Does anyone still use a 35mm film camera?

[onthebottom]

I just brought my SO into the digital photography world.... she has an entire office of FANTASTIC pictures she's shot all around the world on film..... she was very skeptical moving to digital (bought her a D300 for xmas two years ago)...... she's not picked up her film Nikon since.... although she still uses the lenses.....

The ability to adjust ISO on the fly, to color and white balance pics in post production, to bring out details in shadows and damp down over exposed areas..... Digital is a dream for the amateur photog.

OTB

 

[Rockslinger]

(bought her a D300 for xmas two years ago

A Nikon D300! She must be a VSSO (very special significant other). That damn thing cost close to $2,000 with the lense. Did you shell out an extra $300 for the hotshoe flash attachment as well (great for getting rid of "shiney foreheads")

 

[alexmst]

I just brought my SO into the digital photography world.... she has an entire office of FANTASTIC pictures she's shot all around the world on film..... she was very skeptical moving to digital (bought her a D300 for xmas two years ago)...... she's not picked up her film Nikon since.... although she still uses the lenses.....

The ability to adjust ISO on the fly, to color and white balance pics in post production, to bring out details in shadows and damp down over exposed areas..... Digital is a dream for the amateur photog.

OTB

Agreed - digital Nkons make life much easier as compared to film Nikons.

Before digital I would get my 35mm proofs back, go to the pro lab and talk wit the lab technician about what I wanted to do as regards making a 16x20 print, expose for the faces, burning, dodging, colour correction, cropping masks, etc. He would then make notes and try to get what I wanted, and usuall he did, if not on the first attempt then on the second. Now with digital I can do all that work myself in photoshop software, so that when I bring the worked on digital file to the pro lab I just have them print as is. I can even have them print the original image as well as my vaious attempsts at post-processing and decide when looking at the final image which I like best. This is for people shots.

For landscape shots my original post still applies as to the advantages of film.

Now more than one photographer has commented that digital makes us slaves to our computers with all the time we spend post-processing images lol.

 

[onthebottom]

A Nikon D300! She must be a VSSO (very special significant other). That damn thing cost close to $2,000 with the lense. Did you shell out an extra $300 for the hotshoe flash attachment as well (great for getting rid of "shiney foreheads")

I've already got a SB-600 flash.... and she had lenses.... but yes, she's a VSSO.... which is why you'd have to go back several years to read a review by me.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Agreed - digital Nkons make life much easier as compared to film Nikons.

Before digital I would get my 35mm proofs back, go to the pro lab and talk wit the lab technician about what I wanted to do as regards making a 16x20 print, expose for the faces, burning, dodging, colour correction, cropping masks, etc. He would then make notes and try to get what I wanted, and usuall he did, if not on the first attempt then on the second. Now with digital I can do all that work myself in photoshop software, so that when I bring the worked on digital file to the pro lab I just have them print as is. I can even have them print the original image as well as my vaious attempsts at post-processing and decide when looking at the final image which I like best. This is for people shots.

For landscape shots my original post still applies as to the advantages of film.

Now more than one photographer has commented that digital makes us slaves to our computers with all the time we spend post-processing images lol.

I don't think of it as being a slave.....

I took a picture last september while on tour in Vietnam.... photo was of a kid sitting on a moving train as it passed in front of me with the beach in the background and a mountain behind the beach..... that's the good news, the bad was the kids face was in the shadow, as was half the train and the beach was overexposed. 10 minutes with Aperture and I have friends ask me if that's a professional photo or I took it myself, you can see the kids expression and people walking on the beach a quarter mile away ....... although, having said that the best picture I took was of a kid goofing around with his friends, it's so close you can seen the perspiration on his face.... that photo took almost no post production, was awesome out of the camera.

OTB

 

[Dewalt]

Right there with you onthebottom. This is a concept that people like blackrock just cannot grasp. Some people love to live in the past and will be happy there forever while the rest of us continue to push the envelope of creativity. They say that over the past 15 yrs with digital photography there have been more pictures shot than in the entire history of photography. The ease, the massive amounts of images that can be shot is something some people just cannot fathom.

Let them stay in the past and you can continue to enjoy images that are amazing. Nice to have you on board the digital train!

 

[shakenbake]

I don't think of it as being a slave.....

I took a picture last september while on tour in Vietnam.... photo was of a kid sitting on a moving train as it passed in front of me with the beach in the background and a mountain behind the beach..... that's the good news, the bad was the kids face was in the shadow, as was half the train and the beach was overexposed. 10 minutes with Aperture and I have friends ask me if that's a professional photo or I took it myself, you can see the kids expression and people walking on the beach a quarter mile away ....... although, having said that the best picture I took was of a kid goofing around with his friends, it's so close you can seen the perspiration on his face.... that photo took almost no post production, was awesome out of the camera.

