Going all film?

[dennis_oconnor4]

I have been in the darkroom since 1953...

B&W is my art - what i hang on the wall

Digital is my family - the birthdays, christmas, etc. that are emailed around...

The digi Nikon sits on the seat of the car where I can reach it instantly

The mamiya bag is in the trunk with the tripod...

Don't dump your digi gear.. Do both...

 

denny

[christopher_graham1]

I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I agree with two statements most of all and I will tell you why. One I agree with the guy who said dump your digital gear while there is still some value in it. You will need to put a good bit of time in incorporating film into your work flow. It is going to take some adjusting to. It is definitely worth it. You will also be addicted to it for a while. In the meantime your digital is losing value and becoming less and less cutting edge, which let's face it is really what makes digital so appealing anyway. So dump what you have now maybe with the exception of your favorite lenses as the value of them won't go down as quickly and it will be useable in the future should you decide to get whatever newest thing later down the road. Digital moves so fast that unless you decide to downgrade back to normal format digital within the next year your competition will have already replaced their digitals with something newer and more impressive to people who care about such things. I imagine it will take longer than 2 years for you to think you may want to work digital back in. I do think there is a place for both though I haven't managed to work digital into mine and won't for a long while. Second I say look into the RZ as was mentioned. You will get to liking this camera but you will find some situations and some clients that are going to want to see things yesterday. If you ever find a way to work in a digital back you will fall in love with digital again. The beauty is you can change backs any time. A few shots slide, a few shots digital, a few shots in black and white and then move on, viola a little bit for everyone. But see how that is something you can grow into later or whatever.

 

I sold my digital to buy my film cameras because I wasn't learning anything on digital. I found that I learned a lot more when I started using film. It all depends on the person. I know several people who bought digital cameras to learn photography and now they feel that they have learned enough to start learning film. I may someday start working digital in which I have learned by borrowing cameras newer cameras is going to be a whole new learning curve.

 

I firmly believe that the future of photography is that a lot of serious photographers will be found with a few different set ups specific to the situations they need them for. Film and digital will find there places but eventually and I mean possibly hundreds of years from now there won't be film or only a few nerdy descendants of todays hold outs will be left mixing their own chemicals and hanging in underground galleries. But only because people will find it odd that they are using terrapixel 3d cameras like everyone else. LOL.

 

I don't know if I would abandon digital all together but if you think you will be completely film for more than 18 months or so I definitely would recommend selling off your current gear before it goes for a quarter of what you could get for it now.

[._._z]

The only advantage to MF, and it is a visible one, is in tonality of black and white images. If you prefer shooting color (and I'm not sure necessarily do if you print at home) I don't see much advantage over digital, and printing and sharing will certainly be more time cosuming and costly.

[._._z]

As Igor noted, you do get a somewhat different look from film in general, so if you prefer that, go for it.

[josh_gilreath]

everyone keep complaining about how expensive film is. Well, from a professional standpoint. You also have to ask yourself how much is your time worth. I find that when i do shoot ditital i tend to move way too quickly and shoot way to many pictures, but with a film camera i significantly cut down the number of shots i make and each shot is generally pretty good, i dont seem to throw away many. By shooting with film you are challenged to become a better photographer and you have to really know your stuff, thats something that alot of professionals today have no clue about. But back to my point a couple extra dollars spent processing film could save you hours sitting in front of the computer in which you could either be shooting or making money. And also as said before the quality is just amazing, I have a couple of really nice 30x40's sitting in the studio now straight from a 6x6 hassy neg! Beautiful

[samtsosie]

Chris,

 

I started out with film, moved into digital, reverted back to film. I still shoot with a digital camera, color is pretty amazing and beats having to send out color slides for processing. I use film for B&W process and develop in my basement. I am 30 and prefer having control over physical elements as opposed to zeros and ones. Both mediums (digital/film) have thier merits. Ultimately its up to you and with what you feel comfortable using.

[link]

Hi Chris,

 

I've just gone in the opposite direction. I've shot medium format film for years (fuji gw

690's 6x9 rangefinders) but just recently got a Canon 5D digital system. I needed the

digital to shoot a lot of pictures for a project, often under very low tungsten lights. I did not

sell my film stuff though...

 

For me using digital is easy as I've scanned my film for a long time (nikon 8000

filmscanner) and am completely comfortable using the digital workflow.

 

Comparing the quality and character of the images (6x9 color negative film vs 13mp

digital) I would say that the 5D photographs are about as detailed as 4.5x6 medium

format film, but much more clean (very low noise/grain). The digital camera has a lower

dynamic range ( by quite a bit) and requires multiple frames (on a tripod) at different

exposures to capture enough range for some landscapes. The 5D can capture some

amazing walking around images at night, but the film camera can capture even more

amazing night images using a long exposure on a tripod. The differences between the

cameras are enough that they each have their purpose and I'm keeping them all for the

time being.

