35mm film's survival - what are it's advantages over digital

I just returned from the Christmas party that was held for co-workers

and their family members. It's become quite evident that I'm only one

of two people who still shoot film. Everyone else now uses 3 to 4 MP

digicams. I asked the most vociferous advocate of digital photography

how many pictures he's actually had printed. He told me he had 30

printed, by Ritz, since he purchased the camera in the summer time.

During that same interval, he's shot over 1500 pictures with the

camera. Most of those have been classified and stored on his

computer. That ubiquitous and truly annoying question was constantly

asked of me:<p>"When are you going to go digital?"<p>My worry is that

if everyone goes digital, there won't be any reason to make film

anymore. I'm probably not alone in this feeling, as stated by Dante

Stella recently:<p> <a

href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/tyranny.html" >Dante

Stella's view</a> <p>In defending 35mm film, I gave these

arguments.<p>1)True wide angle views<p>2)Shallow depth of field.<p>I

usually combine 1 and 2 by using a lens such as the 35mm f/1.4 wide

open. The resulting pictures usually make the digicam user's eyes pop

out, wondering how such a thing can be done.<p>3) Ability to change

color palette by changing film<p>4)Durability of film cameras, and

images.<p>I am still using a 20 year old Nikon F3. How many people

would want to keep using a 4 megapixel digicam 20 years from

now?<p>B&W photographs last longer than a lifetime. Kodachrome slides

also are very long lived. Most inkjet prints that I've seen will fade

in a year or two.<p>50 years from now, it will still be easier to look

at a slide than to figure out what image is on a CD-ROM.<p>5) Greater

resolution<p>6) Greater sharpness.<p>Digital cameras use deliberate

unsharpening by way of an anti-aliasing filter to prevent moire

patterns from forming. This tendency is because of the regular

spacing of the photodetector arrays. Mathematically, it has been

shown that maximum sharpness is only attained when the photodetector

is arranged in completely random patterns. Of course, that's what the

random arrangement of silver halide particles in film give you.<p>7)

Grain. It has a unique beauty to itself, otherwise why do people

still use Tri-X? Some degree of grain increases apparent sharpness,

due to factor #6 above.<p>8) It is still much easier to put together a

presentation by sorting slides on a light table than by using power

point.<p>I try to utilize all these factors by shooting with slow film

such as Kodachrome 64. I prefer using wide-angle, fast lenses shot

wide open. While it may not ultimately save 35mm film from oblivion,

at least those who view the images can understand that 35mm can give a

beautiful look that is not easily replicated by digital. Do you have

a tip on now to maximize the imaging potential of 35mm film?

Robert, before this thread turns degenerates a typical digital vs. film thread -- my quick observations

<P>

<I><B>Do you have a tip on now to maximize the imaging potential of 35mm film?</B></I>

<P>

Answer in short: For me, the only way to do it is to take pictures that are interesting enough so that viewers tend to

 

concentrate on the subject rather than tend to ask questions about the kind of capture medium that was used to take the

 

photograph.

<P>

Now, a few quick observations: <P>

 

<B>Why I am still shooting only film:</B>

<P>

1. Because I have not started shooting digital alongside film yet. <BR>

2. Because I have spent a considerable amount of time, money and effort in learning film photography. I have run many tests

 

mastering (in a relative way) the films I like most and plan to use. I am in the "return on investment" phase now and it

 

would be stupid for me now to "re-learn" things with a digital camera. <BR>

3. I like looking at slides. I do not shoot for money, I shoot for myself and I like looking at slides.<BR>

4. At least at this point of time it appears to me that film photographs have longer "storage life".

5. I can scan my photos to digitize them.

 

<P>

<B>Why am I not shooting digital yet:</B>

<P>

1. Because it is unreasonably expensive to get decent equipment that would acceptable results. <BR>

2. I refuse to fund initial R&D in an emerging area of technology. I'll leave that to rich amateurs and professionals. <BR>

3. I'm from a tropical country and dust/humidity is a major problem. I have more productive ways to spend my time than

 

worrying about dust/fungus on CCD, failing electronics etc.

