What Advantages are There to Keep Shooting Film in 35mm?

I'm surprised to see a fair number of images in magazines galleries, etc, still authored on 35mm film.

With all of the 35mm bashing that takes place in this forum (I still shoot all film, so I have no problems

with 35 myself), what practical advantages does 35mm have over digital? It still has advantages to me

mainly because I have my own color photo lab setup now, but I'd like to hear what advantages for print

and distribution that it might offer some pros. This is NOT to start a flame war. I know that the resolution

of 35 is lower than the high-end DSLRs now, but how does 35 compare in other areas? Also, I've noticed

that most 35mm images I see are shot on slide film. Is there still some sort of inherent advantage to

slides over negs? I thought neg film had caught up in resolution, and it's always had a great advantage in

terms of latitude.

 

Regards,

 

~KArl Borowski

Film still has a greater dynamic range. The problem now is that so many labs which used optical printing have either closed or resorted to scanning the negatives and making digital prints that the unique look of opticaly printed negatives is becoming rare. The same is true for slides which used to be used to make Type R prints. A clerk at a local camera store told me he would use their high resolution scan of my 35mm negative if I would pay for it. What did he consider high? 1200 dpi. I wouldn't say the 8X10 print he made was bad but it wasn't great either. I sent the negative to A&I for some custom Type C prints. When they come back I will take both to the local camera store so they can compare them.

 

Color print film has been good for a long time but the results will only be as good as what your lab can generate. Film is good for subjects which would cause interference patterns with digital cameras. Properly processed and stored negatives will last much longer than any currently available digital storage. To match the versatility of a $100 used 35mm SLR camera you still have to pay almost $1,000 for a DSLR. The lattitude of color print film is much greater on the overexposure side than that of slide film or digital sensors. Over time digital equipment and techniques will improve but film based photography has probably reached the end of the line where new inprovements are concerned. Enjoy both.

You don't have to print them at home.

You can see the images without using a computer (slides or prints), you can project slides with minimal cost and amazing quality, the variety of wide angles that work well on film is greater, and the quality of black and white photography is better on film. These are my opinions. In addition, shallow depth of field can be achieved easily, and film has a traditional look (depends on the film of course) that is just pleasing to the eye. Also, the temptation to modify the images substantially is lesser because it's more difficult.

 

I use 35 mm film quite a bit though with the D200 it's getting less. I very much prefer the larger 35mm format over DX except for some tele applications.

 

I can't believe how much time I spend on converting raw images, adjusting them and making prints - and how much time I could spend in the great outdoors instead when I was just shooting film!

The equipment, especially manual focus equipment, is dirt cheap. I have less invested in my FD-mount system of 6 bodies and 12 lenses than would have bought me a 30D and kit lens, as well as a much more versatile kit with lenses from 21mm to 300mm plus a superfast 1.2 standard lens and macro lenses.

With film, you get the colour, skin tones etc you like straight out of the box. (this is assuming of course you've found films which you like)

"...what practical advantages does 35mm have over digital?"

 

Momentum. Maybe some nostalgia.

I've shot film for 37 years now. For me the advantages of film is simple, shoot and forget.

Just keep changing rolls and keep going. Drop at the lab. Review slides. Select ones to

scan, and then the workflow is the same to Web or print.

 

Another reason for me is that my system (Minolta manual focus) isn't compatible with new

digital systems, so I would have to replace my entire system, and even replacing the most

commonly used body and lenses would cost more than my entire current system, let alone

duplicating it. So the question is the on-going cost of film versus the capitol investment in

a full-frame DSLR system.

Well without 35mm film 29-40 of my cameras would only be window displays.

http://www.photo.net/photos/LarryDressler

 

Larry

Shooting with film keeps the digimaniac kooks in stitches, vulnerable and stupid. Shoot film.

<I>According to my tests, even lossy desktop scanned 35mm film outresolves</i><P>Which still bears asking the question that if your film tests show 35mm film in superiority in terms of sharpness over a Nikon D2X, why does my worst work on my 6mp 10D look 10x sharper and clearer than the best image I've ever seen you post? I still like it when you 35mm worshippers come up with math that concludes your stupid and obsolete film SLR has more resolution than my RB67. MF shooters have been laughing at you resolution chart addicts for so long I guess the digital crowd needs to get in line. Which brings me to another question, and that's why is it the smaller the format you shoot, the greater obsession there is to shoot resolution charts?<P><I>Drop at the lab. Review slides. Select ones to scan, and then the workflow is the same to Web or print.</i><P>Dude, no offense, but your posted images on your site are softer and muddier than Les's. You guys keep talking about all this wonderfull resolution with your 35mm film, and getting embarrassed by a Fuji F10:<P>

 

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/fujifilmf10_samples/<I><P>Shooting with film keeps the digimaniac kooks in stitches, vulnerable and stupid. Shoot film.</i><P>For somebody with no uploads at all, you sure have strong opinions.<P>Otherwise, the only advanatge I can see with 35mm film is it allows a grocery store mini-lab trained teenager to do your work for you because they are smarter than you at color/density balancing, or you just need an excuse to not part with your old gear. The full frame vs APS digital format arguement does get my support though.

