# Would you sell your digital gear?



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

Just what the title says.... As a film shooter, would you ever consider selling your digital gear and go back to 100% film?

Why or why not?


----------



## Danmunro_nz (Nov 12, 2012)

I have given it serious consideration. I own Canon EOS digital and 35mm bodies and a number of lenses. I use the 35mm more that the digital. But I do like the convenience that digital offers. Its also handy if money is tight and I cannot afford to process lots of film.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 12, 2012)

Buy film, take it home. Shoot film. Take it to the lab. Drive home. Wait a day or two. Drive back to the lab. Pay for sub-par processing. Drive home. Laboriously cull thru tiny pieces of film using Schneider 10x magnifying loupe. Drtive back to lab to take in film or slides for enlargements. Drive home. Drive back to lab to pay and pick up not-quite-what-I-expected enlargements. Drive home.

Oh...want to shoot a LOT of color pictures??? How about paying a MONTH"S RENT for a 20-roll pack of Kodachrome 64 Professional, and then half a month's rent for processing...for a measly 720 frames (20-roll brick of 36-exposure rolls in a "brick" of Kodachrome).

Film? No thanks. Wayyy too expensive per frame, scratches, dust, storage headaches, sorting nightmares, contact proofing hassles, delays, lost negatives, dusty negs and slides, hassles galore.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 12, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Buy film, take it home. Shoot film. Take it to the lab. Drive home. Wait a day or two. Drive back to the lab. Pay for sub-par processing. Drive home. Laboriously cull thru tiny pieces of film using Schneider 10x magnifying loupe. Drtive back to lab to take in film or slides for enlargements. Drive home. Drive back to lab to pay and pick up not-quite-what-I-expected enlargements. Drive home.
> 
> Oh...want to shoot a LOT of color pictures??? How about paying a MONTH"S RENT for a 20-roll pack of Kodachrome 64 Professional, and then half a month's rent for processing...for a measly 720 frames (2o-roll brick of 36-exposure shots in a "brick" of Kodachrome).
> 
> Film? No thanks.



I don't shoot much film but...would this scenario change any if you did your own developing?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 12, 2012)

Christopher, I thought you gave up film for Instagram?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> I don't shoot much film but...would this scenario change any if you did your own developing?




Yes. UPS delivers film at my doorstep, and I develop it in my bathroom. The only reason I have to drive any where is to shoot something. And with Tetenol now being sold in the US again, its just as easy to process color as it is B&W.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Christopher, I thought you gave up film for Instagram?




I guess you were on FB yesterday. LOL!


----------



## compur (Nov 12, 2012)

I still use digital for quick and easy illustration photos such as for selling merchandise online but I doubt I would ever hang a digital photo on my wall. They are just too ordinary.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

compur said:


> I still use digital for quick and easy illustration photos such as for selling merchandise online but I doubt I would ever hang a digital photo on my wall. They are just too ordinary.



The more fixer I mix, and the more sheets of negatives that I add to my collection, the more I fall in love with film again. I've used my D7000 less than 5 times since I purchased it a few months ago. If I pick up a camera its usually been my F100, and last week it was the Hasselblad. I just got a 4x5 Speed Graphic in so I'm going to start dabbling in large format I hope.

I don't want a film vs digital debate to come out of this thread, but for me personally, I've enjoyed learning film again way more than I ever enjoyed learning digital. So much so that I've recently contemplated selling my digital gear completely. If I'm not using it, there's no sense in it just sitting there depreciating in value at such a rapid pace. I can use a P&S if I just want to document personal things, and if I ever do decide to go back into business, I can buy new bodies then.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

No. I don't think so. While there are lots of things I'd like to do with film that I never had the chance, the ongoing expense is just too high. I am also not sure that anything I do is going to be too significant.

There's a lot of work to be done in digital. Many photographers don't realize it. But dichromated colloids and other polymers? Maybe 50-100 years ago it'd be interesting, but any more - it just seems like a waste of time.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> No. I don't think so. While there are lots of things I'd like to do with film that I never had the chance, the ongoing expense is just too high.




