Shooting film ...?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by farkle-mpls, Jun 16, 2009.

  1. Hello.
    I have both an EOS 1v (film) and an EOS 40D. I enjoy shooting both of them and I love the fact that I can swap lenses between the two bodies.
    My wife and I are planning a trip to Europe and I'm trying to figure out which camera to take. She advocates the 40D but I still like some aspects of film shooting (especially slide film). With vacations shots, I usually like to be a bit more creative and patient in my photography and have tended to take along film cameras and shoot different types of slide film, depending on the subject (scenery or people shots). I find that fun, challenging and rewarding. For family activities, baseball games and holidays and the like, I shoot away on the 40D and have consistently enjoyed the images it produces and the convenience of the "instant" shots. Seems like a win-win for me.
    In retrospect, my conversation with my wife was an interesting one and motivated me to post this question to the forum. Without turning this into film vs. digital debate (please, please do NOT do that), I am interested in how many people with digital SLRs decide to pick up their film cameras once in a while and for what reasons/situations. I find myself lacking good reason to shoot film except that, well, darn-it, I still LIKE the look of slides and hearing the film transport whirl after I take the shot. (OTOH, I do not enjoy lead-lined film bags and arguing with the Xray techs at the airports ...)
    Thanks for your input. Oh, and I still haven't figured out which camera to take to Europe but that Provia 100F sitting in my fridge is pretty darn tempting. (But then, so's the 8GB SD card ... ;-)
    Decisions, decisions!
  2. If I felt like you, I'd take both of them...
  3. why not take both? I have a 5dmkii and still have my old eos 1 (the very original 1st) that I use to learn photography back in high school when we did B/W film. I still use B/W film today but not as often because I have to drive to my local community college to develop and print. If I had space in my house I would definately purchase a B/W and color enlarger and setup a dark room, but I am just dreaming. If my dream came true I would see myself shooting more film for fun. What I love the most is that I can exchange my trusty lenses between bodies.
  4. Take both to Europe, a spare body is not big and 100 speed slide film will not be damaged by the modern X macines as long as you pack it in the carry on.
    I have a DSLR but use film much more, because it is more fun and makes better looking prints.
  5. I have found that as my collection grows with digital I worry about storage. Backing it up on disc, harddrive or whatever medium and hope it does not fail or degrade over time. I never had to worry about that when I shot everything on slides. Why not take both, if you find that great shot, shoot in both formats then you never have to worry over the years if the disk is scratched or still will boot. Enjoy the trip heading that way this fall, Ireland and the Uk.
  6. Europe entails lots of shooting in narrow alleys, pubs, churches and museums, most of which are too dark for slide film. And most churches and museums don't allow tripods or flash. So being able to crank ISO on the 40D will be a godsend. Last summer I spent 3 weeks in Europe and shot at ISO 640-1250 most of the time. My EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM was usually wide open or only stopped down slightly. Having IS really helped in all those dim locations. If I had brought Provia 100F I'd only have pictures from outdoors...
  7. I have thousands and thousands of slides from many years that I have digitized, slowly and laboriously. I'm not likely to shoot a lot more slide film, much as I love Kodachrome.
    Nowdays, most of the film I shoot is C/N (and I'm working on getting back into the lab for negatives in B&W), which is scanned directly from the film, so all my prints and images are digital now.
    It's because I like my old film cameras so well that I still shoot film, not the other way around. I love them as wonderful little machines, gears, springs, and all.
    There's nothing like the sound of a Contax-D SLR in the morning. It sounds like victory over the complexity of photography.
  8. I shoot 6X6 film with an old Rolleiflex MX Tessar f/3.5 using Fuji Astia 100 color reversal flim. I use it like a view camera and scan the images to make black and white images using Photoshop CS4. My problem is that the processing was terrible on my last roll. I am in need of a reliable E-6 processing house. Any ideas?
