DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Film is stil the best
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 130, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/06/2006 06:45:24 PM · #26
If you learn a bit in processing digital you will find out film is good in some area and digital in others but that are for who to know who have a open mind,

icerock
Originally posted by sofap:
Film is the best. I shoot more film than I do digital and with out a dought film ROULS.
03/06/2006 06:48:27 PM · #27
Originally posted by sofap:
Digital photography is a great thing, I use it when it works, however when it comes to real world work it can not replace the LOOK and DEPTH of film.


I'm extremely skeptical of unsubstantiated claims like this. Could you explain how the LOOK and DEPTH of film is better than digital? Be specific.
 03/06/2006 06:52:30 PM · #28
Originally posted by sofap:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by adamweb:
:P Probably get my head chewed off but I think 35mm is pretty much dead. There is no doubt Medium and Large format completely blow away digital and will be around a while but look at where the industry is going.


Agreed. The 8mp SLRs are at least as good as 35mm film, but digital still can't touch medium or large format.

I just started playing with medium format and I'm having a blast. You can't shoot 200 shots at different settings and hope one comes out, can't photoshop out the power lines when you get home either. You have to stop and think and take the one perfect shot.

I'm using a loaned Voightlander Perkeo 6x6. I'm hunting for a vintage 6x9 folder if anyone has one laying around...


Good job LOUDDOG now you got the idea. From fat finger SOFAP


Hey dudes, you know, just because cloning in photoshop is available, doesn't mean you need to use it. Digital photographers pay attention to distracting elements, and composition too. You don't need to have a film camera to prove you can compose a good shot.
 03/06/2006 07:04:24 PM · #29
I find this thread amusing because with the possible exception of the very young amoung us, I think most of us have experience in shooting film, and we all have our opinions on this subject. I have 2 medium format cameras, Yashica D TLR and a Mamiya C220 (also TLR). I have a Minolta XG-7. I used to have the X-370 (best camera ever. I could and did drop it, and it kept right on working). I traded my Nikon N-80 and flash to help pay for my Olympus. So, you're not going to tell me much about the quality/depth of film that I don't already know. Like I said, this time last year I laughed at my brother when he said he thought the dSLRs were starting to give medium format a run for it's money. Now, I'm not so sure. Especially considering the new generation of dSLRs are 13+ MP. IMHO they definitely kick 35mm's butt.
 03/06/2006 07:04:53 PM · #30
I use both digital and film, I have very good cameras for both, but I do not compare quality as they are not comparable since the post processing on film and digital are different...

but there is someone that did compare the 39Mpixel Hasselblad H2D with 4"x5" film and this is the result..
luminous-landscapes

if you read this you'll find that just now there is a digital camera that really compares with the quality of medium format film..

but to think the 1DsII gives better imagequality than mediumformat is wrong.. it almost compares with 35mm film, but to scan the film to compare on screen does not do justice to the film.. you're just comparing the scannerr quality to the digital image, but if you develope from 35mm film and print from the 1DsII a 40x60 image and compare those then you'll see that the film still has slight leverage over the digital.

and ofcourse NO postprocessing is allowed just straight out of the camera ! to say the digital "needs" sharpening is to say the film is simply better.. it's sharp straight out of the camera ;)
 03/06/2006 07:07:23 PM · #31
Originally posted by sofap:
When you shoot film it is more of a challange, I shoot trans (SLIDE FILM) with a Hasselblad 500ELM or 500CM with out TTL or even a meter in the camera. I use a hand held meter. With print film you have a 2 or 3 stop fudge with trans you only have a 1/3 ftop fudge. It is so easy to shoot DIGITAL that it takes away from the skill and tallent of photography. If you can shoot good with a DIGITAL that does not mean you can do the same with film, but if you can shoot good with film DIGITAL is a snap. Most of the time I set my DIGITAL on Manual and ust my hand haeld meter for exposutr.


