35mm Film Question, Well sort of....

[Fotos53]

<p>Is anyone still shooting 35mm film with a Canon EOS 1V HS? Please let me know if you are. Why are you still shooting film in this day and age of instant digital images?</p>

<p>I thinking about buying one because it's been too long not shooting with film for me. I long to go back to getting the film processed and opening that little box of chromes and laying them on a light table and looking for the good ones.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your opinions, thoughts, and views.</p>

[richterjw]

<p>Not a 1v, but I shot with an EOS 3 this weekend. I was shooting some star trails on a camping trip and needed that magical mirror that doesn't use battery power to stay up. JR</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Kodak have brought out a couple new colour neg films in the past couple of years, so I guess some people are using it, don't know any Canon film users personally. :)</p>

<p>It's really difficult and very expensive to print digital images on silver based colour and black and white paper in a darkroom. Which is why I use film in several Nikons, a Pentax and a Linhof.</p>

<p>Oops, there is a Canon Sprint sitting on the kitchen counter needing batteries for a test, does that count?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I have two 1VHS's. I also have about 200 rolls of assorted films, mostly Velvia 50 and 100, in the freezer and have decided to start working my way through them. Not because I have a passion for film, though as you say putting chromes on a light table is very rewarding, it just seems a waste to have all that film and not be using it. I have no wish to scan my slides, if I want to digitise any images then I'll just use my old slide copier to my current digital camera.</p>

[franklin_polk]

<p>I shoot a 1v (usually without the PB-E2) as my main camera. Nothing I do requires instant results, and I find it fun using different films and working in the darkroom. However, I also do use 6x7 and 4x5, they're just a touch heavier to carry around if I'm just walking around town. And while I have older cameras that are fun to use (I still have my first SLR, a Spotmatic), I see no reason not to take advantage of advances like AF, IS and modern metering, even if the medium I'm using is fundamentally older. Plus, I can get away with waiting longer to upgrade my computer/storage compared to if I was using digital.</p>

[james_harris13]

<p>I use a 1VHS when I want autofocus, which my Mamiya NC1000s does not have and my 5DII barely has (when compared to the 1VHS, at least). Its shutter/film advance audio track is unimaginably satisfying and solid and is worth the price of admission alone. <br>

I took pictures of my kids at a tree top zipline park with Ektar 100, backlit by the sky through the trees, nothing blown out, zipping along in focus, enjoying watching them instead of a tiny LCD screen. Same with a family outing at the tulip farm. I don't need huge grainless enlargements of these types of pictures, just beautiful memories. A 1V with TMY, Ektar, and Portra is pure bliss.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have and use both an EOS 1 (the original, not the v) and a EOS 3. The latter is a spectacular film camera, and all of its features are not yet found on Canon's digital cameras. If you are interested in getting a film body, you definitely should look at both the 1v and the 3. You may, like many others, find that the 3 is to be preferred.<br>

Why use film? Well, there's still no digital back for a Canon EOS 3 among other things. ;)<br>

I confess I simply like historical and old cameras, and there's no way to use them without using film.</p>

[con_progin]

<p>I have 2 1vhs, 3,and a 30d. I use the 1v's 90 % of the time. I just dont have the time to download,post process , backup and back up the backup. but most of all,I'm old fashioned,and I enjoy doing things that teens know nothing about.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I still have and use my EOS 3 and Elan 7e, both great film bodies!<br>

As someone previously mentioned, . . . when I really want AF, I get out the EOS 3. Both have ECF that I wish Canon would incorporate into one of their digitals.<br>

I too enjoy the older cameras and doing things that teens know nothing about.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I have the EOS 1n and A2e and still shooting with them just fine. I just let Walgreens do the processing and basic scans and if I see one I want to print I scan it on my Nikon CS 4000. Using Fuji Pro S 160, and printing on Epson printers, I get some very satisfying 8.5x11 prints.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>1vhs, 3, F1, T90. Mostly black and white. Why? Because I can, and have a darkroom and process my film and print my own pics most of time. Besides, when I scan a film, i can do anything in PS that I can do with a 5d image...</p>