    I also love, and cannot part with, my Leica Ms and Rs.
    Take the 40D and use a tripod to slow down - it's more utilitarian. Digital images are great.
  9. I do shoot film regulary. Mostly 4x5 but I shoot alot of low light stuff with my Leica IIIf and 3200 film. Digital is good but with the size and weight and a really good scanner I can bang out much better pictures with film in a dingy bar than with my 1D MK2.
  10. I shoot film occaisionally and always take one with me when I travel, even though I am mostly digital these days. Somethign like an EOS 300 is very small and light and will take the same picture as a 1V in most travel situations.
  11. I have an ELAN 7NE and EOS 30D. I shoot film for my studio work when I know I will get the shot in less than a roll. When I go on vacaton I like Digital to know I have the shot for sure right then on the spot. I then immediately transfer to laptop and burn a copy to DVD. I can now reuse the CF's and go shoot happy capturing anythin I like. With film you will have to be more conservative and therefore probably miss many opportunities. If I had the choice both if only one then digital.
  12. If you like shooting film, bring both cameras. On a resent trip to Tuscany I brought my 400D alongside my Yashica 35 rangefinder and shot some rolls of Ilford XP2. I will be going to Berlin this summer, and plan to bring both the dSLR and my Yashica TL-Electro SLR.
    Interestingly, some of the best shots from Tuscany was actually on film :).
  13. Having shot film for nearly fifty years (and yes, I did start young) during which time it was the only, or latterly, in the early days of digital SLRs, the only affordable, option, I did one major trip with my EOS-1V and my (then new) 20D. I never took another photograph on film and sold the 1V (with great regret, because it was a superb camera) while I could still get a half-way decent price for it. I did not have too much difficulty learning to live with 1.6-factor, especially as lenses like the 10~22 and 60/2.8 became available, but once the price of the 5D had dropped to a level acceptable to me, I moved to a dual-format setup. Whilst I am convinced of the merits of having a FF body, although not to the exclusion of 1.6-factor, I have never felt the slightest desire to continue using film. That's not a prescription for you, Carl, but you wanted to hear a range of opinions and experiences!
    Isn't your trip to Europe the perfect moment to see how you like FF digital? If you don't want to spend the money that a 5DII costs, a good s/h 5D could be the way to go.
  14. I am interested in how many people with digital SLRs decide to pick up their film cameras once in a while​
    I went one stage further. After getting fed up with the amount of time sat in front of a computer, I gave my Nikon D100 to my wife. I only use film now except for the odd snap to illustrate a point in a forum post or web page. I now have 30+ film cameras to keep me busy.
    If there are two of you going and there are two cameras, why not take one each?
  15. My 2cents.......

    I started doing photography about 45 years ago (started when I was about 11 years old). Got very serious about it while I was in the Navy. Navy pay being what it was at the time presented budget challenges. How can you try lots of different creative techniques on a given shot with very little budget (my net pass was about 500 / month)
    Along the way I purchased both a Pentax 35mm and eventuall 6x45 camera, various lenses. My first trip to NZ I took 15 rolls of 120 film thinking that will be way too much film, I ended up shooting those 15 rolls in 3 days, then had to scramble to find 120 film in the rural parts of NZ and pay some exhorbitant prices along the way.
    In 35mm I almost always shot Kodachrome 64, in 645 I would shoot color negative film.
    I'm someone who will sit find something I want to take a picture of, and have been known to wait for several hours waiting for the right light, clouds, people to move, etc. Of course I take pics along the way because you never know if conditions are going to get better or worse. I also tried various filters (I had a large Cokin filter collection).
    All that film translates into issues of cost and storage.
    When the first 2 meg Kodak camera came out (I think it was the 260?) I bought it, tried it and found myself over time using the film cameras less and less. Once I bought a Sony F828, I stopped film all together. Today I have a Canon 5D Mark II.
