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

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I use my EOS-3 with a PB-E2 grip often. If you're shopping, I'd say this combination is preferable to the 1V. The EOS-3 can be configured to focus where you look - no need to fiddle with control wheels or joysticks to pick the desired AF point. This is awesomeness.</p>

<p>I also have a couple of Nikon scanners. This is the sole reason why 135 format film is still viable for me.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

 

<p><em>Digital images still have no proven archival permanance. Where will your prized digi images be in 20+ years time? </em></p>

<p>Since 20 years is a small fraction of the lifespan of an Epson K3 print, hanging on my wall.</p>

<p>Oh, you mean the images I don't print. Probably sitting in the cloud, replicated across 3 or 4 geographically dispersed servers. Quite a bit safer than in a shoe box in a house which can burn, flood, or rot.</p>

<p>But the cloud's not quite ready for a half TB of data. So for now they're replicated across two 2TB drives, one of which is stored in a safe that is fire proof for digital media. Right now I'm thinking about how to quickly mark my best work for cloud storage as opposed to every single RAW and intermediate file. I will probably also introduce a 3rd drive into the equation. Just in case.</p>

<p><em> 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.</em></p>

<p>Are you implying that Photoshop does not require skill? Have you ever used it?</p>

<p><em>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. </em></p>

<p>DSLRs are, absent changes to the image parameters, very neutral. Films are tailored to a purpose. The DSLR approach gives you the freedom to shape the final image however you want, but you're expected to do something. The film approach will give pleasing results out of the lab when the film is well matched to the subject and light.</p>

<p>Each is an advantage and a disadvantage depending on what exactly you're doing and what your expectations are.</p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>Art is not a medium, it's an artist's vision. The medium is nothing more than the mere materials used to bring that vision to the world. Ilfochrome or Ultrachrome K3 doesn't matter to me. What is the photograph? What does it say? What emotion does it stir?<br>

<br /><em> 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.</em></p>

<p>This is not a digital or film thing. And it smacks of being a bit arrogant to those of us who not only work manually in the field when the situation calls for it, but control every aspect of tone, color, contrast, etc. in Photoshop back home. I've put hours into some prints, both digital and B&W darkroom prints. And I've taken what I've learned from each side into the other. No step is automatic or taken lightly.</p>

 

[jason_inskeep]

<p>I have a pentax k1000, Canon 1N, and an A2. I use them becuase I want to. I like the look of film, especially slides. I also like the look I get out of my pentax lenses. The are just a bit different than the Canon lenses. It's fun.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>Don't get too carried away with the marvels of digital, folks. Yes, it's instant. But— </em><br /><em>Digital images still have no proven archival permanance.</em></p>

<p>You couldn't be more wrong Gary or more confused. </p>

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>That is where you lose all of your audience, obviously. I am surprised you didn't bring glass plates into this equation. Wise up man, thanks! You have a lot to learn. (E.g., all media have their say -- to trump one totally over the other is a sign of weakness or computer phobia [in this Gary case absolutely] or similar)</p>

[nuno_saldanha]

<p>John,<br>

(It is regrettable that innocent questions will always raise these pointless and unpleasant debates between film and digital fundamentalists, but what can we do?)<br>

But, answering the question that really matters here, and to you, the poster, my reply is: there are a lot of people, everywhere, using the Canon 1V (or the HS), as you can confirm in this post, nonetheless they might use other cameras (film or digital). Even though I also tried others (film and digital, and from different brands) for me, was one of the best 35 mm film cameras I've ever had the pleasure to work with (including the F100 or F6 – I still missing the experience of the Leica R9 that I just bought). I think Canon has not yet reached the point of being able to make a similar digital version of this superb camera (that is, with the top quality and innovation for the year was released). I also agree with some of the arguments herein, that the Canon EOS 3 might be another excellent alternative, and slightly cheaper (though both have an almost unbelievable price taking into account the original values). Why I still use film today, although digital? Because I do it for over 30 years, and as they say, old habits die hard. I use digital when I don't have another choice, and I have to check immediately the result, because it is difficult to return to the same location to repeat the picture. Let’s say that digital is an instrument of work, as a computer. The film is for the pleasure of photography.<br>

So, my advice is, go for it! Don’t hesitate; purchase the machine, which is always a good investment!</p>

[nathan_jandl]

<p>I shoot with a Canon 10s, a Nikon FE2, and then a Mamiya 6 system. I develop and scan everything at NCPS (who are wonderful, by the way) and then use my graduate student privileges at my university to borrow the resident Nikon 5000 and 9000 scanners when I want some serious resolution and dynamic range. Prior to this setup, I also spent a few years shooting with a Canon 20D and the best lenses I could afford for it at the time: a 17-55IS and 70-200 f/4L. I have several framed prints from that now-measly 8mp sensor and they look damn good at 12x18. I hung a show with the 20D images mixed in with scanned 35mm, and nobody said "hey, that print looks digital! those highlights (are) blow(n)!"</p>

<p>But then one day I borrowed my grandpa's old Konica film camera, shot some plain ol' Fuji consumer 200-speed negative film, looked at the results, and realized I was smitten.</p>