 

 

Chris, since you are so young I'll go out on a limb here and state what I truly believe. Film

won't be around much longer as an easy to use medium. The next few years may be

your only chance to experience it while kodak still makes the stuff. My landscapes shot

on 6x9 film are of excellent technical quality and have more possibilities for creative and

technical reasons than my 13mp digital images (medium format digital is another leap

ahead though...but very expensive). So go for it! Your digital camera is just becoming

obsolete quickly so sell it and buy that great medium format stuff that has already become

obsolete (price wise). I'd keep the lights though...

 

So step right up and experience the 20th century before it's too late! (you remember land

line phones don't you? or tv for free? The analog disc player? you get the idea I think...)

[chris_obrien4]

Wow, thanks for all of the replies so quickly. Things seem to be split down the middle between keeping my digital camera or selling it. I have an offer that is about 75 or 100 dollars higher than they are usually priced, so I'm going to sell it.

 

I'm not too worried about the cost of film, as I work two jobs and generally have more money then I know what to do with (LOL,) and have a state of the art darkroom at my college with all of the paper and chemicals I'll need for a long, long time. So I develop and print for free (E6, too =D)

 

I think I'll just be happier shooting with film. And if worst comes to worst, I'll be able to play around with my schools D300 for the next for years.

 

Thanks alot for your input everyone!

[ted_smith1]

Chris

 

Looks like you've made up your mind, but here's my view anyway :-)

 

I'm 31 and shot film for 15 years from the age of 15 up until 2006 when I went

digital. I, too, went digital for the purposes of learning exposure techniques

without it costing me money in film and processing. Now, two years later, I'm

shooting both depending on the desired result. I generally prefer film - I can

be almost certain that the shot I shoot looks like how I want it to with film

and I prefer how it handles tonal ranges. I don't get that assurance with

digital - I find I have to take 3 or 4 frames to get it near right with harder

lighting conditions - that said, I only own a Nikon D70's. I expect the more

recent bodies are better.

 

I have also just bought a Nikon film scanner which is invaluable with the route

you are taking. With a film scanner, you get to shoot film, process it yourself

in your darkrrom, and then just scan in the best ones.

 

At the end of the day, a 'dual shooter' gets the best of both worlds.

 

Finally, I joined www.apug.org recently. For film related discussion, it's an

invaluable resource. The members there really know there onions.

 

Ted

[craig_shearman1]

Chris, at 17 is photography just a hobby or is this what you see as being your career? I love film and shoot both film and digital. But if you're going to try to make a living off photography your clients are going to expect digital. This is for legitimate reasons in advertising/commercial work where art directors are on the set and want to see what they're getting for their money as you shoot, or for news photography, where instant turnaround is required. Also for non-legitimate reasons where a bride may want digital just because of the marketing hype. And also for your own business reasons because of the every-rising cost of film and processing. Another issue is that your age you're still near the beginning of the learning curve for either technology. If you're going to put years into learning something, why not choose the technology that will still be around years from now when you're retired? Film isn't going to go away completely, but it will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the business each year.

[jack_welsh]

Chris, look at Chris Tobar's posts in the classic camera forum on how much he likes his Yashica A TLR. He is about your age. He enlarges his own B&W negatives the old fashion way, too. Pro's might need digital because of the speed factor, but,you can take your time. People say that people who are paying for photos expect digital. But, whenever I take one of my medium format or 4x5 cameras to a car show, railroad museum, etc. Even people who have the high end DSLR's think that I am the pro.

[johnw436]

The biggest reason I shoot film though, is COST. To compare film processing to digital output alone is false economy unless you already own all the gear you will ever need.

 

I have a *suitcase full* of Bronica gear that- all total - cost me about a thousand dollars. That equals two decent lenses, or one good one, for my DSLR to try to compete with the quality of my medium format gear.

 

I have a Tachihara 4x5 with two lenses, ten film holders, filters, and accessories that cost less than my Bronica gear.

 

The economy is simple for an amateur: you cannot spend enough on film to equal what it will cost to make a tiny format DSLR produce the quality a large negative will. Granted, I don't use 35mm film. Not because the film quality isn't there, but because it would simply cost too much for the necessary lenses to get that quality out of a small negative.

 

A DSLR with kit lens produces the practical print equal of a 35mm SLR with kit lens. In either case, the glass is the limiting factor to getting the quality out of the image, and the price of good glass buries the cost of the camera. It only makes sense to spend that same money stepping up to MF and LF and sticking with film.

