Does anyone still use a 35mm film camera?
- Thread starter HAMSTER INSPECTOR
- Start date
I still have my Minolta SLR but haven't used it much since I got my digital Nikon. It's really hard to go back to film when you see how much more you can do and how fast with digital, but I still have it on my shelf as an antique display. I'm finding I have less and less time in life, so a digital is more efficient for me as well.
The other problem is film is almost becoming extinct, didn't Polaroid annouce they have or will stop making film recently?
The other problem is film is almost becoming extinct, didn't Polaroid annouce they have or will stop making film recently?
Still have my Nikon FM3 as a backup for really crappy weather and in case of battery failure or pissed off gods, you know. Film will always be available, even if the only source is some guy on a Kansas farm with a sideline business to make photo film.
If you make it they will come.
I just ressurected my M4-P, and bumped into a photographer at King and Young with another M4-P.
You would be surprised at how many people still shoot film. Yes, the digital boom has caused a substantial shift away from film. But, it is, by no means, extinct. Just go down to Downtown Camera on Queen, west of Church, and ask. This is especially true of black and white, and larger than 35 mm format film.
Yo... Hammy? Why`d you start 2 identical threads within minutes of each other?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?272299-Does-anyone-still-use-a-35mm-film-camera
Thread building?
(You should know, that`s toughb`s job... **insert razz-berry smiley here**)
(Of course I`m post building! LOL! **insert roll eye smiley here** its what I do!)
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?272299-Does-anyone-still-use-a-35mm-film-camera
Thread building?
(You should know, that`s toughb`s job... **insert razz-berry smiley here**)
(Of course I`m post building! LOL! **insert roll eye smiley here** its what I do!)
Kodak stopped producing Kodachrome last year after a 74 year run.
People have stockpiled this iconic colour slide film, it's become a precious commodity that can only be developed by one lab in the world - Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas.
People have stockpiled this iconic colour slide film, it's become a precious commodity that can only be developed by one lab in the world - Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas.
What did I say, Kansas.
I think that's more a licensing thing, because the technology isn't that unique.
Did you know that Kodak invented the digital camera but hid it in the closet because of fears it would ruin their film business?
The first few digital cameras weren't very good. Only 1-2 megapixals and a 32 GB memory card cost $40. But, the current digitals are really good and a 2GB memory card can be had for $8.
I still have my FM, F4 and F5. I don't use them as much now that I mostly shoot digital, but they are all fine pieces of equipment built to take abuse. I like cameras I can drop, bang around, get rain on, use in the cold, etc and the film Nikons are great for that.
For what I take pictures of (people - mostly nudes) digital is great becasue one can do so much tweaking in post processing and see if eyes are closed, etc on the back of the camera at time of image capture. It is easier t get good results from a high end digital SLR (Nikon D3, D90, etc) than with a film SLR.
However, larger format film still imho has an edge over digital SLRs. teh 6x6 Rollei and Hasselblad work CAN, if done right, have a look I can't get with a digital SLR. However, that takes work to get. Beofre digital I did the work as there was no alternative, but since good quality output digital SLRs (about 2004-2007) came on the scene it is so much easier to use them.
Now landscape is another thing altogether. Large formar film rules in this imho. I don't get good qulaity landscapes from digital SLRs. Film is better. 35mm film is a bit better, but 6x6 is WAY better. 90% of my keeper enlargements of landscapes were made with my 1960's Rollei TLR in the past 15 years. It blows away 35mm, and digial SLRs like D90 and D3 don't come close.
Now I do understand that professional landscape photographers use digital backs on medium format cameras and can get shots as good or better than 6x6 roll film. Great, but for hobbyists a 6x6 medium fomat camera can be had used for a few hundred dollars, and the top of the line digital backs cost a lot of money ($10,000 and up). So a hobbyist is hard pressed to justify spending 20k on a digital back that will be replaced by a better one in 5 years.
I did a field test last summer wth a mix of outdoor cityscapes and full length portraits of (clothed) girls. It was a film Leica M-series VS Nikon D90 digital SLR. Fujifilm Reala 100 in the Leica and best quality 200 speed setting on the Nikon. While the Nikon had more detailed colours and patterns of clothing, for sharpness the Leica was much better. Background figures in he distance (200 feet away) were blurs with the Nikon image, but were crisp to the point of being able to tell if the eyes were closed with a loupe with the film from the Leica.
