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

[peter_crosby]

Ha, got my "N's" mixed up with my "b'"s

One other thought, back in Sept, I was loosing something very near and dear to me, and I

wanted to document it with pictures. I was in a very sad state of mind, and the thought of

shooting it digitally was not something I wanted to deal with: downloading, PPing

uploading to my lab etc. I just grabbed the EOS3, and a whole bunch of film, and

concentrated on shooting. Dropped them off at my lab, and picked them up the next day.

I shot a bunch of print film, which I have'nt done much of, and was very pleased with the

results, At that time in that state of mind, using my film camera was the way to go for me

Regards,

Peter

[rob_landry]

I agree with almost everything Mr. Crosby has said. I use my film SLRs and DSLRs about the same way and in the same situations as him. Like others here, I also find my digital images lack a certain something and can sometimes take on a flat, plasticy look. I also find that for landscape subjects with lots of fine detail, the DSLR seems to act strangely at the limits of it resolving capabilities; detail seems to be smeared whereas film seems to fall off more naturally.

 

I do find I use the DSLR more than my film cameras as it is a good all around machine (replaced neg film for me), but I still use E6 films for nature stuff and landscapes when shooting 35mm. Velvia still cannot be replaced by digital and a good shot on slide film is still something to behold and be proud of. I also process my own E6 at home, so the cost and turnaround time is moot.

 

Also, my F-series Nikons are much more precise and purposeful machines than any Nikon DSLR. Shooting my F5 just has no equal in the digital world; it's viewfinder is huge, bright, and best of all accurate for critical manual focusing, especially with an A screen installed. DSLR viewfinders and their focusing screens are fine for AF work, but suck for critical manual focusing and judging DOF; Nikon doesn't even offer split-image screens for its DSLRs. The 1.5x crop factor is also a PITA for wide-angle work and critical compositions through these small viewfinders is just not very enjoyable.

[User_502260]

I read about a year ago that a 35mm negative made on high quality 100 speed film and shot with an excellent prime lens could deliver the equivalent of 100MP. The problem is that to extract this much information you would need to scan the negative at 8,500 dpi. Most hobbyists will not have a scanner capable of 8,500 dpi at home. The point is well taken that as projection printing declines, negatives and slides are typically scanned before being printed digitally. The quality of the scanning varies widely and the dynamic range of the scanners limits how much of the film's dynamic range can be revealed in the final prints.

 

If the question is whether good quality 35mm film can be used to make 8X10 or 11X14 prints with quality equal to or better than what you would get with a 10MP DSLR I would say the answer is yes. The qualifier is that the 35mm negative or slide must be printed optically with the best equipment available. If the 35mm negative is scanned at a low resolution with a scanner which has poor dynamic range and then printed indifferently then it will not match the quality of a 10MP DSLR or even a 6MP DSLR. High quality 35mm equipment has great potential but with the change to digital printing methods it is often not being realized.

 

A big part of the quality question is the size of the final print. My Canon PowerShot G3 makes excellent 4X6 prints and it has only 4MP. The lag time can be maddening so it isn't a good camera for fast action photography. A 5X7 from this camera is also very good and an 8X10 is passable if little or no cropping is done and if the shot was taken carefully. At some point I will get a DSLR. For now I have the G3 with the Canon wide angle and teleophto attachments. It is surprising how many things I can do with this outfit. I still shoot mostly with film cameras. If I want a nice enlargement which is 8X10 or larger I can still have A&I make optical prints. Even the local camera store's not-very-high resolution scanning does a decent job with my 6X45 and 6X6 negatives.

 

Whether digital prints have a plastic look is a matter of taste. To my eyes they do look different from optically printed film photos. I can see that in the future I will use my film cameras for black & white and a DSLR for color. I'm sure that a 39MP digital back for a Hasselblad or Mamiya would even give my 6X45 and 6X6 cameras a run for the money but for the size prints I usually make and for the volume of work I do as an amateur I could not justify buying one of these.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you get "plastic looking" digital prints you are doing something very wrong, or simply preaching the the "film and processing" choir. Or perhaps you are confusing the lack of grain in a small (up to 11x14 inches) print. I'm sure a medium-format print would look "plastic" for the same reason to someone not familiar with that medium, where you see little grain in prints twice that size.

[evil ted]

Well, it seems to me you've answered your own questions. First of all using 400 ISO film isn't going to compete with a 10MP digital I don't care how you scan it. In my opinion when taking photos of birds you would be crazy not to use the digital camera unless you like spending hundreds of $$ on film and processing. What do you plan on doing with the shot you are getting? If they aren't going to be used for anything larger than an 11x14 leave the 35mm in the bag in case the digital craps out or something. This is coming from a die hard film user. I still think film has the advantage, but not many people have the $$ to get it, not to mention the time spent on it.

[User_1172872]

"How many of us have seen Mathew Brady's photos from the Civil War" is a false argument. You can see Brady's photos because they were recognized as important and valuable documents when they were taken. How many people toss prints into a shoebox and lose the negatives? Years later, when it's too late, they realize they don't have a really good picture of a friend or relative from their youth. The issue is not film or digital. It's recognizing the value of what you have.

[ellis_vener_photography]

re Brady's negatives

 

most of the Brady and similar studios negatives weren't valued and ended up being used as

glass panes in green houses. so most of the reproductions you see are made from dupes of

dupes of dupes.

[chromatic-aberration]

For me, it generally boils down to history and lenses. Strange perhaps, but a modern film

camera holds no appeal for me. I love running film through cameras older than myself, and

savoring the pecularities of the lenses. If I could magically mount the lenses of some of

these old cameras on my DSLR, I would. I'm one of those strange people that periodically

goes about with Holga lens attached to a $900 digital.

 

I am a collector of old cameras, and I enjoy taking them out for a spin. However, if it's

something that really "counts", I go digital.

[images by andrea]

To everyone that thinks there is a DSLR that can match the quality of film that is RUBBISH. The camera manufacturers may tell you so but it is far from that - yet. The backs available for large and medium format cameras come close to matching high quality scans from 35mm FILM.

Don't get me wrong I think there is a place for everything and in fact I shoot weddings and commercial jobs only on DSLR's. I also shoot landscapes for stock and fine art and I would never shoot these on anything other than film. For this I use my Nikon F100 and Fuji Velvia film which I can then scan through my Imacon Flextight Drum Scanner which will give me 6300 PPI scans without any interpolation and a file size of 140mb (from 35mm). I also shoot a lot of 5x4 and 6x12 transparencies (do the maths on those scans) so now you might see where I am coming from.

The best part is that I still have the original transparencies which I may choose to re-scan in the future as the technology improves. Not so with some crappy old digital files.

Having said that my DSLR is a 14MP and much better than the dog (Nikon D100) that I first started with. But overall the film camera is sharper, has better focusing and will handle difficult lighting much better than the DSLR. The problem of burn't out highlights can be dealt with more easily if shooting in raw (more exposure latitude).

The other issue is justifying the cost. Yes some of the top of the range DSLR's with 10MP + are pretty good but if it is not paying it's way is it worth the huge investment? And most likely be obsolete within 5 years.

Thanks Andrea

[jtk]

Film's got the edge in very low light. Fuji NPZ is a joy. You do want to scan it yourself, with a dedicated film scanner and not a flatbed.

[jacob_brown]

"I have more fun with film."

 

Is the fun part the cost of the film, the cost of the processing, paying for prints you wouldn't otherwise want and waiting days for the privilege to look at them? Or is the fun in spending hours souping, developing, drying, dusting, cleaning up and then scanning or printing?

 

So much fun to choose from!