 

Aside from all that, I simply enjoy MF and LF more that I do 35mm because of the process. As an amatuer, MF and LF didgital is not a consideration. I have my DSLR for snaps and family outings.

[Ian Taylor]

I went from 645 to digital and thought I would go back and forth, but I haven't shot a roll of 120 in a couple of years. The logistics of dealing with labs (which are disappearing), buying and scanning film will put you off.

<p>

Depends on what you want to get out of it, but I imagine you'll regret it.

[kari v]

Chris O'Brien: "I'd rather partake in landscape photography, or natural light portraiture, outside of a studio."

 

I actually didn't like landscape shooting much before but after I got my MF gear it changed. Slides are stunning on the light table and b&w has great depth. I enjoy shooting (waist level finder after crop sensor dslr feels Good), images are great and the price for the equipment was more than right. From a non-pro viewpoint there's nothing to lose.

 

Portrait work I have always enjoyed and it's even better now. Different flow than with a dslr and there are certain image qualities (apart from resolution and sharpness) that are so much more easily attainable.

 

I wouldn't sell all dslr gear though. Portability and speed may come handy sooner than you think... But this is a matter of taste of course, I shoot all kinds of things and sometimes speed (especially in post) and ability to shoot as much as your memory cards can take is very practical, but if you're not interested in this kind of thing then why would it matter.

 

I don't know where you live but at least I have zero problem finding film, chemicals and labs for reasonable prices. That may change in a few years but at least for b&w work you'll be secured far to the future.

 

btw, I'm not exactly in your age group but still under thirty. ;)

[dan_b.4]

You can go back and forth between film and digital with at least a couple of Mamiyas. I'd actually recommend the 645 format which gives you a negative not much smaller than the 67 but weighs a heck of a lot less, especially with longer lenses, etc., attached. The camera model, by the way, is 645 AFD.

[Uhooru]

I use both. I like the color and b/w on film better than my D200, however I like its look as well, so I shoot about 50/50 depending. I love MF. I would say keep all your stuff and shoot both. Why either/or? Unless you have to sell to buy film equipment. Just because you shoot film doesn't mean you won't need lights someday. Also, film is definately an expense and if you shoot alot, you will feel its bite. I say don't limit yourself.

[silverscape]

Jack, I'm here! :)

 

And yup, I love the Yashica. I'd say 90 percent of the pictures I take now are with

film. I'm having much more fun with film than I EVER had with digital. I feel like

I've learned so much about real photography the past few months. The most

boring and tedius thing in the world to me is sitting in front of the computer editing

a picture. You would shake your head if you saw the condtions I work under in my

makeshift "darkroom" in the garage...but I'm having a lot more fun working with

negatives than using a digital camera.

 

Chris, don't sell your digital cameras because you probably wouldn't get that much

for them, and you might still use them from time to time. But don't be surprised if

you DO use a lot more film than digital! :)

 

And for people who might say "oh, don't bother with film because it's not going to

be around much longer"...that's nonsense. Sure, there might come a day

sometime in the future when you can't walk into Walmart and buy a roll of film

anymore, but it's not going to disappear. I can still easily get 8mm movie film, so

what does that tell you? We obviously have digital video cameras that can record

in HD, and yet there are still a lot of people filming in 16mm and 8mm film

because it's FUN. In fact, if anything, film is actually making a comeback.

Especially black and white. There are countless companies that make film, not

just Kodak. I've shown some of the pictures I've taken with my cameras and I've

gotten a few of my friends interested. In fact, one of them just bought an Argus

C3! I have two of them...and an Argus C4...and an Argus C-44 :)

 

When I've shown some of the pictures I've taken with my Yashica A to people,

they are completely blown away. One of my friends thought for sure it HAD to be

digital...he couldn't believe it came from a 50 year old camera. Sure, film and

paper can get a little expensive, but it's worth it. Any hobby can get to be

expensive.

[silverscape]

...also, I was just at a Virgin Music store in the mall, and they're selling RECORDS again! These weren't re-released retro albums, but NEW albums by modern artists. In this age of 2 gigabyte mp3 players, they're selling records. And people were buying them. What does that say?

 

Some people just like to do something different. The "latest and greatest" isn't always the best.

[eddy_d]

I am strictly a film shooter. You can use different types of film for differet

looks/styles. Try using a holga. You will get some funky artsy looking pictures. It

is a plastic "toy" camera and takes 120 film. Now I keep hearing how great color

looks in digital as opposed to film. I have seen the color of digital. Two were at an

art show. One was a picture of fireworks . They looked horrible. The other had

pictures of a red barn. The reds looked flat, pinkish and washed out . The stone

was pixilated and meshed together in clumps. The other was at a pro lab I go to

and they do great work. The picture was taken with an 8 thousand dollar camera

and again the skin tones were washy pink and the picture looked digital. I don't

know how you digi heads say the colors of digital are better then the richness of

deep reds and greens that film produces. Maybe I am missing something.