I can see your point - film, paper, chemicals, etc...

But how is that any different than buying a $1500 body now... and then buying another $1500 body in 2 or 3 years when the latest and greatest is 17mpx more than your old body? Or spending $600 now for LR4, and then another $600 in a year when LR5 comes out?  Digital is not without its ongoing expenses...


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

^^ I don't think we're in that trap any longer. Digital cameras today have a much longer lifespan, and small format (35mm included) is quickly reaching it's physical limitations - just as small format film had. There are improvements, but they're pretty modest or specialized. I have to ask myself if I *could* shoot with a $1500 body then, why *can't* I shoot with the same camera now - hasn't all that has changed is the price tag? You don't have to upgrade, you know.

As for software ... f*ck Adobe.


----------



## Patrice (Nov 12, 2012)

There is absolutely no need to have the latest and greatest digital body, arguing that is pointless. This is no different than if your F4 is doing everything you ask of it then there is no need to get an F6 just because it's newer and has better technology.

Even with film, unless you only display prints enlarged from negatives, then you are scanning and doing some digital processing.

I use film, I develop B&W film and colour positives, I also use digital cameras, and print from scanned negatives and slides. Digital is just another way of doing photography and it definitely has some advantages.


----------



## Tony S (Nov 12, 2012)

Never..... haven't used film since 2001 and would never look back to it.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I have to ask myself if I *could* shoot with a $1500 then, why *can't* I shoot with the same camera now - hasn't all that has changed is the price tag? You don't have to upgrade, you know.




I'd agree with you... but unfortunately I'm sure the majority wouldn't



unpopular said:


> As for software ... f*ck Adobe.




*Snort*  

I felt the same way every time a new LR4 or CS5 comes out... or are we up to CS6 now?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

I don't know. I abandoned that bloated ship after CS2. Though for prepress, there just isn't any other option.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

Tony S said:


> Never..... haven't used film since 2001 and would never look back to it.




Why not?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 12, 2012)

^^ the enlargers prob. retaliated. they do that.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> ^^ the enlargers prob. retaliated. they do that.




That's why I have two! LOL

I'm looking for one of those nice Beselers that do 4x5 with the motorized lift thing. I've got to find out what model number that is.


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 13, 2012)

No, because as much as I like film, digital offers me the only realistic chance to continue with my hobby (given the constraints of my budget). Also, I haven't shot any film since July or August and I'm finding that I am far more involved in the whole process when shooting digital raw. It's more fun for me this way and cheaper to boot.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 13, 2012)

Im shooting more film than digital and wont be upgrading my canon gear only digital i will probably get is a Leica M9 or new M


----------



## Ilovemycam (Nov 13, 2012)

OP...Hell NO!!

Film is dead, all you have to do is to look at our photo world to see that. 

Only thing I liked about film was a little grain now and again and sometimes the film look. I shoot tons of photos, I could never keep up with film nor want to even think about it. And the ink jet prints are superb for next to nothing in cost. What took me all night to print can be printed in a fraction of the time.

Instant review, on the fly ISO, BW or color preview, HDR, no spotting, pans, instant prints, no scanning negs, almost endless photos without having to change film, no film or process costs.  Just love digital to death. 

(I started with film in the 1970s' and did all my own darkroom work.)


----------



## gsgary (Nov 13, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:
			
		

> OP...Hell NO!!
> 
> Only thing I liked about film and the wet darkroom was a little grain now and again and sometimes the film look.
> 
> Film is dead.



******** is it dead


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Or spending $600 now for LR4, and then another $600 in a year when LR5 comes out?



I paid $199 for LR3...and upgraded to LR4 for $79. Just saying...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 13, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> Film is dead.



That's about the dumbest thing I've read on here.

There are thousands of professional photographers who would vehemently disagree with you. The girl who shot our wedding a few years ago recently sold all her Canon gear and moved to only shooting film for her portraits and weddings. I think she shoots a Hassy 500cm or something like that. She's made it a huge part of her marketing and her organic, folksy branding. She brags about never touching photoshop anymore. All natural.

