# Some questions about getting a Canon Film SLR



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

I have been thinking lately that I may want to get a Canon film SLR.

The only Canon one that I see for sale on B&H is the EOS-1V, at $1700.

The reason I may want to get one, is that I have almost zero experience with film, and thought it may serve to increase my knowledge and experience.

It would be compatible with my L glass, and also would be a cool keepsake for the future.

My questions are:

1. How much longer do you think Canon will continue to make film SLRs?

2. Do you think that it would really help to increase my photographic knowledge and experience by much?

3. Is there anything I am failing to see in the equation, or additional things I would need to buy other than just film?

Neil


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 29, 2010)

1. I don't know if they are still making film SLRs at all.  I'd guess that any new ones you still see, are just remaining stock.  And while the 1V is a nice camera, $1700 for a 35m film SLR seems ridiculous these days.  

2. Besides learning about the properties of film and the differences between different types...I don't know that it will teach you anything specific.  Although, just the act of shooting with film, not having an LCD for instant review, can help to give you a patience in your photography, that you might not get when you shoot digital only.  

3. Film is not too expensive, although it's getting harder to find.  Processing will likely be more expensive than the film...and that too, is getting harder to find.  

I guess if you want a top of the line, professional 35mm film SLR, then the 1V (or other 1 series) would be a good choice....but with film, the camera is basically a box to hold the film.  The options are different, but it's the lens and the film that make the image. 

If you want something less expensive,  you can probably find some good quality ones on the used market.  The Elan series were mid-level, and pretty decent.  The EOS 3 was a gem.  And the film Rebels are dime a dozen these days.  I've had one or two just given to me because people don't use them at all since getting their P&S digicams.


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

Thanks Mike,

Ya it does seem like a lot...

Maybe I will just look into used ones, as that would be far more affordable while still providing the experience.

Neil


----------



## Neil S. (Sep 29, 2010)

On B&H,

Used Canon EOS 3 35mm SLR Autofocus Camera Body 2051A001 - B&H

Canon EOS 3, item condition 9 for $280.

It says that it has weather sealing too.

Seems like a winner to me...


----------



## RauschPhotography (Sep 29, 2010)

Heck, I have a Canon film SLR I'd be willing to sell to you! It's just sitting on my bookshelf gathering dust haha. Canon U.S.A. : Support & Drivers : EOS Rebel K2


----------



## MarkF48 (Sep 29, 2010)

While I've bought a few used pieces of gear at B&H, KEH.com is the place I usually go to for used gear. Below is a listing of EOS film camera bodies. A few years ago I bought a used Elan7 that looked like new for not much money. I wouldn't spend too much money on a 35mm camera.

Canon EOS Camera Bodies - KEH.com


----------



## J.Kendall (Sep 29, 2010)

If you want to really shoot film, go for something like an older AE-1, or Pentax k1000 or something like that. No hand holding from a camera like that.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 29, 2010)

Or just skip the Canon altogether and get yourself a Leica M and a nice lens to go with it.  After using that, you may not want to go back to digital.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2010)

Question: 2. Do you think that it would really help to increase my photographic knowledge and experience by much?

NO. But it will teach you about scratched film, dusty film, crummy prints, spotted slides and negatives, crappy color prints, and what it's like to make pictures that cost 75 cents per frame, and which stand a good chance of being ruined by some id'jot who works in the lab or by dirty,filthy film brought in by people who keep un-canned rolls in their pockets and purses for a week before dropping it off at the lab....and you'll learn what it's like to entrust your work to the part-time lab dude who also works at another job during the night shift. If you wish to digitize the images, you'll also learn about slow scanners, horrible color profiles for today's films, and lousy software and excruciating wait times on tricky-to-scan frames. You will also learn the virtue of patience and dedication that comes from taking six hours to scan 36 exposures halfway well.

Question: 3. Is there anything I am failing to see in the equation, or additional things I would need to buy other than just film?

Answer: You will need to buy lots of gasoline to go and buy film, bring it home, go out and shoot it, then drive it to the lab, drive home, then drive back to the lab to pick up your sub-par developing and printing work, and then gas to drive back home to see how the images you shot ten days ago came out. You will need a good loupe, negative or slide filing pages, notebooks, and a darkroom or film scanner, as well as a few other bits of miscellany. I shot film for 25 years or so...


