# My new Nikon...



## Vtec44 (Apr 22, 2015)

Hello beautiful! Where have you been in the last 10 years??


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 22, 2015)

Looks like the backside of a camera ?
film one at that ...


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2015)

Portland Police Bureau sold 10 of those at ProPhoto supply a few years back...took forrrrrrrrever to get rid of them....last two went at $125 a pop, as I recall....so amazing at how low the prices are now--an INCREDIBLE value in an amazing film shooter...if a guy's willing to buy one of the many with the "sticky surface" body covering, EX is only $105!!!!  ....NIKON F100 35MM CAMERA BODY - KEH Camera


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 22, 2015)

I always wanted a Nikon F6 and yet its still $2,400 for a new one.I know the one above is not a F6 but thanks for bringing back the lust again.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 22, 2015)

It's my new to me F100.  It has always been my favorite film camera and a bit more affordable than the F6.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 22, 2015)

I had the N80 poor mans F100 both great cameras, of course F100 is better.Congrats enjoy it.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 28, 2015)

DarkShadow said:


> I had the N80 poor mans F100 both great cameras, of course F100 is better.Congrats enjoy it.



x2. I have my n80 and like it for what I  use it for. I haven't tried any off camera flash yet with it. Now that I think of it, I might bring it out tonight...Haven't fiddled with it in a few months.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 28, 2015)

DarkShadow said:


> I always wanted a Nikon F6 and yet its still $2,400 for a new one.I know the one above is not a F6 but thanks for bringing back the lust again.


 Buy an F5 - they're cheap like borscht, and a better camera in almost every (important) way.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 28, 2015)

Finally got my film in.  Now I need to setup a shoot


----------



## wfooshee (May 6, 2015)

I've got an F4 and love it. A tad heavier than that F100.......   The only thing I have that doesn't work on it is the VR feature. It uses G lenses just fine, it uses my SB-600 perfectly well, and can even mount the one pre-AI lens I have.

The F4 was less than 200 bucks.


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Finally got my film in. .......



Don't you mean your 4mb memory card?


----------



## Gary A. (May 6, 2015)

Nice. I love the ol' film Nikons.


----------



## raventepes (May 6, 2015)

I'd love to get a new film camera...right now I have a Minolta X-700, which is great, but it's purely manual focus, which I don't care for unless I'm working in macro or landscape work.


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

The local brick-n-mortar store has one right now.  I seriously considered it, but I'm not to keen on one that's totally dependent on battery.


----------



## syaudi (May 6, 2015)

I'm working a Minolta 3xi at the moment, but I'm looking at buying myself a Nikon Fm2n. and lusting after that sexy F6...


----------



## bribrius (May 6, 2015)

all my film camera are manual focus. makes me want to buy of these just for a new different toy.


----------



## Microbois (May 6, 2015)

Out of curiosity, what draws you into buying and using an old film camera? Sure, they're cheap as hell now, but the hassle of getting the film processed, and all it takes to get it into prints, especially nowadays, what's the point?

Don't take me wrong, I've been into photography for the last 30 years, had my own darkroom for about half of that, and worked for newspapers too, but seriously, I don't miss anything for the film era. My last film camera was a F90x (N90s in the US), and I had excellent Nikkor lenses, but my D610 and my new Nikkor lenses are light-years ahead, and way more enjoyable to use. Actually, it's the digital revolution that got me back deep into DSLR photography, otherwise, I would have probably stopped the hobby as I was fed up of the smell of the chemicals, the time spent standing up in front of my enlarger printing test bands, etc. This is aside all the costs of maintaining a darkroom.

Anyway, sorry to be the party pooper, but I just don't get it why people are attracted to film.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 6, 2015)

I shoot hybrid, digital and film, for work.  It's hard to beat film when it comes to highlights retention.  Colors and especially skin tone are more pleasant straight out of the camera IMHO.


----------



## 480sparky (May 6, 2015)

Same reason some people drive '57 Chevies, listen to vinyl records and go ballroom dancing.

We *enjoy* it. Just 'cuz _you_ don't doesn't mean the rest of us must give it up.

There's film forums that members would wonder why the he11 you are all excited about digital.


----------



## bribrius (May 6, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Same reason some people drive '57 Chevies, listen to vinyl records and go ballroom dancing.
> 
> We *enjoy* it. Just 'cuz _you_ don't doesn't mean the rest of us must give it up.
> 
> There's film forums that members would wonder why the he11 you are all excited about digital.


beyond the nostagia, it also has a different look. Sometimes i like the digital look. Sometimes i like film.  Digital, looks digital.  Camera difference, no menus. It just works. More of a challenge too. No pp to count on to save the day. No chimping... different experience. Each shot counts more with film. Cant go back and delete and just try again.  They actually count. And it is film. Seems a little closer for me anyway, to REAL photography. But that is my perspective and i suspect not everyone would feel the same. i would shoot pretty much straight film if i could afford it. I like looking at developed rolls. SD cards dont have the same appeal. Most digital images dont have the same appeal either. 

I actually prefer digital images from point and shoots, and older point and shoots usually over a modern dslr as well. Shot a photo of my kid with a point and shoot last weeek, love it. If i shot it with the dslr it would be TOO crisp, not the right shadow, just different. Different look. All camera generations and types had a different look. It is the look i am after, without trying to recreate it in post process. Rather just start with the right camera.


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> It's hard to beat film when it comes to highlights retention.  Colors and especially skin tone are more pleasant straight out of the camera IMHO.



As far as I know, this is getting less true with every new generation of DSLR to a point where claiming such thing today sounds like a broken record everyone keeps repeating without ever questioning the validity of this affirmation.

I have a Nikon D610, and while my memory and my recollection of the DR or highlight retention on film has faded too much to even be able to compare with digital today, I do know that the shots I'm making today in poorly lit arenas during hockey games would have not been possible with film. In such case, digital makes shots possible when with film, I would have been forced to use a flash (not permitted) or work with insanely high ISO film that would look like I made a picture out of sand. No thanks.

Speaking of which, I recently pulled out some 35mm strips of film I had in a binder so I scan them and share them with my family, and have them in my digital collection. That served as a huge eye opener. Wow, I would have never suspected that my photos on film would have been so lacking in every department compared to my digital ones. Serioulsy.



bribrius said:


> Each shot counts more with film. Cant go back and delete and just try again. They actually count. And it is film. Seems a little closer for me anyway, to REAL photography. But that is my perspective and i suspect not everyone would feel the same. i would shoot pretty much straight film if i could afford it. I like looking at developed rolls. SD cards dont have the same appeal. Most digital images dont have the same appeal either.



