Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › 35mm Film / Digital
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

35mm Film / Digital - Page 4

post #46 of 56
In terms of image quality, I would say digital has already surpassed film. I think a good quality DSLR will take better images than a 35mm camera under all but rigged-to-favor-film conditions. There is no technological point to film; a DSLR is equivalent to a film camera that lets you instantly change your film speed, shoot hundreds of images without reloading, instantly view your images after taking them, without incurring any development costs or delays.

It can never be film though, by definition. It doesn't matter how digital performs, it is not film, for better, or for worse.
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ast View Post
calm down, no need to get emotional here. You are not the owner Kodak film.


Most of regular films have about 12M pixels equivalent resolution, that's what I read. Some high end film may have more. But same applies to high end Digital as well. My pre-ordered 5D mkII has over 21M pixel and it is not even labeled "Professional". Several medium format ones have over 40M or so.


So shooting film is "cheaper"! gimme a break. I don't even want to argue. You can happily shooting films to save money.

ciao
645 medium format film starts at about 90mp and goes up to 300mp if you use 6x17. And yes, shooting film is cheaper for me. The amount of money I spend per year on processing and buying film is less than the cost of a full frame digital camera. And the 4x5" camera I plan on getting probably has about a gigapixel worth in one image, I don't care to do the exact math right this second.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trains are bad View Post
In terms of image quality, I would say digital has already surpassed film. I think a good quality DSLR will take better images than a 35mm camera under all but rigged-to-favor-film conditions. There is no technological point to film; a DSLR is equivalent to a film camera that lets you instantly change your film speed, shoot hundreds of images without reloading, instantly view your images after taking them, without incurring any development costs or delays.

It can never be film though, by definition. It doesn't matter how digital performs, it is not film, for better, or for worse.
How has digital surpassed film? Tech Pan has more resolution than any 35mm digital camera I know of, and I use it all of the time. I can change my film speed instantly by sticking in a new roll of film, or I can push or pull my film, too. Shooting hundreds of images? And how many of those will be keepers? Instantly viewing them? I don't really care, that is not important to me. Development costs? As I said earlier, my lab and film bills cost less than a full-frame body, and allow me much more latitude in regards with what I can do. With a D700 or 5D Mk. II I'm stuck with how their sensors look. With film, I can use a multitude of emulsions that offer different looks, pros, and cons. With the 5D you're sacrificing low-light sensitivity for resolution, and with the D700 it is the opposite. A pro film body is about $300 (used F5), how much is a D3? 1Ds Mk. III? Etc.? And delays, again not important for me but once I start processing my own film I'll have to wait x amount of minutes for the time to develop, plus...it's fun!

Digital and film are just different. For me, film is cheaper and gives me more options. If you pointed a gun to my head though, I would say film is better. Speed and convienience don't really matter to me...I'm not a sport shooter. I do street photography and landscapes. I'm going to spend more than the cost of a full-frame DSLR on a large format outfit, and those cameras are even slower...yet they offer me movements and a larger negative.

Why so hostile, though? It is almost as if you're trying to justify your own purchase because you bought based on advertising.

If I had all the money in the world, I'd probably get a 5D Mk. II, an Ebony 45SU2, a medium format Arca-Swiss, and a Phase-One digital back. So don't think I hate digital...I'd love to use it, but it just costs so much.
post #48 of 56
Quote:
I can change my film speed instantly by sticking in a new roll of film
That's not instantly, or even close

Quote:
or I can push or pull my film
Only an entire roll at a time. Not exactly the same thing as switching ISO on a DSLR....

Quote:
Shooting hundreds of images? And how many of those will be keepers?
I dunno, it depends how you shoot. You don't shoot hundreds of images? I don't consider myself much of a photographer but I shoot at least a couple rolls a month...

Quote:
Instantly viewing them? I don't really care, that is not important to me.
Great, you like to wait before looking at your photos for some reason. You don't have to use that feature. It's hardly a disadvantage.


Quote:
Why so hostile, though? It is almost as if you're trying to justify your own purchase because you bought based on advertising.
Hostile? I didn't mean to be hostile. And I don't have a purchase to justify. I don't own a DSLR and don't want one. I use film SLRs, and like them. I have no plans to buy a digital camera.
post #49 of 56
Interesting Film vs. Digital from a British TV show:

FiveFWD - Challenge - Blow Up - Part 3 video from The Gadget Show



enjoy!
post #50 of 56
They didn't even say what film they used. That would be, like,

"We tested this Nikon F5 with 85mm Nikon prime lens and Velvia slide film against a digital camera and found...."