People effing flock to her.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:
			
		

> That's about the dumbest thing I've read on here.
> 
> There are thousands of professional photographers who would vehemently disagree with you. The girl who shot our wedding a few years ago recently sold all her Canon gear and moved to only shooting film for her portraits and weddings. I think she shoots a Hassy 500cm or something like that. She's made it a huge part of her marketing and her organic, folksy branding. She brags about never touching photoshop anymore. All natural.
> 
> People effing flock to her.



That getting big in the UK


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > Film is dead.
> ...




She sounds obnoxious.


----------



## sm4him (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > I still use digital for quick and easy illustration photos such as for selling merchandise online but I doubt I would ever hang a digital photo on my wall. They are just too ordinary.
> ...



I think you should give it a try. Film only, for a year. Just to make sure you don't cheat, you can send me that D7000 and I'll take care of it for you. :lmao:


----------



## RichardH (Nov 13, 2012)

I shoot mostly film. I just recently bought a Nikon D90 and a Epson V600 scanner and R3000 printer. Being retired, I have a lot of time to play with all of it. I've shot film for so long that I know what I am going to get and how to print it in the darkroom.
I have come to realize that for me, I shoot color with digital and B+W with film. I am able to print both in the darkroom but the color, for me, is better digital than film
There are just a few mfgs. that are left making film. Just about all are Europe based now. Kodak is just about gone due to their bankrupt process they are going through. Just this year a couple of mfgs. have bit the dust. Ilford is the only major one left and they seem to be doing well so far.
If I was young and just starting a photo business again, I would go the digital route. Film will probably be around for a good while but you'll have to, more than likely,  process it yourself.
Film or digital would be more of a personal thing. Both have their advantages.

Just my thoughts on this post.

Richard


----------



## RichardH (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > ^^ the enlargers prob. retaliated. they do that.
> ...




Chris
I have one that is in storage along with 3 others that I don't use. I went to the Beseler 23cll since I don't shoot 4x5 anymore. If we were close, you could have this one real cheap. It has the color head and condensers. I see you use the Hasselblad. When I had a studio, years and years ago, I had and used 3 of them. I mostly used the RB system in the studio though. Still have a mint RB Pro S system that I take out every now and then when I need the exercise of carrying it.

Richard


----------



## Railphotog (Nov 13, 2012)

Film is dead for me.  Spent way too much time in the darkroom because I had no choice.  Now I can work with my photos with the TV on next to me, works great.  I recently got an Epson V500 Photo flatbed scanner, and have been scanning some of my old B&W negatives, really like the control I can get editing them in the computer.  Prints I made way long ago are looking so much better using the computer.


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 13, 2012)

Having film and digital equipment is a little like having two wives (I'd guess anyway, no baby you're the only one!  really).   Each has their strong and weak points.

If it's legal and neither one mind, why give either up?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

^^the nagging.


----------



## runnah (Nov 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Ilovemycam said:
> ...



People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.

But yes film is dead. Same as cassettes, records, 8 tracks, reel to reels, Apple 2's, floppy disks etc...people who swear by these types of old techs are "better" are incredibly pretentious.

I only produce tintypes so I would know.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 13, 2012)

RichardH said:


> Chris
> I have one that is in storage along with 3 others that I don't use. I went to the Beseler 23cll since I don't shoot 4x5 anymore. If we were close, you could have this one real cheap. It has the color head and condensers. I see you use the Hasselblad. When I had a studio, years and years ago, I had and used 3 of them. I mostly used the RB system in the studio though. Still have a mint RB Pro S system that I take out every now and then when I need the exercise of carrying it.
> 
> Richard




The 45MXT??

I know it weighs 126 pounds, but I'd seriously consider setting up an LTL crate shipment for that!!!