<p>If you're a follow the crowd type of person though, you shouldn't bother with film.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I just got an EOS 3. I haven't shot with it yet, but I enjoy shooting B&W film, then developing it myself. I've also recently set up a dedicated darkroom and started making my own prints. I've been shooting more medium format film lately with a Hassleblad 503cx. Film is satisfying in a different way than digital, which I also like. It's not that I find one better than the other, they're just different and I find myself expressing my creativity differently with film vs digital.</p>

[art_thomas1]

I have the "RS" version of the 1 along with a lot of other film cameras. Basically I use film cameras for serious or "important to me" shots. I use digital cameras for the quick-and-dirty snaps.

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I shoot with my FM3A once or twice a year. Why? I enjoy the feel of the camera, the huge VF and the simplicity and directness of the controls. Plus it's a nostalgic kick. If I had my own B&W darkroom I'd shoot more but getting good prints from labs is much more expensive than digital and a real crapshoot.</p>

[jesse_barba]

<p>I shoot a 1V frequently. Its major drawback is that it makes my 7D feel cheap.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Thought the 7D was better build than some of Canon's other bodies- 60D, etc.?</p>

[philip_wilson]

I still retain my EOS3, a 1VHS a 1V and a 1NRS but I find a rarely use them. I still love film but I find I shoot my FD

bodies (an extensive collection including F1s, New F1s T90s etc...) or MF film. The reason why I choose the FD

bodies over the EOS film bodies is that I am looking for a different feel and unfortunately the 1V feels like a 1D in use.

I am not trying to put you off as the 1V is a great camera but for me the EOS bodies lack the feel and solidarity of the

F1s. Obviously if you only have EF glass then the 1V makes a lot more sense but the feel of the old mechanical SLRs

is not matched by the modern film bodies. I would include the Nikon F to F3 and the Pentax LX in the same category

 

When I need AF and a fast frame rate the digital bodies do a better job. When I do shoot film EOS I find the 1V gets

used a lot more than the 1VHS as I never need the high frame rate of the HS (3.5 fps is enough) and the smaller size

is nice

[scott_ferris]

<p>Oh great,</p>

<p>I am so glad the box of crayons has made it out of the film forum. I keep forgetting that I can't take well exposed and fully toned images with my digital camera, thanks for reminding me Les.</p>

<p>Also, as a pointless aside, because I absolutely don't care just pointing it out to show your bias, why is your camera the only camera in the world that changes in full stops when it has Portra 400 in but then jumps one and a half stops at a time with digital captures or Extar 100 in it? 1/3 sec to 1 sec is not 1 stop, neither is 1 sec to 3 sec. Just goes to show, if you overexpose any medium by too many stops, including Portra, the results are utter rubbish.</p>

<p>Anyway last time I used slide film it was more prone to blowing highlights than digital.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"Wanting to"</em> is totally the right reason for your choices, presenting unbalanced, inaccurate and misleading comparisons as a proof as to why others should is wrong. Your first post implied that everybody that uses digital had killed themselves, or, at least, their ability to take pictures, this is so far from the truth it warranted a reply.</p>

<p>Suggesting that anybody that uses an intelligent digital camera to rely on a correct exposure if also rather insulting, in camera metering and exposure accuracy were inherited from film cameras, do you never use an in camera meter to help you work out where you want your exposure to be? Also, if I may ask, why were you out shooting so ill equipped that you needed to overexpose by 3 stops just to get your image? Just go properly prepared, I can honestly say, since 1978, I have never had to overexpose by three stops to get an image that was in my head. Mind you, digital is fantastic at high iso and underexposure, it is capable of images well beyond film levels.</p>

