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

[leon chang]

Film has been good enough for the last 80 years and so it will be for the next. There are no professionals or amateurs who can deny that. The fact that Canon & Co. produce superb D-slr's doesn't make the quality of film inferior. It's just that a D-slr may be more versatile, not better or worse. What the heck if there were no D-slr's we'd all still be shooting film and you would hear no one complain.

[karl_borowski]

Folks, let me just clarify: I shoot mostly 6x7cm, and have my own lab. With the exception

of the one pro-lab I use, or in emergencies when I'm out of chemicals, I am never doing

one-hour-photo again. Mr. Eaton, as I was a teenager up until two weeks ago, I'll thank

you to keep your biased opinions about the skill and appearance of most teenagers to

yourself. Teenagers are no more all alike than all Jews, women, Blacks, or white bald men

over the age of 50 are. I shot my first wedding as a teenager, and I think the results are

better than a lot of the ones shot by "mid-life crisis photographers" that got into digital

because they needed some new toys to play with. I want to know, having my own analog

optical photolab and the capability ot pull off professional C-41 processing for less than

70c a roll for 35mm 36exp. whether I should get rid of 35mm and get a digital P&S, keep

shooting, processing and scanning 35mm C-41, or only use E-6 with my 35 and take care

of E-6 at the local lab. I don't really want to hear about subjective opinions of the quality

of scanned 35 versus digital. Clearly that is going to be as biased as lasering a digital file

onto film and comparing that with a native E-6 slide. All of my prints, baring the ones

that need excessive digital retouching, are printed optically. Having scanned a fair share

of 35mm in my day though, I think that some of the Kodachrome I've shot pulls a decent

12 megapixels or more, with acceptable grain that looks a lot nicer than compression

noise IMO. I'm just worried that this grain is viewed as "old-fashioned" or unacceptable by

a lot of clientele out there now. After all, as much as I'd want to, I can't shoot 6-7 for

everything :-) Please no flame wars, objectivity. I really want to know what the resolving

powers of modern E-6 films are. I like Kodachrome, and am goign to start shooting more

of it, but even it has a bit of grain and is slow for some applications. I've never shot pro

E-6 films. How do they compare to the current line of C-41 like Portra 160? Again, I"m

mostly concerned about grain and resolving power. Obviously, with the demise of reversal

print materials, I'd need to scan them.

 

~Karl

[robert_potts1]

I can think of several advantages for shooting film. However, I prefer medium format and find it difficult to defend 35mm. It is not only a size issue. Most of my objections to digital stem from it's ties to 35mm. Anyway, one line that I've been seeing a lot from editors lately goes "We accept digital images of the highest quality, but color transparencies are preferred". I suspect on some level, that dealing with a lot of slides may be easier than lots of discs.

 

P.S. Maybe it is time to stop picking on teenagers.

[roger_smith4]

Karl, your last question (print film vs slide film) is totally different than the DSLR vs 35mm question you asked above. You're going to trade one flame war for another.

 

If you mainly shoot a larger format, why are you asking about 35mm at all?

 

Check out Photo Techniques magazine where Ctein rates different films. You won't find anything of comparable quality on this forum, and "Pros" are few and far between here.

 

If you want to see what grain looks like on slide vs negative film on a high-end 35mm scanner, look at Les Sarile's film gallery, which is as close to objective as you're going to find here.

[karl_borowski]

Roger, reread my initial post and see I make mention of slide films and ask about the

current run of them there as well. I have now asked twice for objectivity, but people still

supply flames. I shoot all film, but I don't feel the need to demonize digital... I shoot

primarily MF, but obviously there are places where it is too bulky/expensive for the subject

matter. I want to know how I can best keep MF quality with ease and compactness. Some

of the accounts I have read say that 35mm negative is too grainy for pro use anymore, so I

brought up the possibility of E6 as an alternative that'd allow me to keep my 35mm rig.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[robert lee]

"35mm negative is too grainy for pro use anymore, so I brought up the possibility of E6 as an alternative..."

 

Generally, reversal film trades off better grain characteristics for decreased sharpness (relative to negatives.) Either deficiency can be dealt with to a decent degree in the digital post-pass. So long as the film is scanned, the choice of transparency or negatives is significantly one of individual bias. Personally, I prefer negative film for the greater dynamic range and simple convenience.

 

If the choice is between 35mm film gear and digital, it's easier to produce technically better images with even low-end modern DSLR's.

[karl_borowski]

Les, it's an internet forum, not a college term paper. Come on ;-) THe article I got the

info on gold from

was in an early '03 or late '02 issue of Popular Photography IIRC. I don't own a copy, so I

can't give you a definitive citation. It had one of those stupid titles like "Digital

Outresolves Film!" and compared the top of the line Kodak DSLR with Gold 400. If I get a

DSLR, obviously it won't be a 6MP variety. I'm

looking at the higher-end ones. I have already looked at your listings of different films

versus digital, but I find parts of the list confusing, mainly the lack of actual established

resolutions (just a list going from 1 to 20 ranking films and digital SLRs), and the absence

of certain films. I didn't see Portra 160 on there, or 100T, so the list is kind of useless to

me as I am a Kodak guy.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[ichavel]

I am not as accomplished as most respondents here, but I will venture the following:

 

I started more serious photography a bit late, and I know film. So I shoot film. I am not interested in starting over with a new medium. I am interested in excellence in the little I currently know. Fool around with as few films as possible, and as few labs as possible. Get to know each as best as I can. Then .... go out and continue shooting.