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 13, 2012)

Railphotog said:


> Film is dead* for me. *




I really appreciate you saying this. For YOU, and the others who say film is dead, it may be. But from the smell of my makeshift darkroom, I can most certainly assure you that film is still very, very much alive.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 13, 2012)

runnah said:


> People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.
> 
> But yes film is dead. Same as cassettes, records, 8 tracks, reel to reels, Apple 2's, floppy disks etc...people who swear by these types of old techs are "better" are incredibly pretentious.
> 
> I only produce tintypes so I would know.




Vinyl is experiencing a significant comeback as well. So much so that I was just watching a national news story on it the other day.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

There is a difference between novelty and function. Young people like vinyl for it's curiosity, and then manufacture it's advantages; no matter the accuracy, SNR is always going to be a problem.

While both film and phonographs have their inherent advantages, this does not mean that they outweigh modern approaches - and no matter how many hipsters use antique technologies for it's appeal to tradition does not indicate a genuine revival.


----------



## Designer (Nov 13, 2012)

Christopher; we should wonder what would be the mechanism that would cause us to sell our digital and return to film.

If by some chance there were going to be a significant increase in cost and inconvenience with digital, and if such costs were to eclipse the same costs in film, then sure, there would be many digital cameras on the market.  Such as it would be.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:
			
		

> But how is that any different than buying a $1500 body now... and then buying another $1500 body in 2 or 3 years when the latest and greatest is 17mpx more than your old body? Or spending $600 now for LR4, and then another $600 in a year when LR5 comes out?  Digital is not without its ongoing expenses...



Back in 2003 I guess it was, I bought the then-new, super-hot FujiFilm FinePix S2 Pro, the 6MP/12MP d-slr that used F-mount lenses. I shot the daylights outta' that camera!!! In fact, at one point, I calculated that I had shot the equivalent of $79,000 worth of E-6 film and processing with that $2,400 camera body. That was well before the Nikon D70 OR the Canon EOS Rebel arrived; those were the very FIRST sun-$1,000 d-slr bodies, and those too were lowish MP count models.

So...as far as the "ongoing costs" of digital....uh....not very much really...NOTHING almost, compared to film processing, film printing, film contact proofing, and film hassles. And the gas and or postage/shipping for film drop-off and delivery???

Sorry, but the "ongoing costs" of digital, like hard drive storage are basically ZERO when the cost of one, 8-gigabyte CF card is factored against the cost of 10,000 rolls of film...the cost of FILM ALONE these days is utterly ridiculous. Add in developing. Add in negative and slide storage pages and cabinets. Add in scanning fees or time to scan. Sorry, but the "ongoing costs" for digital are, as I said, negated simply by the film costs alone!!! Today I can buy a 3 terabyte Hard Disk on sale for $139....give me that HD and a pair of 8-gig CF cards, and I can store 3 years' worth of "free" images....images that would easily cost $80,000 or more to shoot and develop and store on FILM...


----------



## runnah (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.
> ...



It's a niche market saturated by hipsters that think shunning modern technology is "hip".

Studies have been done that have shown that there is no detectable differences. It's pure snobbery, nothing more.


----------



## FlyTags (Nov 13, 2012)

For me, shooting film is about experience and feel. It's like buying a convertible. Sure, you could get the hardtop sports car and have a lot of fun with it. But, driving around with the top down is a lot more visceral and makes the experience a little more memorable.

A few weeks ago, I went to a cliffside overlook here in upstate NY to get a few pictures of the vanishing autumn foliage. I loaded a roll of Ektar 100 in my Nikon FE, brought the camera up to my face, and caught a whiff of the film emanating from the back of the camera. It was an "Ahhh..." moment for me; a zen kind of thing. Do I expect results that are better than digital? No. Do I expect it to be cheaper? No. I just like doing it.

That being said, would I sell my Nikon D7000 & Fuji X100 and switch to pure film? Good god, no. Being a computer tech, I've always been more comfortable with digital workflows and I trust the predictability of 1's and 0's more than I trust the variance of analog. When the pictures matter, I shoot digital. When I just want to relax, I shoot film. But, that's just me.