    Best example I can give you was in NZ, shooting pics of a pod of Dolphins out in the bay in Kaikoura. I was shooting with a 200mm lens. The dolphins move QUICK, I wanted to get some pics of them as they jump out of the water. If I shot film, I would have shot 3 rolls of slides (maybe a 100 shots) and hoped for the best. With digital I probably shot over 500 pics and had a much wider range of choices.
    I no longer use my Cokin filters. The only filter I use on the camera is a polarizer. I found a set of Cokin filters as a plug in for Photoshop.
    Bottome line I haven't shot film in nearly 5-6 years and haven't looked back with regret.
  16. My wife and I both had film SLRs and now both have DSLRs. The last film we shot was in 2004, when I got my wife a 20D. The main reason for the switch to digital was the time it was taking to scan all the photographs.
    As time has gone on digital has gotten easier and film harder. We now carry many GB of memory with us, enough for around 3,600 shots, figure the same as 100 rolls of film. The last time we traveled with film it was a pain, we had to carry all the rolls with us to keep them from going through the luggage scanner.
    As a final note, both of our photographs improved a lot once we switched to digital.
  17. For the same reasons you list, I always take my film body with me on holidays, not the digital.
  18. I always grab both. I love the ease of using the 40D or Pentax K20. But I almost always have the Bessa R2a or Minolta x700 loaded with film.
  19. I use both film and digital equally (not in number of photos but in shooting time :)).
    I develop my own B&W film shot in old fully manual cameras, in which I really like the look of (grainy) film compared to digital. I like the craftmanship feel of old cameras as well as the fun of home-developing film.
    On the other hand, for fast moving action the use of a lens with USM/HSM is much appreciated over manual focussing. Also, the instant feedback helps a lot in e.g. difficult lighting.
    On holidays, I prefer digital, (1) I can see the picture after taking (2) its easier to shoot a few thousands digital images, than take a huge number of film rolls (also, developing e.g. 50 rolls of film myself after return and then scanning them all takes a huge amount of time, compared to the 2-3 rolls of film I usually shoot per month). However, I take a film body as backup, for if the digital body fails...and still shoot a few rolls of film just for the fun of it.
  20. I was in no hurry to change from film to digital. Afterall, I had used film cameras since the late 1960s. Two years ago I got my first digital camera. Haven't taken a single film photo since then. I like the ability to tweek the photos on the computer, crop as I wish, share on-line with friends, create programs on the computer, and use my own backgrounds on the computer. No more sending off for processing and a week later gettting transparencies back, wondering now what do I do with them, or prints, also wondering what to do with them).
  21. Carl, as you said you enjoy the slower process of creating a photo with your film camera and you use your digital for snap shots. As a suggestion, why not bring both your film body + various films for your creative adventure and a small pocket size digital for simple vacation snap shots. At least this way you will have the opportunity to carry less weight and much more film.
  22. Fab beat me to it. I prefer to shoot medium format film, but I still carry a small digital compact in the bag too for the typical holiday snapshots. It takes up hardly any room and I can also use it as a 'digital polaroid' when using the Hasselblad.
  23. I use two Canons -- one digital, one film -- and interchangeable lenses and, when I really want to go first class, add my Leica M6 and its Summicron 50mm for slides.
  24. If you decide to bring your film camera ou might need one of those X-ray proof carrying cases for your film. These days when I travel, I only bring my Digital camera. it's allot less hassles.
  25. Since I bought my 5D I shoot less film, but I still like to occasionally run a roll of Provia or Velvia through my Elan. Technical arguments aside, I like the look of a slide under a loupe or projected on the wall. There's just something special about it that's hard to explain. That said, if you can only take one rig on your trip I suggest taking the 40D since you have the flexiblity of hand holding at higher ISOs, and you don't have to worry about buying more film if/when you run out. Slide film isn't exactly easy to find in stores these days.