<p>But again, "because I want to" is all the reason anybody needs to shoot film, or digital.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"Same parameters giving different results. That's as balanced as it gets."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

No, the same exposure in the same column from each source is a fair comparison, and considerably more balanced. By presenting different exposures and with different lighting in the same column your illustration distorts the results leaving the impression that some captures are much worse than they comparatively are, and leaves yourself open to challenge, silly really because negative film is without doubt considerably more forgiving with regards overexposure.</p>

<p><em>"You only have to go back and read what I wrote again to see that not only did I not isolate it to digital but you will also notice I said I also relied on aperture priority automatic exposure in my second example."</em></p>

<p>So what was your point? Just sarcasm and derision, when you yourself do the same thing? I am at a lose.</p>

<p><em>"Ill equipped? As you can see by applying correct knowledge based on preparation, I successfully achieved what I wanted to. However, with proper knowledge, you can make up for lack of equipment. Sometimes you just just have to use what you have at the time . . . ;-)"</em></p>

<p>Sometimes you fluke it and can get the shot despite being unprepared, if the image had been too dark, rather than too light, your films additional overexposure capability would not have helped. There is no substitute for knowing your equipments capabilities, whatever medium.</p>

<p><em>"I suppose you have never tried high key? Obviously you need to blow out the highlights to achieve the look."</em></p>

<p>You can blow highlights on any medium, if you scan your film or use high contrast paper you can blow highlights as easily with wide latitude film as with digital, again, I don't understand your point.</p>

<p><em>"BTW, that you have been into film since 1978 and never got out of bounds is certainly your choice."</em></p>

<p>Or my preparation and ability :-) I have been over plenty of bounds, but knowing my capture mediums capabilities isn't one of them.</p>

<p><em>" Some people like high or low key, cross processing, polaroids, lomo or whatever."</em></p>

<p>Why would you assume I don't?</p>

<p><em>"Afterall, it's called art."</em></p>

<p>No, it is called photography.</p>

[gary_higgins]

<p>Don't get too carried away with the marvels of digital, folks. Yes, it's instant. But— <br />Digital images still have no proven archival permanance. Where will your prized digi images be in 20+ years time? But a core problem is too prevalent: photography needs photographers with skill: we do <strong>not</strong> need digital cameras that resemble Photoshop with a glossy push button. What we do need is skill and knowledge.<br>

Preserving or blocking/blowing highlights and shadows in analog photography is a science based on understanding the film's response to contrast in the scene and matching exposure time to preserve what you know can be preserved or lost (hand held metering — multispot averaging, is better than in-camera meters for this). In the water images above, the first is saturated in blue and red. The second appears to have blown highlights on the trees and the water is quite flat in luminance. A digital camera will usually (in skilled hands) get shadow and highlight detail within its known dynamic range, but usually at the expense of luminosity. But again, I am not interested in equipment, but what photographers have between their ears, and what they hold as experience and knowledge over a long period of time. Digital is renowned for creating 'experts' overnight. It doesn't wash with me.<br>

What we are seeing is <em>photography </em>— saturation coverage ad nauseum of the good and the cheesy, the sublime and the lousy. If you want to see <strong>art</strong> from photography (e.g. Ilfochromes, Cyanotypes, mixed alternatypes), be prepared to form an orderly queue and pay a mint for it.</p>

 

<p>The OP might want to ask why people are shooting entirely <strong>digital</strong> when that medium has no proven image permanence. And there's the answer why this photographer uses film!. I've seen this silly attitude and commentary "...using film in this day and age of instant digital images" far too often.<br>

Personally and professionally, I have scant interest in cameras; "intelligent" cameras are a joke. You really need to turn away from technology doing everything for you and use your head to come up with something uniquely yours and not a carbon print of 20 million others. Aperture, shutter priority, program... the others in wide use, either average the scene out or (in the case of matriced, "evaluative" systems, work along the Zone System). I use the EOS 1n and 1V and know how to get the best out of the lenses I use, but the real joy is being 'out there' using three decades of knowledge and experience to come up with the image I want — not what the camera says I should accept.<br>

In the image of the water posted here, the highlights are blown on the tree trunks but held in the water. A more serious problem though is lack of compositional mettle, fine tuning. Order of approach: skills first, technology last. </p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>I have scant interest in cameras; "intelligent" cameras are a joke.