4. I do not need instant gratification/flexibility of in-situ correction. For that matter, I do not need to take a 100 shots

 

to get a couple keepers. For the kind of shooting I do, I get 4-5 keepers off of each 37 exposure roll and for each such

 

keeper there are 4 to 5 in-camera dupes. I do not lose many shots thanks to careful technique and the nature of my

 

subjects.<BR>

5. Because it is too early to buy a digital camera. Remember the early models of mobile phones and how people raved about

 

them? Where are they now?

6. Because the films I like and know well are still available.<BR>

7. I'd rather invest in good glass than in a plastic body DSLR that costs as much as the top-of-the-like pro film SLR and

 

becomes "obsolete" in a couple years.

<P>

<B>What will I shoot with, if film is no longer available?</B>

<P>

I'll switch to what's available instead, and choose something that's affordable for me and produces satisfactory results for

 

my purposes.

<P>

<B>Do I plan to switch to digital?</B>

<P>

I do not plan to, but I will, only when it comes to me as a natural progression. Before the switch, there will likely be a phase

 

when I'll be shooting digital alongside film.

<P>

 

<B>What will the compelling reasons/scenarios for me to switch to digital?</B>

<P>

1. DSLR prices become affordable, better dust protecttion, better (higher bits) color, around 10MP resolution and a

 

full-frame sensor.<BR>

2. I will not have to be frustrated with the occassional scratches that my beloved E-6 processors Bourne & Shepherd of Calcutta

 

sometimes put on my slides.

3. I might end up liking grain-free results from digital for some of the shots that I take.<BR>

4. I love teaching/sharing whatever knowledge I have with others. If there comes a time when others are better able to understand/appreciate macro-photography in the context of digital, I'm more than open to explore this new medium and apply my existing knowledge and skills to learn further and share with others.

<P>

 

There are a few things in photography that are eternal no matter what you shoot with. Lighting, technique, composition etc. are some of them. As long as you have a sound grasp on these, you'll take great photos whatever you shoot with.

I believe film (35mm or otherwise) simply offers a much better arena for truly learning photographic technique than digital.

Here is my responce:

 

1) This is only true because small sensors (i.e. it will go away)

2) See number one

3) I see this as more of a digital benefit.

4) With the same care everything is durrable

5) NOt really with 35mm film (and soon not even with MF)

6) Debatable

7) If you like grain I think film is the way to go UNTIL someone comes out with a good photoshop plugin (hint hint)

8) Not if you are under 40 (i.e. grew up in the computer age).

Here's the in-your-face digerati response (written by an MF user sick of scanning and praying for an affordable full-frame dSLR).

 

1. Use a 1Ds or one of the two 12-24mm lenses now available on a dSLR.

 

2. Use a dSLR and a 24/1.4.

 

3. Color films are less accurate (greater hue shifts) than dSLR color, so photoshopping a correct color rendition to something "artistic" is more powerful than being at the mercy of the limited number of emulsions available.

 

4. Digital cameras pay for themselves in film savings, and thus are free, so you can afford to throw them away after 5K to 10K images.

 

The real answer to points 5 and 6 is that if 35mm is all the resolution you need, a 6MP dSLR will also be all you need. If you really need more resolution than 6MP dSLRs cough up, 35mm won't be enough either: you need MF or LF or a 1Ds.

 

5. Buy a 1Ds.

 

6. "

 

Film's ability to record extremely high contrast high resolution test chart images at extremely low contrast and extremely high noise is an interesting laboratory phenomenon, but meaningless for actual photography. On a per unit area of sensor basis, digital cameras, even with the anti-aliasing filter, record much more useful information than film does. Film does nicely at 20 lp/mm, but the MTF response (when combined with the lens) above 35 lp/mm is so low as to make it useless for actual photography. (Reality check: compare a 13x19 from 35mm and a 13x19 from the 1Ds. The 1Ds resolves 40 lp/mm or so, but renders a lot more visually apparent and photographically useful detail than 35mm.)

