Hypothetical Question - For 35mm Film Shooters

<blockquote>

<p>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>

Its physical in the sense that the camera and sensor are physical objects, but the IMAGE is not physical.<br>

You can show me pixels on a screen, but you can't touch them. Its like saying the next episode of American Idol that you see on your tv set is something physical.<br>

Its makes sense to me and others, just not to Dan Lovell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Craig, the digital image is physical....there is a physical state that changes when light hits the sensor, and when that image is digitized there is an actual physical state that changes on the recording media. The sensor's recording of that light is ANALOG, just like film! It is not until that analog information is digitized by an A/D chip that the image is digital. Sensors are in fact analog devices.</p>

<p>Craig, being able to "touch" a negative is a lame metric. At the end of the day, it is the picture, the print that matters.</p>

<p>It makes sense only to those that know, except for you Craig ;-)</p>

<p>Regardless, you go ahead and use film for your own reasons, reasonable or not; and all the power to you!</p>

<p>Dan,<br>

Digital images are data. Data that is interpreted by the sensor, and is either stored on your camera or computer or a disc of some sort.<br>

Thos items that the data is stored on is physical. The data itself isn't.<br>

The words I type in this post aren't physical. Word documents on your computer aren't physical.<br>

This type of data is temporary/transitory.<br>

I can erase this data with ZERO physical effect on the computers hardrive.<br>

Same thing with a memory chip or a CD or DVD.<br>

If I take a belt sander to my film strips, I am damaging the PHYSICAL image.<br>

I don' t have to print a negative to make it physical. I can see my images on the chromes I shoot just by looking at them. Looking at the PHYSICAL emulsion coated film.</p>

<p>Fine. I'll see it my way, and you see it yours.</p>

<p>I still shoot my FM3a because I like how the camera handles and feels...and of course the great viewfinder. Using film has nothing to do with it.</p>

<p>I don't understand why they won't ( I say won't instead of can't) make digital versions of the simplest film cameras...like the FM line and the OM line, etc...</p>

<p>When you expose a film, you will get an unique image. You cant print or scan it without loosing some details. For me its not a matter of resolution, dynamic range or sharpness. I shoot film, because its fun and I get unique images every time i press the shutter (small variables in film and processing). I dont like predictable results.<br>

I have used film for 20 years, and its hard to accept my pictures are getting a different look, when I shoot dSLR (Canon 400D). Its a great camera, but it does not give me the same pleasure compared to a vintage SLR. You cant suppress that feeling just by thinking about photography as a way of making your images fast, easy and with the best results. Its a hobby. I dont have to explain or excuse it. Its fun to use a simple vintage camera in order to master the basic photographic work.<br>

Can I make better pictures with film? No. I dont think so - not from a technical point of view. But I am more creative with film, and I know how my camera is going to react in a specific situation, and I know which situations to avoid. My photographic knowledge is based on film, but slowly I am trying to convert that into "my digital mind". Sure, if I want to document a situation with 1000 pictures in one hour, I will shoot digital. In general I dont shoot more pictures just because its digital and inexpensive.<br>

When I bought my dSLR in 2007 I thougt I would never use colour-negativefilm again. I still shoot about 15 rolls/year. I love to use BW film and make prints in my darkroom, and I am still amazed by the results from this simple process. There is no magic in computers. I think I could live without colour-negatives, but I like to shoot BW on silver coated films - there is no substitute. Not for me, thank you.<br>

Because film is different? Certainly not. Film came first.</p>

<p>"This is a film forum I think most people would love it if the "D" word was never even mentioned here."</p>

<p>And yet Digital vs Film posts always get the most responses. I wonder why that is?</p>

<p>Ah the film Vs digital debate will go on and on and on ...................</p>

<p>And so it should because if it does not then we can not move forward and it is the nature of humans to question and compare .This is how we improve</p>

<p>Oh yes digital cameras are getting a lot better but then so is film and there are still film makers that are doing R&D work .</p>

<p>I am a film user and I guess I always will be as long as I can get it .</p>

<p>Personally I don't care one bit about what gives better dynamic range and I am more than happy with the images I get from my Bronica SQ .</p>

<p>I do find it very strange when some people think that there $1000 10MP DSLR gives better Quality images .<br>