----------



## white (Sep 30, 2010)

2. Yes, working with film will help increase your experience and you will gain an appreciation for it. Notice I said working with film, and not just shooting it. If you really are interested in film, I suggest going all the way and learning to develop and print it.

I use my bad prints and test strips for collage work, which I incorporate into my photographs.


----------



## porkphoto (Oct 12, 2010)

I have a Canon EOS 5d with several "L" glasses. A few months ago I purchased  Canon EOS 1N. What a beauty! The 1N was the flagship top of the line professional Canon before it was replaced by the 1V and soon after everyone went digital. Talk about a cool keepsake...capitalize  all the letters and you'll have it in the 1N. Cost was 270.00 USD.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 13, 2010)

Ty guys all for your input.

Shooting film does sound like a pain in the neck compared to shooting digital in many ways.

I think that I still want to get one though, since it will help expand my knowledge of photography in general a bit.

- Neil


----------



## compur (Oct 13, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Shooting film does sound like a pain in the neck compared to shooting digital in many ways.


 

More work and difficulty, yes, but I find it all very rewarding and enjoyable.



> I think that I still want to get one though, since it will help expand my knowledge of photography in general a bit.


More than a bit, I think.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 13, 2010)

I second everything that Derrel says on this issue. Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no reason to start down the film path. You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea. But atleast shoot black and white, develop your own stuff. If you do color you're just shooting yourself in the foot because as soon as you take it to the lab it all becomes digital again, and therefore defeats the whole purpose.


----------



## ghache (Oct 13, 2010)

You wanna shoot film?

Thats what i did. I picked up a MINT Nikon FE with new seal and foams for 75$ on ebay.
I bought 50 roll (some kodak BW400CN and Gold 200)of couple months old expired film for 40 $ that was well preserved in a fridge.

a brand new epson V500 for 100.

Make sure it doesnt cost your a fortune.


so i got everything around 250 $ with taxe.



before spending 2k on film equipement, make sure you have all the digital equipement you need


----------



## John Mc (Oct 13, 2010)

I went back to film when i started at college this year (Aug) reluctantly at first,but then i started to warm to film,so much im enjoying it alot,still using my Digital alot,but the Film Slr has taken over abit,so much,ive got my own darkroom now,and im producing prints near enough every night 

So i would suggest joining a darkroom,most have memberships and courses available to you,so you can develop your own prints and film.It certainly made me apreciate my own photographs more,knowing how much time and effort went into the shot 

Just my experience so far,hope ive helped


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 13, 2010)

John Mc said:


> I went back to film when i started at college this year (Aug) reluctantly at first,but then i started to warm to film,so much im enjoying it alot,still using my Digital alot,but the Film Slr has taken over abit,so much,ive got my own darkroom now,and im producing prints near enough every night
> 
> So i would suggest joining a darkroom,most have memberships and courses available to you,so you can develop your own prints and film.It certainly made me apreciate my own photographs more,knowing how much time and effort went into the shot
> 
> Just my experience so far,hope ive helped



I think there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the above mentioned process. Getting your hands dirty and learnning that process is a lot of fun. Short of the darkroom I can't see any reason to go back to film. In other words, if you're not gonna do the dark room, don't bother.


----------



## mairead (Oct 13, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea.



I can't quite agree with you there.  I think the more accurate statement would be that learning digital is one way of learning photography.  You can learn plenty from a film SLR -- what you're going to lack is the instant feedback, and you will need to have film processed or do it yourself.  Neither of these things create insurmountable obstacles, even though they seem to get built up that way.  Using film is another photographic experience and for some people one that's completely worthwhile.  People have been learning photography and taking phenomenal pictures long before digital, after all.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 13, 2010)

Of course people were taking great pictures before digital. :meh: Not sure what the point of that was.

People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same? 

Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched. 

There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?


----------



## John Mc (Oct 13, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> I think there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in the above mentioned process. Getting your hands dirty and learnning that process is a lot of fun. Short of the darkroom I can't see any reason to go back to film. In other words, if you're not gonna do the dark room, don't bother.