 

7. Grain is ugly and obscene. 35mm has never been adequate for decent 8x10s. The reason 35mm types use Tri-X is that 8x10s are grainy whatever you use, so they just give up and put up with it. Real men use Plus-X in Microdol in 6x9.

 

8. I can keep several years of digital images on a hard disk and get to them instantly. They're backed up on CD-ROM in duplicate, so there's no question of opening a fire-proof safe to get the slides out. You do keep your slides in a fire-proof safe? If you don't, there's a good chance your life's work will be gone the next time you come home. Getting slides out of a vault is a lot slower than clicking through a directory tree.

<i>I believe film (35mm or otherwise) simply offers a much better arena for truly

learning photographic technique than digital.</i><p>

 

If you have unlimited funds to burn color/b&w film, and time to wait for processing to

learn from your shots, and two bodies (and extra stamina) so that you can shoot both

b&w and color at the same time, you would be able to learn moderately quickly. But

while you're learning technique with film, those with digital cameras will have shot

many times more images than you, in b&w and in color, and will have learned faster

than you. If they shoot the equivalent of a roll a day they end up more than paying for

a 10D compared to an Elan7 (for example). Does film <b>really</b> offer a "much

better arena" for someone learning phototechniques? No.

<i>I try to utilize all these factors by shooting with slow film such as Kodachrome 64.

I prefer using wide-angle, fast lenses shot wide open. </i><p>

 

It's hardly an advantage over a full-frame digital camera whose images don't have to

be scanned. (And most color prints today are scanned before printed, for good

reason.) <p>

 

Besides, Kodachrome is infamous for being difficult to scan, so I suspect that most

would actually prefer the results from a 1Ds. <p>

 

<i> is still much easier to put together a presentation by sorting slides on a light

table than by using power point </i><p>

 

Who'd use a godawful, low-res mess like Powerpoint instead of an app like iPhoto

(free on Macs) or iView (Mac/Windows)? Your presentations can be any size,

rearranged and resorted quickly, burned to disk for others to see, burned to a DVD

presentation (for free via iMovie and iDVD on Macs), or uploaded.

With transparency film you have an original. With digital you have code.<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

<i>With transparency film you have an original. With digital you have code.</i><p>

 

Original data, just like an original slide. Data that can hold the same information a

film, have copies saved offsite for protection, don't fade and don't require scanning

for printing (as most color prints are today).

Robert, you're definitely not alone. I think the present crop of 5-6 MP digital cameras are a big drop down from the quality we're used to getting in our best images shot on film. I would not pay for such a drop, I'm not that nerdy that I "need" instant feedback. Some don't see it, some do. Those of us who like film should just keep shooting it until satisfactory alternatives show up.

 

As to your friends, all you need to say is that film gives images that you prefer, and keep your mind. There's no need to give in to mass toy hysteria. Real artists often use arcane methods anyway. You should switch when you see it's advantageous, going to digital while preferring film would be the most insane thing to do artistically.

 

I have also many friends who have bought digital cameras, and some of them are teasing me about my arcane methods. They can't wait to see me with a digital camera. BUT: Blind as they are, even they admit that my pictures are better.

I am always somewhat baffled when I see one of the minus points of digital prints being expressed as the lack of grain. Before digital came along, grain was the enemy. MF or LF was used to get better images with less grain. I used to shoot Plus-X instead of Tri-X in my 8×10 camera to get less grain. Even though it didn't show, it was the principle of the thing. Now I suppose I should go back and reshoot all those 8×10's on Tri-X, pushed to 1600 ISO and developed in Diafine so people wouldn't think they are digital images.