  26. I shoot with a 1D11, a 1ds11, 1V film and pentax 6x7. The 6x7 gives me the best satisfaction and the prettiest color.(I only shoot E-6 transparancies on film.) I take the film to Walmart. They send E-6 to a Fuji lab that does excellent work at reasonable prices. Unfortunately, just about all the magazines i deal with want strictly digital now, so my slides are shot primarily for my own satisfaction. I find digital too time consuming to store and too hard to retrieve. I can file my slides alphabetically by location or subject in 3 ring binders and find them in only minutes. I transfer the digital files to CD's/DVD's and log them by subject, but finding the exact photo from within hundreds of discs is a nightmare.
  27. Often times when I can take my time and shoot nature stuff, I take my film camera with me; I shoot the same scene with both camera types. Not so sure I'll do this much anymore because 98% of the time, the DSLR is as good, and usually better than the 35mm shot. Once quality DSLRs surpassed 6MP they became much better tools than 35mm.
    Plus, the 35mm takes time to drop off and process, and later scan! ACK! I'll still do it but it sure gets to be a *hassle* anymore.
    Shear nostaligia is why I still have new Ektar 100 in my fridge.
  28. If you want the pictures in digital format for a computer film becomes a hassle

    You will have to scan your slides. You then end up with the quality of your film scanners sensor and program settins, not film quality. Film scanning is a slow tedious process. You have to remove dust from the scans, adjust white balance, color balance, as you post process each image.

    Using a digital camera is much easier if you want the data in digital format for a computer. I believe the 5D is very "film like" due to the full frame sensor. The images remind me of shooting slide film.

    I use Proshow Gold ( to make slide shows of digital images. You can even add music, or voice over from audio files. The website has an eval copy of the software.
  29. I too still love to shoot film, like it more than my DSLR for many things. Especially landscapes and scenic shots. Not only do I love the the look of film, I love using my film gear. Contax N1, Dynax 7, and Contax 645 are a joy to use.
    But, I have come to love my high end digital point and shoot - so I always throw that in my pocket to get a digital back up. I review my shots laying in bed back at camp/the hotel, and have something for a quick upload to Flickr.
    Personally, I'd take a film camera with you and a 20 pack of slide film.
  30. I now only shoot film (Leicas) for "artsy" type photos. My wife and I love to travel but I only take digital (Canon) on a flying trip because film is such a concern and hassle for temperature and security x-rays. We go to "once in a lifetime" places and I want to be sure I've gotten the pictures I'm happy with. That means seeing the image on the back of the camera immediately after the shot, and checking for dust after downloading the cards every night onto a portable drive. In the States, flying and renting a car, I'm okay with taking two digital bodies, two or three lenses, and a laptop as I know I can spread out at the motel. Anywhere else, Europe for instance with tight schedules and narrow trains, trolleys, hotels, I pare my equipment down to a 5Dii and 17-40L. (I'm thinking about adding a 70-200 f4 but I really don't want to switch lenses because of the dust problem.) That's still two or three times (and f-stops) the size of my IIIg/35 Cron ASPH, but on trips to places I'll probably never be again I've got that peace of mind I need and have become used to shooting digital.
  31. Definitely take the 40D. If you can manage the extra weight, take the film camera, too. Sometimes digital looks better, and sometimes film looks better. It's all part of the mystery of photography. Plus, if your digital sensor gets dirty, you'll still have some perfectly clean film shots.
    In practice I shoot many more digital shots than film shots. I experiment with the "free" digital format, and when something is working well and the light it right, I'll jump in with some film exposures.
