Any Reasons to Shoot 35mm over a 10 MP DSLR ?

I would like to start out by stating that I am not trying to start a debate

over Film VS digital. I have both systems but am looking at ways to use film

for my 35mm canon in order to take full advantage of this medium.

 

I shot some 400 ISO Fuji Color and was not impressed with my bird photos vs My

Nikon D80.

 

Now I had my film processed and scanned in with the V700 scanner at about 4800

DPI. This is suppose to be a very very good scanner and the resolution was

good a be it a little grainy.

 

So my question is there ways to take advantage of a 35mm film camera over my

DSLR ?

 

As of now I am not seeing that many advantages but I know some folks swear by

the Film system ?

 

Any advice on when you would use a Film VS digital system ?

 

Thanks

 

Jay

The ONLY situation I've found is using wide angle lenses on 35mm that otherwise have a narrower angle of view on a DSLR. I should add one more: I have a lot of older 35mm cameras that I still enjoy shooting B&W film with. I like working in the darkroom.

Much depends on the cameras that your own and the requirements of the moment. If you need to send the visual image out immediately then the digital camera is required. However, if the digital camera that you own is heavier than the 35mm and you will be carrying it for a long time then the 35mm is better. There is really no right or wrong but rather personal perogatives.

Shooting handheld in low light? I don't know much about digital, but I haven't seen many DSLRs with f1-f1.2 lenses, and I don't know how well digital sensors compare to ISO 1000-3200 B&W films. I suppose it depends on what you shoot, and how you shoot it. I don't have a DSLR to compare to my 35mm outfits, so I can't say one system is better than the other.

 

Jay

A V700 is not going to give you more resolution than a 10MP DLSR. It doesn't have enough optical resolution to do that, I'd figure about 2000-2400 dpi is what it can really muster. (That with care in shimming the film holder for focus.) A Nikon Coolscan IV (or better) will give you much more resolution. About 35 megapixels for a Coolscan V. Remember that no film scanner has to do interpolation for the Bayer filter.

 

Scanned film does have grain. You can run it through software like NeatImage, which applies grain removal algorithms much like the digital cameras do to eliminate sensor noise. Your DSLR image has had much more image processing done to it (in camera) than the raw scan of film.

 

C-41 film has more dynamic range than current digital sensors. So does Eastman Color Negative (movie camera stock). Kodak has very interesting literature about that on the Cinematography section of their website. There's a reason most movies are still shot on film, and the amount of film and processing they go through are hideously expensive.

 

Also, experiment with films. Fuji Pro 400 H, and Kodak Portra 400NC are both really excellent for natural color rendition. For saturated color, Kodak Ultra Color 400 is cool stuff. There's a new Portra 400NC that is sampling now, with much less grain than the prior version.

There is one:

If you forgot to bring your DSLR, then that's a good reason to shoot 35mm.

 

really, it's a question of aesthetics, only you can answer it for yourself.

 

Do you ask on forums what to wear too?

To me, the single best reason to shoot 35mm, or more precisely, colour negative, is that the highlight won't be blown. This is particular useful when shooting in daylight with lots of white colour. With digital, I constantly reshoot and reshoot which largely ruin the fun of photography.

Jay, I use a Nikon LS9000 to scan 35mm and MF. At 4000dpi, the Nikon scanner will give

22MPix of full RGB (no mosaic interpolation), 16-bit/color data. That's more than enough

for most applications. The V700/750 should at least approach this. It's drawback to

flatbed scanners that they are white light scanners and not LED like the LS9000.

 

In addition, with any 1.5 aspect ratio image (35mm film or DX sensor) you're going to lose

20% of the data cropping to an 8x10 aspect print. That is, if you shoot with a 10MPix

D80 for standard format print, all you have to left is 8 MPix. The same is true for scanned

35mm, except that 80% of 22MPix is almost 18Mpix, good enough for 16x20 prints.

I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes. Below are my results from the Laurel

Highlands in Pennsylvania. F100 was shot with Kodak 400UC, 28-105 lens, scanned with

Coolscan V. D70s was shot in RAW, using 18-70 lens. My eyes tell me the 400UC shows

more detail, particularly with leaves and water spray:

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69601334

(Bear Run, Fallingwater, Pa., Nikon F100)

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69601334

(Bear Run, Fallingwater, Pa., Nikon D70s)

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69212096

(Appalachian Church, Laurel Highlands, Pa., Nikon F100)

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69211479

(Appalachian Church, Laurel Highlands, Pa., Nikon D70s)

 

It may very well be that I don't know what I'm doing with RAW conversion in ACR, but I still

say an F100, primes or a good zoom, good film, and scanning technqiues still yield very

good quality images. Having just said all that, most of my shooting is now digital. But if I

know it's going to be dramatic (backcountry hiking or one of my forays to an indigenous

festival in Mexico or Guatemala), I'll use good negative and/or slide film.