I'm also nostalgic when I think about my first darkroom session at school. This is quite an experience to see for the first time your picture appear slowly on a white piece of paper soaked into chemicals, or being in pitch dark to roll film on a reel to develop it. But I've spent so many hours in a darkroom, often late up to the middle of the night, just to meet newspaper deadlines, all while missing some good time with my friends in the best years of my life, that today, just the smell of the chemicals is enought to make me throw up.

That aside, and even though film still enjoys some kind of popularity among photographers, I think in 20 or 30 years from now, it will be gone forever and nowhere to be found.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> As far as I know, this is getting less true with every new generation of DSLR to a point where claiming such thing today sounds like a broken record everyone keeps repeating without ever questioning the validity of this affirmation.



Here's an easy test, take the d610, go outside and over expose it 4 stops, bring the file in to LR and see how much you can recover.  I have a d600 and a d800 and the reason why I still use them is for OCF and shadow recovery.  They don't make 12800 ISO film.    There pros and cons to each medium and I use both for very specific purposes.


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Here's an easy test, take the d610, go outside and over expose it 4 stops, bring the file in to LR and see how much you can recover.  I have a d600 and a d800 and the reason why I still use them is for OCF and shadow recovery.  They don't make 12800 ISO film.    There pros and cons to each medium and I use both for very specific purposes.



Ok, that might be important to some, for instance wedding photographers shooting a white dress under the sun while retaining details of other guests dressing in dark colors, but I don't shoot weddings. On the other hand, I'm wondering what would be the need or interest of purposely overexposing a shot by 4 stops, when you can expose it correctly in the first place...

Actually, recovering blownout highlights is probably one of the very few weaknesses of digital photography over film, at the moment, because for everything else, digital just blows film out of the water. It's just a question of time before digital surpass film on every single aspects.

Sure, there's always the elusive "film look" that everybody is after for whatever it means, but this is highly subjective, and most likely related to the acquired taste of photographers who shot lots of film before. For the younger generation who never shot film, I doubt that film has much appeal, just like shooting an old camera providing the "Charlie Chaplin film look" or the "WWI look" would have no appeal to me whatsoever. Those images with their "unique look" are so deeply entrenched in our heads, it seems to be one of the only way we're conditioned to use to represent some specific subjects.

That being said, I respect each technology for what they brought, and respect the people who make the choice of using older technologies to get the results they want, but it's just not my cup of tea. Even if you freeze digital technology in its current state, and fast forward 50 years from now, once we're all gone and the younger generations grew older, I'm sure no one will consider film like we do now. We're in the middle of a transition, and there's some resistance here and there, but that will fade away pretty soon.

In the old days, getting a sharp and well exposed picture was a good challenge. Today, it's a pretty easy thing. You can always blur or soften a picture that is too sharp, but the opposite is impossible.

Give me digital over film anytime.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> ........because for everything else, digital just blows film out of the water...........



I'll call your bluff on that one.

How many digital images that exist today will not be here in just one year?  10 years? 100 years?  

Will the digital camera you use right now be working in 1 year?  10 years?  100 years?

How much money did your entire digital suite cost?  No, not just your camera body... everything!  Body, lens, memory card, hard drive, computer, printer etc etc.  Compare that to a film body & lens and darkroom.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an easy test, take the d610, go outside and over expose it 4 stops, bring the file in to LR and see how much you can recover.  I have a d600 and a d800 and the reason why I still use them is for OCF and shadow recovery.  They don't make 12800 ISO film.    There pros and cons to each medium and I use both for very specific purposes.
> ...


meh... I think my problem with digital (which i shoot ) is the images just aren't worth as much to me. i can bang off a thousand, delete 900, photoshop 50, and do some basic adjustments on the other 50. And still not come up with a shot worth as much to me as a single well done film shot.   They just don't seem worth as much to me. Too easy to bang out, to easy to make clear and in focus, and still retain that manufactured digital look.  I take one good film photo, i am tickled pink. Bang off five hundred digitals, dont really mean a whole lot to me. The mindset that came with the advent of digital may be the exact thing that devalued photography in general. Lot of shooters got out of photography when everything started going digital. Just because of the nature of digital, the market became over saturated with photos. 

Also look at them side by side, film might be less crisp, grain, far from perfect. Look at my digital, crisp, overall better in most aspects. The less crisp film grain one still wins just in general appeal. The digital, well is just another digital..


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

why ford escorts were never worth much, they made way to fruckn many of them... lol


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Microbois said:
> 
> 
> > ........because for everything else, digital just blows film out of the water...........
> ...


I am in sort of a conundrum right now.  Suppose to be putting work for sale up in a local gallery. I bought the frames already (that wasn't cheap).  Probably just put in a few works at at time. I am trying to decide how important film is to people still though. I am tempted to put in all straight film, to see if i can get higher prices. But if no one cares if it is film, i surely have better digital shots i could print. Really tempted to just go straight film though on all of them, just not sure what the market is and if people are willing to pay more for lower iq film aesthetic. I would RATHER go film. If i want my name associated with anything i prefer it be film prints over digital and post process. No one else may care though, i am not sure if anyone cares if it is film or not anymore. Maybe they want digital. Goes back to "is it just about the final image?" or does the medium and how you got there matter.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I am in sort of a conundrum right now.  Suppose to be putting work for sale up in a local gallery. I bought the frames already (that wasn't cheap).  Probably just put in a few works at at time. I am trying to decide how important film is to people still though. I am tempted to put in all straight film, to see if i can get higher prices. But if no one cares if it is film, i surely have better digital shots i could print. Really tempted to just go straight film though on all of them, just not sure what the market is and if people are willing to pay more for lower iq film aesthetic. I would RATHER go film. If i want my name associated with anything i prefer it be film prints over digital and post process. No one else may care though, i am not sure if anyone cares if it is film or not anymore. Maybe they want digital. Goes back to "is it just about the final image?" or does the medium and how you got there matter.



The medium should not be relevant.  Only what is displayed.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I am in sort of a conundrum right now.  Suppose to be putting work for sale up in a local gallery. I bought the frames already (that wasn't cheap).  Probably just put in a few works at at time. I am trying to decide how important film is to people still though. I am tempted to put in all straight film, to see if i can get higher prices. But if no one cares if it is film, i surely have better digital shots i could print. Really tempted to just go straight film though on all of them, just not sure what the market is and if people are willing to pay more for lower iq film aesthetic. I would RATHER go film. If i want my name associated with anything i prefer it be film prints over digital and post process. No one else may care though, i am not sure if anyone cares if it is film or not anymore. Maybe they want digital. Goes back to "is it just about the final image?" or does the medium and how you got there matter.
> ...


so i can't tack on stickers saying film and mark each one up fifty bucks?


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> so i can't tack on stickers saying film and mark each one up fifty bucks?



IMHO, that would be........... tacky.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> but I don't shoot weddings...



Why do you think I didn't ask for your opinion on this subject?  



> Give me digital over film anytime.



Awesome!  I like my digital cameras too!