    Film is its own reward. A slide on a light table is a complete and beautiful piece of art unto itself. A file from a digital camera is a bunch of data that you need a program to translate and manipulate. The problem with film, though, is printing. Scanning is ridiculously tedious and/or expensive. Somebody needs to invent a scanner that just works. Maybe Steve Jobs should develop the "iScan" so we can all scan happily ever after. :)
  32. But the glow of the light through a good image on a good monitor is also a "complete and beautiful piece of art unot itself" - and it's bigger too. ;)
  33. I shoot film when digital isn't up to the task. There are two factors that decide the matter for me, kit size and resolution. Traveling, I like a small kit and this often means I take a 35mm rangefinder with 3 lenses, usually f2 or faster if flash may not be an option. Battery dependence is minimized and the Domke F-5xb is so nice to carry compared to an Domke F-2 or just about anything. There is the Leica M8/8.2, but even at used prices, I'm not ready to drop so much coin.
    However, with decent color processing getting more scarce, I'm carrying a Canon XSi with the smallish and light Tamron 17-50/2.8 more and more these days in the Domke F-5xb. I lose some lens speed, add battery charging to my routine and there's a different look, but I generally gain some ISO and I can make it work.
    On the other hand, there are times I want to print big and since there's yet no real replacement for displacement, I often go 4x5. I can capture in one shot what I'd have to stitch together from 6 or more DSLR shots. But that kit is big, the number of captures is limited, and color processing can get comparatively costly. Thus, relegating the 4x5 to car trips and dedicated photo outings, but 4x5 slides are seriously lovely.
    However, between an SLR with slide film and a DSLR with 8mp or more, the DSLR would do it for me. The kit size is the same and a DSLR offers at ISO 400 what most slide film delivers at 100. Fuji 400X is great but pricey. And not being Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now, carrying one camera is enough for me.
  34. Take the film camera as you will enjoy it which will enhance the vacation experience. I would also recommend picking up a p/s digital camera just in case.
  35. stp


    I have a great digital system and two great film systems, and I generally prefer film. However, the hassle of air travel overseas with a film camera will have me leaving my film cameras behind -- it's just not worth the hassle and the threat of degraded film.
  36. Like a few shooters here, I started shooting/processing film at age 10 (almost 50 years ago) and enjoy shooting digital (D5) for the last 6 years. I always travel with no less than 2 film bodies (if not more) to be able to use all kinds of film. KPR my overall fav. I always tend to match subject matter with the type of film. Digital allows to manipulate the capture, close to all films. However, I still shoot film when I do dark scenes and I know would love to make large cibachrome type prints. In fact, I carry often a Leica point shoot (film) and I process my film in no more than 2 weeks. Yes, scanning is another process, time consuming and not always satisfactory, but regardless of what people may say, digital still can't beat film. My Century camera (120 6x9) still is a part of my shooting (commercial and personal) and more often than not, I carry it when traveling coupled to a single Schneider Super Angulon (1:8 65mm) next to my DSLR. A pun on the shoulder and "where can keep my equipment safe?" when traveling but worth all efforts. In my view, that's a no brainer. Good question though!
  37. I always take both. Now there is another alternative, that is to take a very good film camera (like the EOS 1V) and a good point-and-shoot digital just for snap shots. That way you can save some camera bag space.
    For example if I don't want to carry my M7 and M8 I just take M7 and a dlux-4.
  38. Since I got my EOS 1v and Mamiya RZ67 and scan with a Nikon coolscan 9000 I us my 5D less and less. if you know your stuff you don't need the screen on the back as a crutch :) I shot pictures last year with the 5D which I would love to have on negatives the digital stuff is fantastic on screen but once your prints go over 30x20cm the negatives show there class. Take both.
  39. I have Canon 5D and lot of gear, but I don't use it much.
    Next month I am going on vacations to NY and I am taking film exclusively. Contax G2 and maybe Hasselblad 500. I don't like about digital the instant thing, and the free shot thing. What I like about film is the process...
    Take the camera you like best...
  40. I can't see myself shooting 35mm film ever again, now that I've been working in digital. On the other hand, I love shooting 120 film and have no plans to quit anytime soon. I like having both options, as they both serve their own purposes very well. 35mm has always been a format of convenience, speed and work for me so I have no problem going digital because it is convenient, fast, and pretty much the only viable option these days for my work (journalism). Medium format is and has been a pleasure for me because it's not convenient, it's not particularly fast, and I'm not doing it for work!
