do you shoot film?

[Coolydudey]

As in, do any of you do film photography?

I got really interested in it lately, and have shot many rolls of both medium format and 35mm. Although its detail per sqaure unit of area has just been surpassed (digital cameras have gained more megapixels than film has in the past 5 years. The finest grained shots of 35mm are estimated to have around 15mp), I love the look of film, particularly the stuff I am using, kodak ektar 100. However, large format film is still king with up to about a gigapixel per shot. I haven't scanned any of my photos, I just make prints, but here are some good ones off the internet (with the same film I use). It has great colour saturation and contrast, without being unnatural.

Spoiler

 

[Polaris]

No, I'm a pacifist.

Ehrm...spoilers? Can't read your text very easily.

 

[Crusado]

I haven't used film for anything in a long time but the image quality is superb and superior to digital cameras. There's just something the photo's that's better.

 

[Architect]

Nope, film was a huge detriment to my photography interest back in the day. Expensive, slow turnaround, no instant feedback, no control over ISO practically, grain, blob, blur and no control over development unless you did B&W and did it yourself (yuck, I tried that). I gave up on photography several times, until I could get a full frame DSLR (5DmII) for a reasonable price (~$2k). Now I shoot maybe 10k shots per year and it's practically free. All beautifully organized by date and time on my computer, unlike the disorganized boxes of print shots we have in a closet. If you like that analog look it's easy to get with some filters. Film? No thanks. My digital shots are achingly beautiful in comparison, with calibrated colors that don't fade. Don't forget that technology has developed beyond just the sensor (digital or film), today's lenses are light years beyond what we had back then in chromatic aberration (color accuracy), sharpness, aperture, microfilm coatings, computer modeling, modern manufacturing techniques and a larger consumer market spurring R&D. Look at some earlier cinema, such as early Three Stooges shorts to see how far we've come.

I do have some shots I took in Stuttgart with a Holga that are pretty good, I'll see if I can dig them up.

 

[Coolydudey]

In response to archie


Actually, for my 35mm I use an eos 300 for which I have bought the 24-105L lens.... So my lens certainly is not a drawback. I didn't use to shoot film, and the period when I used digital is the period during which I developed my photography skills. Which look you like is a matter of taste, but I certainly prefer film.

The only thing that annoys me with this film is its 100 ISO. Infuriating at times. At least my lovely modern canon lens has three stops of image stabilisation, but still...

Edit: you seem to have forgotten that you can scan film...

 

[Melkor]

Only the occassional home brewed porn to satisfy my retro fetish.
I can share the original copies if you wanna trade? :3

 

[Architect]

Actually, for my 35mm I use an eos 300 for which I have bought the 24-105L lens.... So my lens certainly is not a drawback. I didn't use to shoot film, and the period when I used digital is the period during which I developed my photography skills. Which look you like is a matter of taste, but I certainly prefer film.

That's great, if it works for you. I calculated once that I'd blow $600-$1k per vacation on film and developing, and forget all the video I take too. I'm firmly happy with modern digital.

Edit: you seem to have forgotten that you can scan film...

Nope. But it's time consuming and expensive to do it right, though maybe high end negative scanners have come down in price.

Anyhow I've got a 5DmII, 70-200 f/2.8l, 24-105l, 16-35l, 8-15 fisheye l, 3 600-RT flashes and a bunch of other stuff, plus a full EOS M system - these work for me perfectly. I can blow tons of shots just documenting ordinary life and I love it.

 

[Coolydudey]

I can blow tons of shots just documenting ordinary life and I love it.

Therein lies the difference between us I think - I shoot at most a roll a week, almost always in bursts of photos when I feel like it, all of which are creative and artistic. All my photography is intended to be something different, interesting, impressive. It seems this is partially reflected by the shots I picked to show you guys, and in particular, my favourite, the bike (the first one in the spoiler).

 

[Duxwing]

I don't like film. Every shot spent in one place is one that could have been spent in another, and Archie brings up a whole bunch of other difficulties with film that I didn't even consider before. Moreover, film frames seem to work like specialized, single use sensors in an age that has almost equivalent effects via post processing, instant feedback via integrated displays, digital image manipulation where optics are lacking, and hard drives of nearly unlimited capacity. Film's single saving grace in the area of performance--some may simply use film for its idiosyncrasies--is extremely high resolution for a few high-end, professional applications, and the endless improvements to sensors and post-processing will allow digital sensors to replace film therein, too.