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > so i can't tack on stickers saying film and mark each one up fifty bucks?
> ...


But film is more work, i want to get paid more for it. LMAO


----------



## Vtec44 (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> But film is more work, i want to get paid more for it. LMAO



For my business purpose, it costs about $1 per shot with film.  So, no spraying and praying with this at weddings.


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I'll call your bluff on that one. How many digital images that exist today will not be here in just one year? 10 years? 100 years



What's your point? If you print it, and backup the file properly, it will last just as long as your pictures printed from film, but this is totally besides what we're discussing here.



480sparky said:


> Will the digital camera you use right now be working in 1 year? 10 years? 100 years?



If I take care of it, and preserve everything that goes along with it (computer, software, memory cards, etc.) it could last 100 years too, but who would want that? Even during the film era, new cameras were coming out every couple years, and lots of photographers were upgrading even though there was nothing wrong with their older cameras. Once again, what's your point?



480sparky said:


> How much money did your entire digital suite cost? No, not just your camera body... everything! Body, lens, memory card, hard drive, computer, printer etc etc. Compare that to a film body & lens and darkroom.



That's easy. I actually spent just a little less money for my D610, lenses and accessories than I invested 16 years earlier for my F90x with the same lenses and accessories. So, in constant dollars, I've spent much less today than I did back then. I already have a powerful computer that I'm using for other stuff (CAD, CNC machining, video production, writing, etc.) but for the sake of discussion, let's say 3K$ for my computer, monitor and software. I spent about the same 20 years ago for my darkroom, so my computer is much much cheaper today. With digital, my expenses stop about there if I don't print anything, but with film, cost keeps adding up as you buy chemicals and photo paper.

Sorry, but your justifications are simply not backed up by facts.



bribrius said:


> I think my problem with digital (which i shoot ) is the images just aren't worth as much to me.



Well, this sentence just says it all. It's a question of feeling and impressions YOU have, but is it backed up with some hard facts?



bribrius said:


> I am trying to decide how important film is to people still though. I am tempted to put in all straight film, to see if i can get higher prices. But if no one cares if it is film, i surely have better digital shots i could print. Really tempted to just go straight film though on all of them, just not sure what the market is and if people are willing to pay more for lower iq film aesthetic.



I'm glad you are showing some honest signs of lucidity here. Depending on whom you want to sell your pictures to, if it's the general public, they will not see any difference, nor will care about it all together. Either digital, film, or even Daguerreotype, the same question remains throughout centuries. Is it a good picture? In my mind, people are way too obsessed with the tools used to make something than just looking at the product. I face the same subject with CNC machining in woodworking. Some people claim that a piece of furniture designed on computer, and where most of its parts are cut on a CNC machine, is worth much less than if you start out with hand drafted plans, and 100% handcrafted from the tree to the finish product.

This is insane. Can you just appreciate and judge the final product for its qualities, and not based on the tools used to make it? Why would it be less valuable because the process used is capable of pumping more units of the said product, rather than if it is handcrafted and unique in some way?

I see digital as an evolution to film. I see digital as a medium that has a lot more capabilities in several departments, such has the ability to take highly usable pictures in low light conditions. This is very important to me since I've saved a good chunk of money by chosing the 70-200mm f/4 instead of the 70-200mm f/2.8. I don't even mention the unbeleivable capacity to work my pictures in LR, when in a darkroom I would have to make masks to dodge or burn specific areas. I've gain a lot of free time not locking myself up in a darkroom and have my hands stink for a few days.

Seriously.

Once again, I totally respect people choosing older cameras. It's a medium, it's a tool, and it's a personal choice. But at least, give me some good and honest reasons to justify using film, not those pseudo justifications of blowing highlights by 4 stops just to justify that film is "better" than digital.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > But film is more work, i want to get paid more for it. LMAO
> ...


yeah i don't know what you do. I talked with a guy here that does weddings. He gives options, film or digital. He says not many choose film because he charges more $$$$ for film shot . Some still do though.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> But at least, give me some good and honest reasons to justify using film, not those pseudo justifications of blowing highlights by 4 stops just to justify that film is "better" than digital.



Eh, ever shot a ceremony 2hrs before sunset shooting directly into the sun?  What about using the harsh sun to create a rim light around your subject?  Yeah, that.

I seriously don't know why the subject of film vs digital is even relevant.  I shoot both, I like both.  It works for me, my business, my clients.  I could care less about people's personal opinion about which one is better.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > I'll call your bluff on that one. How many digital images that exist today will not be here in just one year? 10 years? 100 years
> ...


eh. supply and demand. More of a product there is, less it becomes valued. People sell hand crafted things all the time, advertise them that way, and ask for more dollars for them. Buyers like the idea of getting something hand crafted and "unique"


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> ..... If .....If ........



_If's_ aren't a reasonable response.  If I was as rich as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, I wouldn't be responding here.



Microbois said:


> .I already have a powerful computer that I'm using for other stuff (CAD, CNC machining, video production, writing, etc.) but for the sake of discussion, let's say 3K$ for my computer, monitor and software. I spent about the same 20 years ago for my darkroom, so my computer is much much cheaper today. ...........



Now you're tossing yesterdays' pricing against todays and comparing apples to oranges to justify it.



Microbois said:


> What's your point?



You've already blinded yourself.  And none are so blind as those who _refuse_ to see.

My point is simple... _you cannot make a blanket statement about yourself and expect it to apply to everyone else.  _Digital fits your needs well. All fine and dandy.  We get that. But don't demand the rest of us drink your Kool-Aid. * It's obvious we haven't because film is still here. * *And that's a fact.*


----------



## AlanKlein (May 7, 2015)

I don't own a DSLR.  I shoot medium format film as well as digital P&S and digital micro 4/3 .    The latter digital two when I need to shoot family shots or on vacation.  I reserve shooting MF film when I'm "serious".  It's like when you go to an affair and you get dressed up with a shirt and tie.  MF is heavy.  I use Mamiya RB67 with a heavy Gitzo tripod and a separate Minolta light meter. I shoot slow.  I think about the shot; move around; caress it; kiss it; implore it.  I bracket the shot.  No chimping.  Then I send it out to a NYC lab to get developed.  And wait.  For the results.   The adrenalin elevates as I open the returned package and I get to be surprised at the results.  Ecstasy or disappointment!   Film is just more Organic.   Not better.  Just different.


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Microbois said:
> 
> 
> > ..... If .....If ........
> ...



I don't know what's wrong with you 480sparky, but you asked me "_How much money did your entire digital suite cost? No, not just your camera body... everything! Body, lens, memory card, hard drive, computer, printer etc etc. Compare that to a film body & lens and darkroom._". Well, the way you asked the question was quite obvious that you wanted to point out that digital was way more expensive today than using film and having a darkroom. In my case, I've bought lenses of the exact same focal length as I used to have with my F90x, and I spent about the same amount of money as in 1996. So now you are claiming that I'm comparing apple to oranges because my example doesn't fit your conclusions?