<p>I use the EOS 1n and 1V</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Great snark.</p><div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>What planet are you on? I have ten year old digital images that are identical to the day they were captured, storage cost me less than a couple of sets of archival film strip holders. What makes you think those 1's and 0's are going to disappear or become unreadable? For all the scare mongering I have never had to convert one file to keep it readable. I know a photographer who has spent $250 a month on electricity keeping his film archive within temperature and humidity levels, for twenty years, he then had a flood and lost nearly half of his images. I can copy all my originals for a couple of hundred dollars and do it automatically overnight then save them safely in several places.</p>

<p>I didn't post the image as an example of compositional mettle, or fine tuning, or to illustrate how an 8bit jpeg can destroy the dynamic range contained within an image, I did it as a reply to Les' water images where he seemed to imply it was something that could only be done with film. Besides this was not a thread on skill or knowledge, you may have more than me, you may have less, it was a question of film use. I use film and can use it effectively, I also use digital, again I can use it effectively. I get annoyed when people say you can only do this or that with one or the other, or present arguments for their preferred medium in misleading ways.</p>

<p>World class images can be taken with film and digital, their are few technical reasons to use one over the other, but there are uses that lend themselves to either on occasions. Nobody is lessening the skill of using either effectively, or of using camera meter readings as a starting point as to how you want an image to look. A digital camera is no more intelligent than a film camera. Using a 1V is hardly turning away from technology now is it?</p>

<p>Why would you limit photographic art to Ilfochromes, Cyanotypes, mixed alternatypes etc? Besides, for years all my prints were Cibachromes, I was never pretentious enough to call them art, they were good photographs, and sold well enough though, but I have seen art in inkjet prints from digital captures just as I have seen rubbish contact prints from 8x10's.</p>

<p>I agree with your closing, if you want to reliably take good images learn the skills and the technology.</p>

[gary_higgins]

<p>Point being? I wouldn't call the 1N (especially) or the behemoth 1V "intelligent" by any stretch, and the 1N is still my working favourite for simplicity. And it's earned its dents and scratches — no glossy show-ponies in this studio. :-)</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>The EOS-1V, successor to the EOS-1N, is a premier-class professional SLR featuring the latest state-of-the-art technology.<br /> <br /> Premier AF Performance: The 45-point area AF gives predictive AI servo AF at about 9 fps (with the PB-E2 attached) for outstanding subject tracking and blazingly fast focusing, all automatically.<br /> <br /> High-speed continuous shooting: 10 fps continuously (with the PB-E2 attached).<br /> In response to the severe demands of professional photographers, already excellent reliability has been improved even further. Water and dust resistance is even better than the EOS-1N and EOS-3. Leading-edge "thixo-molding" metal injection molding technology has led to strong, rigid magnesium alloy outer covers that easily passed 150,000 operations test standards. While carrying over the standard specifications of the EOS-1: the advanced exposure metering system of the EOS-3 has been incorporated in this professional camera, along with the 1/8000 sec. high speed shutter that syncs with flash at 1/250 second.<br /> <br /> The viewfinder specifications are carried over from the EOS-1N, and EOS-1N accessories are compatible.<br /> <br /> Shooting data recording system: Shooting data for 100 rolls of 36 exp. film (using the standard settings) is stored in memory, and can be read and edited on a computer using the ES-E1 software. Customizing functions abound: 20 custom functions, and 31 personal functions.</blockquote>

<p>From the Canon Camera Museum.</p>