I'd totally agree with you there,its not worth the money if your not doing it yourself.


----------



## mairead (Oct 13, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Of course people were taking great pictures before digital. :meh: Not sure what the point of that was.



You were the one that said "digital is the only way to learn photography." *shrugs*.



> People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?
> 
> Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched.
> 
> There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?


I don't think comparing cameras to typewriters and calculators works, as their functions are different.  Photography has an artistic component that math and word processing do not have.  It's possible to feel that one will get something out of using film, where as if you're typing a document or working out equations, speed and accuracy are all that matter.

I can see where digital makes complete and total sense in commercial settings where time is of the essence, and I understand that in general some really prefer digital -- I have no problem with that.  However, when it comes to photography as a hobby and art form, film _is_ still a valid choice. It just depends on which process you prefer, or if you feel strongly enough about digital to want to invest in new equipment.


----------



## compur (Oct 13, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?


The result _won't_ be the same if you don't know how to do it on paper and
you _won't_ know how to do it on paper for long unless you continue to do it 
on paper at least some of the time.



> Film is film, it was the ONLY way for a long time, and it had it's drawbacks because of it's format, those drawbacks haven't changed but because there is a better solution out there people have largely switched.


Let's be honest. The reason the vast majority switched is because they 
perceived digital to be easier, faster and cheaper. 

And, since you enjoy using analogies -- eating at McDonalds is popular because 
it is easier, faster and cheaper then preparing one's own meals.  But, does 
that make McDonalds better? Not to me it doesn't.

Watching TV is also easier, faster and cheaper than going outside and
doing things in real life.  Does that make watching TV better than outdoor 
activities?

Buying one of those keyboards that plays music at the touch of a button
is also easier, faster and cheaper than really learning to play.  So, is buying 
an automated instrument better than actually learning to play a real one?
Since it is easier, faster and cheaper should we dispense with all manual
musical instruments and just have those automated things around?  Does
the invention of automated keyboards make a person a fool if he wants 
to learn to actually play a real instrument?  Or, is the fool the one with the 
automated instrument who thinks it makes him a musician? 



> There are still authors who use typewriters. But if I wanted to write a book I'd use a computer. I'm not going to use a trypewriter then scan the pages in to a computer and OCR it. That is pointless. I'm just going to start with the computer. If I want a nice typewritten letter than sure I'll use a typewriter, but how often do I want that?


Look -- we film photographers know that digital is easier, faster and 
cheaper than film photography. It's not necessary to keep telling us
that.  

The point you seem to be missing is that there are other reasons for doing 
things. Not everyone makes decisions based on which way is easier, faster 
and cheaper. I know that may be hard to believe but it is true. 

I don't shoot film because I think it's easier, faster or cheaper than digital.
(I shoot both BTW). I know that film is more difficult,  slower and possibly 
more expensive than digital. I do know this.  I just don't make decisions in
this case based on those 3 adjectives as you appear to do.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 13, 2010)

I just don't make decisions in this case based on those 3 adjectives as you appear to do.

Is it lonely on your pedestal? 

I'd rather focus on getting good photographs than the crap that one has to deal with when using film. As mentioned by Derrel. Good photos, not how I got there, is my goal. If I have more of a chance to get better photos with digital than I think that's the way to go for me. 

If I wanted to play around with film I think there are a lot of neat old antique cameras out there that would be fun, then developing the film from them might be cool. But I wouldn't just pickup a $25 Minolta SLR from 1992 and some rolls of color and take them to the lab just for the fun of it. To me that wouldn't really give one much of an experience of film.


----------



## xjken99 (Oct 13, 2010)

Well said compur.   I shoot both and in the last year I have purchased a new 35mm slr and an advanced point and shoot digicam.  Digital is easier, faster and cheaper not to mention the instant results.  Plus the delete button is awesome.  There are times I just feel like going out and shooting a lot of different scenes just to see what it looks like.  Digital is perfect for that.  Film requires a lot more discipline which in my case is a good thing.  If the original poster wants  to try film thats great.  However do not spend a boatload of money, there are  plenty    of    good to  e  xcellent quality used 35mm gear out there.  If you decide film has nothing to offer then you are not out a boatload of money.  On the other hand if you decide film is to your liking you can always upgrade to a better film camera.