----------



## panblue (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Just what the title says.... As a film shooter, would you ever consider selling your digital gear and go back to 100% film?
> 
> Why or why not?



Yes; in fact i'm giving this serious consideration just as you pose the question.
Digital cameras seem inherently prone to faults. This is my experience of owning Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony.
I'm looking at both the Leica R system and Contax SLRs. Yet when I research these also, there is a body of opinion that
much of these cameras also were unreliable too! I would like to get back to finding a mechanical/manual system with excellent optics and be free of the BS involved with digital capture, 'computers' and so on. I would prefer to utilise Leica or Zess glass, as there are few if any 'dogs', whereas Nikon/Canon is a huge range of primes and zooms which are a mixed bag.
The older SLRs which are heavy with electronics I shall avoid for the same reasons as leaving digital..more to go wrong as before.

Other options for me are the Rollei MF 6000s and also the Contax G system. I also like the Leica M5, 'looks and build', but the M system glass is too expensive compared to a similar Zeiss set of primes.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Railphotog said:
> 
> 
> > Film is dead* for me. *
> ...



One of the things I value in mature people is the ability to determine opinion from fact. We shouldn't need to say "IMHO" after everything we say.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 13, 2012)

runnah said:


> People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.
> 
> But yes film is dead. Same as cassettes, records, 8 tracks, reel to reels, Apple 2's, floppy disks etc...people who swear by these types of old techs are "better" are incredibly pretentious.
> 
> I only produce tintypes so I would know.



I could just as easily call you pretentious for making value judgments based on what type of medium she uses to create her images. :raisedbrow:

You do realize that there are plenty of companies that still produce brand new film cameras, right?

I don't know anyone (our wedding photog included) who claims that film is better. It's definitely more personal, and forces the photographer to be much more intentional and deliberate when they press the shutter release. Film certainly has a look that can't be replicated by any digital sensor or post processing technique (sorry, VSCO).

It's like almost anything else in photography, it's a matter of personal taste and preference. If you want shoot film, shoot it. If you don't, then don't. However, if you just want to snipe at someone because they choose one or the other, then GTFO.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

panblue said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > Just what the title says.... As a film shooter, would you ever consider selling your digital gear and go back to 100% film?
> ...



I'd suggest the RX I or II, maybe the Aria. The original RX had an excellent focus assist, at the expense of some brightness. I'd personally prefer the focus assist, even if it was a little flaky when you need it the most. The G is cool, but the rangefinder takes some getting used to - something I'm sure you could certainly manage. The RTS, the Contax flagship, I never entirely trusted the vacuum mechanism.

Electronic control in a mechanical camera isn't a bad thing, modern magnetic drives are far superior to spring-loaded mechanism.


----------



## panblue (Nov 13, 2012)

Derrel, for me I think it could work out about the same cost. That is shooting as an amateur one or two rolls per week, and using high street lab development of negs with basic JPEG scanning onto CD. Seems to me about the same as 'investing' in a prosumer FF body every few years yet retaining e.g an R3 plus lenses which I can cherish for what they are as much as what they do.

The fanboy GAS culture of the internet-digi crowd which really has become a de-facto attitude (problem, imo) now, is actually making me wish for a benchmark system (i.e film) which i can settle upon and disengage from all the rubbish which "defines" photography now.



Derrel said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## compur (Nov 13, 2012)

Digital is dead.  It dies every Christmas shopping season when the NEW digital technology replaces it.


----------



## compur (Nov 13, 2012)

Mike_E said:


> Having film and digital equipment is a little like having two wives (I'd guess anyway, no baby you're the only one!  really).   Each has their strong and weak points.
> 
> If it's legal and neither one mind, why give either up?



Because it's twice the expense?


