How Many of You Still Use Film?

<p>I went to an art/craft show today. When I was in front of a photography booth, I could tell his landscape photos made by film due to the colours. I learned that he is still using Fuji Velvia. When I visited another photographer's booth, the colours' of her digital landscape photos simply can't compare the colours on the first phtographyer's photos. I think film still have a place in landscape photography in this digital era.</p>

<p>I am absolutely sure you could see some difference between the two sets of photographs.</p>

<p>However, your inferences that this was <em>primarily due to the medium employed</em>, in the first place</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>your further inference that this shows the <em>superiority of film</em> in the second</p>

<p>are in your mind, not in reality.</p>

<p>I shoot both film and digital, and I love both. They differ more in their relative ease in working with the results than in any other dimension.</p>

<p>I too shoot both film and digital and like the end results of both. In some instances (in fact most), side by side I doubt you could tell the difference either on a webpage or a print.</p>

<p>I never liked color film. Too expensive at every stage of the process and it easily deteriorates. For me digital color is the answer. But for b&w I still prefer film, 8x10 sheets when possible.</p>

<p>I think that people who claim to see a huge difference between colour prints made from film and digital originals are being fooled by some part(s) of one process being carried out sub-optimally rather than seeing something that is necessarily there. </p>

<p>I do. I tried digital then returned to film, all printed optically.</p>

<p>A lot of us do still use film, at least some of the time.<br>

Its a different way of doing things and we like doing it.<br>

Sometimes it might be the best thing for a project, perhaps.<br>

In this one example though, it seems more likely you're seeing the difference between two peoples work rather than a difference between film and digital.</p>

<p>As <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> points out, most likely the OP indeed saw different color saturations from the two photographers. However, that is mainly the result of the photographers' different preferences, not the result of different media. From digital captures, you can increase color saturation to a ridiculous degree should you choose to; most people won't like such results although some do.</p>

<p>The same is true for Velvia film. When it first appeared back around 1990 or so, I tried it on some New England foliage and did an A/B slide show comparison against Kodachrome at a photo club metting. Everybody had no trouble seeing the huge difference in saturation. At that time Kodachrome was the "standard" slide film and some people dismissed Velvia's saturated colors as "Disney Chrome." It look me a few years before I got used to Velvia, which eventually replaced Kodachrome as the standard landscape film by the mid 1990's.</p>

<p>For the past five years I pretty much only shot a Nikon digital. This year I've discovered vintage cameras and have been using a 1937 Voigtlander Bessa and a restored 1914 Kodak Autographic Special No. 1. These are 6x9 format and a lot of fun. I'm an outdoor shooter but so far have only used b&w film. A couple of months ago I brought my Shen Hao 4x5 field camera out of "retirement " and began shooting it. I'm buying an vintage 1860s lens to use with. The detail I get from 4x5 is significantly more than I get from my Nikon digitals. There are times like today (blizzard) that it's just not practical to shoot 4x5, and I obviously still use my Nikon. I just see them as a different tool for different jobs. I'm after a very vintage look with my film cameras, and they deliver it. Honestly, I was getting bored just shooting digital. It's just not as challenging.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I only shoot film. Once the last roll of film is made and there is no more available, I'll quit photography. Digital is no fun for me.</p>

<p>As one of the moderators for this Nature Forum, I am going to close this discussion since apparently the OP was not aware that one can adjust colors and saturations to a large degree in digital post processing, regardless of whether the original was captured in film or by a digital sensor.</p>

<p>There are already plenty of film vs. digital debates on photo.net. Typically it is the same group of people who recycle the same arguments over and over; in my opinion, those threads never get anywwhere. We sure do not need this thread to trun into another one of those useless debates. In the context of nature photography, I would suggest one to use whatever medium, format, and camera brand that works best for you.</p>