Do you also shoot 35mm film or digital ...and why?

[jay_chadney]

I have several MF cameras that I am paring down to one (Bronica SQB).

I also have a large Canon EOS system (film). My goals, however grand

they may be, are to someday be paid for shooting events, weddings,

and also to sell prints of other things that I enjoy (nature subjects

of all sorts, kids sports,), or even submitting images for stock

photography. At this point I do not have a large enough collection of

images to be able (in my opinion) to contact a stock agency. I got

into MF for the larger print size possible.

 

Here is/are my question(s):

 

Why have a MF system AND a 35mm FILM system for my intentions?

 

Why continue to build up a collection of 35mm slides and negs?

 

Would it be wiser to trade in my EOS 3 for a Canon 10D?

 

Thanks to those that provide responses.

[mark_grow1]

Jay,

 

Im not really sure there is anyone simple answer to this question. Much of your answer you already know based on your comfort level and shooting style. As a wedding photographer myself I shoot a Bronica SQAi and a Nikon F3, but I also have a D70 with plans for the Nikon D2X.

 

Currently I think many wedding photographers are evaluating their equipment needs and demands on their workflow. Some (like me) have found a comfort level with all mediums of capture and use the tools I need for a specific event or situation. Many of the wedding photographer I associate with all have some film aspect to their business. Many still shoot with 35mm SLR's and their work is breath-taking.

 

While recently adding digital to my line-up I have also continued to make an investment in medium format. If your going to make the leap into digital you might want to consider the 20d. Currently the 20d has the best lp/mm resolution in its class. But also know that the purchase of the camera is the first step on a long road of expensive software. Color managment, raw converters, and Photoshop (which has RAW converters) is not an inexpensive road...

 

Mark

[Ed_Ingold]

1) 35mm/digital is a lot more convenient for candids and events than medium format. There are a greater variety of lenses, the camera system is smaller and lighter, and the materials cost about 1/3 as much as medium-format. You don't have to reload as much, either.

 

2) Film is appropriate for many applications. It's the only choice in medium/large format unless you make enough to pay back the $20K to $30K cost of a digital back in a couple of years.

 

3) Maybe! If you charge for your services, or make any committment to produce results, you need a backup in the same format. If you shoot digital, then a 10D would be an appropriate backup, but so would 35mm film. If you shoot medium format, a second body and 3-4 backs would be advisable. You don't get paid for excuses, and you don't get called again either.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In Large Format most work here is shooting artwork; old prints; maps. We went to a digital 35Megapixel back many years ago. The local "pro" lab got ill; and started to loose 4x5 transparencies to be processed; scratching them; light fogging; plus doubled their prices. The Fedexing of film to be processed then was done; and then we had several days of delays and even more costs. The transistion to digital was to save time and money; and gain control again of our process. The digital back cost us used about the same as a good used pickup truck; and has been a decent investment. Those who live right next to a perfect film lab that does developing for about nothing can avoid this digital jump. :)

[kelly_flanigan1]

Our local lab also barfed on MF color processing too several years ago. Now all MF color has to be mailed away; with all local MF labs dead and 6 feet under; tombstones covered with years of moss. <BR><BR>For fun I still develop B&W MF and 4x5; but the little color is mailed away; since the local lab died off.

[eric friedemann]

I have moved from Nikon F5s and F100s to D100s. For most things I'd been doing with a 35mm film camera (e.g personal party pix), I find the DSLRs more convenient. While the DSLRs aren't perfect (e.g generally less tonal range than moderate speed color print film), with the right software (Neat Image and PhotoKit Sharpener), they do a better job at high ISOs than any film I've used.

 

 

For more serious personal shooting on a tripod and for event photography, I use Mamiya 7IIs with B&W and color negative film (XP-2, Reala and NPZ). The resolution is superior and, in scanning, I'm able to tease a little more tonal range out of negative film than I can get with the D100s.

[neal_shields]

I keep a 35mm F2 with a zoom lens on it in my car 100% of the time.

 

I don't worry about it getting hot or stolen.

 

I use it for what I call "prospecting" for large format scenes. Problem is that 35mm film is getting so good sometimes I have difficulty justifying going back with large format.