I would not like to do the same comparison with a Hasselblad HD4 65 .</p>

<p>One thing for certain is that digital will NEVER replace film .<br>

It may copy<br>

It may simulate<br>

but that is all it will ever do</p>

<p>Sometimes I want a digital camera. But I get over it. They are disposable. I have three film cameras and spend less than $1000 every year on film and processing. Probably about $600. It is better for me to do that than buy a stupid digital camera. Oh wait, I could shoot as much as I want! I don't give a crap. I take plenty of pictures now. What am I going to shoot? 1000 pictures of brick walls and ducks?<br>

I like being limited by film so much that I bought a Mamiya 7 for myself last Christmas. I only get ten shots on a roll of 120 now. Egads! What am I going to do? <br>

I am sick and tired of people telling me and our film friends how they should enjoy photography. Go have fun with any kind of camera you want but leave me alone. I don't want to play with you anymore. </p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2525/3943852470_62641ac936.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="322" /></p>

<p>Don't need digital just yet as I still have a few cameras left that use film. :)</p>

<p>I understand what Craig is saying. It's a Walter Benjamin thing. When we studied "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in architecture school, the term we used was "Aura of Thingness". With film, you get a thing - a physical object you made that is unique and original. For many people, that original artifact has an "aura" that's intangible and that a reproduced work does not have. With digital, well, there's no original - raw is raw, it needs to be processed in order to be legible. And the copies in your computer's memory, on the disk, and wherever else you put them are equal. You never get a physical object you can hold up and say "this is the thing I made". For the same reason, a slide has a different "aura" from a negative - you can interpret the original with the naked eye instead of needing to process it into a positive.</p>

<p>It's a very theoretical position and isn't meaningful unless you care about it, which is a personal decision and some people don't agree and prefer the technical flexibility inherent in a raw file. Both positions are quite valid.</p>

<p>OK. I still shoot film - rarely now. Mostly B+W film, processing myself, and printing in my darkroom. </p>

<p>I love digital because I can experiment almost free - there's still the shutter "clicks" counting up. And I get immediate feedback. There's been too many times when I got a shot back, looked at it, and couldn't remember what I did - only to make the same mistake again later on because I didn't learn. the best way for people to learn is from immediate feedback of their actions, btw.</p>

<p>The quality of processing in my area is going down hill - for those that still have their minilab. Others are sending out to a local processor. I've gotten my negatives back bent and scratched and it annoys me and no one really cares anymore. </p>

<p>My local selection of film is: Kodak Gold, some other Kodak film, and some Fuji stuff. Anything else has to be mail ordered; which means the cost of a roll or more is eaten up with S&H. </p>

<p>Color film and processing is going to be almost $20 per roll. It adds up. And when you add the B+W chemicals and paper, that adds even more. I've tried to supplement my photography habit by submitting some stuff for publication, but it seams that I have no talent so photography is an expensive hobby that comes out of pocket - I won't fool myself.</p>

<p>So, in a nutshell, I am pretty much 99% digital because I have fun and digital is a cheap and fun way to enjoy photography. In the future I'm planning some B+W work, but I haven't shot a roll of film in almost 2 years.</p>

<p>Digital is more than good enough for my purposes. </p>

<p>Do I ever miss film? Only for the very rare occasions where I need slightly more dynamic range that film offers. But then again, I'd have to be carrying my film camera to take advantage of it; which is something I don't do very often. And even then, many places that print from negatives scan it first (a pretty crappy scan at that) and then print. Prints from digital are much better than prints from film - at least for what I can afford.</p>

<p>Looking around on Photo.net, I can't tell a digital image from a film one unless I look at the details of the photo - and I've seen some digital nature photos have have quite a bit of dynamic range. </p>

 

<p>Not a hypothetical question........<br>

That day is already here. Digital already provides higher resolving power. Dynamic range is on par with color tranprency film not as much as color negative film but even though you can capture a very wide dynamic range on color negative film you can't really see it on print or via a scan.<br>

I still shoot film. I don't have a DSLR.</p>

<p>I'm a bit irritated that people keep questioning the usefulness of film, and this is deliberately the most arrogant answer I could come up with :-):<br>

I will always shoot 35mm film (along with medium format) even if DSLRs match the capabilities and beauty of film (currently, only two or three come close in certain areas but not overall). This is because I'm interested in photography and not electronic imaging. If I ever do become interested in digital manipulation, I can always have my slides and negatives scanned.<br>