----------



## white (Oct 13, 2010)

I write often, and I'd use a typewriter if I enjoyed using the machine to write. Because it's about enjoying the process of creation. It's not just about the end product, even though some of you guys with hardons for digital photography insist otherwise.

You can learn a hell of a lot about photography using film, but the learning process takes place _before_ you shoot a roll. And if you're a good little boy or girl, you take notes, and you learn even more.

Digital photography is like 1/100 of photography. There are so many interesting ways to make an image. So I just have to laugh at people who discredit film for being too inconvenient or whatever and ignore the principle reason people still use the medium in 2010. Like polaroids and a host of other alternative processes, people still find them interesting, people still see the potential in those mediums, and quite honestly, at least in my opinion, digital photography is really pretty damn boring compared to all these other processes. People really either shoot Canon or Nikon, and it's all starting to look the same.


----------



## compur (Oct 13, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Is it lonely on your pedestal?



No, it isn't lonely at all.  

This is a film photo forum.  You've come here to declare that what we love
to do is inferior to your digicam because it is easier, faster and cheaper 
than what we do.  Such behavior is considered trolling on most forums I am 
familiar with. What sort of response did you expect?



> I'd rather focus on getting good photographs than the crap that one has to deal with when using film.


We know.  You've told us that.  This is a film photo forum. Since you are not 
a film photographer why would we be interested in what you prefer to do 
with your time?



> As mentioned by Derrel. Good photos, not how I got there, is my goal.


Well, good luck on reaching your goal of making good photos.  The digital
photo forums are elsewhere on this site.  I'm sure you can find many 
like-minded digital photographers there.



> If I have more of a chance to get better photos with digital than I think that's the way to go for me.


Well, this forum isn't about you or what you prefer to do with your time 
unless it happens to be film photography which you've made clear it isn't. 
So, why are you wasting all that time you've saved using your digital 
camera by posting here?  

Like I said, we know digital is easier, faster and cheaper than film and
we know you prefer it and we know why you prefer it because you've
told us.  Thank you for expressing your views.  We got it.



> If I wanted to play around with film I think there are a lot of neat old antique cameras out there that would be fun, then developing the film from them might be cool. But I wouldn't just pickup a $25 Minolta SLR from 1992 and some rolls of color and take them to the lab just for the fun of it. To me that wouldn't really give one much of an experience of film.


No, I think you should stick with your digital camera.


----------



## John Mc (Oct 14, 2010)

This has turned into a Film vs Digi War!Which i Dont think the Op was out to start.
But i can say,that with my time using Film,ive applied my techniques and teachings ive learned from others to my digital photography.Instead of taking the shot i want 10-15 times,im taking it twice,and forgeting about checking my feedback screen,cause i know whats there,is what i framed,and what i saw,and what i want,it might need a few tweeks in photoshop,but its still what i wanted.im not regreting starting out on digital format,neither for not starting out on Film.

No answer or argument here is going to be the right one.i think were set to go into a Digi phase,but im glad ive learned this skill whilst its still around,i doubt my children(when i have them) would want to pick up a Film Slr and use that,but i dont think i'd blame myself for trying to get them to do it first


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

Digitial is easier, faster, and cheaper. And better quality, with less work, and no damaged film or damaged negatives. No ruined originals, but as many perfect duplicates as needed. As well as improved prints over darkroom methods. To me, using digital 35mm systems is not about it being easier, faster,and cheaper, as much as easier,faster,cheaper, and BETTER. The newer d-slr's have easily,easily surpassed the B&W and color emulsions Kodak and Fuji have been able to come up with.

There's no film that can even remotely come close to a full-frame d-slr in terms of color richness and ISO speed...looking through some images on the Popular Photography web site the other night that were shot with a Nikon D3s and the 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor, I was struck by the absolutely AMAZING technical quality of the images under artificial stadium lighting. There is simply NO FILM on the planet that can produce those kinds of images. None.

There's a reason top-line EOS and Nikon film slrs now bring 1/10 of their original retail prices, and why paying more than $200 for a 35mm SLR is foolish.