There's nothing like the feeling of picking up your slides or prints and viewing them for

the first time. Nothing.

The originals will be viewable in 50 years when cd's, usb, and firewire cables, don't exist.

Forget about resolution and grain. It's all about the color. Digital colors look very similar to what you see on a TV screen, not bad, but if you're used to looking at color transparencies.......

 

Also try to process a RAW file from a DSLR to give it similar contrast and saturation as a slide film, look at it at 100% and you will see all the advantages of digital disappear. All the digital hype about no noise and clean images only applies to unprocessed digital captures, soft very low contrast and saturation. But if you try to make them look like a real photo, well, try it for yourself. You'll see the photo disintegrate.

I am glad I still own a B&W T.V..

 

Larry<div></div>

Remember, Karl's original call for discussion was about the rationale for continuing with film specifically in the 35mm format. One has to recall that 135 was never about quality, but rather that fast workflow, portability, and price, for everything from cameras to consumables were all superior to larger formats. In these niches where 35mm film cameras used to reign, current digital cameras tend to do the job better.

 

Having said this, I continue to shoot 35mm film (in addition to lots of digital.) Camera, lenses and film scanner are all sunk costs for me at this point, and recurring expenses with film are inconsequential (for now.) So, I have some empathy with the Leicaphiles over at the other forum, even though they really _are_ crazy.

Film is Rock&Roll Digital as we know it today is Disco.... Ok not like that but I bet it will end up differant than everyone thinks it will.

 

Larry

I like to use film so I use it. Its simply that for me.

I like to buy film, drop it off and pick it up after processing.

 

With digi I waste a lot of time taking too much photo's and too careless. Too much time on computer. Unlike a pro a DSLR is not cheap, there is a lot of film and d+p for $750.

 

I not like DX lenses so prefer my lenses work as they do in my film camera. With DSLR you have to duplicate some of your lenses....

"Otherwise, the only advanatge I can see with 35mm film is it allows a grocery store mini-

lab "trained teenager to do your work for you because they are smarter than you"

 

Nice attitude you have there Mr 'Hero'!

 

My reasons for shooting film (as well as digital) is I enjoy using film, I like processing my

own B&W- especially printing the results myself. I get the best quality currently possible

nothing beats the look of B&W on real Chloro-Bromide paper.

I've seen people try and I've tried to equal 'the look' of a fine art print on B&W with digital

but somehow they fall short.

YMMV<div></div>

My Widelux doesn't take CF cards.

most of the above, and... you don't have to buy a new camera, and in some cases (depending on what you have), all new lenses. You have to spend few thousand to get a DSLR with decnet build quality that doesn't feel like some plastic toy. Film is also cheap. Unless you're cranking out thousands of images, film in your existing cameras is cheaper. And if you are using a medium format film camera, it takes a vicious amount of money to match their image quality.

Why use film ?

 

For portraiture I use film because it gives me excellent results, cheaply. (hasselblad/astia/cibachrome or ilford delta DIY) The big cannon dslr might compare with similar results but the cost is chalk and cheese.

For mountaineering i need a non battery dependent camera that can take knocks so its velvia through a nikon f2. Again ancient gear but superb quality results.

I also have a pocket rollei in the glove compartment of the car - it has no battery so i can pick it up and use anytime.

In addition i enjoy using characterful cameras and films and enjoy the ritual of processing and printing.

 

I spend a lot of time in front of a pc (work) where i use a digital camera and photoshop, reluctantly.

<b>Mr. Eaton</b>, with respect to, "Dude, no offense, but your posted images on your

site are softer and muddier than Les's. You guys keep talking about all this wonderfull

resolution with your 35mm film, and getting embarrassed by a Fuji F10..."

 

I don't talk about resolution, I leave that to those folks interested in it. Secondly it's not

correct to compare a low resolution Web image with a higher resolution Web image, that

has nothing to do with the original film or digital image, only the Web versions. And as for

my images, I'm still learning to scan slides and soft isn't necessarily a fault of the slide or

image, but the scan and photograher's preference. And it might be helpful and positive it

you would stop confusing your opinion with reality.

scott, any dummo knows film can not compete with D on the internet so why go on so much about posting film pictures,the only good thing about film is behind glass on your walls, i have loads, better than anyone else can produce because they are mine. also if you don't care for film anymore why do you hang around this forum so much, don't see your name on many others, strange.

I'm with Ben. The only reason I shoot film is because on a non-profit salary I can walk around with 2 SLR bodies with superb viewfinders, high-quality prime lenses, can afford useful accessories like extension tubes, and don't worry all that much about damaging my equipment. A new body will set me back $100, and the lenses much less.

 

Scanning film is slow and a PITA (but I'm getting better at it), but I don't do volume work.

 

I shot a car race with a borrowed 20D and my existing equipment, and concluded that I don't care if there's a slight resolution advantage with film- the bold color, lack of grain, and consistency makes the 20D far preferable for real world shots, in my opinion.<div></div>

Sorry, attached the wrong version.<div></div>