Shooting digital doesn't take away the skill and talent of photography, it takes away the skill and talent of using a medium or large format camera, period. Many a photographer who can perfectly expose a 4x5 and is proficient in the darkroom can't take a decent looking photo to save their life.

Sure, they have an image that can be blown up to a HUGE size, but nobody wants to look at their photo. Being able to use a 4x5 or medium format camera doesn't mean you have any kind of skill at photography. Just as such, that same person given a digital will still take crappy photos.

For the other arguments, sure an 6 or 8 MP camera isn't going to come close to a medium or large format camera in terms of tonal range and sharpness at large prints. But there have been numerous comparisons between the Mark II and medium format saying that they were completely comparable in quality.

Hasselblad just released a 39 MP Dslr. Let's get the test images on that and see how it compares to film. Technology already wiped out the need for 35mm and will soon do so for the larger formats too.

I'm not against film at all, I love looking at large format enlargements, but it's days are numbered. And try taking that view camera on a hike, into harsh environments, or to shoot a sporting event.
 03/06/2006 07:13:46 PM · #32
Originally posted by DanSig:
I use both digital and film, I have very good cameras for both, but I do not compare quality as they are not comparable since the post processing on film and digital are different...

but there is someone that did compare the 39Mpixel Hasselblad H2D with 4"x5" film and this is the result..
luminous-landscapes

if you read this you'll find that just now there is a digital camera that really compares with the quality of medium format film..

but to think the 1DsII gives better imagequality than mediumformat is wrong.. it almost compares with 35mm film, but to scan the film to compare on screen does not do justice to the film.. you're just comparing the scannerr quality to the digital image, but if you develope from 35mm film and print from the 1DsII a 40x60 image and compare those then you'll see that the film still has slight leverage over the digital.

and ofcourse NO postprocessing is allowed just straight out of the camera ! to say the digital "needs" sharpening is to say the film is simply better.. it's sharp straight out of the camera ;)


I assume then you are not using any fancy shmancy film either, for this comparison.
 03/06/2006 07:21:46 PM · #33
It is not possible to say to day who is better film or Digital I say both are usable and both have limits.
Digital has no limits in the theory, but the limit in digital to day is the limits of human knowledge and mind , after few years we will se software for digital whit no limit at all. So pleas it is better to talk about this whit small knowledge

Ice

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I find this thread amusing because with the possible exception of the very young amoung us, I think most of us have experience in shooting film, and we all have our opinions on this subject. I have 2 medium format cameras, Yashica D TLR and a Mamiya C220 (also TLR). I have a Minolta XG-7. I used to have the X-370 (best camera ever. I could and did drop it, and it kept right on working). I traded my Nikon N-80 and flash to help pay for my Olympus. So, you're not going to tell me much about the quality/depth of film that I don't already know. Like I said, this time last year I laughed at my brother when he said he thought the dSLRs were starting to give medium format a run for it's money. Now, I'm not so sure. Especially considering the new generation of dSLRs are 13+ MP. IMHO they definitely kick 35mm's butt.
03/06/2006 07:23:20 PM · #34
Originally posted by jpeters:

I assume then you are not using any fancy shmancy film either, for this comparison.


the Kodak E100G color transparency film normal fine grained colorfilm, not the GX or VS as they have an "extra" effect..
 03/06/2006 07:26:19 PM · #35
I just looked at that Hasleblaad, it's $18,000!!! I'll write them a check. You guys will all write to me while I'm in prison, right?
 03/06/2006 07:30:28 PM · #36
Originally posted by rscorp:
Originally posted by sofap:
When you shoot film it is more of a challange, I shoot trans (SLIDE FILM) with a Hasselblad 500ELM or 500CM with out TTL or even a meter in the camera. I use a hand held meter. With print film you have a 2 or 3 stop fudge with trans you only have a 1/3 ftop fudge. It is so easy to shoot DIGITAL that it takes away from the skill and tallent of photography. If you can shoot good with a DIGITAL that does not mean you can do the same with film, but if you can shoot good with film DIGITAL is a snap. Most of the time I set my DIGITAL on Manual and ust my hand haeld meter for exposutr.


