Hypothetical Question - For 35mm Film Shooters

<p>Another thread here got me curious about a question:</p>

<p>Hypothetically speaking, what if the day comes when digital DSLR shooting provides the same or wider dynamic range over 35mm film (B&W and Color), and provides higher resolving power too....</p>

<p>How would this effect your decision to shoot film? Would you continue? Stop? Switch to digital? Would you stop shooting B&W 35mm but not color, or vis a vis? </p>

<p>If that day came, I might stop shooting film. However getting the grainy B&W look might be reason enough to continue with film.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Not to be rude but I think this question has been asked a few times before. but my 2 cents worth.<br>

No I will always shoot film for B&W in 35mm and MF. I use digital for quick snaps of areas I want to go back to and shoot when the subject and lighting is to my liking but the digitals are mostly a sketch book.</p>

<p>Larry I did a search and I was not able to find such a thread. I did find too many film vs digital threads however, but this thread is not like that.</p>

<p>What about color work? Will you continue with color film if the stated hypothetical were to happen?</p>

<p>For Color I shoot slides and Porta films. Someday I may get a full frame Digital but not anytime soon. as I have about 30 miles of film in a freezer.</p>

<p>I already shoot both. The decision to walk out the door in the morning with a 35mm camera has nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the digital. It's a D90, it's already got quite good DR and honestly I can make it get any photo I want with the exceptions of some things best done in medium format. For me the film is more about the intangibles that add to the enjoyment.</p>

<p>For now I absolutely love color...I shoot the cheap stuff, the FujiFilm Superia 400, and I think it is awesome...not bad for the bottom of the line cheapo drugstore stuff. I think this cheap film kills digital for color, tonal richness, fidelity, and dynamic range (of course, what film doesn't) over digital. But even the cheapo stuff is very expensive when you look at per frame costs in $ and in time (scanning, wet printing, etc).</p>

<p>I've occasionally thought that I would shelve the film when somebody makes a digital equivalent to my Pentax LX or Nikon F3 (wunderplastik blob cameras need not apply). But I'm not holding my breath.</p>

<p>Larry, what would a digital DSLR have to offer you to get you to get one? </p>

<p>I'll shoot film until it's not available any more. Then I'll get out of photography.</p>

<p>One that is not made yet.</p>

<p>For me it is not about when or if digital meets or exceeds technical superiority over film. Film photography with a straightforward camera offers an almost zen like photographic experience. It becomes an art in which you participate and think. Digital cameras are like a bastard child of a video game to me. Many of the type of photos I like are NOT technically perfect. Grain, some softness, black shadows, ... so what? The mood and atmosphere and statement of a photo is the point. I frankly don't give a rat's behind if I have a camera that can resolve a clump of mascara on an eyelash. Shots from my Holga have brought me far more admiration than anything else I have ever shot. To me a good comparison is a painter painting on a canvas with brushes and paint or doing it with a mouse in a computer program such as Corel Painter, then printing it out and saying, "here is my painting". So let the DSLRs get as good as they can get, hell, let them order out pizza for all I care. The way they are going, they are about to get that absurd and removed from photography. As long as there is film and a place to process it, then that is what I will use.</p>

<p>I personally will only shoot film for B+W. Digital just doesn't do B+W how I like it. IT may be technically more perfect as in sharper, less grain etc etc but film has a personality that hasn't been reproduced by digital yet, and I doubt if it ever will be. There's also the question of prints. B+W prints on real FB paper have a feel that I don't think can be matched by prints from digital even on the FB based digi paper. I've seen a lot of B+W prints from film and digital ranging from manufacturer test prints to high class gallery/museum prints. The film always has me staring for a long time looking at all the little details in the print while the digital usually gets a glancing look. BTW, this has nothing to do with the photographers, some of the digital ones were very nice pictures but the feel was just not there.<br>

I will also probably continue to shoot colour on film as well. Digital sensors with their Bayer arrays just don't work like film and they give a different look as a result. Film with its various colour layers has a very complicated response to light. Even the Foveon sensor looks different because the digital sensors don't have the same spectral response as the emulsion in film. Colour prints from light jet type printers are very nice but they are expensive. All other types of digital print look like posters to me... I think it might be the paper rather than the quality of the printer.<br>

I shoot film because it produces the colours and look I like for my work. If digital could match it then I might switch over because the workflow is attractive in some respects. However I highly doubt that in the near future there will be an affordable alternative to film.<br>

And yes, the cameras will really need to get better designed than the current plastic brick type look. Even the Leica M9 is fugly in my opinion.</p>

<p>You kind of answered for me.<br>

Dy-Range is the huge issue however, I want the "Film" look and will never leave it.</p>