OTB

If you had used flash fill, either with digital or with film, you would have not encountered the shade issue. This is one of the principles of good photography in a high contrast situtation such as sun and shade. It doesn't matter what type of camera is used. Of course, if the face was lightened up, with burning in, either with digital or with darkroom effect, the detail in the face would be lacking, because the recording medium would not be able to get the details of the darker region of the photo. I would wager, however, that a good film would be able to record more of the shadow detail than would the best CCD in a digital camera. It is all a matter of dynamic range of the recording medium, as another poster here pointed out; film has a wider dynamic range.

 

[shakenbake]

There's generally a digital record of any changes made to a digital image and if there is one the person who sign for it through the chain of evidence record had better have a damn good explanation. No matter what the forma,t if the benefit outweigh the cost, there is always a way to fudge an image. That's why control of the evidence is so important.

Yes, but it is easier to fudge the digital image, was my point, as well as the chance that they could get away with it with the digital image, especially at the initial stages.

 

[onthebottom]

If you had used flash fill, either with digital or with film, you would have not encountered the shade issue. This is one of the principles of good photography in a high contrast situtation such as sun and shade. It doesn't matter what type of camera is used. Of course, if the face was lightened up, with burning in, either with digital or with darkroom effect, the detail in the face would be lacking, because the recording medium would not be able to get the details of the darker region of the photo. I would wager, however, that a good film would be able to record more of the shadow detail than would the best CCD in a digital camera. It is all a matter of dynamic range of the recording medium, as another poster here pointed out; film has a wider dynamic range.

Yes, but consider that we passed the train on one side of the mountain, came out of a tunnel, I spotted a good view point, jumped out of the car, turned the camera on and got off 8 shots as the train rolled by at 45mph....... not a lot of time to compose the shot, fiddle with equipment.... the fact that the camera could adjust the ISO and I didn't need to flash a subject 40 ft away moving at 45 mph was a real advantage for an amateur photog.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Right there with you onthebottom. This is a concept that people like blackrock just cannot grasp. Some people love to live in the past and will be happy there forever while the rest of us continue to push the envelope of creativity. They say that over the past 15 yrs with digital photography there have been more pictures shot than in the entire history of photography. The ease, the massive amounts of images that can be shot is something some people just cannot fathom.

Let them stay in the past and you can continue to enjoy images that are amazing. Nice to have you on board the digital train!

I tend to make up for lack of skill with quantity - I take 5-800 photos at my son's soccer games for instance, took 3,000 in Vietnam.... they just don't cost anything. I'm working hard on the skill part but I catch a lot of good shots with the above method.

OTB

 

[shakenbake]

Yes, but consider that we passed the train on one side of the mountain, came out of a tunnel, I spotted a good view point, jumped out of the car, turned the camera on and got off 8 shots as the train rolled by at 45mph....... not a lot of time to compose the shot, fiddle with equipment.... the fact that the camera could adjust the ISO and I didn't need to flash a subject 40 ft away moving at 45 mph was a real advantage for an amateur photog.

OTB

When you tell me this, then you have a point. However, have you ever seen WWI or WWII war correspondents' photos that were shot with film? Some of them were far from perfect, and the imperfection conveyed the urgency of the moment. What you have done, as they did, is to capture the essence of the moment, just as they did, and the merit would be in the photo itself, rather than the level of technical perfection. It sounds a bit artsie fartsie, but it is the best description that I can give you. Hopefully, you kept the original file for comparison and for the merit f capturing the photo in its raw format.

Having said all that, I would suggest that there are a good many films out there that are available with wide exposure latitude that can do a great job under the conditions that you described. We very often forget that photography is art and that is what we must concentrate on and not the high or low technology that went into capturing the image. For some, it is by film, for others it is digitally.

All the photography shops that I frequent say that film is not going to go away, and that there are advantages to both film and digital media. They go so far as to say that a great many phtotgraphers have re-discovered film photography. For most, the convenience of capturing a digital image is the convenience. For others, it is the discipline and incomparable capabilities of the film medium. No one is 100 % right in saying that one is decidedly and totally better than another.

And, don't any one give me the excuse that digital prints are less expensive than film prints! Have you costed out replacement ink for a good printer? I have, and it is a significant sum to make a print.

For the record, I shoot both film and digital formats.

 

[shakenbake]

I tend to make up for lack of skill with quantity - I take 5-800 photos at my son's soccer games for instance, took 3,000 in Vietnam.... they just don't cost anything. I'm working hard on the skill part but I catch a lot of good shots with the above method.

OTB

Hey OTB;

That is a start. Concentrate on the quality, the composition and all the stuff that makes a good photo. That is the important thing. But, you have to admit that, without the effort of looking at your work and to see what works and doesn't work for you, no number of shots will give you what you want in an image. Once you get to a sufficient degree of proficiency, you will settle only for quality over quantity. What will be the use of taking all those shots when you can enjoy your son playing soccer instead of taking all those photos and then having to spend time to review all of them for a good shot?

 

[blackrock13]

Right there with you onthebottom. This is a concept that people like blackrock just cannot grasp. Some people love to live in the past and will be happy there forever while the rest of us continue to push the envelope of creativity. They say that over the past 15 yrs with digital photography there have been more pictures shot than in the entire history of photography. The ease, the massive amounts of images that can be shot is something some people just cannot fathom.