----------



## Infidel (Oct 14, 2010)

I think this debate is somewhat sidestepping the fundamental issue. In terms of objective technical merits, it matters not which format is superior. It really comes down to needs and desires of the individual photographer. For a professional photojournalist or wedding photographer, things like speed, cost and ease translate readily into net income. On the other hand, let's assume the hobbyist pursues photography for the pleasure derived from it...whatever form that may take, by whatever means. Shooting film doesn't make anyone an elitist...perhaps a purist, but not an elitist. I don't agree with the McDonald's vs. gourmet analogies either. To me, it's more like solid state vs. tube audio amplifiers, vinyl vs. CD, carburetors vs. fuel injection. By many objective measures, the newer technologies are _better_, but they also tend to lack a certain visceral appeal that pleases the purists.

If you like the smell of film and the sound of film advancing in the camera, shoot film. If you think the process of waiting to see your results will make your decision to click the shutter release that much more deliberate, film will necessarily constrain you in this regard. Alternatively, you can turn off your LCD, write down your exposure settings for each frame, resist changing ISO for 24 frames, put $$ in a jar for every 24 frames you shoot and pretend that you're shooting film. As mentioned above, if you enjoy the darkroom, shoot film.


----------



## mairead (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Digitial is easier, faster, and cheaper. And better quality, with less work, and no damaged film or damaged negatives. No ruined originals, but as many perfect duplicates as needed. As well as improved prints over darkroom methods. To me, using digital 35mm systems is not about it being easier, faster,and cheaper, as much as easier,faster,cheaper, and BETTER.



Better for who and in what circumstances, though.  It's going to depend on what you want you want to achieve, what you enjoy doing, what you're trying to get out of photography.  Depending on the situation, digital might be the hands down best choice for a particular individual, but not all individuals are the same.  Trying to say that one process is across the board better than another ignores the fact that people are interested in photography for different reasons.

I personally like using film.  Working in the darkroom is great fun, and something that I've unfortunately not had access to in quite a while. Hopefully I'll be able to take another film photography class pretty soon, and if I had the space I'd be sorely tempted to try and set up my own darkroom.  Sure not everyone enjoys developing film and making prints the old fashioned way, but for others it's a great experience and part of the art form.

Even without a dark room, I still like using my film SLR.  I like the way my camera feels in my hands, I like the hands on quality that film brings to my camera time -- picking out which film to use, loading it in the camera, hearing it advance, the excitement of picking up the photos because I don't know exactly how things have come out. It definitely takes time to learn, and no you don't get instant feedback (and my photography skills are quite rusty), but it's rewarding all the same.

Digital can come in handy when I want to be able to immediately upload something to the net, but I don't feel as much a part of the process of picture taking -- the technology, as handy as it can admittedly be, gets in the way for me.

Now of course this is all personal -- other people don't necessarily feel this way. But seeing as how I get something out of continuing to use film, why should I discard it? Why should I limit what tools are at my disposal? Why should it be assumed that no one else can have positive worthwhile experiences with film just because digital works better for some others?

I'm not sure why this is even a debatable topic as it all seems to come down to personal preference. It shouldn't matter if someone wants to try film, and yet there seems to be a number of people who react in horror at the idea that not everybody has immediately dropped everything and gone purely digital.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> "Image quality" is an important factor for certain types of photography but
> not for all types. Fine art photography, for example, really has nothing to do
> with it. The images of the classic master photographers (or any artists really)
> are not revered because of the "image quality" of their equipment.
> ...



Not really true at most levels; the successful fine art photographers of each era almost universally used the absolute best materials and practices, while the hobby photographers limped along with junkier, hobbyist equipment. The successful fine art photographers of each decade of the 20th century strived for high technical quality in their negatives, developing, and prints; hobby shooters on the other hand shot at the hobby level.

I love blanket put-down attempt to lump "non-artist" photographers into the category of dots-per-inch measurebeators. A weak attempt to defend film shooters as artists, and everybody else as number-worshiping idiots, but really, quite a weak troll. Ansel Adams was a successful, albeit kitschy, fine art photgrapher, and millions of his accolytes read his books The Camera, The Negative, The Darkroom--EACH of which was a tribute to striving for the highest-quality images by using the best methods, and by striving to reach the level of technical perfection.