I don't refuse to see. I just see each technology for what it is. If in a specific situation film as an advantage over digital, then use film. Simple. Vtec44 has some good explanations backed up with hard facts, then it's the way to go. I just don't let nostalgia blur my reason...


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> I don't know what's wrong with you 480sparky, ..........



There's nothing wrong with me.

And there's nothing wrong with you, either.  We just have different viewpoints about it.  It's that simple.  You have your reasons, your needs and a solution for it.  Others have their reasons, their needs and their solutions.




Microbois said:


> ......I don't refuse to see. I just see each technology for what it is. If in a specific situation film as an advantage over digital, then use film. Simple. Vtec44 has some good explanations backed up with hard facts, then it's the way to go. ......



Well, there ya go!


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

AlanKlein said:


> I don't own a DSLR.  I shoot medium format film as well as digital P&S and digital micro 4/3 .    The latter digital two when I need to shoot family shots or on vacation.  I reserve shooting MF film when I'm "serious".  It's like when you go to an affair and you get dressed up with a shirt and tie.  MF is heavy.  I use Mamiya RB67 with a heavy Gitzo tripod and a separate Minolta light meter. I shoot slow.  I think about the shot; move around; caress it; kiss it; implore it.  I bracket the shot.  No chimping.  Then I send it out to a NYC lab to get developed.  And wait.  For the results.   The adrenalin elevates as I open the returned package and I get to be surprised at the results.  Ecstasy or disappointment!   Film is just more Organic.   Not better.  Just different.


i think that way and only shoot 35mm still. shoot way more digital than film. The film comes out when i want a certain "look" on shots i particularly care about. Like you said the more "serious" ones.  Dslr works for higher speed shooting, shots i cant afford to miss want a high iq and when i am in general just screwing off.  Point and shoot comes out for mobility and blending in, mostly kid pics or street shots. I use some older point and shoots too, different image look with them usually when i am in the "i wonder if" mindset and fun. Bridge cameras are just a combination. Freedom of a fixed zoom lens with reach, more compact than a dslr gear, Fun to shoot and great for not missing a shot when in a hurry.  High risk with all them however small sensors are limiting. Kind of that step between the dslr and the point and shoot. No changing lenses, quick enough but with at least some of the benefits of a dslr. Just more fun.  Hard to do anything fast paced with film, least mine everything is manual no autofocus. No nothing. Only one has auto film advance. Anything fast paced i use the dslr and instead of the manual ais lenses use the autofocus ones..  Different tools, different purpose.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Microbois said:
> ...


in specific situations they all have their advantages over another.  why they make ten different types of a hammers. People are somewhat perplexed on why i still shoot with point and shoots and film. "but you have a dslr right?" 
well yeah, but that is different.


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

Just out of curiosity, both AlanKlein and bribrius mention liking film because it forces them to take their time, pose and study the scene, shoot slow and less, and so on, but what is preventing you from doing exactly the same thing with a digital camera? Why does digital is somehow associated in your brain with the obligation of shooting a lot of pictures, fast, and with a minimum of care, when you suddenly change your attitude if a film is loaded in your camera? This is strange, isn't?

Obviously, shooting film cost money each time you press the shutter, while digital doesn't work like that. It's just beyond me why digital is associated with fast and poor value, and film with slow and higher value. I have my own studio in my basement, and I take as much time setting up my shots (lighting, flashes, working distance, lenses, tripod, focus point, framing, etc). The only difference is I get to see right away the results, and correct things accordingly on the spot, as opposed to take a huge guess with film and see if I've succeeded or failed miserably couple days later. I work for magazine, and let me tell you digital photography has shorten up my photo shoots by a large margin while increasing the quality of my pictures by a margin just as big.

Just to make things clear, I'm not playing the devil's advocate, nor do I want people to drink my Kool-Aid like someone said here. I'm just reading through this thread, and I'm struck by the contradictions some posters can put forward. Please see me as a stand-up comic who observes and make fun of contradictions he witnesses everyday, so let's keep this discussion open minded and fun, but would you have an explanation as to why we cannot take our time with digital photography? What explains the reasons we are forced into rushing pictures just because it's digital?

I'm just asking because moving to digital photography from film for me has probably been like those who moved from a horse carriage to a car or a tractor. Sure, a good horse has a great advantage over a car as he can bring you back home even if you're asleep on his back (provided he knows the ride back home), but a car is faster and never tired, more comfortable, safer, doesn't need to eat nor does poop, and can be left alone for months without requiring any attention. Try that with a horse.

Why do we treat digital photography differently than film, when in fact very little has changed in the tools we are using (aside from the obvious)?


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Just out of curiosity, both AlanKlein and bribrius mention liking film because it forces them to take their time, pose and study the scene, shoot slow and less, and so on, but what is preventing you from doing exactly the same thing with a digital camera? Why does digital is somehow associated in your brain with the obligation of shooting a lot of pictures, fast, and with a minimum of care, when you suddenly change your attitude if a film is loaded in your camera? This is strange, isn't?
> 
> Obviously, shooting film cost money each time you press the shutter, while digital doesn't work like that. It's just beyond me why digital is associated with fast and poor value, and film with slow and higher value. I have my own studio in my basement, and I take as much time setting up my shots (lighting, flashes, working distance, lenses, tripod, focus point, framing, etc). The only difference is I get to see right away the results, and correct things accordingly on the spot, as opposed to take a huge guess with film and see if I've succeeded or failed miserably couple days later. I work for magazine, and let me tell you digital photography has shorten up my photo shoots by a large margin while increasing the quality of my pictures by a margin just as big.
> 
> ...


ever go to a carnival and play one of the booth games? say you do. The guy running the game tells you that you have two options. The first option costs you ten cents a ball to try, you can try as many times as you like. He will let you stand on the closest line so it is easier. The prize is a stuffed bear. You get it, you get the bear. You notice a lot of people are taking that option.

The second option, you have to stand on the furthest line back, you have to turn around and throw the ball so you can't see it. The cost is a buck a shot. You get two tries. You get it, you get the bear.

while the end prize might be the same, how you value that prize and concentration you put into it becomes significantly different if you take the second route. Might be a poor analogy. First one i thought of,

How you won the bear, becomes more or as important as the bear.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> .........Obviously, shooting film cost money each time you press the shutter, while digital doesn't work like that. ........



Well, the truth is, digital DOES 'work like that'.  Digital cameras cost money, and they will eventually stop working.  So the cost of each shutter click is relatively easy to calculate.  $Price of camera / #of shutter actuations = cost each time the shutter is pressed.