That said, for what I do as a hobbyist, digital SLRs give me what I want in an easy to use package and lead to more keeper shots than film. Most pro photographers shooting nudes I would venture to guess have either gone digital or use medium format film. I don't think too many are still using 35mm colour film. If I'm wrong correct me, but that is what I gather.
I often shoot the same shot with 2 camera (film and digital) to compare the end result.
For what I take pictures of (people - mostly nudes) digital is great becasue one can do so much tweaking in post processing and see if eyes are closed, etc on the back of the camera at time of image capture. It is easier t get good results from a high end digital SLR (Nikon D3, D90, etc) than with a film SLR.
However, larger format film still imho has an edge over digital SLRs. teh 6x6 Rollei and Hasselblad work CAN, if done right, have a look I can't get with a digital SLR. However, that takes work to get. Beofre digital I did the work as there was no alternative, but since good quality output digital SLRs (about 2004-2007) came on the scene it is so much easier to use them.
Now landscape is another thing altogether. Large formar film rules in this imho. I don't get good qulaity landscapes from digital SLRs. Film is better. 35mm film is a bit better, but 6x6 is WAY better. 90% of my keeper enlargements of landscapes were made with my 1960's Rollei TLR in the past 15 years. It blows away 35mm, and digial SLRs like D90 and D3 don't come close.
Now I do understand that professional landscape photographers use digital backs on medium format cameras and can get shots as good or better than 6x6 roll film. Great, but for hobbyists a 6x6 medium fomat camera can be had used for a few hundred dollars, and the top of the line digital backs cost a lot of money ($10,000 and up). So a hobbyist is hard pressed to justify spending 20k on a digital back that will be replaced by a better one in 5 years.
I did a field test last summer wth a mix of outdoor cityscapes and full length portraits of (clothed) girls. It was a film Leica M-series VS Nikon D90 digital SLR. Fujifilm Reala 100 in the Leica and best quality 200 speed setting on the Nikon. While the Nikon had more detailed colours and patterns of clothing, for sharpness the Leica was much better. Background figures in he distance (200 feet away) were blurs with the Nikon image, but were crisp to the point of being able to tell if the eyes were closed with a loupe with the film from the Leica.
That said, for what I do as a hobbyist, digital SLRs give me what I want in an easy to use package and lead to more keeper shots than film. Most pro photographers shooting nudes I would venture to guess have either gone digital or use medium format film. I don't think too many are still using 35mm colour film. If I'm wrong correct me, but that is what I gather.
I often shoot the same shot with 2 camera (film and digital) to compare the end result.
STill have my FM, have not used it in years ( a decade ) - have a new D3s and it rocks.
Bought a good scanner to scan old prints and negatives.
OTB
Bought a good scanner to scan old prints and negatives.
OTB
Bravo alexmst! Please also see my comment in the parallel thread, https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?272299-Does-anyone-still-use-a-35mm-film-camera#post2966207
I think you probably mean a 32MB card cost $40. I bought my first card, 128Mb about 7 years ago. it cost over $100 at that time! The supplied card was 8MB!! My first super zoom digital camera was the Panasonic FZ1, which only has 2 megapixels. However it has an amazing 12x optical zoom which makes up for the lack of MP. Also, although I have not used that feature, I believe it is also suitable for infrared photography.
Yo... Hammy? Why`d you start 2 identical threads within minutes of each other?
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?272299-Does-anyone-still-use-a-35mm-film-camera
Thread building?
(You should know, that`s toughb`s job... **insert razz-berry smiley here**)
(Of course I`m post building! LOL! **insert roll eye smiley here** its what I do!)
I posted the first one and nothing showed up onthe board. I guess the first post showed up after the second one.
Here is a related question. Do you guys print many of your digital photos? Or, do you simply store them in your HD/CD/DVD? With film, you have no choice but to print (if you want to view them that is).
--
I made the transition from 35mm film camera to a digital camera in 2006.
No you can 'print' the negatives to a disk as you would a digital image and then can show them as you would any slide show or such. I've done 1000's of conversion of my old stuff along with photos, slides and negatives belong to others.
B
burt-oh-my!
What really bugs me about the digital thing is this: you could buy a quality 35mm camera 40 years ago, and it would still take excellent pictures today, whereas you buy a digital camera today I just can't see them lasting that long. Their bodies are all made of plastic - will they withstand years of being knocked around? Not to mention obsolescence.
I would like to get a non-SLR digital camera, (i.e. rangefinder) - I hate the large depth of these cameras.
I would like to get a non-SLR digital camera, (i.e. rangefinder) - I hate the large depth of these cameras.