Shooting digital doesn't take away the skill and talent of photography, it takes away the skill and talent of using a medium or large format camera, period. Many a photographer who can perfectly expose a 4x5 and is proficient in the darkroom can't take a decent looking photo to save their life.

Sure, they have an image that can be blown up to a HUGE size, but nobody wants to look at their photo. Being able to use a 4x5 or medium format camera doesn't mean you have any kind of skill at photography. Just as such, that same person given a digital will still take crappy photos.

For the other arguments, sure an 6 or 8 MP camera isn't going to come close to a medium or large format camera in terms of tonal range and sharpness at large prints. But there have been numerous comparisons between the Mark II and medium format saying that they were completely comparable in quality.

Hasselblad just released a 39 MP Dslr. Let's get the test images on that and see how it compares to film. Technology already wiped out the need for 35mm and will soon do so for the larger formats too.

I'm not against film at all, I love looking at large format enlargements, but it's days are numbered. And try taking that view camera on a hike, into harsh environments, or to shoot a sporting event.


I have taken myu 4x5 on harsh locations to get the shot the client wanted from in inside of a blast furnes to the top of a Budest shrine in Hong Kong. If the client needs the image you do what is needed to get it. DIGITAL has made a lot of photographers lazy. That is not a slam it is a fact.
 03/06/2006 07:33:15 PM · #37
Originally posted by sofap:
DIGITAL has made a lot of photographers lazy. That is not a slam it is a fact.


Uh Oh! Now it's on.
 03/06/2006 07:37:35 PM · #38
Like a discussion of a fan for a football team :) lol hahhaha

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
[quote=sofap] DIGITAL has made a lot of photographers lazy. That is not a slam it is a fact.


03/06/2006 07:42:01 PM · #39
Last time I checked the 1Ds mark II was somewhere around 120 lp/mm or less.

//www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/024b91f46d590a3fc125711c00693b3f

Scan the fim in and have it digitally printed to compare with digital at teh same size. Film has more tonal range and a more subtle tone transition.

I'm selling my Pentx 67's to get a 4x5 or an 8x10. Of coarse for most commercial or editorial jobs, I'll only shoot digital. ;o)


03/06/2006 07:42:29 PM · #40
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I just looked at that Hasleblaad, it's $18,000!!! I'll write them a check. You guys will all write to me while I'm in prison, right?


HEHE ... yeah and then you can resize those big, huge beautiful images down to 640 to show on the site... LOL
 03/06/2006 07:44:27 PM · #41
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I just looked at that Hasleblaad, it's $18,000!!! I'll write them a check. You guys will all write to me while I'm in prison, right?


HEHE ... yeah and then you can resize those big, huge beautiful images down to 640 to show on the site... LOL


Talk about perspective!
03/06/2006 07:45:27 PM · #42
When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got? If you could not see the image just after you shot it, if you had to process the film and then see the results, would you feel as confident with what you shot? I think not. That is what I as saying about being lazy. How can you compare shooting film with DIGITAL with out taking into account the fact that with DIGITAL you need not know how to control light, exposure and not relay on the instant view of what you shot. Try going out and shooting with only 12 exposures at your disposal and come back with 6 good images. That is what I am saying. With DIGITAL you need not be care about getting it right the first time.
03/06/2006 07:46:32 PM · #43
Originally posted by sofap:
Film is the best. I shoot more film than I do digital and with out a dought film ROULS.

It is like the old Mac vs. PC arguements. Mac is better but PC won the war.

It is always the people that shoot film that make the claim that film is better and they are correct. It is inevitable, however, that CCDs will far exceed film capabilties in the very, very near future rendering their arguements moot.