Take a D810 that costs $3k and has a shutter rated for 200,000.  3000/200000 = $0.015 per click.  You just pay for all those click _up front_.

The same calculation can be done for memory cards, hard drives, etc.  They all cost money, and they all will eventually quit working.



Microbois said:


> .........but a car is ...... never tired doesn't need to eat nor does poop........



You have a car that never breaks down, doesn't need fuel and doesn't create any emissions?


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to beat film when it comes to highlights retention.  Colors and especially skin tone are more pleasant straight out of the camera IMHO.
> ...


You must have been bad at shooting film


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> why ford escorts were never worth much, they made way to fruckn many of them... lol


My friend has 2 Mexico Escorts each one has been valued at £45,000 for insurance [emoji3]


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

gsgary said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > why ford escorts were never worth much, they made way to fruckn many of them... lol
> ...


no freakn way. You gotta be b.s. ing me. They limited editions with gold trim or what?


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Microbois said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...


 Lot of people are. I am not even that great at it myself i could use improvement. Notice when digital kicked off the amount of people in photography like quadrupled.  If it were still film. There would be far less photographers and people in photography me thinks. As the cameras improved, changed, became easier with more auto options. More people took it up. Post processing software was a wet dream on top of it.  And the newer cameras with ever increasing dynamic range, makes it even harder to fruck it up. Generally speaking, the worse the camera, the harder it is to shoot with. jmo


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Take a D810 that costs $3k and has a shutter rated for 200,000.  3000/200000 = $0.015 per click.  You just pay for all those click _up front_.



Well, film cameras also have their shutter rated for a specific amount of clicks, so this is a moot point. Even old cameras can go bad as their mechanical parts wear out just like anything else.



480sparky said:


> The same calculation can be done for memory cards, hard drives, etc.  They all cost money, and they all will eventually quit working.



Fair enough, but film and printed pictures are not eternal supports either. They can get damaged, lost, stolen, burned, fade, etc. This is still not the subject of this discussion.



480sparky said:


> You have a car that never breaks down, doesn't need fuel and doesn't create any emissions?



My car doesn't need fuel, nor produce emissions, if I'm not using it, but a horse eats and poops everyday. That's what I meant. Many of my relatives lived the era of moving from horses to car and tractors, and they all told me that they were very happy back then when it happened. Horses are temperamental animals, and if they don't want to work, they don't budge. Trust me, a horse is a beautiful animal, very romantic, organic, you have to take your time, treat him well, love him, be comprehensive and reasonable, but when you need to get the work done in the field, nothing beats a tractor.


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


No bs they are highly collected in UK, he sold a very rusty 1300gt in bits for £5000


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

gsgary said:


> You must have been bad at shooting film



Why you say so? I won a few contests. Got great shots for the newspaper and always did the extra mile. How can you judge that? Have you ever been in a situation where you had to process 150 pictures in one evening? I did, and it's a lot of work.


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

Here some prices but his are special and have been raced
Ford MEXICO for Sale on Car and Classic UK


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > You must have been bad at shooting film
> ...


I process and print every week


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Here some prices but his are special and have been raced
> Ford MEXICO for Sale on Car and Classic UK


oh. that is a totally different car than the escorts in the u.s.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Used 1997 Ford Escort for sale

i actually seen one on the side of the road last year for a hundred bucks. Needed new tires.


----------



## 480sparky (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Well, film cameras also have their shutter rated for a specific amount of clicks, so this is a moot point. ..........



Yeah, _some *modern* _SLR cameras have a rating, but that's the exception, not the rule.

What's the rating for the shutter in my 50mm Mamiya Secor lens?  What about the shutter in my Tenax Automatic?  My FM2n?  What about the Seikos in large format lenses?

I doubt you'll find anything official.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Microbois said:
> 
> 
> > Well, film cameras also have their shutter rated for a specific amount of clicks, so this is a moot point. ..........
> ...



film cameras had less use, and most arguably built as good if not better.. Probably less actuations on my 1974 than my 2013 nikon dslr. since film costs to use (can't just delete) they probably all have significantly lower shutter counts than digital.


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> while the end prize might be the same, how you value that prize and concentration you put into it becomes significantly different if you take the second route. Might be a poor analogy. First one i thought of,
> 
> How you won the bear, becomes more or as important as the bear.



This is very interesting... I understand the meaning of your analogy, you said it, and it's just a clear illustration that we see things differently. There's nothing wrong with that though.

At the opposite of you, I'm much more interested in the final product, because this is what I make, this is what I look at, and this is the memories that will last forever once the gear is long gone. But everyone is different... In my world, life is too short to waste it in a darkroom, or fiddle with camera gear with limitions that prevents me from doing what I want to acheive. If newer cameras break new technological barrier, and it happens that I'm making that type of photography, and it it helps me take better pictures, sure enough, I'll want to upgrade if I can afford it.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > while the end prize might be the same, how you value that prize and concentration you put into it becomes significantly different if you take the second route. Might be a poor analogy. First one i thought of,
> ...


you aren't really the opposite. As you noticed, most of us shoot digital as well. You kind of overlooked the different looks and feels of film/digital types of film. Different digital cameras. All these effect the final product. So it is still about the final product. How one gets there, or what they want the final product to be. Well that couldn't be different.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 7, 2015)

Too much talking, not enough pictures.  Here's one straight out of camera


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

You are not easy to follow... You say that you like to use film because it's a difficult medium, and it makes your pictures so much more worthwhile and valuable to you because of all the hard work involved. Digital is disposable because it's too easy and anyone can do it.



bribrius said:


> while the end prize might be the same, how you value that prize and concentration you put into it becomes significantly different if you take the second route. How you won the bear, becomes more or as important as the bear.



But now it's all about the look...



bribrius said:


> As you noticed, most of us shoot digital as well. You kind of overlooked the different looks and feels of film/digital types of film. Different digital cameras. All these effect the final product. So it is still about the final product. How one gets there, or what they want the final product to be. Well that couldn't be different.



I'm still waiting for a valid answer as to why some feel like they need to rush and take tons of pictures when they use digital, but have to slow down and think twice when they use film. It just doesn't cut it. Why can't you just take your time with digital too?

Anyway, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that the rhetoric behind film vs. digital is all about beliefs, misconceptions, and a little bit of snobbism too against digital photography. Don't take me wrong, if you have technical reasons to shoot film, or you just plain enjoy it for no other logical reason, keep doing it, but please, don't come here to talk about some organic crap or that elusive film look. With today's technology in camera sensors and software, I'd bet a fortune that no one here on this board is able to tell the difference, *reliably*, over pictures shot on film or digital, unless you purposely exploits the weaknesses of digital cameras.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> You are not easy to follow... You say that you like to use film because it's a difficult medium, and it makes your pictures so much more worthwhile and valuable to you because of all the hard work involved. Digital is disposable because it's too easy and anyone can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


we have done that. i posted a thread a while back "is it film or is it digital?".  Online is harder to tell, but some still nailed it.