Back to the OP's question: buying a Canon film SLR is fine. Film doesn't "teach" anything really. Digital doesn't "teach" anything either; rather, the photographer learns from his books, his videos, his mentors, his critics. Film purists are amusing to me, much like tube amplifier fanatics, hard-core wine enthusiasts, and other masters of dogma who cling to the arcane, esoteric, or obsolete with some type of fanatical devotion. The idea that technical quality has a **negative** impact on the artistry one is able to express through one's photography is a silly point of view to espouse. The idea that *lower* standards of image quality somehow advances artistry is a silly argument as well. Throughout the entire history of photography, artists as well as workmanlike camera operators have welcomed each new advance in photography: wet-plates coated in a tent over fumes of mercury were WILLINGLY discarded in favor of dry-coated glass plates; celluloid-based films were welcomed as an advancement over glass plates; roll-film was welcomed as an advancement over individual cut sheet film in holders;
the "miniature" Rolleiflex and the flashbulb both were invented around the 1928 time frame, and both were huge advances in photography; the Leica in the 1930's and 1940's was welcomed and widely accepted; color film was viewed as an advancement; the 35mm SLR in the 1960's and 1970's supplanted the rangefinder camera. Progress has been accepted and welcomed for many decades.

It's kind of amusing because, if you really LOOK, critically, at the history of photography, the most-learned and best shooters have always used a fairly narrow range of state-of-the-art, new, top-shelf equipment. The Top Shooters in multiple disciplines throughout each era tend to gravitate to the same,exact equipment; The Graflex, The Rolleiflex, The Leica M3,the Hasselblad 500 series, The Nikon F and F2, the Nikon F3 and the Canon F1-n, the Canon 1D, the Nikon D3...these cameras have ALL been more or less "the standard" for top-level shooters for over a full century, spanning three separate centuries...

Fine arts practitioners have been remarkably sheep-like in selecting the best tools of their era....ever since the huge, ponderous Graflexes of the 1880's and 1890's were the hot,new thing...


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

You posted the above while I was editing my post.  Here it is in it's entirety:


"Image quality" is an important factor for certain types of photography but
not for all types. Fine art photography, for example, really has nothing to do
with it. The images of the classic master photographers (or any artists really)
are not revered because of the "image quality" of their equipment.

This is something that the dedicated non-artist photographers cannot grasp.
They believe that only the image with the highest "image quality" is the best.
They are completely cut off from the finer artistic aspects of image making
and cannot understand any other viewpoint about photography other than
how many dots it has and how sharp it is. Whether or not the image makes
one laugh or cry or any other emotional response is lost on them.

The fact that one photographer makes a zillion snapshots that no one gives 
a damn about with his mega-dollar whizbang digi-shooter  while another 
photographer makes a photograph using a homemade pinhole camera that takes 
the viewers' breath away never seems to enter the thinking of such people. To 
them it's all simply: How many mega-dots does it have?

I guess numbers win out because they're easier, faster and cheaper than 
considerations of artistic excellence.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

Oh, you definitely win. Digital images are snapshots. Images made on film are photo-graphs. Got it chief!


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> They are completely cut off from the finer artistic aspects of image making
> and cannot understand any other viewpoint about photography other than
> how many dots it has and how sharp it is. Whether or not the image makes
> one laugh or cry or any other emotional response is lost on them.



Again with this holier than thou stance common among SOME of those shooting film. 

Geeze Derrel don't you know You can't make art with a computer!!!! It's just 1s and 0s it's NOT ART! Was it Shakespeare who said give me an infinite number of 1s and 0s and monkey's and I'll make "Afghan Woman"


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Not really true at most levels; the successful fine art photographers of each era almost universally used the absolute best materials and practices, while the hobby photographers limped along with junkier, hobbyist equipment.



That value of that statement is entirely dependent on one's defintion of
"best materials and practices."