Come up and see my original data :-{

Regarding the "arguments", everybody has different ones and I think yours are pretty valid. I shoot film because I've been doing it since I was 16 years old when I got my first camera, I like film advantages and limitations, I am satisfied with the results I get from it, I shoot all the way from 35mm film up to 4x5 film sheets, I've seen many digital produced images, from "point and shoot 5MP cameras up to large format digital backs", the latter look nice, but I can get same results with 4x5 sheet film without spending $20.000 plus about $1.500 per day of training. So far the only advantage I've seen between a DSLR and a let's say, 35mm frame of the newer Fujichrome Astia 100F is that according to some, if you enlarge the frame 50000 times you'll see ugly grain, that you won't in the digital file...!. Is that enough for me to dump all the wonderful cameras I have to run and buy a Canon EOS 10D?. No, that camera might produce acceptable images comparable to a 35mm frame, which I already have, and I'm satisfied with.

 

And regarding availability of film, here is what I got from Fuji Photo Film Co. latest "Online Cable Release Newsletter":

 

As Strong as Ever is Fujifilm's Professional Commitment to Film

Fujifilm Professional has a proud history of product innovations and superior quality in the film category. We are also committed to maintaining our long-standing dedication to producing the finest Professional Films far into the future. Whether it is an innovative technical breakthrough that takes Professional Film performance to new levels or offering an extensive selection of film products to satisfy every shooting requirement, our customers can be confident that Fujifilm will continue its leadership. In our ever-changing industry we believe that film remains a professional photographer's greatest tool, so we will continue to supply the very finest and most reliable product line-up.

Just a thought -- whenever someone mentions "film grain", it is perhaps better to point out which film it is. I'm not sure how many of us have really seen the results from E100GX/EVP100F under high magnification. The grain is vastly improved (reduced).

 

I for one have never been fond of film grain and do not consider lack of grain to be a -ve aspect of shooting digital.

" never been fond of film grain" -- to be specific, I meant "film grain" as in E100 VS.

 

Bit of a self-contradication there ... sorry!

The most recent roll of Astia 100 I shot was grainless to my eyes

after scanning with a MF film scanner. I am talking about full size

image in Photoshop. I can see dusts but no grain. Well, this roll

was a 220 though, not a 35mm.

<i>Real men use Plus-X in Microdol in 6x9.</i>

 

<p>Real men use 4x5" or larger :^)

 

<p>Ilkka: I know many ardent film shooters at the physics department at the HUT, do you hang with some "digital gang" I've never heard about?-)

At least for now, I think the best way to "maximize the imaging potential of 35mm film" is to scan it. That way you have the advantages of film along with all the control digital processing provides.

 

I don't think this "hybrid workflow" is an optimal long-term solution. For one thing, scanning is inherently a hemorrhoidal pain even with infrared cleaning and other technological assistance to ameliorate the drudgery. Having used this hybrid approach for nearly five years, I am eagerly looking forward to switching to digital. But at current prices, I figure it would cost at least $2000 to buy a digital camera that would duplicate the capability of my Elan II, including a true wide-angle lens. That doesn't include "field storage" for travel, such as a laptop computer or a stand-alone portable hard drive. And at that price I would lose some capability: I use the Elan II's Depth mode quite a bit, and the D10 or D300 have the hobbled "A-Depth" mode instead.

 

I'm also not considering that the resolution of a small-sensor SLR is less than a 4000dpi scan. The solution to this problem is a full-frame sensor camera, but that comes at a completely unaffordable price.

 

The real problem is that digital camera manufacturers now provide products for two distinct markets. The family snapshooter can buy a point-and-shoot camera at a price comparable to a film point-and-shoot. The resolution is a bit low, but such users typically never enlarge their family and vacation shots bigger than 4x6 and have no problems with minilab image quality. So those cameras serve them perfectly well, to the detriment of film sales.