----------



## panblue (Nov 13, 2012)

I'd suggest the RX I or II, maybe the Aria. The G is cool, but the rangefinder takes some getting used to - something I'm sure you could certainly manage. The RTS, the Contax flagship, I never entirely trusted the vacuum mechanism.[/QUOTE]

 I've owned a few rangefinders, it's no problem at all for me to use. Possibly  the Rx/Aria..the N would be just replacing one fault-prone electronic system with another. This is why i'm sought of homing-in on the early Rs. It's difficult but interesting choices also


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

yeah. the N never took off, and you'd be limited to a few lenses. I wouldn't suggest the N.

The G2's rangefinder is different, though. It doesn't work like a traditional viewfinder. If you haven't used it yet,

http://global.kyocera.com/prdct/optical/support/manual/g2_eng.pdf

I don't know much about the original G.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Nov 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Railphotog said:
> 
> 
> > Film is dead* for me. *
> ...



Well, here is the thing. You will always have people that are hold outs. Look at the alternative methods. People are interested in tech that is from the 1800's. Dead for all practical purposes. But there are still hold outs even for ancient tech. 

I don't care if people shoot digital or film. Just show me the print / image. I'm a bottom line guy. Now some of the zen photogs like the whole process wet darkroom and even the glass plate coating. It is a free country more or less. We can do as we please.

I will say my fav digital cams are those like the Fuji Xpro / X100 and Epson RD-1 and Leica that work like the old film cams. I will give film that!


----------



## Ilovemycam (Nov 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > Film is dead.
> ...




Hey don't believe me. Look at the biz trends. Film biz is either growing or declining. 

OK, I will agree 'film is dead' is not exact, better termed it is on life suppport.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/09/15...-to-stop-making-film-for-the-cinema-industry/

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/08/24/kodak-to-sell-its-camera-film-business/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577607700939340864.html

Maybe you will reconsider your wrong ideas as you bid to buy expired film on ebay to feed your out of date cams!


----------



## panblue (Nov 13, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> and Leica that work like the old film cams.



 But that's the thing, they don't. I'm not talking about the subjective quality of the images. I bought a used  digital ..it goes U/S because of a fault.  I have two photos taken 20 seconds apart, in a totally normal situation. The first is made with a working camera, then the next is made with a broken camera. Just ''pffft" ..camera dies.


----------



## runnah (Nov 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > People like her make me want to burn rolls of Kodachrome in spite.
> ...




Hey I am thick skinned so bash away.

My point is that shoot whatever you want, but I can bet you that the person shooting film is going to let everyone know.

Reminds me of the joke - "How do you know if someone is vegan?" "Don't worry, they'll tell you."



jamesbjenkins said:


> It's definitely more personal, and forces the photographer to be much more intentional and deliberate when they press the shutter release.



This exactly what I am talking about. It's film, it's not some mystical emotional experience. You can have the same experience using a low capacity sd card.


----------



## panblue (Nov 13, 2012)

True, but the vision is what matters. 



runnah said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 13, 2012)

runnah said:


> Hey I am thick skinned so bash away.



I couldn't care less about bashing you, dude. My comments weren't directed at you at all, just generally at people who spend more time hating on how other people do things than building their own craft. Your comments in this thread are just a good example.



runnah said:


> but I can bet you that the person shooting film is going to let everyone know.



And WTH wouldn't they if it works into their brand and helps bring them clients? Again, too much time and energy spent worrying about somebody else. It takes a real pompous ass to complain that someone else takes joy in doing things a certain way and wants their potential clients to know about it.



runnah said:


> This exactly what I am talking about. It's film, it's not some mystical emotional experience. You can have the same experience using a low capacity sd card.



You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.

---

And I'm done here. Any more chatter from me and I'll be a hypocrite.


----------



## runnah (Nov 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> And WTH wouldn't they if it works into their brand and helps bring them clients? Again, too much time and energy spent worrying about somebody else. It takes a real pompous ass to complain that someone else takes joy in doing things a certain way and wants their potential clients to know about it.



Hey a fool and his money are soon parted. If people are willing to pay for labels and a false sense of superiority than who am I to complain. 




jamesbjenkins said:


> You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.