    Bring both if you have the room. Personally, I would just bring the digital, but if you really just want to shoot some film, then there's no reason why you can't do that. We're lucky to have so many options these days!
  41. Europe is old, so is film. Take the film camera. For most people a trip to Europe would be a once in a life time opportunity. At least for me, living in Hawaii it would be. In my opinion negatives make better archives, and this trip is something that you are going to want to remember for the rest of your life. Aloha
  42. Yes both still. All with Canon SLR cameras and lenses I share -- I have not bought an EF-S lens ever so thank my lucky stars for being an "EF" purist!
  43. But the glow of the light through a good image on a good monitor is also a "complete and beautiful piece of art unot itself" - and it's bigger too. ;)
    I would suggest that the image on the monitor is an interpretation of data by several pieces of hardware and software working simultaneously. If you take that image to someone else's computer it will look different. Take your slide to someone else's light table, and it will look the same as it did at your place.
  44. I use my 1V, take the film to walgreens that does a lot of film developing near my house, ask for a developing and cd, no prints. The CD saves me the trouble of scanning, cost $5.14 for 36 shots. I like the look of Portra on portraits and Ektar 100 colors for landscapes. But don't do that too often as Digital is cheaper.
  45. Carl, I would shoot on film which I love, but get high quality Digital P&S, with great low-light performance for wife. Take Your film camera and get Panasonic LX3 or Fuji F100fd for Your wife, then You'll have everything You need :) Have a nice trip!
  46. I have read opinions on both sides of the aisle. Here is my take:
    A vacation is supposed to be relaxing. So, if you find that the contemplative aspect of film is fullfilling and relaxing take film. If it is more important to record the most images possible in the alloted time use the 40D.
    Personally I would take both digital and film cameras. For certain images I may study the scene with digital and use that to decide when, and if, I should return with my EOS3. But I don't mind lugging around a ton o' stuff and I have no wife to stand around impatiently while I compose a shot and wait for the 'perfect' moment (some day I will actually nail that 'perfect moment' too!).
  47. bms


    Being in a similar situation, I asked myself the same question ( I t was Leica M4 vs Nikon D700... and eventually took two film cameras (teh Leica and a 6x7, the latter one just for a wedding) and a digital point and shoot. Shot Ektar 100, TMAX, some Provia, but ended up using the P&S a lot (~ 700 exposures). If I did it again, well, depending on where I'd go, a compact digital would be most 'allround'... whetever you chose, have fun on vacation......
  48. I'd take them both, and use them both; the 1V for the primary camera and the shots that matter and that I actually might print, and the 40D for "fun" shots that will be best in digital format, and probably will never be printed. If not, sell the 1V to me or someone who has no qualms about using it. Don't let one of the best cameras ever made just sit and do nothing (and this is beside the fact that it outdoes a 40D as far as "build quality" and "functionality" goes). Aside from storage space, just treat it any other time you would shoot. If you are used to shooting both, and comfortable doing so, then do the same on your trip. Camera bodies don't take up much space in luggage.
    DO remember to carry on the 1V and your film, however. Do not check your film. It can be scanned without damage by carryon scanners, but checked baggage scanners will damage the film.
    Also, do not use your digital histogram as an exposure meter. You'll get better exposures by exposing each medium slightly differently. I am sure you know that already, though.
    FWIW, digital is a secondary medium for me. I like it, and it is useful, but not for most things in my life...basically only when 1. there never need to be any "decent" prints made (lithographic or photographic), such as the aforementioned "fun pix", or web-only applications 2. I need to finish something really quickly, 3. I don't give a rat's ass about the pix (shooting for money, in other words).
    At work, where I shoot 95% of my digital pix, numbers 1, 2, and 3 apply.