People do not shoot digital because it is better, they shoot it because it is is far easier and more convenient and even now is better than 35mm and competative with medium format film. It increases productivity by orders of magnitude.

The last person I went with on a photo safari that shoots medium format took exactly 1 picture when I took over 300. I'm not saying mine were better than his and I am certain most were not, I'd be careful too if I could only compose one photograph on a 300 mile round trip.

But I never did see his picture and even though mine are not the greatest at least I have something to show for my effort: Red Mountain

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 19:49:23.
 03/06/2006 07:47:55 PM · #44
hmmmmmmmm

Originally posted by sofap:
When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got? If you could not see the image just after you shot it, if you had to process the film and then see the results, would you feel as confident with what you shot? I think not. That is what I as saying about being lazy. How can you compare shooting film with DIGITAL with out taking into account the fact that with DIGITAL you need not know how to control light, exposure and not relay on the instant view of what you shot. Try going out and shooting with only 12 exposures at your disposal and come back with 6 good images. That is what I am saying. With DIGITAL you need not be care about getting it right the first time.
03/06/2006 07:49:13 PM · #45
film is fun & i really like shooting B&W
playing withthe chemicals & the whole magic of it
my brother is sending me a 1000$ enlarger that he's hauled around the contry fo 30yrs / so i get to play even more ...

but i've noticed i shoot film the same way i shoot digital ..
and that is $$ even with th cheapo film i buy ...

if noting else i'll show my daughters how it 'was' done
.. so they will have some vauge memory of it ,, to tell thier kids in 30yrs ..
03/06/2006 07:50:42 PM · #46
Some people edit on the light table / computer, some edit in their minds. I happen to be the kind of photog that edits in my mind, so I shoot less film. Sometimes I'll show up at a place and not even bother taking my camera out at all if it doens't look good.
 03/06/2006 07:51:32 PM · #47
Originally posted by sofap:
When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got? If you could not see the image just after you shot it, if you had to process the film and then see the results, would you feel as confident with what you shot? I think not. That is what I as saying about being lazy. How can you compare shooting film with DIGITAL with out taking into account the fact that with DIGITAL you need not know how to control light, exposure and not relay on the instant view of what you shot. Try going out and shooting with only 12 exposures at your disposal and come back with 6 good images. That is what I am saying. With DIGITAL you need not be care about getting it right the first time.


True, but many times in sports or weddding or any shots that don't involve static elements, if you miss the shot, you've missed the shot, no matter what format you shot it in.

If you are doing any sort of action shots for a living, you can't afford to miss every other shot.
03/06/2006 07:52:12 PM · #48
so what's wrong with being able to see the image immediately? i don't call that lazy. i call that evolution.
 03/06/2006 07:53:09 PM · #49
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by sofap:
When shooting DIGITAL how many of you look at the back of the camera and see what you got? If you could not see the image just after you shot it, if you had to process the film and then see the results, would you feel as confident with what you shot? I think not. That is what I as saying about being lazy. How can you compare shooting film with DIGITAL with out taking into account the fact that with DIGITAL you need not know how to control light, exposure and not relay on the instant view of what you shot. Try going out and shooting with only 12 exposures at your disposal and come back with 6 good images. That is what I am saying. With DIGITAL you need not be care about getting it right the first time.


True, but many times in sports or weddding or any shots that don't involve static elements, if you miss the shot, you've missed the shot, no matter what format you shot it in.

If you are doing any sort of action shots for a living, you can't afford to miss every other shot.


Is that not the mark of a pro to know.
 03/06/2006 07:54:07 PM · #50
Originally posted by muckpond:
so what's wrong with being able to see the image immediately? i don't call that lazy. i call that evolution.


Nothing is wrong with it, it just makes it easier. So less skill invovled. Try going out for a shoot with your screen taped over and don't look at any of the photos until you get home and see how many you get. ;o)

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 19:54:44.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 04:01:48 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 04:01:48 PM EDT.