In fact I've shot and developed thousands of rolls of film over the pre-digital years. I will agree that it is a different experience, it's a giant pain in the ass. I do not miss any aspect of shooting film. The sacrifice of digital sensors is well worth the advantages.

But I'll leave this alone. I want to be friends!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.



Shooting film is different, but not for these herpderp, hippy dippy reasons!


----------



## bhop (Nov 13, 2012)

To me digital is a pain in the ass.. mostly because it takes too much work to make it look like film.  I think the things people are saying they hate about film are things I love about it.  I like developing my film, it's relaxing.  I like the surprises when I see a pic that I don't remember taking.  I also can't afford a digital Leica so if I want to shoot a rangefinder, I have to use film..  *shrug

That said, I don't think i'd sell my digital cameras.  I mean, my D300 hardly ever gets used.  I literally haven't touched it in months, but I keep it around because sometimes I get asked to shoot events for my friend's car site and he wants a lot of shots of the race cars, although, I usually shoot a roll or two of film for myself through my F100.  Also, sometimes I just need a quick shot to post online or something.  I also use my X100 often when I get lazy or if the lighting isn't good.

Honestly, I've been a film die-hard for a long time, but lately i've been feeling lazy, or haven't had the time for scanning.  The newer FX sensors look pretty good, if only I could afford a D4..


----------



## gsgary (Nov 13, 2012)

bhop said:
			
		

> To me digital is a pain in the ass.. mostly because it takes too much work to make it look like film.  I think the things people are saying they hate about film are things I love about it.  I like developing my film, it's relaxing.  I like the surprises when I see a pic that I don't remember taking.  I also can't afford a digital Leica so if I want to shoot a rangefinder, I have to use film..  *shrug
> 
> That said, I don't think i'd sell my digital cameras.  I mean, my D300 hardly ever gets used.  I literally haven't touched it in months, but I keep it around because sometimes I get asked to shoot events for my friend's car site and he wants a lot of shots of the race cars, although, I usually shoot a roll or two of film for myself through my F100.  Also, sometimes I just need a quick shot to post online or something.  I also use my X100 often when I get lazy or if the lighting isn't good.
> 
> Honestly, I've been a film die-hard for a long time, but lately i've been feeling lazy, or haven't had the time for scanning.  The newer FX sensors look pretty good, if only I could afford a D4..



Dont do it


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> Well, here is the thing. You will always have people that are hold outs. Look at the alternative methods. People are interested in tech that is from the 1800's. Dead for all practical purposes. But there are still hold outs even for ancient tech.



The most annoying thing about 95% of the alt process community is just that, they're just regurgitating old processes, not making any new improvements or discoveries. Filmies often have this conservative approach. The most intriguing thing to me about chemical photography is that anyone has access to the imaging systems. But people are so fascinated to replicate the old formula, they don't do anything new.

I have dozens of processes and experiments I'd like to do if I had a darkroom and lab. People who are fortunate to seem to be just squandering away their resources on tradition.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > You've never shot a film SLR, have you? Tell the truth. Shooting a film camera is a completely different experience than a DSLR. There's nothing mystical about it, but it's definitely more organic, minimalist and intimate than anything consumers are buying now.
> ...



Well, I'm about as far from hippy as is humanly possible.

And I'm pretty sure you can't refute my opinion. Sorry. 

EDIT: Damn it! Seriously, I'm done with this thread. Stop dragging me back.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

What makes film inherently "intimate"? Does replacing a film back with a digital back somehow remove this intimacy? What if you covered up the back such that you couldn't tell?

Would you feel it in the shutter actuator? Is it the sound of the film rolling through the magazine that makes it intimate?


----------



## panblue (Nov 13, 2012)

I don't speak for others but one thing i like is daylight/5600k response, regardless of the time of day an image is made. That is actually a look to an image that i like. You can adopt the same with digital or you can also use filters with film to move beyond it. I'm not interested in darkroom work at all. I am content with the basic tonality of a film type, how that typically gets run-off of a high street lab (normal colour or b&w, not chromogenic C41films)..and i'm happy with that  .. max 10x8. For me is the vision/content of the image, subjectively; the light and shadow in a raw, sooc way. 