<p>The 12x18 inch prints I get from a well exposed RAW file out of my Nikon D300 is already better quality than I could get out of a 35mm neg or slide. I shoot film for longevity, for documentation, or for sheer pleasure. If I want a good 12x18 inch print, or 20x30 inch print, I'll shoot with my Nikon D300 every time.</p>

<p>Dave Lee, I don't dispute what you wrote. However there is more to image quality then resolution. What about dynamic range? Your whites are more likely to get blown, but not just whites, any bright color can get blown too easily. I love both film and digital and each has their place, and strengths. My 5D Mark II's 21mp is awesome, but like your D300, the highlights run to Hex 255 fast and often regardless of how good the exposure is. Here is a picture that I shot with color negative film (Fujifilm Superia 400). Notice the white tulip on the left? I could never resolve such details with a DSLR of any make or model as I did with this film. To get the dark magenta on the right, and the dark orange in the middle and the dark green foliage AND the white would be a challange for digital.</p><div></div>

<p>It's not really a quality or dynamic range isuue for me, both film and digital have reached the point where they can be used to make superb images.</p>

<p>I just couldn't be bothered with all the time required sitting at a computer post processing. I would much rather do that in a darkroom.</p>

<p>I simply enjoy the compactness, the simplicity and the excellent finder of my OM-1n with a small and fast prime. It's more about the process of shooting than about quality, that makes me prefer a film camera over my DSLR. Another reason is, that I find it a sheer pleasure to look at b&w-negatives, my own and others as well. Some time ago my grandmother died and I found many old negatives in her drawer. It's a world on its own to discover and I started to make some prints in my darkroom as well. I can't imagine my granddaughter or son (I don't have one, but only hypothetical) to try to find a CD-Rom drive she can adapt to her cellphone or whatever device will be there, that will beable to read 40 years old files where you don't even know whats on it. Not that I think my photos are that important, but... And I even like the imperfections of negatives - grain, the small scratches and the dust on it. It's sort of a counterpoint to a world where everything has to perfect.</p>

<p>I think this is a deeply confused question. I'd assume that digital is already as good or better in almost every way than film, with the probable exception of large format. And most people are not using large-format, so clearly ultimate quality is not what they're interested in.</p>

<p>People are not using film because it's higher quality (or if they are they're fooling themselves). People use film because it's different. In my case I use it because I enjoy using simple, elegant, cameras, and there are no such digital cameras (perhaps excluding digital backs for MF bodies), and probably never will be. I also like the fact that I don't get to see the image immediately because it forces me to concentrate on taking pictures not pissing around with the camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd assume that digital is already as good or better in almost every way than film, with the probable exception of large format.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>People are not using film because it's higher quality (or if they are they're fooling themselves).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Someone is certainly fooling himself!</p>

<p>I was afraid this was going to happen. It never fails... This is a film forum I think most people would love it if the "D" word was never even mentioned here.</p>

<p>I shoot 35mm slides because I love the process of getting finished images straight out of the camera, with all creative decisions going on before the shutter is pressed. If I could set a digital body to produce files that emulate the exact look of certain films with no post-processing, I would be halfway converted.</p>

<p>To go the rest of the way I would want a digital body + wide-angle/telephoto setup as small and light as my FM10 with 20mm and 100mm Series E primes for trail running.</p>

<p>I have seen too many fantastic digital images for the quality issue to be a factor for the subjects I shoot anymore. It's the getting there via digital processes that I still have a problem with.</p>

<p>When a digital the size of a pack of smokes, can blow away my 4x5 view camera. I will be forced to trade in my film gear.</p>

<p>I will never switch to digital. Period.<br>

For me, there is something about having a physical medium that has the actual light from the moment in time when I tripped the shutter burned onto it.<br>

Each frame of that film strip holds a piece of time, and again, <em>for me</em>, its like each of those frames actually has a part of that scene in it.<br>

Does that make sense? I don't care if it doesn't, but thats how I look at it.<br>

The funny thing is, I only started to look at it that way when my brother (a digital shooter) explained why <em>he </em>thought film had an advantage over digital in that way.</p>

<p>Craig, that makes sense to me, and is one of the less rational reasons I have for preferring film. That, and the tactile nature of loading the cassette into the camera, and viewing slides through a loupe, and having time to forget what I have shot before the thrill of getting film back from the lab. If manufacturers would address the practical issues mentioned in my previous post, I could switch to digital fairly painlessly, but I'd still miss some of the quirkier things I love about film.</p>

<p>Craig, no it does not make sense, what you wrote because:</p>

<p>1. Digital is also a physical medium and it also has the actual light from the moment in time when you tripped the shutter burned onto it.<br>

2. Each digital frame holds a piece of time.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I prefer film but I'll never idealize or romanticize it.</p>