 

I collect cameras and spend quite a bit of money of gear every year but haven't (for my needs) found a reason to buy a digital camera yet. You don't say what advantage you feel that the 10D would give you over 35mm.

 

The most crediable link (amoung the thousands out there) that I have found compairing 35mm to digital is below:

 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

 

It was developed from studies lasting over a year and was subjected to a significant period for comments and pier review before it was published.

 

I have no doubt that most photographs do not need and often suffer from, the additional information that 35mm captures over digital. However, I can always scan my 35mm negatives into the computer and duplicate the "crisp" look of digital. I can't take a digital file and create the information that I left behind when I took the picture.

 

Haveing said all that: If I wanted to make a living taking photographs, I would go digital tomorrow. Probably an SLR for moving subjects and a Betterlight back for anything that stood still.

[loreneidahl]

I shoot rock concerts, motorsports and some landscapes. I use film and digital in 35,MF and LF

 

Each has its strenghts.

 

Digital because during a concert session I can shoot more shots with low cost.

 

Film to capture what digital can not. (dynamic range, exposure latitiude, etc)

 

I use the larger format stuff for the stills and promotional shots and landscape.

 

All of the action shots that are for either web or magazine work are shot with my D2h's

 

My 35 film cameras go with me when I shoot BW on walks and just because. My F3 has color and my F2 has BW. The F3/Md4 is used quite often in the "stationary" action shots. ( subject is moving but camera is not aware so focus can be had)

[hakon_soreide]

Presently I don't shoot digital, except for web-publishing of my artwork, and I'm not really happy about the quality of reproduction even in that format, but I'm the only one who knows as it looks okay if you've not seen the originals. When I upgrade my digital camera sometime this year or the next, that probably won't be an issue anymore as digital has got a lot better the last few years since I bought my old Nikon Coolpix 880.

<p>

The main philosophy when it comes to photography is: Any camera that you carry with you takes better pictures than the one that is at home in a kit bag, and any camera can take interesting and artistically sound pictures.<p>

I don't always like to carry around my Mamiya 7II, although it's by no means a heavy and bulky camera, and so I keep my 35mm Minolta TC-1 handy for the occasional opportunity shooting. An SLR for backup would be pointless as it would be just as bulky as the 7II, and I'm only going to invest in a new SLR system if I need to do some serious macro photography work. For anything else, I feel my combination of the 7II and TC-1 works well.<p>

I am considering getting a digital superzoom camera, like the Panasonic Lumix FZ20, simply because with its zoom range, I'd be able to take pictures - at the tele end of the zoom that would actually be better than enlargements of the same area made with my 7II, and it would make a flexible photographic tool for some work.<p>

Photographic equipment, whether it be digital, MF, LF or 35mm is all a question of workflow and intended end result. For many uses, even a simple digital compact will do, and for other purposes, even the sharpest LF chrome might just barely cut it. And, most importantly, it's the photographer who takes the pictures, not the camera.<p>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>

[troyammons]

Here is/are my question(s):

 

Why have a MF system AND a 35mm FILM system for my intentions?

 

I ask myself that same question, but with me its 35mm digital, 35mm film manual, 35mm film auto, 6x6 mf, 6x7 mf and 4x5. Gees, and i would still like to have a mamiya 6.

 

They do really overlap and i do not use my 35mm film camera that much, but occasionally I do use it for various odds and ends, telescope with film, B+W, super high iso snapshots etc. I prefer to shoot digital for telephoto and snap shots, scouting and setting up LF etc. I use MF or LF film for artwork, landscapes etc. I will say that digital color, at least at the 6mp area is just not quite there yet although the S2 is decent.

 

There are some things that film just works better for. I photograph artwork with almost 100% film, mostly because of the color but the other day I noticed something odd. This was an egg tempera painting, very delicate, and my D camera was picking up paint layers, under the surface. Very weird and it does not work in that case. It is a glazed painting with lot of layers of transparent paint. Light passes through all the layers and gets bounced back out picking up color along the way. i guess dgital is picking up more of the bottom reflected light, almost like it has xray vision.