[tomasz_widlak1]

Well, I did, sold my 5D three months ago as I stopped using digital couple months back and it was only gathering dust. I'm all film right now, shooting with Hasselblad and Voigtlander Bessa and I don't miss digital at all................I totally love it now! I shoot mostly Kodak Portra and some B&W from time to time, I buy my film on Ebay slightly expired to keep the cost down and I found local mom&pop lab that does C-41 for $2 per roll and B&W @ $4 per roll and I scan everything at home. For the amount of $$$ that I got for my digital setup I will be able to shoot for a long long time :-) And I started with digital as well but I never liked it, maybe that was why I kept searching for something else and that's how I found film :-)

[jack_welsh]

Chris Tobar, I've heard that in some cases, a turntable with record produces a better sound than digital. I also have a Argus C3, two in fact. Also, I like the Yashica TLR's that I have about 6-8 in the 120 and 4x4 sizes.About 3-4 more need minor things. A 44 needs a new focusing hood.A Yashica - 24 needs one, too.So, you can see I like them very much! A Yashica TLR,Mamiya TLR would make another great medium format camera, Chis O'Brien. Some of the ones mentioned would be too expensive for some people.

[cheryl_jacobs]

You do NOT have to shoot digital if you're a professional. People only "expect"

digital because they assume everyone is using it. I have a very high end

international portrait and commercial clientele who book me BECAUSE I'm a film

shooter, not in spite of it. I use strictly MF and LF equipment, and if I had to replace

every scrap of camera gear I own, I would likely not spend $1000.

 

I am a firm believer in doing what makes you happy, and makes sense for your

situation. It certainly sounds like you've made the decision that is the best fit for

you. Enjoy it!

 

- CJ

[philippartridge]

Another old film guy here. B&W on film is just a different and more aesthetic look, probably will be in greater demand as digital gets more overwhelming; you can't turn back 100 years of development, or catch up in no time flat!

 

Colour, well, the next-gen digitals will be wonderful, but for my uses, travel and landscape, I still feel I cannot travel without an MF rangefinder, for the special shots and for the middle focal lengths. I am still dependent on film processing but scan my own.

 

Digital for all else, especially with VR lenses. I truly loathe the load of accessories I need to carry for it, what a nightmare for long back-of-beyond trips. Just processing my best images to completion at present, the film work just looks so damn good...but each of us has to decide, and best regards to you, it's all fun.

[patrick j dempsey]

I would like to interject a few things into this very lively conversation which I don't believe has been addressed....

 

#1 - I don't think you will regret going to film.... not nearly as much as people who paid out the butt for "pro" level digital cameras 6 years ago that have no resale value because consumer grade cameras are on top of them. Right now prices are cheap on pro film gear, because people are still migrating away from it, but I think they will go back up again, as more people are also "rediscovering" film.

 

#2 - What you MIGHT regret is investing in the RB when you specifically talk about wanting to do landscapes and outdoor portraiture. The RB series cameras are typically thought of as studio cameras, and their size and weight reflect this. I'm sure others might disagree, but hiking to a location with an RB might be a real challenge, I know it would be for me now, and even when I was 17 it would have been difficult. I'm not trying to steer you away from the RB, just want to be sure you are aware of the bulk of it. I have an M645 which is slightly smaller but it still rarely leaves the house. It is an excellently versatile camera. If I was you, I would also consider a 35mm SLR for outdoors work. The new breeds of film emulsions are denser and more detailed than ever before, and really right now is the best time to shoot film ever! Some people grumble about Kodak dropping emulsions, but there is still more variety of emulsions, and specifically professional quality emulsions available now than 20 years ago!

 

#3 - Digital may be giving more and more people access to professional level photographic tools, but honestly, the thrill of film is something many digital shooters have lost out on. The anticipation and nervousness when you get your work processed is just amazing. I feel like a kind on Christmas every time I go to the lab. I don't know too many digital only shooters who express that kind of fascination.

 

#4 - You will be joining a special group of people. Not really an elite persay, because there are plenty of excellent digital shooters, but definitely a special group. Film shooters are a proud bunch, and I say rightly so! It's not about being anachronistic, it's about keeping something magic alive.

[craig_supplee]

Chris, you certainly stirred up the nest this time. I haven't seen a thread run this long in quite awhile. Lots of good thoughtful responses. You asked for opinions, and you got them. My 2c, I've done both, have both, and use both. Quick family shots go to the DSLR. To generate the creative juices that get dulled during the week, I go to my vintage MF and LF film machines. That's where the fun is for me.