In the above post, here is the correct link for the D70s and Bear Run:

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69601322

(Bear Run, Fallingwater, Pa., Nikon D70s

 

Also look at Ohiopyle Falls:

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69601587

Ohiopyle Rapids, Pa., Nikon F100

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/69601344

Ohiopyle Rapids, Pa., Nikon D70s

<I>Any Reasons to Shoot 35mm over a 10 MP DSLR ? </I><P>

 

1.) You really like the look of film.<P>

 

2.) You don't want to be bothered with learning how to efficiently process "raw" digital"

images. <P>

 

3.) Depending on how much you shoot, you are worried that the DSLR won't pay for itself

in 2-3 years time (guys the resolution curve is slowing down) and so the constant expense

of film and processing isn't an issue (one very good way to look atthe value of a DSLR is to

consider the price of the DSLR and see how much film and processing the same amount of

money would buy you. Of course not havingto shell out for film and processing on a

regular basis may lead you to make more photographs - a process which does tend to

make you a better photographer if for no other reason than you get tired of looking at

crappy photos. <P>

 

4.) You are insane and you REALLY REALLY LIKE scanning film. By the way: the V700 like all

flatbed scanners so far is a really bad choice for 35mm film. You want a Nikon Coolscan

500 or maybe a Coolscan V. Scanning well takes a lot of craft and time.

I'd like to know if using 25, 50, or 100 speed films will beat my 10megpixel XTi. One day I'll do a test and see what I get. I've heard differing opinions on what the practical rez of 35mm film is. I've heard between 6 megapixels to 16, so I can't be sure of what would be better to use. I know digital images are cleaner looking which leads one to believe its better then film. I do know digital beats film in higher speed applications since digital noise is far less then the grain of film at those speeds. I'd like someone to do a test between 10 megapixel cameras and 100 speed film and see what comes out of it.

Scott, if you have a 10megapixel camera (and I know you have a film camera from your other posts!) can't you do your own comparison? I personally don't care about resolution charts and would rather see how both render a significantly detailed scene.

There's a heckuva lot of resolution in a good, in-focus film frame taken with a good lens. You'll need a better scanner than a flatbed to access it all though.

 

Some people value negative film for its ability to capture a wider range of brightness in nature than digital (i.e., in a contrasty landscape, to retain detail in shadows without blowing out the highlights to stark white.)

 

Neg film has a neat way of responding to the brightest parts in a scene: its chemicals resist being totally blown out. It's almost like there's a shock-absorber in film that compresses when you throw too much light at it. Yes, you can overload even that shock-absorber, but it's harder to do than with digital, which (like slide film) is less cushy at the top of its sensitivity curve.

Film will span a greater range of contrast

 

Scanning film is not hard, in fact much different than color printing.

 

You need a good 35mm film scanner. Flat beds are not equal

 

You have a film archival record

 

One plus for DIGI. The highlight shadow control in PS CS2 is very very good at bringing up shadows. The one in PSE 5 is close, but has less control. I had both going at one time and tried side by side. I bought CS2.

 

By the same token, highlite/shadow also works on film.

 

Shoot Digi with a Tiffin low contrast 3 in tough contrast situations. It is marvelous and it is easy to bring up contrast a little if you go to far. I carry one all the time.

 

Digi has come a long way, but you still need photoshop.

Reasons to shoot film instead of digital...

 

(1) You client requests film

 

(2) You work flow ends by dropping undeveloped film cartridges on your client's desk

 

(3) You are on a remote shoot (or hike or vacation) and electricity is not available for recharging batteries or backing up your digital images.

 

(4) You don't own and can't rent or borrow a suitable DSLR.

 

(5) Photography is a hobby, and you are sentimentally attached to film.

 

You will notice that image quality is not a consideration. In fact, even a 6MP camera takes better, sharper pictures than film. Nor is wide angle capability. You can buy or rent 10 or 12 mm DX lenses that equal the field of view (and optical quality) of full frame lenses with a comparable FOV on film. At 7 stops or better, a DSLR has twice the dynamic range of Velvia (3.5 stops), is comparable to Reala (7-8 stops) and nearly as good as NPS160 (10 stops)

One reason I still shoot film: I like older cameras. I've been shooting Canon FD since it's debut and haven't stopped. FD Prime lenses seem just better to me than new glass and new glass if it is as good is ungoddly expensive.

 

Second reason, I can apply the film to the art. I can pick and choose (in the field) which medium I will record on. I might shoot Velvia or AStia or Provia or Reala or NPS 160 or UC 400 or Tmax 100 or 400 or 3200 or Neopan Acros or what ever and my camera bag has a dozen camera bodies each loaded with different film. Sounds Nutz I know, but that is how I do things and have always done things.