<p>So why do I shoot film now? Because, after learning quite a lot from the instant results one gets from digital, I like to go slower now. I like to think about my images more - <em>before </em>I trip the shutter. I like to think about framing and the zone system and have the satisfaction of getting an ideally exposed, hellishly sharp, gorgeously colored or toned image (depending on the film, of course) come out of the Mamiya 6. I like that photography becomes more of something that you do with tangible objects and dials and rewind levers. I like that a certain amount of skill is <em>imposed</em>, not merely optional.</p>

<p>I still use Photoshop, because I scan all my images. I think that the hybrid approach offers the real advantages of the digital darkroom and inkjet printing (or Lightjet etc.) alongside the real aesthetic joy of different emulsions. Can one imitate Velvia or FP4 or Pan-F on a computer? Sure! I just think that these films' inherent "looks" are quite <em>difficult to imitate well</em>, and I happen to think that things like grain make a photograph feel more dimensional, less flat and plastic, more made of reality.</p>

<p>Some days, all I want is a digital camera, and wish I could afford a 5DII or the like. I'd never shoot a wedding with film, probably (unless I had very particular clients); and there are all kinds of ways in which digital is the logical and wonderful evolution in this art form. But film is not dead, it's not gone, and it's a beautiful medium at every stage. For some people, that's enough.</p>

[boz]

Well I still have an EOS 300 (Rebel 2000) but am thinking of selling it to help

me get a good flashgun for my 10D. I saw a 420 EX gun today selling for £70,

just dont have the cash yet.

[Andy Collins]

<p><em>"I shoot a 1v frequently...it makes my 7D feel cheap."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>Not my experience at all. </em>I shoot both and I think that the 7D feels like a very solid, very well-built camera alongside my 1vHS. That being said, I absolutely love using my 1v and find it to be an amazing camera. I use film at least as much as I shoot digital, mainly because I just love the whole film experience including, believe it or not, waiting to get my pictures back to see how well they turned out. I have a lot of film cameras that I shoot regularly (including a Nikon F100 that I find to also be an amazing camera!) along with my digital gear. In fact, my bag today has my 7D, an FE2, a Pentax LX and a G12 packed together. I don't prefer film or digital over the other; I like both equally, although I must admit that my 7D is becoming as much a favorite as my 1v, something I thought no other camera could ever achieve!</p>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>Among several film cameras, I have an eos 1v, which gets its fair amount of use.<br /><br />My reasons for shooting film in the digital age : essentially, contrary to Scott Ferris's opinion, I find the results I get from film more satisfying than what I get from my 5D1 (with the notable exception of high iso pictures). <br /><br />Whenever I shoot both digital and film in parallel (identical conditions and subject, in other words), I tend to like the overall color rendition that I get from scanned films better. Also, I like grain. I often take a film with higher speed than necessary just for the sake of adding grain, and I experiment quite a bit with BW film/dev combinations to obtain different textures. For me, this is more important than ultimate resolution. Of course I will readliy admit that this a personal, highly subjective point of view. <br /><br />When it comes to printing BW, I am still more satisfied with traditional fiber-based prints than with my efforts with digital prints, not to mention the somewhat perverse pleasure I get from working in a dimly lit room, saturated with chemical fumes ;-)<br /><br />As for color printing, I am entirely sold on the infinite flexibility of the digital workflow (wether the starting point is a scanned neg or a raw file), but I have yet to find a printer which, after a short honeymoon of glorious output, does not put me through a hell of reliability issues, spilling, clogging, etc, which rapidly exerts an exorbitant toll, given the price of paper and ink.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Not my experience at all. I shoot both and I think that the 7D feels like a very solid, very well-built camera alongside my 1vHS. That being said, I absolutely love using my 1v and find it to be an amazing camera.</em></p>

<p>Agreed. I "only" have the EOS 3 but both my EOS 3 and my 7D are very, very solid cameras. Though they do make many of the other bodies I've owned and used feel flimsy.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>I have both a 1V and an EOS 3; I detest the 3, once you've used a 1V, you will not use a 3, its just a loud clunker.</p>

[gary_higgins]

<p>Answering previous posts regarding my qualifications, thank you, in Photoshop:I started work with PS during pre-degree preparations in 1992 in a retail reprographics studio). Post-Arts degree and post-grad studies in Art Conservation , I qualified with Adobe Masters here in Australia in 1995 in Illustrator and InDesign (Quark, Dreamweaver followed up to 2001). Worked in advertising and design then in a small town mixed retail environment, freelanced producing promotional products and photographic restoration. At the moment I am involved in consultancy with client-side CMS profiling in web applications and e-commerce gateway / throughput security.<br>

Despite the repertoire, photography is still my profession, and my Ilfochromes (46x30.5cm) still sell at AUD$1,100 to a small but keen client base.<br>

Back to work!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Gary,</p>

<p>Now you have so graciously informed us of your digital qualifications, could you explain your earlier hysterical comment? "<em>Digital images still have no proven archival permanance </em>[sic]"</p>