  49. I'm planning on my next trip just to slip a capped film body along with a couple of rolls of Velvia in with the digital equipment. Since Nikon still uses the same mount, except for DX lenses, all of my lenses are backwards compatible.
    I don't know if the same is true of Canon in this regards.
    Much as I love digital, I too miss slide. For general use I find 35mm a little too grainy, but I've picked up 645 equipment and am shooting Velvia regularly now. It's too heavy to really travel with though, so I'll live with 35mm. In all honesty, I can only name a handful of non-people shots with digital that I like to the same degree as my many slide shots (35mm or otherwise).
  50. I still pick up my film camera from time to time. There's still something about that 'look' and feel of it...
  51. The best advice has already been posted more than once: take both bodies. Yet...
    Last summer my family and I traveled through Scandinavia, all the way up to Narvik and higher and down to Helsinki and back to Germany, on a camper. I had with me a 10MP digital and an R6.2 with the 28-90. I shot thousands on the SD's and a few rolls of E100VS and TMX. For reasons I can't fully understand, a few of the B&W shots were eventually printed poster-size--they turned out to be that good. Not a single digital deserved more than a temporary admiration.
    However, I'd like to point out that the feeling that I was keeping good memories from the trip was high when I was shooting digital--the instant reaction without thinking about light and exposure or composition, no shots lost, money-wise, and the like. It is also that slide films offer very narrow latitude (two stops) and you cannot cope with the contrast on sunny days; better if you try a lot of digital shots and hope for a good one.
    Enjoy your holidays, digital- or film-wise!
  52. Just back from the processors and held up to a plain overcast North-of-England sky, a rich saturated 6x6 slide that turns out to be all you had hoped for when you pressed the shutter is a beautiful thing indeed.
  53. I've got a leica M4P riding shotgun next to my 40D and 5D mk1. They are a very happy group.
  54. Although I shoot digital mostly (taking pictures of my kids at sporting events and parties), I shoot film also for three reasons. First, when shooting landscapes, I shoot 4x5 in an old press camera outfitted with a medium quality Fujinon 125mm lens. The camera and lens cost about $400; to replicate the images, I would have to spend more than $10,000 (even used) for a MF digital system. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money, I'd prefer the convenience and f/stop flexibility of the digital back, but I don't have the money. Second, I shoot MF film in an old Brownie in which I drilled a tripod socket. I shoot black & white, which I either process myself or send to a lab to process as positives then scan and print in 6x6 (inch) format, then mount in a 12x12 frame. The images are not sharp, but interesting, and to me part of their value is that they were taken in a 1950s plastic camera with no shutter-speed or arpeture control. Third, I shoot 4x5 pinholes, on Efke 25 film, which I process and print in a darkroom with me kids. These are the best images that I produce, by far. Here's a sample: . Makes me rethink the need for the $10,000 digital back. (Note I say that the pinhole images are the best that I can produce, not that they are objectively good--but lack of skill is another reason to buy an expensive digital back.)
  55. I'm going on vacation to NY and DC in a couple of weeks, and I'll be taking both my 30D and 1vHS. Anything worth keeping photographically is worth the effort to a) shoot digitally to process the way I want it and also b) to archive on film, mainly because I really like the way film looks and 'feels'. I enjoy shooting both equally, and I enjoy using both cameras (the 1v is my favorite camera to use, hands down). I've resigned myself to the fact that I can only travel so lightly and that all travel plans will involve taking both cameras--I may even include a much older Minolta XE-7 just for fun! Obviously I vote that you take both cameras. I think you'll be happy you did once you return home.
  56. Most of my professional work is done on a Mamiya AFD with a digital back. But I always carry a couple of film backs to use when I intend to do very large prints. And I find myself using the film backs more frequently after having discovered Kodak Ektar 100 - an absolutely brilliant film.