 

The other market is the $4000 professional DSLR, with a full-frame sensor and (reputed) quality comparable to medium format. A professional photographer who earns enough income to pay for one of these beasts will find it worth its weight in some precious metal, also to the detriment of film sales.

 

What the digital camera manufacturers aren't currently providing is an SLR suitable for the "serious amateur," who might use an Elan 7 or even a Rebel Ti (or its equivalent in other lines). The digital equivalent of these cameras costs several times more, and has the problems of resolution a cropping that go with a smaller sensor. So anyone in this category will likely find film a very viable choice as long as the price and quality gap persists. That's probably the best answer you can give to those annoying questions about your digital plans. A good 4000dpi scanner now costs $500 (i.e., the possibly-discontinued Canon FS4000US at Adorama), which makes a hybrid approach a sensible, cost-effective way to enjoy the advantages of digital.

 

I have some doubts about how quickly the Digital Future will arrive for the "serious amateur." Although manufacturers (particularly Canon) have been working to reduce the price of cameras like the D10 or Digital Rebel, the fact is that they're still expensive. This may be because the marketeers know they can get away with charging a premium price, but I think there are genuine technical impediments to getting the price down to that of an equivalent film SLR. Since they seem to be doing quite well with their current strategy of selling to family snapshooters and professionals, it may be that the "serious amateur" market is a much lower priority that they will continue to serve with film SLRs that provide the best value for money.

 

I can predict with reasonable certainty that, sooner rather than later, film will become a niche product. Fewer choices will be available, and it (and processing) may have to be ordered on-line. Some of that niche will be professionals who prize the image characteristics of film, much as there continues to be a market for large-format film and Kodachrome. But I suspect most of the niche will be the "serious amateur" who continues to use film because a digital point-and-shoot isn't good enough, while a digital SLR is too expensive.

I have had 35mm gears for too long and had gone digital. I first got a

film scanner, then a second film scaner then a Kodak 3mp digital

camera then, guess what, a 5 lens Pentax 67II system.

 

I have gone digital but I found I love films more and decide to stay

with films. I simply love Velvia, Astia, Provia, NPS, Portra, Vericolor,

Kodakchrome, and many others more than a small pice of CF card that I

often had to turn my desk upside down to look for.

 

On the other hand, I love inkjet prints. Traditional wet prints may

be more durable but inkjet prints are simply so beautiful. It is

amazing to see all the colors from an inkjet print that are not

visible from wet prints came back from a high volume Frontier system.

Many amateurs who shoot digital dont print very many frames/images shot; because of the time/expense of printing all of the images. Where I know there are going to be alot of keepers; I prefer to use film; and have the lab make 2 or 3 sets; and throw the few duds away. This saves alot of valubale time for me; whether an amateur job; or a paid pro event. <BR><BR>I prefer to shoot film and digital; and use what is better for the application; and not worry what others think.

I see absolutely NO reason to spend $800-$900 on a baseline Digital camera, (i.e. Digital Rebel because I have a Canon EF lens collection) to do the same thing I am getting out of 35mm film.

 

If you are an avid amateur shooting 100 rolls or less per year, Digital doesn't make any economic sense. Nor does the brag that they are shooting xx-thousand images. Only when I started shooting less frames, in a more contemplative way did my photography improve.

 

People are printing only a few digital images due to cost factor and the fact that very few of their digital images are worth printing. I picked up a prescription last week and the mini-lab in the drug store was advertising prints from digital memory sticks at $0.29 each for up to 100 images. So for $30 you get about the same number of prints as from 3 rolls of 36 exposures. More expensive than developing 3 rolls with double prints, or 3 rolls of slides.

 

Grain has never been an issue for me. It is a true rare occasion that I would print 35mm at 8x10. The format is much better suited to enlargement up to 5x7, dispite the common WEB statement that you can make decent 16x20's from 35mm. If you want enlargements 8x10 and larger, and think the average 4-5 mega pixel digi cam will produce satisfactory results, then all I can say is your standards are different from mine.