 

In that case for small stuff like 9x12 I am going back to 35mm film. Its a lot cheaper too.

 

Why continue to build up a collection of 35mm slides and negs?

 

Although digital wont degrade they can be lost forever via hard drive crash, CD problems etc. I read on one site where they recommended backing up digital on film. Thats not a very god reason but....

 

Would it be wiser to trade in my EOS 3 for a Canon 10D?

 

keep it, but buy a better D camera. I had the 10D and it had the worst dynamic range of any D camera I have ever used. Very short. It was so bad that I ended up having to shoot with a ND grad filter outdoors all the time.

 

Like a friend told me you have to shoot both digital and film. It is a good combo, but actually I prefer the larger film formats now.

 

Thanks to those that provide responses

[kelly_flanigan1]

Hi Troy; here I use a 4x5 digital scan back to shoot artwork. This old rig requires an IR cutoff filter on the lens. When the filter is off; one gets IR and visible; and usually gets the <b><i> "camera was picking up paint layers, under the surface. Very weird and it does not work in that case."</b></i> like you mentioned. Here the IR often seams to look thru the layers; and weird effects can be see. Sometimes when the IR cutoff filter is on; these effects are faintly there. My guess is the IR filter is not "a brick wall" enough; and the scan back sees some IR that the human eye or normal color film misses. A digital camera with a built in IR filter has this effect to a small degree. Several of the cellphone cameras I have been testing have this effect alot.

[daniel_taylor]

"Why have a MF system AND a 35mm FILM system for my intentions?"

 

With the advent of digital, I can't think of a single good reason. You would be much better off with a MF system and a DSLR.

 

"Why continue to build up a collection of 35mm slides and negs?"

 

Can't think of one good reason. Unless, of course, you prefer worshiping slides over a light table to actually producing prints.

 

"Would it be wiser to trade in my EOS 3 for a Canon 10D?"

 

Without question, yes.

[daniel_taylor]

"I collect cameras and spend quite a bit of money of gear every year but haven't (for my needs) found a reason to buy a digital camera yet. You don't say what advantage you feel that the 10D would give you over 35mm."

 

I can think of some advantages a 10D would give him, including:

 

* Superior image quality.

 

* Higher usable ISO.

 

* Zero film/development costs.

 

* Rapid turn around.

 

* No limit on shooting, practicing, learning.

 

Film's advantages? Exposure latitude and how certain films might render certain scenes. But he can explore this better with his MF than he ever could with tiny, grainy 35mm.

 

"The most crediable link (amoung the thousands out there) that I have found compairing 35mm to digital is below:"

"It was developed from studies lasting over a year and was subjected to a significant period for comments and pier review before it was published."

 

Neal, it is bad enough that you drag out the same tired, old, stupid link every time somebody compares formats. Must you also embelish it with lies?

 

The link was not developed from any studies. The closest the author came to citing a study was "It has been estimated by somebody somewhere that...".

 

There were no comments and no peer review. Had there been a comment period I guarantee you about a thousand scientists and photographers would have pointed out that the author goofed up Nyquist, and therefore every number he posted was wrong, off by at least a factor of 2x from that one mistake (more when you count his other mistakes).

 

And there were no tests. When you test something, you have details a little more specific than "color film", "b/w film", and "instant film". You usually have, at the least, a film brand and manufacturer. Another clue that there were no tests or studies is the total and complete lack of test pictures.

 

The truth? A poorly paid tech writer who never took a serious photo in his life was asked to generate an "inter-office" manual for the guys in the field who don't know anything about photography beyond point and click. The manager handed him some notes, and you get what you pay for.

 

"I have no doubt that most photographs do not need and often suffer from, the additional information that 35mm captures over digital. However, I can always scan my 35mm negatives into the computer and duplicate the "crisp" look of digital. I can't take a digital file and create the information that I left behind when I took the picture."

 

It's 35mm that "leaves behind" information. If you ever bothered to actually pick up a DSLR, you might know that. (And if this particular forum allowed the posting of photographs, I would post some clips to make this fact painfully clear even to someone as stubborn as you.)

[alex_z]

Well, I also shoot both: EOS-3 in 35mm and Bronica GS-1 (6x7) for MF.

