

Nikon D2x. I still use it, of course, when I need its particular strengths.
Honestly, when I first took up film again I thought it was just a fun side
project and that I'd be getting a D700 or whatever shortly, but I ended up
not even bringing the digital along much of the time.

For me, digital is way better than film, and after an initial investment
in a couple of bodies and great lenses, I have only depreciation/wear
"expense".

Even with just that, amortize those cameras over however many rolls of
film you'd shoot with a $100 film body that you never have to replace
because it will never become obsolete.

Making digital cheaper requires either shooting quite a lot, or using
second-rate digital cameras. Of course, some people really do shoot
that much. And there are certainly other advantages to using digital,
which I fully appreciate.

--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid

Scott W wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:37*pm, Jeremy Nixon ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote:

After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film.
I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. *The myth that
digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually
trying it.

Jeremy, wasn't it you who said

"The higher resolution and overall better image quality of digital has
made the need for a tripod even more clear. I didn't realize that a
tripod would make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it
does. I use it a lot more with digital. "

Yes. I readily admit to having drunk the digital Kool-Aid.

That was before running film through a *good* scanner and seeing what
comes out the other end.

--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:37*am, Jeremy Nixon ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote:

After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to film.
I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. *

How could you be spending way less money? Once you get the camera and
cards, shooting digital is essentially free. That's the primary reason
I switched to digital in the first place. By the time you buy the film
and pay for the processing, you're talking $10-$15 (US) per roll.

If you shoot a whole lot -- and you still would with film -- then that's
perfectly valid.

But "once you get the camera" is thousands of dollars, and that camera
then becomes obsolete and you end up wanting a new one in a mere few
years, and that's a whole lot of film and processing.

I'm spending less money because once I got a couple of secondhand film
cameras that will never become obsolete in perfect condition for a couple
hundred bucks, and a decent film scanner, I was still ahead by enough to
pay for years worth of film and processing, versus buying that new DSLR
I was contemplating. (Processing is somewhat cheaper than you indicate
if you do it yourself, too.)

There are other good reasons to use digital anyway, of course.

I still use digital for landscapes, for the clean enlargements, but I
suspect that if I had medium format film gear I wouldn't see much need
for that.

--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 1/26/2010 1:10 AM Bill Graham spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

Ended up with one in downtown Berkeley ........

That explains a lot..........

Just *what* does that explain, pray tell?

Well, I should have known that you were from the Peoples Republic of
Bezerkeley. Having lived there once myself, I should have recognized the
attitude. I lived on Amador Street back in the 50's, while I was attending U
of California. But I escaped before they were able to poison my
mind......some of us are just luckier than others, I guess.....:^)

"Jeremy Nixon" ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote in message
...
Scott W wrote:
On Jan 25, 8:37 pm, Jeremy Nixon ~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net wrote:

After a few years of shooting digital, I've mostly upgraded back to
film.
I'm enjoying photography more and spending way less money. The myth that
digital is so much better than film is easily escaped from by actually
trying it.

Jeremy, wasn't it you who said

"The higher resolution and overall better image quality of digital has
made the need for a tripod even more clear. I didn't realize that a
tripod would make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it
does. I use it a lot more with digital. "

Yes. I readily admit to having drunk the digital Kool-Aid.

That was before running film through a *good* scanner and seeing what
comes out the other end.

You mean I shouldn't sell my $2000 F5 back to B&H for $300, and use it for a
down payment on a D2 after all?

On 10-01-25 23:06 , Annika1980 wrote:

My experiences with slides are much better. The slides usually come
out looking the way they were shot. But now I have to scan them (a
VERY tedious process with the Minolta SE 5400)

I assure you that the Nikon scanner s/w and procedure is even more
tedious than the Minolta 5400...

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.