Film for me is a high quality and cost efficient medium for capturing valuable images and conveying them through prints and projection. Digital, on the other hand, is a consumer gimmick suitable for producing heaps of mediocre snapshots and silly manipulations to be posted on the Internet.<br>

Digicams are like MIDI keyboards; 35 mm, medium format and large format cameras are like baby, studio and concert grand pianos, respectively.</p>

 

<p>If the DSLR was able to perfectly replicate the organic film look, resolve the same resolution, depict color and mimic the dynamic range of film, I would stop using film. However, this new DSLR would also have to be the same price as current low to mid range DSLR's and not the price of a Nikon D3x.</p>

<p>That depends on why you use film. Personally, I use film because it isn't a distraction. I'm not looking at the LCD and twiddling with exposure compensation all day. Film also costs money which helps to refine the feet photographing instinct that comes with digital photography. Those mothers who pop up the flash on their D5000 and click the shutter button 15 times on one image can become a nuisance, and film prevents me from becoming that annoying person. I also like how easy and cheap it is to make prints off of film, especially large shiny 16x20s.</p>

<p>If you want a film forum visit APUG.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the day will come, because the digital industry will get so powerfull they'll be able to say whatever they want, reguardless of truth (science or more speciflically chemistry) and the public (consumer) will buy into it. Actually, it's happening right now...</p>

<p>Well the question is interesting sort of. To me it's not one or the other type of thing. I enjoy digital and film photography. I am satisfied with the quality of the image from my 35mm camera. It does everything that I need. The same goes for my D200. Both camera's work fine and I can grab great shots with either. More time to shoot would be great. So even if they came out with the super digi camera I would not buy one. I would just read the forums and watch everyone upgrade in a frantic feeding frenzy.</p>

<p>I shoot digital when I'm asked to shoot stuff. I shoot film when I want to shoot stuff.</p>

<p>I know I'm late to this thread. I shoot film because I simply like the way film "looks." My whole professional and personal life has been documented on Tri-X, from my days in the 1960s as a UPI photog in Vietnam to now being semi-retired and taking snaps of the grandkids. When I want color, I used Kodachrome; now I shoot mainly color negative film out of family pressure to use color.</p>

<p>My wife is the digital maven in the family. She has all the latest full-frame sensor Canon gear and lenses. You cannot beat the immediacy of digital when that's a big consideration.</p>

<p>Another reason I stick with film is that I have an unbelievable shitload of Leica glass to chose from, and I have no intention of plunking down $6K for the full-frame digital M9, at least not until all the bugs are worked out and the price comes down considerably. I just cannot justify going to digital when I'm satisfied with the results I get with film. I have a freezer stocked with literally hundreds and hundreds of rolls, some discontinued (e.g. Agfa Ultra 100). Besides, if someone wants me to shoot digital, I have all my wife's Canon gear to use.</p>

<p>After coming back from Vietnam in the 70s (with my Filipina/Vietnamese wife), I did some wedding photography using Hasselblads, naturally. I simply cannot imagine having to sit in front of a computer and Photoshopping a whole wedding after it was shot. I'd drop my rolls of 120 Vericolor at the lab, have proofs made up, present them to the happy couple, then make up the order for enlargements. Now, the bridezillas expect a CD burned the next morning before the honeymoon. Not for me. Glad I'm pretty much out of the business, except for sporadic assignments which I can pick and choose.</p>

<p>AMEN</p>

<p>I hear you, Jay 66, I have tonnes of similar Leica glass, M and R. I'm happy with the results film gives me, so why go digital? When the last minilab closes, I will process my own b&w. If the chemistry is discontinued, I will have no choice. Until that time comes -- God forbid!!! -- it's film for me. Amen.</p>

<p>Glad to see there are some folks out there still burning some film. </p>

I like the simpleness of my film camera and manual lenses - Nikon FE and AIS lenses.

 

 

I've been a computer guy for over 20 years, and I've never really wanted to expand my time and resources into the darkroom or post-processing. I love shooting slides and laying 'em out on a light table.

 

 

If I can't shoot slides, I may stop. Maybe take up a musical instrument again. There's another thread on "P-ness". I like the feel and sound of my Nikon FE, and shuffling slides across a light table. I've even sat in the car at a supermarket parking lot and viewed my slides with a loupe and a flashlight.

 

 

And although I don't think I'm cheap. To me, changing ISO or film, transparency or B&W or color neg, gives me a different camera. I like that option. I like the simplicity of the variation.