Each one serves different purposes: 35mm is well suited for candids, events, some sport I do and rock concerts whilst I enjoy my Bronica for landscapes (still learn landscape photography) and posed shots (great for portariture).

 

However, having said that, I think I would be ready to jump into digital as a 35mm replacement, would we have affordable (say 1.5-2K$) pro high-resolution full-frame body, because seems to me quality-wize it wouldn't suffer comparative to my current 35mm and would allow me faster turn-around wne necessary and definitelly would appeal for to a prospective customer.

[._._z]

Neal, why do you pop up on photo.net solely to post a single, unsupported claim that's

been knocked down repeatedly?

[simonpg]

Jay, rather than get caught up in a mindless and confusing debate, a structured approach is what you need to come to a financially sensible conclusion - like any investment (since you are seeking to be paid for your work).

 

There are three main considerations that you need to address to decide your course of action. 1. Do not confuse format with media. 35mm, MF and LF are formats and the types of equipment / format is a matter of "horses for courses". One is not substituatable with the other.

 

2. Do not believe one form of media is BETTER than another. Film versus digital comes down to purpose and needs. Yes, we know that scientifically one broadly needs about a 20MP digi image to equate to the image detail of the best film in 35mm format (according to various published analyses). In MF and LF the equivalent digi image sizes (based on various sensor performance assumptions) are multiples of that. But your purpose will be dictaed by expected use requirements - how your clients want to receive the images; printing requirements etc.. Again "horses for courses".

 

3. Workflow - your wider workflow requirements and the advantages offered by each media will influence your decision.

 

So, I don't see digi and film as being substitutable yet. For me image perfection is the driving force and I have not seen digi stuff in 35mm equivalents (except at the very top end which is not affordabvle to me) that makes me change out of my EOS 1V or Leica-M. And certainly there is nothing remotely affordable (if available at all) that could replace/add to my MF or LF film gear.

 

But, like sports journos, you may have specific client needs and workflow requirements that drive you to digital - then 10D would be a good start. But would you drop you EOS3 at the same time? Consider that very carefully.

 

Remember that if there are no critical customer or workflow requirements, you can scan 35mm and MF film to address less critical customer or workflow needs.

 

I have seen wedding photographers using both - digi 35mm and film MF - "horses for courses". But, I have also met a pro who is going back to LF film because magazine customers are now rejecting digi images for reasons of image quality.

 

Finally, only you can decide if managing film and slide libraries is efficient or painful. Don't listen to those who'd label you a luddite (if you decide to stay with negs and slides) simply because they prefer digi workflow - as one did in this thread. Look around you and you'll see manic consumers sucking up every next digi equipment release to quench their thirst for having the latest and greatest, only to stop one day and count the dollars spent and compare that to the minor benefits received.

[gene crumpler]

Well I worked for the Federal Government writing regulations for 29 years, and most stuff that comes out is subject to comment for at least 30 days before it is finalized. I have not researched this particular regulation or guidence, but at some point someone with some expertise was involved. Maybe just a lawyer. Rules of evidence and all that sort of thing. Maybe a judge in a federal court.

 

Doing both film and digital for a few years, I'd personally be concerned about digitally captured images being presented in a court of law. I've been involve in litigation in the federal courts for at least 20 years. I don't think this has anything to do with the quality of the images. Some insight from an insider.

[hakon_soreide]

Yes, I have read the article that many people keep dragging out, the conclusion of which has little to do with the actual image quality differences between digital and traditional photography, but I know I would also have been concerned about the use of digital for evidence gathering purposes.<p>

I did notice in CSI, not sure whether it was the 3rd or 4th season, that they had started using Nikon 5700 or similar cameras. When it comes to trying to pull extra detail out of an image, I am quite sure that would have come far short of a high-detail 35mm negative, and when it comes to evidence gathering, sometimes that might be required. Also, with negatives, there would be less concern about digital manipulation since presenting the actual negative in court would be easy if any allegations to that effect were to occur during trial - and such allegations I am sure will occur once digital starts taking over.<p>

Hakon<p>

<a href="http://www.hakonsoreide.com">www.hakonsoreide.com</a>