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Used 1997 Ford Escort for sale
> 
> i actually seen one on the side of the road last year for a hundred bucks. Needed new tires.


Yes that is a pig of a car, I had a mk1 Escort years ago wish I still had it


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> You are not easy to follow... You say that you like to use film because it's a difficult medium, and it makes your pictures so much more worthwhile and valuable to you because of all the hard work involved. Digital is disposable because it's too easy and anyone can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone said they feel like they need to rush on digital.  Most of the shots you take matter a lot less if you screw them up though. And you are much more likely to run out of film rolls you are carrying than you are for your batteries to go dead on your digital. Figure a couple batteries i can shoot 2k shots or near digital . That is a lot of film to carry. And if you chimp, just delete. Then film processing, they just count more. Less room for error. More invested in each shot. It really sounds like you just feel like arguing. For the life of me i can't seem to figure out why. If you don't want to shoot film just don't shoot film. That is your own decision to make.


----------



## gsgary (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Microbois said:
> 
> 
> > You are not easy to follow... You say that you like to use film because it's a difficult medium, and it makes your pictures so much more worthwhile and valuable to you because of all the hard work involved. Digital is disposable because it's too easy and anyone can do it.
> ...


Sounds lime he failed at film digital is very easy


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Too much talking, not enough pictures.  Here's one straight out of camera
> 
> View attachment 100580


nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top.  so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..


----------



## Microbois (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> we have done that. i posted a thread a while back "is it film or is it digital?". Online is harder to tell, but some still nailed it.



I've found the post you are referring to and looked at it. It's far from being conclusive. If you need to pixel peep in the highlights of a picture with snow and direct sunlight to see the difference, it means digital is doing a great job already.



bribrius said:


> It really sounds like you just feel like arguing. For the life of me i can't seem to figure out why.



Nothing can be further from the truth, I'm just putting up your own contradictions together because I don't understand.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top.  so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..



The haze is actually SOOC, created from a cheap UV filter that was angled directly into the light.  

Here's another shot but I didn't get the right angle so it covered most of the photo.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Microbois said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > we have done that. i posted a thread a while back "is it film or is it digital?". Online is harder to tell, but some still nailed it.
> ...


sorry. I don't see a contradiction anywhere. There can be more than one reason for using a medium. You could ask why someone might prefer to paint over doing photography at all (which i do as well) and have more than one response because there is more than one answer.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top.  so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..
> ...


ahhh. sneaky devil you are. VEry creativie. Didn't even think of that.


----------



## bribrius (May 7, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Portland Police Bureau sold 10 of those at ProPhoto supply a few years back...took forrrrrrrrever to get rid of them....last two went at $125 a pop, as I recall....so amazing at how low the prices are now--an INCREDIBLE value in an amazing film shooter...if a guy's willing to buy one of the many with the "sticky surface" body covering, EX is only $105!!!!  ....NIKON F100 35MM CAMERA BODY - KEH Camera


thanks


----------



## syaudi (May 7, 2015)

film photography has a sort of old world romance digital photography just doesn't have.

sure, digital has all these cool features that make film seem redundant, but when I realised digital sensors have to electronically recreate the light coming in, I became rather disillusioned. yes, my 5DIII produces beautiful images, but at times it doesn't feel organic - more sterile, plastic like modern fashion models. I don't need to tell you how film captures the light, but it's literally chemicals reacting to the light - _reacting, _perfectly freezing a slice of a world constantly moving past us. I'll take one exposure, and in the weeks following that capture I'll think about it endlessly - how did it turn out? did I get what I wanted from it? I'm at 21 out of 24 exposures and I cycle over and over through all 21. I can't wait until these are developed, and at the same time I can.
if we're talking equipment I'll tell you what I feel. there's something in using vintage cameras and lenses, in becoming part of a long legacy of capturing moments in time with this particular setup. like @480sparky and his Lens Across America, except through the decades instead of American land.
it's helped me connect more with my father, whether it's taking our cameras out for a spin together or listening to his darkroom stories as an impoverished first generation student watching what seemed like real world magic to him at the time in his first high school darkroom session (it inspired his bachelor's degree as a chemical engineer). right now I'm actually using our family camera. how fantastic, how positively mind-blowing can it be, to have the camera that documented my younger years growing up and using it to document the world as I see it?? it is the best thing in the world right now, and I expect it to continue for years (my dad and I are aiming to set up a darkroom somewhere in the house).

I'm not a professional. I'm not even part of the working class yet. don't ask me about _end results _or _costs. _film is purely a love affair. I want a break from digital - from its endless menu digging, settings checking, custom button configuring, battery charging and checking, memory card swapping and tracking and uploading, file backups and organizations, all of it. I'd like a roll of film, a Nikon Fm2n, a 50mm, and freedom to wander the world around me forever - and keep the memories in tangible form too.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 8, 2015)

Microbois said:


> You are not easy to follow... You say that you like to use film because it's a difficult medium, and it makes your pictures so much more worthwhile and valuable to you because of all the hard work involved. Digital is disposable because it's too easy and anyone can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."

Generally they either don't know what I mean or they don't have a response, because it's the truth.

35mm is more about the process than any benefit of shooting film. Maybe it's just because I'm too young to be jaded against it, but I like that shooting film makes me feel like I'm taking part in the craft.

Digital photography sometimes begins to feel like reading a Kindle. Yes, it has many more benefits, but nothing really beats the sensation of progress I get from turning a physical page.

This ties into the whole "elusive film look" spiel. Specific films have specific aesthetic qualities. They treat colors in a certain way, grain, etc...This can only be emulated with digital, and it's VERY popular. Obviously people want the look of film without having to actually shoot film.

So some people reason that it makes more sense to shoot the actual film to get the look rather than use a digital camera and Lightroom presets to only roughly emulate a certain film. Yes, that might seem snobbish, but it's not any more snobbish than someone saying "film is clearly dying out and digital is clearly superior." Technically, yes it is in many ways, but aesthetically...well...

As long as people are adding faded blacks and cross-processing filters to wedding photos, the film they are half-assedly trying to reproduce the look of will still have a place in the photographic community.


----------



## gsgary (May 8, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > nice. it doesn't look sooc though. Looks like it was after edited with a program to haze the bottom and top.  so tell me, what did you really do? lol. Like the photo..
> ...


Kodak portra ?


----------



## bribrius (May 8, 2015)

gsgary said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


i was wondering that too. But it doesn't quite have the richness of porta and the contrast, if i explained that right.


----------



## 480sparky (May 8, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............



I was just waiting for someone to play the MF card.  Ain't many of us here that can afford to shoot digital that compares with MF.

