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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

"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.

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

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

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..."