    Here's a walnut shot on Ektar 100 and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 9000:
  57. I use a Canon 1Ds3 for wildlife and landscapes, but when I have a lot of time and inner peace, I grab my 4x5 Ebony and run (well, it takes about 15 minutes for setting up the shot, so no rush there) a few sheets of Velvia through it. The wow-effect when viewing those trannies with a good loupe on a lightbox is second to none. Plus of course the movements of the view camera offer a bit more control over DOF than a DSLR.
  58. it


    I often take a film camera with me but I find I never use it.
  59. As a side note, if you do decide to bring film, take the canisters out of their boxes and put them in one of those clear plastic divided boxes. Makes it more checkpoint friendly. Ask or a hand inspection. Throw one roll of 1600 or 3200 in there so they can't say it's safe to 400 or whatever.
  60. Simple, really. Let the wife shoot the 40D. Leave the 1V at home, and take the F1N for your own shooting pleasure. Best of both worlds.
  61. Greg,
    Fortunately for us, those are old photographer's myths in most cases.
    Film of any speed available to use is ABSOLUTELY FINE with repeated scanning by carry on baggage scanners. Even IR film.
    Anyone's film is at more risk by being taken out in the light and rifled through by a security guard than it is being passed through the carry on scanners. You want the film to be kept out of the light more than anything, and you don't want people poking, prodding, swabbing, rifling, and possibly dropping it.
    Checked baggage scanners will, indeed, affect the film. Anyone who claims to have had film fogged by carry on scanners might be correct, if the scanners used were old. It is usually in very, shall we say "budget-counscious" third-world countries that you find these still in use...but almost anywhere in Europe? No problem.
  62. Wow ... thanks for your input. I've never posted a question that garnered more comments so this is obviously a topic people feel passionate about. My wife has a great little Canon P&S which she will shoot and I'll probably bring the 1v for outdoor shots and an older rangefinder for B&W shots in the twilight hours (pushed TMAX or Neopan 1600).
    Thanks again for all the thoughtful responses!
  63. I have medium and 4x5 camera's sitting on the shelf since I finally got a (40D) digital SLR. As a backup and to get the extra resolution of the larger film I rented a 5D2 for an extended vacation (Hawaii) this year. Both DSLR's fit nicely in one bag and used the same lenses. The 5D2 also does HD video. I shot with a 17-40 on the 5D2 most of the time. Wish I could bring myself to part with film. It's great in the daylight, but not nearly as versatile as digital. I'm doing a lot more with digital now than I did with film -- and probably enjoying it more.
  64. Why not have your wife take the 40D instead of the P&S?
    My wife started with a film SLR then went to a digital P&S and did not have much luck or fun with it, then I got her a 20D which she takes great photos with.
    If you are going to take the film body and lenses anyway the extra weight would only be the 20D body.
  65. Bring both bodies if you can, but make sure you bring Provia 400x as well; it offers a lot more flexibility than the 100. To answer your original question...yes, I still take out the film cameras on a fairly regular basis; both for the love of film and the camera. After all, they still work fine, why let them collect dust?
  66. I still shoot film for one reason. To make my digital work "look" like film. My secrete is a program called "Exposure" by Alien Skin. I think this is one of the best Adobe Plug in made. It makes your digital shots look like film by actually recreating the grain and colors of different type of film. One og my favorites was the Neopan and Velvia 50 but there are many many more film profiles available and you can profile your own favorite films.
    best program available for converting colr to Black and White and making it look just like Kodak Tri-X film.
  67. Take the 40D, and a more compact film camera. When I went to Europe I took a 20D, Eos 3, and at the last second put a small rangefinder in the bag. The Eos 3 just took up a lot of space.
  68. I shoot film regularly - both EOS bodies and FD bodies (as well as MF). That said I probably take the DSLR half the time and film the other half.
  69. better forget the shooting slides thing now that it is going away and shoot digital or some other film format. thks, ll

Share This Page