 

Some may be sold, but they haven't sold me on any significant advantage to going digital yet. Even for my 35mm shots.

I think in the end the decision really doesn't come down to quality, but rather need and experence. 90% of the public doesn't need super high quality so they have traditionally used C-41 processed 35mm film. If you look at the groups that have fully embraced digital they almost all are C-41 processed 35mm film users. These groups are the P&S crowd and sports/news photographers. There are still people out there that are attached to C-41 in 35mm. I find they tend to use two types of equipment. Small high quality P&S and old manual cameras. The first groups is slowly moving to digital as good digital comes to small cameras, and the second group are essentially using buggy whips and we all know what happens there (and don't get angry at me for saying this since i use a Rollei 35 =).

 

Now as to E-6 film in 35mm there is no doubt that digital cameras are not as good quality straight from the camera. However in the hands of a good digital post processer most the limitations go away and in many cases can be improved upon. The issue here is also not quality. In my opinion the E-6 35mm group simply is too much in love with the actual slide to consider digital. Many arguments are made, but in the end it's the slide itself.

 

The last group of 35mm film users use traditional B&W. This will be the last group to go digital becase B&W is more like a way of life. Again it is not really quality, but the process (although digital B&W really isn;t all that good).

 

Of the three groups in about 10-20 years the only one that will be around in any numbers is traditional B&W since it's so much of an art form. Color users will all go digital by then since other than the shot there isn't that much of an artistic process today involving the photographer.

 

Notice I only mention 35mm and keep pointing out that it's not the quality. The reason is simple. If a photographer really cared about quality he wouldn't be using 35mm =)

It seems that most of the responses on this forum ASSUME that the question only applies to the USA.

 

Digital is definitely an inevitable, but in other parts of the world, folks don't have as much disposable income to drop even a few hundred dollars down on a digital plaything. And even if they could manage the cost of the camera, they don't have the fastest computer, nor a printer.

 

Where I live in Israel, for example, which the standard of living is on par with most of Europe, the digital craze is starting to take hold, but is definitely still in its infancy. Of course, we need to distinguish consumers from the pros. The latter, especially PJ's, have embraced digital with open arms. Especially since the cost of developing film is higher here.

 

Bottom line - the USA with it's disposable incomers is probably several years ahead of other parts of world such as S. America, Africa, Asia,and E. Europe in the race to digital.

 

On a separate note - I still cannot see giving up all the features of my Nikon F100, which costs approx half of the D100, which is inferior in every regard except that it produces a digital image at the end that i could scan from my slides/negs anyways. When the price of a DSLR with the quality of a F100 (and full frame sensor) comes closer the price of its film counterpart, then I'll jump.

 

Regards -

"I see absolutely NO reason to spend $800-$900 on a baseline Digital camera, (i.e. Digital Rebel because I have a Canon EF lens collection) to do the same thing I am getting out of 35mm film."

 

Then you should go to the www.dpreview.com 300D sample shots gallery, download the ISO 1600 shots, and print them at A4 on a decent inkjet printer. You'll be surprised.

What I like is that digital and film aren't in direct confrontation. They complement

each other pretty well, actually. My film cameras didn't self-destruct the day I bought

a DSLR. I still have velvia and provia in my freezer.

 

Digital just brings you more tools.

 

Specifically about your post, Robert, you seem to make some confusion between

digital technology in general and the capabilities of current digital cameras. The

capabilities of digital cameras have been expanding very quickly in the last few years,

and it's reasonable to assume that they will continue to expand in the near future.

 

As an example, on the issue of resolution, Canon's $300 A70 has been measured to

resolve 140 lpmm through its cheap zoom lens. As far as I can tell there are no real

technical reasons why the same sensor density can't be theoretically achieved on a

bigger sensor.