And the next level is LF.  How many can take a DSLR shot that compares to a 4x5 image?  And 4x5 isn't the end of the road.... cameras exist all the way up to 20x24.  Ain't no way a DSLR is gonna take even n 8x10 on.

And LF has other benefits as part n parcel.  Movements for one.  Rise/fall, shift, tilt, swing.  Yeah, you can get a P/C lens for a DSLR, but it won't come close to a view camera with full control.

Far more control over DOF than just using the aperture is another key feature to LF.


----------



## Microbois (May 8, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> So some people reason that it makes more sense to shoot the actual film to get the look rather than use a digital camera and Lightroom presets to only roughly emulate a certain film. Yes, that might seem snobbish, but it's not any more snobbish than someone saying "film is clearly dying out and digital is clearly superior." Technically, yes it is in many ways, but aesthetically...well...



Sure, if one wants the look of film, there's nothing else that will give that exact look aside from the real thing... film. But on the other hand, I'm wondering if this film look that is so sought after today in the digital age has more to do with the fact that for the last century, it's pretty much all we have seen, and all our memories are made from this material. Not so surprisingly, my father filmed me with a Super 8 camera when I was a newbord all the way up to maybe 8 years old, and lo and behold, my memories of when I was too young to remember are just made out of those images my father shot back then.

Just as another example to support my theory, all the night scenes in movies are shot with blue lights. It's obvious to all, if you've been out at night during a full moon, the look created in movies has absolutely nothing to do with what you'll experience in real life. But still, the public came to accept it "as is" in movies, and that's how night scenes are shot, and it works, period.

Another example. When my son was younger, he watched the Batman and Spiderman cartoons. The kids channel had shows from both the 70's (hand drafted), and the new ones generated by cartoon software. Needless to say, my son couldn't stand the old ones, and didn't want to watch them at all. He called the old one the "small" Batman, and the new one the "big" Batman. So, as he grows older, his memories of cartoons from his childhood will be exclusively digital versions of Batman. By the time he turns 30, maybe there will be another technology that will change the look of cartoons significantly once again, and I'm wondering if his kids will perceive today's digital version of Batman like some old stuff not worth watching.

Anyway, this is what I'm seriously wondering. How much of the fact that film is still around and sought after today has to do with plain nostalgia, or a desire to preserve a look we are so much used to that it's deeply hardwired in our brain, or if it's the aesthetics of film that is so much more pleasing over digital, even when properly filtered and treated to ressemble film.

I'm into video as well, and I remember that before we could put our hands on full frame DSLR with video capabilities, anyone who wanted that "film look" had to invest into a 35mm adapter, just to get that shallow depth of field digital video cameras with small sensors couldn't acheive. While a shallow depth of field is very important in story telling so you can purposely direct the eye of the viewer, I think the film look easthetic is not as crucial.

I'm also wondering just how much the poor reputation of digital at the beginning plays a role today for someone who decides to still shoot film despite the additional burden. Up until recently, digital photography was plagued with some serious problems such as ugly noise in low-lights, blown out highlights, poor dynamic range, aliasing, color fringing, compression artefacts, lossy file formats, and also that plastic look, just to name a few. But there's been a lot of improvement in those areas, and with the advent of FF cameras with newer sensors, most of those problems are a thing of the past, and in some areas, digital is performing much better that film.

Seriously, I'm not trying to argue for the sake of annoying the great people we find here, but it's just that I have a hard time understanding some justifications. Some said they like film because it forces them to take their time and work seriously, but nothing holds them from being just as careful with digital. Others mentioned film is more "organic" but no one can define that word properly. Sure, I understand the meaning, but just how much more "organic" film can be when you have a hard time making the difference between 2 identical photos, one shot on film and the other one on digital? Sure, couple years ago you could tell them apart easily, but today, unless it's under very specific conditions where digital performs poorly, it's far from easy, and certainly not within the reach of the general public. Others prefer film because digital is "too easy", and their pictures are worth more to them because they worked so hard to make them. It's just that I find those justifications a little bit silly, and once challenged for some more details, I'd like to have better answers than "to each his own", "that's my personal choice", or being accused of looking for an argument. I'm not, and I'm just trying to understand even though there are still plenty of very good reasons to choose film over digital today. I never heard those ones :

If you are to shoot in extreme conditions that may affect your digital camera, better off using a film camera which has much less electronic inside prone to failure

If you are on a microscopic budget, but still want lots of different lenses and accessories, there are tons of film cameras and gear that sell for next to nothing
Your style calls for retaining as much details as possible in highlights
You already owe some film equipment, or it was handed over to you by a loved one (syaudi's great story about connecting with his father)
You just like film plain and simple
If someone wants to chime in, I'd love to read what you are thinking.


----------



## Microbois (May 8, 2015)

480sparky said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............
> ...



I totally agree with you on this one!


----------



## Vtec44 (May 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



It's digital.  

I have about 5 rolls that need to be developed but I haven't sent them in yet.  lol I got the digital thing down pretty well but I still love shooting film.  It's a challenge especially for weddings.


----------



## bribrius (May 8, 2015)

Microbois said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > So some people reason that it makes more sense to shoot the actual film to get the look rather than use a digital camera and Lightroom presets to only roughly emulate a certain film. Yes, that might seem snobbish, but it's not any more snobbish than someone saying "film is clearly dying out and digital is clearly superior." Technically, yes it is in many ways, but aesthetically...well...
> ...


you look at photographs different. You see whatever is newest, as best. crisper, sharper, maybe color. You just look at that way. I don't. I look at photographs from time periods. The look of photographs from time periods. I appreciate each look for its different qualities.  Some try to mimic that look with post processing. I try to mimic that look by choosing the right camera and lens to shoot with from the start. I don't look at a photo taken today, as being better than one taken in the seventies. I look at them as different qualities. Thirties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties to current.
I see the transition of photography and appreciate the look fo each transition as the gear changed. You don't differentiate any of it. You just see NOW.  I try to mimic a look of seventies, throw on a old lens. I get pretty ecstatic if i can pull it off. I like the look , for its individual appeal. As i appreciate all the looks. Even a point and shoot photo from the late eighties. Certain look. You don't know the difference, you don't see the difference. or you just don't care about the difference. I posted a film bw on here couple weeks ago. Someone commented if it weren't for the electric wires they would swear it was straight out of the 30's or something.  EXACTLY. That is the point. But you can't comprehend this, just like you couldnt comprehend why many movies are still fought to be shot in film over digital. I think you are missing the boat quiet honestly. I watch movies the same way, the advent of technicolor for example. i look at the industry, the changes, various look. Styles of how a movies is shot.  You just don't get it. If all you are looking for is the best, easiest, highest iq photo, then sure. I guess you are on the right track.
But that isn't the track some of are on. Little more too it than that. Quite honestly, i find your outlook pretty shallow. Without a appreciation for photography or any of its history. But rather just in the latest and greatest highest iq product. I don't think me and you, would have much in common to discuss on this matter.