But still, it goes to show digital cameras are the steez nowadays.
post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ast View Post
Interesting Film vs. Digital from a British TV show:

FiveFWD - Challenge - Blow Up - Part 3 video from The Gadget Show
Thanks for that link. Hope this ends the vaunted resolving power of film.
post #52 of 56
i actually took more photos when i had a 35mm slr camera than now which is a pocket sized digital camera. that's not fair in terms of quality but even with a digital slr i don't think i would be snapping away. there is more inspiration involved with a film camera for some reason. plus the images look very different. the only dslr i would even consider are the sigma offerings because they offer a color rendition closer to that of film than the other cameras.
post #53 of 56
I definitely think there's room for both becomes. Film will just be a niche market. Vinyl is not dead after all these years, infact it's carved itself out a nice little corner in the music world. I don't see why film will be different, even if it's corner is a little smaller.
Film has a different quality to it, one I like, one that technical specs and megapixel don't always account for. The nature of film gives it a more authentic vibe I think.
I enjoy the process of film more than digital, although because of the costs associated with film, I shoot digital mostly (but I still regularly shoot film). I take my time shooting film, and my shots turn out better usually.
As far as the ability to manipulate and photoshop images with digital, it is both good and bad. Good it allows you to do amazing things, but bad because it promotes lazy habits, especially in beginners who carry their habits on, they think, 'oh we'll just fix it later in photoshop, or I'll just manipulate the photo for hours and then show how good I am with a camera'. Learning to use film is definately something I think all photographers and videographers should learn.
Generally I'll have both camera's and take most of my photos digital and then a few special photos in between with be film,
Film has a quality about it that I like more, even if it's just a nostalgia, it's still a big influence on me. So yes digital will exceed film and far and resolution and things go, but I don't think it'll ever be better, they both have their qualities, and I don't think they compete with each other at all, but rather complement and give me a complete system.

Digital will also take over with films due to the cost associated with it, but I think there will always (well at least in my life), a small contingent using film.
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by trains are bad View Post
They didn't even say what film they used. That would be, like,

"We tested this Nikon F5 with 85mm Nikon prime lens and Velvia slide film against a digital camera and found...."

But still, it goes to show digital cameras are the steez nowadays.
I thought similar when i saw that on TV a while back. Also, it's a very 'gadget show' way of testing things, that is to say, not exaclty fair. The fact that they use a massive printer, not a photographic process, means that they are effectively comparing the digital camera to the scanner they used to scan the photo (negative? Transparency? Print?). And how many people are going to print at those kind of sizes anyway? That and it was a studio shoot, so they could control the lighting, and it was one shot, not a selection of differnt things.

Rant off
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by nineohtoo View Post
I've got my Yashica A, but it doesn't see too much use. I kinda wish I bought a camera that had a wider or more normal lens, or the option to change it. I've also got a holga, polaroid land, and I sent my Canon QL17 in for repair. Out of all of them, I probably enjoy the Canonet the most. I'm looking to get another 35mm camera though, there's a popular fuji one I see frequently used by asian flickerites which I'm reading is rare and was never sold stateside. I'm also optioning some Contax stuff. Gonna have to wait a while though because I just picked up a new compact, and my car has a lot of work that needs to be done, and that's a bigger priority.

Though right now, I'm beginning to enjoy toting around my Ricoh GX100 over a DSLR. I've even brought it to shows with results I'm extremely satisfied with. Here's to a much better APS-C sized sensor compact(looking at you ricoh and sigma).
About 3-months ago I picked up a QL17, what a neat little camera. It's about the size of a G10 but loaded with Kodachrome. What's popular in Japan is the film version of your Ricoh GX100, the Ricoh GR1, seems to have cult status like the Zeiss Ikon. For the price of repairing the QL you could have bought another, I bought mine in Oakland, iCamera, he had 5 more in various conditions, mine was EX+. DIY seal kits are only $7.

As for this discussion, it's over. Its not about quality, it's about choice. Depending on your media of choice, when my media is my wall, I'm putting 20x24 silver gelatin prints on it. When it's my Flickr page it's a digital-hybrid-thing, uploaded at 600x800.
post #56 of 56
The thing i like about film is the unexpectedness of the results. I develop my own film and it comes out great (LOMO LC-A FTW!!!)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › 35mm Film / Digital