I use an old Canon DSLR with a macro lens and a telephoto lens. Capturing actions scenes requires only a steady hand and a long squeeze of the button: it shoots like a machinegun when you do that, and its onboard RAM processing queue holds plenty of shots. My current SD card holds so many Large RAW shots that 'changing belts' by transferring its files to my laptop or desktop is almost always a part of post-shoot clean-up, not mid-shoot panic. Indeed, I sometimes even squeeze the capture button before bringing up the viewfinder because I know that while I have an effectively infinite number of frames in my 'magazine,' the world doesn't always wait for those last minute exposure adjustments.

-Duxwing

 

[Coolydudey]

I don't like film. Every shot spent in one place is one that could have been spent in another, and Archie brings up a whole bunch of other difficulties with film that I didn't even consider before. Moreover, film frames seem to work like specialized, single use sensors in an age that has almost equivalent effects via post processing, instant feedback via integrated displays, digital image manipulation where optics are lacking, and hard drives of nearly unlimited capacity. Film's single saving grace in the area of performance--some may simply use film for its idiosyncrasies--is extremely high resolution for a few high-end, professional applications, and the endless improvements to sensors and post-processing will allow digital sensors to replace film therein, too.

I use an old Canon DSLR with a macro lens and a telephoto lens. Capturing actions scenes requires only a steady hand and a long squeeze of the button: it shoots like a machinegun when you do that, and its onboard RAM processing queue holds plenty of shots. My current SD card holds so many Large RAW shots that 'changing belts' by transferring its files to my laptop or desktop is almost always a part of post-shoot clean-up, not mid-shoot panic. Indeed, I sometimes even squeeze the capture button before bringing up the viewfinder because I know that while I have an effectively infinite number of frames in my 'magazine,' the world doesn't always wait for those last minute exposure adjustments.

-Duxwing

Another illustration of my point - it depends what your style of photography is... Film suits mine, and I like the way it looks, so I use it. It definitely does not suit yours or Archies on the other hand...

 

[Coolydudey]

I haven't used film for anything in a long time but the image quality is superb and superior to digital cameras. There's just something the photo's that's better.

Welcome... I just noticed this is your first post

 

[Architect]

Therein lies the difference between us I think - I shoot at most a roll a week

I pursue it as an art (hobby) too, but am also the family recorder.

I don't like film. Every shot spent in one place is one that could have been spent in another, and Archie brings up a whole bunch of other difficulties with film that I didn't even consider before.

There are other considerations. The biggest advantage is ISO, with film you really only have a couple, say 100 and 400. I remember when a 960 (or was it 9k?) came out, we used it for astrophotography. It sucked too. Big blobby crystals, but now we are used to automatic and instantaneous ISO up far past 2k-3k with little degradation. So instead of two ways to control expsure (aperture and shutter) you have three (+ISO) and four when you consider all the fancy flash technology (which would also exists for film cameras, if they still made them).

Further is dynamic range. This is a complex questions, but I believe digital surpasses the dynamic range of film by a few stops. New sensor technology (Foveon) goes further, and of course you can do HDR. Some cameras (Glass) do it automatically. I can imagine more technology such as dual binned pixels, one with a 2 stop mask as a further enhancement as pixels get cheaper. Canon is testing a 75 MP sensor in the wild right now, and next year will probably release a 40MP 1D or 5D body.

But it doesn't matter, whatever rocks your boat. OP likes film, if that rocks your boat then use it.

 

[Coolydudey]

Undoubtedly, digital photography will be far better than film photography, and already is in almost every way. For some reason, i just think that film shots (and particularly the fim i use) look absolutely great, and in ways that you couldnt achiece through post-processing (or it would take you ages). You must have been thinking about a 9k film by the way.

I wonder if it would be the same if film got the same money, attention and development? As in, could film get a lot better and achieve what digital can (or more), obviously without variable ISO? Now that's an interesting question, but one I'm not qualified to answer...

 

[Turniphead]

The limitations off film can be fun sometimes. The darkroom process can be neat, and yes it does look good. The drawbacks(time/money) are just too much for me though.

 

[Kuu]

I shoot film on occasion, though rarely. 99% of my shots are digital.

I actually kind of like the lack of instant gratification, and the other limitations. Forces me to concentrate into what I'm actually doing. There is, ironically, a certain immediacy to film.