Your kid, totally unrelated. If he studies cartoons and becomes a cartoon buff when he is older he might be seeking out those older toons. From his perspective now doesn't know the difference. Any more than mine do. Some seem to have better graphics, some are color, we like those better. It is a kids mindset, not the mindset of someone really into the study or appreciation of a art. My children aren't a fan of black and white movies, nor do i expect them to be. They watch for entertainment value, not because they study the movies industry and film making.

Here you go, she is a childrens book illustrator. Not very old is she? The background is the last book she did.  It is a promo along with the books writer. Not sure if she uses digital imaging or not, but the entire time i was there she was doing this, which i think is preparation for the next project she is doing.

looks like she might see things differently than you too...????


----------



## bribrius (May 8, 2015)

480sparky said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > What do I tell people who question why people still shoot film? "Medium format, that's why."..............
> ...


i was just looking at them the other night, prices. wondering if i can do it or what. I couldnt even tell what might come with a tripod. NO knowledge of different bellows. No idea on how to get it developed. so beyond the pricing, i was somewhat hesitant to pull the trigger anyway. I would love to try my hand at large format. But know about zilch on pulling it off.


----------



## gsgary (May 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


Your thinking of large format 4x5 and bigger, medium format is 120


----------



## 480sparky (May 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i was just looking at them the other night, prices. wondering if i can do it or what. I couldnt even tell what might come with a tripod. NO knowledge of different bellows. No idea on how to get it developed. so beyond the pricing, i was somewhat hesitant to pull the trigger anyway. I would love to try my hand at large format. But know about zilch on pulling it off.



Medium format hardly much more money than 35mm film.  The market is flooded with tons of gear that sells for 5% of it's original price. 120 and 220 film are quite standard, and most any film lab should be able to process it.  If you're only interested in black & white, you can develop the film yourself with a total cash outlay of $150 or less.

I wouldn't recommend jumping from 35mm directly into LF.  Not only is it disproportionately more expensive, it's far more laborious.  Dip your toes into the medium format arena first.  At least you'll get a small taste of what LF life would be like without spending thousands.  And you may find MF is more than you need and will lose interest in LF.

About the only suggestion I would make if you want to make that big of a jump to LF is to wait for the Wanderlust Travelwide to start it's next production run.  It's basically a 4x5 point-n-shoot.  No bellows, no movements.... just a box, lens and film.  And, from what I understand, about the most affordable LF setup available.


----------



## Microbois (May 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I look at photographs from time periods. (...). I appreciate each look for its different qualities.



Thanks for providing yet another point of view. This is exactly what I was looking for.



bribrius said:


> You don't differentiate any of it. You just see NOW. (...) You don't know the difference, you don't see the difference. or you just don't care about the difference. (...) But you can't comprehend this, just like you couldnt comprehend why many movies are still fought to be shot in film over digital. I think you are missing the boat quiet honestly. (...) You just don't get it.



Just to clear a few things up, I'd like to remind you that all I asked was the following question : Is it possible that today's interest in film photography, despite the advantages of digital, could be fueled by nostalgia, or by the fact that our memories are so used to this film look, that we are reluctant to break free from the look we are used to? I'm just asking.

All I'm trying to understand is why you want that film look? Why is it so important to you? I understand that you may like the different aesthetics of each time periods, it's a question of taste, but how do you integrate it in your work, and how does it serve a purpose in your creative process? While I have some clues as to why many movies are still fought to be shot in film over digital, I'm not sure I have the same explanations as you. You would be nice if you could fill me in on those, but spare me the DR, the aliasing, the exagerrated sharpness, the rolling shutter, or the other known weaknesses of digital.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 9, 2015)

IMHO, this discussion is best to be in another thread.


----------



## bribrius (May 9, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> IMHO, this discussion is best to be in another thread.


agree, it is going nowhere anyway. Congrats on the camera, i picked one up myself from derrels link above. I had too, temptation and all. Plus i have never had a slr with autofocus, all my slr stuff is early eighties or pre eighties. something different. Can use my nikon ais lenses on it too if i want from what i gather.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> Hello beautiful! Where have you been in the last 10 years??
> 
> View attachment 99475


have you figured out how to use yours yet? I just took mine out of the box.

little confused. Dont mean to hijack your thread. I posted this in offtopic but it probably makes more sense here.
i don't get it. Call me what you will. But there is no asa dial, i figured out the manual adjustments. i don't now what the iso button does as it is film. And what is cms? It didn't come with a manual. The focus, seems to keep putting in red the far box on the left, no matter which way i point the camera or what at. I don't know how to change that. And i can't figure out how to get it off matrix. Also, putting on my old lenses, seems to work. but i don't get if i need to dial in something for them or just put it on and go.
huh.....

seems like a nice camera though. World apart from my other film cameras it is closer to a dslr kind of button thing.

i have a 24-120, 18-140 dx. Wondering if either or will fruck my photos...Or if i should just go back to the ais like the 35-105 or something. 1.8 g dx? will that fruck my photos? Seems nice, just somewhere in between my old film cameras and a modern dslr. Seems closer to a modern dslr. No dials, auto film, buttons. that kind of thing.....Like a misfit hybrid. I think i will like it though, sorta. For higher speed shooting anyway... It does have a nice big clear viewfinder. view finder isn't a hundred percent coverage though i guess. Something to keep in mind when framing shots..

just of thinking of coverage too, hate to get back a lot of photos mis framed with unwanted lens vignette. First ever af film camera (other than a polaroid) and pretty much always shot kodaks and konicas with manual dials. Little lost. No asa dial???? wtf?


----------



## Vtec44 (May 12, 2015)

I believe so that the camera will know how to expose it for the correct film speed.  CMS is custom menu settings.  The focus point can be moved but the directional button the back of the camera.  There's also a single or auto focus point next to that directional pad.  There's a metering mode button on the side of the view finder.


----------



## bribrius (May 12, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> I believe so that the camera will know how to expose it for the correct film speed.  CMS is custom menu settings.  The focus point can be moved but the directional button the back of the camera.  There's also a single or auto focus point next to that directional pad.  There's a metering mode button on the side of the view finder.


thanks, slowly, figuring it out. have a online manual now, but , well you know.
what you putting for a lens on it?


----------



## Vtec44 (May 12, 2015)

bribrius said:


> thanks, slowly, figuring it out. have a online manual now, but , well you know.
> what you putting for a lens on it?



All my AF-S and AF-D lenses work on it, but I've been using my 50 f1.4D and 85 f1.4G


----------



## bribrius (May 13, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > thanks, slowly, figuring it out. have a online manual now, but , well you know.
> ...


think i am going with the 24-120 as the main lens. Get er done..


----------