 

Final reason is the cost of the DSLR. I see no reason to spend that kind of money for a camera. I would see justifacation for spending that on Glass but never on a camera. I am President (recently promoted from VP but not by my choosing), of a local photo club. 9 of every 10 members shoot digital. The real problem I see is most as hobbiest like me, after spending thousands on a D200 or D2Xs or 1 D or whatever else, are forced to buy big ranging zooms or second rate glass as their budget is exausted. The single most imporotant factor in creating good photo art is Glass. Everything else falls down the list of importance in my opinion. No sence in shooting a 4000 dollar (or however much the things cost) Nikon D2X and put a 500 dollar Sigma Zoom that covers every focal lenght from 50mm to 600mm. I see it all the time. I think it more wise to spend thousands for fine used glass and put it on a 50 dollar E Bay Canon AE-1 and shoot film.

 

Now if one makes is living shooting pictures and needs the speed and resonce of a high end DSLR, then that is different.

 

Dave

A previous poster states "In fact, even a 6mp camera takes better, sharper pictures than film" The word RUBBISH comes to mind.

maybe 6mp doesn't but 8mp and higher resolution certainly does. And one more time: NOT

ALL PIXELS ARE CREATED EQUAL AND NEITHER ARE ALL PRINTING METHODS!

Daveish,

 

Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's easy to criticize when you've never worked with a good DSLR, but most of us who shoot digital started with film. My 35mm cameras retired as soon as I saw the results from my 5.5MP D1x. The improved work flow is one thing, but the kicker is quality. I still shoot some medium format, but I don't know for how long. As Ellis says, not all pixels are equal.

Edward and Ellis,

 

This is a legit question, I'm not being confrontational. I've been using the 6.1 MP, D70s,

shooting in RAW, for about six months. For people images, no problem. But for intricate

patterns, such as forests, waterfalls, and the such, I am not getting the detail I get when

shot along side good film (FE2, primes, Reala and/or F100). In particular, the images

seem to lack the 3D punch of the film. My scanner is the Coolscan V, and, admidtedly I

put in quite a bit of time.

 

My question to both of you, will a move to the D200 remedy the situation? The comment

about lenses above is a valid one - good fast primes on film (24, 35, and 85) have a totally

different perspective on digital, and to duplicate their range takes $$$$$$$.

 

I'm not a professional photographer like you (I checked your galleries), but an

environmental science prof. who likes to record nature in the places my work takes me:

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca

 

I've got lots of work in geographical information systems, so digital processing is no

stranger to me. Back to the original question - do I need to go to the D200 to get the

resolution I was getting in film?

I think another consideration is long term storage. Computer technology changes so fast that any storage medium you use today may not be acessible on a computer you buy 20 years from now.

> Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's easy to criticize when you've never worked with a good DSLR, but most of us who shoot digital started with film.

 

Ah, yes, the usual nonsense claim that anyone preferring film to digital can't have "tried it". Well, please accept that I "started with film" as well (Nikon F100 among others) and own and use D70 and D200 bodys as well. O.k.?

I agree with Gene Paull and daveish 182, 6 MP *doesn't* yet match good 35 mm (comparing for example Superia 400 against my D70 NEFs, not to mention Acros), with the exception of grain/noise. The D200 surpasses 35mm film in most respects, but still not by much.

 

> will a move to the D200 remedy the situation

 

Mostly. I wouldn't have used my D70 for "serious" shots, but the D200 finally replaced my F100 bodys (But there still is no digital replacement for my Bessa R and some other film bodys. So one other reason to shoot film is when the camera you want isn't available digital. Film cameras were a lot more diverse ...)

 

Andreas

I shoot both film and digital. But mostly I shoot medium and large format film because I really enjoy B&W darkroom work and I like the results.

I am quite willing to accept that sub-miniature digital will give very good quality compared to 35mm film (depending on which camera, which film etc..)and full frame may surpass it but one thing which has a massive effect on the sharpness of an image is the lens. Mount a jam jar on an any digital SLR and I very much doubt that your images will beat 35mm with a good lens.Also you just can't (without adding fake data)enlarge a 6MP digital image as far as you can with film, even scanning at 2800dpi files are just larger. I do have a 6MP DSLR by the way so I'm not just defending film because it's all I use, which I think a lot of digital converts do. Hey I'd be defensive of digital If I'd just spent the price of a house in some parts of the world on a camera which given modern manufacturing quality is unlikely to last more than a few years, that's if it's not replaced by the latest model (with more pixels or anti-shake or whatever) which seems to be the way a lot of people behave.The statement that a 6MP DSLR will take a "better" picture is just laughable.