Let them stay in the past and you can continue to enjoy images that are amazing. Nice to have you on board the digital train!

You really don't get it at all.

I'm not stuck in the past. 95% percent of my image work is digital but when necessary, or when desired by whomever, I still can pick up my Nikon F4, or the Nikon FM, or the underwater kit, or my Canon point and shoot, or even my Brownie Hawkeye (yes it still works, but bulbs are a bitch) and create works of art or record history, not just take snapshots. Not that there's anything wrong with taking snapshots. I firmly believe that there aren't enough pictures or videos taken.

You're not pushing the envelope of creativity by going digital. Your riding/pushing the technology envelope. Most people look at my underwater shots, my fireworks shot or my 'snaps' of the Aurora Australis and go 'wow how'd do you get those'. They don't care whether the photographs were taken digitally or using film. It's the skill inside someone that counts more. Most people can take photographs on bright sunny days. It's what you can do when it's not such a day that measure your skill and creativity. try using digital gear when it's -30c or your standing in the Olympian rainforest in BC, or The Mongolian desert. Digital has its limits. Yes, most people don't go to these place, although they should once in their life (try the beach, the maple bush at the cottage or the ski slopes), but I can't count the number of people who throw up their hands and say, 'my camera fucked, it's junk' and it's just the battery or they tried to 'make' the media card fit by pushing it in to the slot or can't see the image on the LCD screen not knowing the viewfinder's working great. It's experience, knowledge and skill more that the technology, that makes you take better photos.

OTB is right, the big bonus of digital is volume. In any given situation, I've ended up now taking 10x more shots, yet that also gives me 10x more review work to do, but it's definitely a plus.

I remember reading a Sci-fi story a while back by Isaac Asimoff, I think called the Question, where a man was made ruler over a kingdom/planet because he could actually do math in his head, not needing the machines around him to do it. The machines were going down the shute at the time. it was a bit prophetic. Remember the power failures. A lot of people went back to the old ways of entertaining themselves, boardgames and baby making. Fun times!

 

[blackrock13]

When you tell me this, then you have a point. However, have you ever seen WWI or WWII war correspondents' photos that were shot with film? Some of them were far from perfect, and the imperfection conveyed the urgency of the moment. What you have done, as they did, is to capture the essence of the moment, just as they did, and the merit would be in the photo itself, rather than the level of technical perfection. It sounds a bit artsie fartsie, but it is the best description that I can give you. Hopefully, you kept the original file for comparison and for the merit f capturing the photo in its raw format.

Having said all that, I would suggest that there are a good many films out there that are available with wide exposure latitude that can do a great job under the conditions that you described. We very often forget that photography is art and that is what we must concentrate on and not the high or low technology that went into capturing the image. For some, it is by film, for others it is digitally.

All the photography shops that I frequent say that film is not going to go away, and that there are advantages to both film and digital media. They go so far as to say that a great many phtotgraphers have re-discovered film photography. For most, the convenience of capturing a digital image is the convenience. For others, it is the discipline and incomparable capabilities of the film medium. No one is 100 % right in saying that one is decidedly and totally better than another.

And, don't any one give me the excuse that digital prints are less expensive than film prints! Have you costed out replacement ink for a good printer? I have, and it is a significant sum to make a print.

For the record, I shoot both film and digital formats.

Gee, I guess I'm not the only buggy whip member on this BB or in the area.

 

[Dewalt]

Are you still yipping about how important and how creative you are, blackrock? Sounds like someone who is long past their prime who still is grasping at the ledge before they tumble. We all have our time in the sun...

 

[blackrock13]

Are you still yipping about how important and how creative you are, blackrock? Sounds like someone who is long past their prime who still is grasping at the ledge before they tumble. We all have our time in the sun...

Wrong on all counts, but someone could say you're batting a .1000.

Using your logic Josef Karsh was past his prime because he didn't use the latest technology. That's nuts. I'm not saying I him, but that's the connection you're trying to make.

 

[Rockslinger]

And, don't any one give me the excuse that digital prints are less expensive than film prints.

You still do prints? Why? Where do you store your prints?

 

[Dewalt]

Oh I know you aren't him, blackrock. you aren't even close.

Why don't you post some of your images here and let us see how "brilliant" you are?

 

[blackrock13]

You still do prints? Why? Where do you store your prints?

It makes them easier to frame them and hang on the wall. It costs about $4 to $10 to print your own 8x 10 at home, depending on paper, ink, and uv/spill protection plus your time. Yet I can go to Silvano's, BGM, or Image Works and get the same size sized dye sublimation prints for almost the same price and be out doing more work in the meantime.

 

[shakenbake]

You still do prints? Why? Where do you store your prints?

Why not? You want to look at your prints from time to time, don't you? What is the use of taking puictures if you don't print them, at least the good ones? Photography without prints is lame and useless, like sex with your hand when you have a willing partner to do it with. I have also found that prints are of much higher quality than the images that you see on even the best of computer screens.