 

I was much younger, I would have to experiment with both, choose which appealed to me more, and go with it.

 

If I was only a bit younger, I would be tempted by "changeover" from film to digital. Then I would be trapped in all these flame wars. Happily, I am out of it.

[ichavel]

Sorry, that is "If I was much younger, ... "

[jerry_kirkwood]

I shoot film because I enjoy developing my film and doing enlarging and watching a print come up in the developer tray. I don't get the same thrill from mousing around in Photoshop and watching a print inch its way out of an inkjet. I'm not selling or exhibiting my prints, it's purely a hobby for me, and my right to approach it any way that makes me happy. My wife sews by hand with needle and thread, and my next-door neighbor makes and restores antique furniture with equally antique hand-tools. Their results are definitely slower, and in all probability less technically perfect than if they used the latest microprocessor controlled machinery, but they enjoy doing it and that's the definition of a hobby.

[karl_borowski]

Well, as far as I know, RA-4 is still faster than inkjet, and more archival and cheaper than

most inkjet products out there, so I'm never giving that up regardless. I've given up tray-

processed RA-4 printing (except for weddings and prints larger than 5x7), but I have to

follow a good business model and provide what the customer wants. I'll probably always

shoot film for my own personal uses, but then I generally tend towards larger formats

there anyways. I started out on 35mm as most pro photographers still do at present, but

I've come a long way professionally since I was shooting a lot of 35. I'm inclined towards

nostalgia in more places than just photography, but I have to be objective. Since I'm

considering getting a dye sublimation printer for quick jobs, I"m just wondering if it is silly

to shoot film on location, process & scan it on site, and make dye sub prints if film doesn't

resolve as well as digital anyway. It's a lot of extra effort that I don't mind, but I do

expecct better results out of it if I put all of that extra time and effort into it.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl

[robert lee]

"I"m just wondering if it is silly to shoot film on location, process & scan it on site, and make dye sub prints..."

 

Yep, I think it's kinda of silly. Going with a DSLR is a no-brainer for this application.

[roger_smith4]

"I"m just wondering if it is silly to shoot film on location, process & scan it on site, and make dye sub prints if film doesn't resolve as well as digital anyway"

 

How do you process and scan color negative or slide film on site? Mobile lab? Polaroid?

 

I hope you got what ever information you were looking for as this thread doesn't seem to be getting any clearer as it goes along.

[sublimeimages]

I don�t have the background as some who have posted but I love the look of fuji Reala, NPZ & Acros (pretty much the only films I use) scanned on my Minolta 5400II. I also like the look of digital done with controlled lighting. I want the best of both worlds. Probably a dream. For assignments I use mostly digital, since I�ve already incurred the cost I might as well use it and get better at it. For fun, low light, B&W & wide-angle photography I use film. I think scanning/capture, exposure, development/post processing, printing and good photography principals have a lot to do with high quality images film or digital. It must feel good to own a lab and process your own color film.

[karl_borowski]

Only when it comes out right Thaddeus ;-) The machinery I have gives me an aweful lot of

technical troubles, but when it works, it is superb, as good as or better than any lab I have

ever used.

 

Mobile film processing I'd use a Jobo tank, changing bag, and chemicals, of course :-) I'd

probably throw a hair dryer in to cheat on drying time coupled with a scanner and a laptop.

 

~Karl

[lahuasteca]

Advantages to continued shooting film in 35 mm.? Viewfinder, depth of field, wide angle,

durability, no continual obsolescence. For Scott, who used to use a Nikon FE2, here are

some scanned images from that camera used with primes (they lose something in the

conversion from RGB to sRGB). I've just added medium format (Pentax 645) to my kit.

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/53250384

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/38149029

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/38155964

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/38156006

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/57651518

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/image/57652695

[sfcole]

I don't think digital B&W will ever have the same impact. To me, some small amount of

grain can be beautiful. Grain isn't always bad--it would be like trashing the brushstrokes

on the Mona Lisa. Take a look at the works of Nick Brandt, or Sebastien Salgado, or many

of the classic portraits that appear in the New Yorker (like a recent one of Morton

Feldman). The look of medium format--the incredible tones and details with that touch of

grain--really do it for me. I suppose you could add grain in the computer, but this seems

dishonest and pointless.

I just printed a 13x19 of a tri-x scan (35mm), and the results are stunning.

To me, that is.

 

It's too bad that one of us (one that shares my surname) seems to troll all the forums,

waiting to jump down every hapless poster's throat. Get a life.

[larrydressler]

I shot my daughters wedding today. A Kiev 6c with Foma 400 a Nikon EM with Agfa Vista 100 and a Nikon D70. Guess what? I think they all have a place and a use. Just because I have a DVD player does not mean I had to get rid of all my VHS.

 

We also gave everyone a 1 use polaroid 35mm camera....

 

Will post pictures soon.

 

Larry

[larrydressler]

Trolling is good for boney fish and ugly women.

 

Larry<div></div>