Perhaps the intimacy is just being content with how a film renders a moment while appreciating equally that moment, rather than fussing over processing or capture flaws. This is why digital SOOC groups exist for hobby photographers. 





unpopular said:


> What makes film inherently "intimate"?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Nov 13, 2012)

Ilovemycam said:


> Now some of the zen photogs like the whole process wet darkroom and even the glass plate coating.





Hmmm... that's an interesting term - "zen photogs".

Maybe that's what I'm more in love with, the process instead of the technology. I've never thought about it like that before.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

panblue said:


> I don't speak for others but one thing i like is daylight/5600k response, regardless of the time of day an image is made. That is actually a look to an image that i like. You can adopt the same with digital or you can also use filters with film to move beyond it.



The problem is that you have no idea what you're correcting to. Daylight film has a spectral sensitivity of 5600K - what is the spectral sensitivity of the sensor?

The scary thing is that the raw processor is doing all sorts of gnarly things to our images, things we wouldn't normally approve of at all. On my camera's daylight setting, the red data is pushed 1.5 EV. We wouldn't dream of pushing overall exposure by 1.5 EV on every single image, but this is _exactly _what raw processors do - on EVERY SINGLE image, by at least 0.5EV on at least one channel. I suspect that if we could make this correction optically, SNR would increase.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 13, 2012)

interesting words used to describe film photography. intentional, intimate, deliberate, organic....
maybe you think it is reserved for film users. I think you are just seeing two sides to the same coin. 
you are describing a feeling that a photographer gets when they snap that shutter and freeze a moment in time forever. when they know they have captured something special, maybe even something once in a lifetime. A moment they can now go back and revisit time and time again and relive that feeling. And it doesn't matter what brand of camera they used...or what type of camera type used..or whether they are a professional or an amateur...
All that matters is that they have seen that moment, recognized that moment as something worth saving, captured that moment.....

and put it on facebook via instagram.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

is b/w film more intimate? is color slide film less so?

this intimacy thing is interesting!


----------



## runnah (Nov 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> What makes film inherently "intimate"? Does replacing a film back with a digital back somehow remove this intimacy? What if you covered up the back such that you couldn't tell?
> 
> Would you feel it in the shutter actuator? Is it the sound of the film rolling through the magazine that makes it intimate?



I take it you've never been on a long shoot before. Long hours, lonely nights you start looking at your film, it starts looking at you and the next thing you know it's over exposed...


----------



## unpopular (Nov 13, 2012)

Oh, I've been there, watching the latent image forming ...


----------



## terri (Nov 14, 2012)

> I don't want a film vs digital debate to come out of this thread


Sorry, Chris, but on this forum it's unavoidable and that's why we don't allow them:



> * No digital vs. traditional arguments or debates are allowed.   We have  separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed.   No  provoking comments will be tolerated.


You asked a seemingly innocuous question, then everyone who has a negative opinion on FILM itself seems compelled to have their say.   They don't directly answer your question, they just bash film users as Luddites, then further attach a negative connotation by association to being Zen, a hipster... :scratch:   As if those are all derogatory terms by themselves, as well.   Lots of posturing and ignorance inherent in that type of argument.  

To those of you who have kept it civil even while disagreeing....my thanks.    

   I'll have to close this thread now...I do want everyone to remember that choosing what medium people want to use to create their images is a personal one, and why we cannot seem to respect each other's choices is beyond me.   Some people don't mind a few hours sitting in front of the computer moving pixels around, some people don't mind a few hours in the darkroom moving light and chemistry around.   In the end, we all agree it's the final product that matters.   For those who enjoy the more tactile approach of film, it is part of the creative process and should be given the same respect as someone who is proficient in LR, PS, etc.   _Who cares?_  An image is made and processing must happen. 

Everyone run along and play nice in the yard.  :sillysmi:


----------