Obviously we know what your definition is: the most modern and expensive 
digital equipment.  But, digital and film photography are two different 
mediums = apples and oranges.  And, by the way, many famous classic film 
photographers used equipment that was decades old at the time of their 
use of it. Cartier-Bresson, for example, used 1950s Leica M's well into the
1970s-80s-90s and beyond.  He did not feel a need to use the latest
auto-exposure/auto-focus technology of the later era. There are many
other examples of these photographers using older equipment.



> The successful fine art photographers of each decade of the 20th century strived for high technical quality in their negatives, developing, and prints; hobby shooters on the other hand shot at the hobby level.


Your point?



> I love blanket put-down attempt to lump "non-artist" photographers into the category of dots-per-inch measurebeators. A weak attempt to defend film shooters as artists, and everybody else as number-worshiping idiots, but really, quite a weak troll.


Not my intent at all.  Many film shooters are idiots too. 

But, seriously, my point is not about all non-artist photographers.  Simply 
those that put down film based on the shallow critieria I described.



> Ansel Adams was a successful, albeit kitschy, fine art photgrapher, and millions of his accolytes read his books The Camera, The Negative, The Darkroom--EACH of which was a tribute to striving for the highest-quality images by using the best methods, and by striving to reach the level of technical perfection.


Again you equate "best" with what you think is best, i.e., modern digital equipment.


----------



## mairead (Oct 14, 2010)

One thing to understand about fine art, is that artists also tend to enjoy exploring various mediums.  For instance look at printmaking -- commercially it's down to a science -- fast, efficient, and high quality.  Yet artists continue carving out woodblocks by hand, printing off stones etc, because the medium itself is interesting as well as the results. What about calligraphy? There are all kinds of decorative fonts available, no need to do it by hand, and yet people enjoy and appreciate the art form.

There's no reason that someone can't be very artistic with a digital camera, but it's not the only way. And when you get into fine art, yes quality matters, but what constitutes that quality isn't always black and white. You're also bringing creative expression into the mix, what kind of response the viewer is likely to have, what the piece is trying to say.  With a photograph if the quality is awful, it's going to get in the way of all that other important stuff.  But well done photos from film aren't bad quality either.  Poor quality tools can be frustrating, but using film doesn't automatically make a camera poor quality any more than being digital automatically makes a camera high quality.

Using film isn't dogmatic or clinging to something that is obsolete -- it's enjoying that particular tool and process (a process that still has it's place as an art form IMO).  There are pros and cons to everything, and for some people the pros of film will out way those of using a digital camera.  If some of the arguments for film have seemed dogmatic, well then, so have a lot of the posts I've seen pushing digital


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Oh, you definitely win. Digital images are  snapshots. Images made on film are photo-graphs. Got it chief!





supraman215 said:


> Again with this holier than thou stance common among SOME of those shooting film.



Thank you both for illustrating my point about these considerations being lost 
on certain people.

Just to clarify for those with reading disabilities:

I have not said and I do not feel that art cannot be made with digital 
equipment.  In fact, I feel art can be made with most anything.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

LOL!

WTF happened to my little thread here?

Digitial is faster/easier/more versatile. Period.

By faster I mean both while shooting, and workflow wise.

By easier I mean you can shoot thousands of RAW files on a single card. You can review the image on the LCD for proper exposure, among countless other things that make it easier.

There is zero point arguing which is better, you WILL lose this one.

Why do you think that Canon stopped making film SLRs? Because they were better lol? Methinks not...

Good game film fanboys, thanks for playing.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> You posted the above while I was editing my post.  Here it is in it's entirety:
> 
> 
> "Image quality" is an important factor for certain types of photography but
> ...




You seem to be awfully concerned, almost adamant it seems, that digital images are crap (ie, snapshots) but that,amazingly, even a fuzzy pinhole camera image is capable of being an image that "can take the viewers' breath away."

You seem rather disingenuous in your attempts to portray youself as being reasonable in your subsequent post, attempting to play both sides of the coin, when in fact,your true and actually literally "written" position is revealed by your extreme points of view above. To summarize, above you state that digital photography is nothing but high-volume snapshooting, but even an oatmeal can and a pinhole with a piece of film is capable of creating photographs that, "take the viewers' breath away." Snort! You know what? I have never seen a pinhole photo that rose above mildly interesting.

Your opinions on the superiority of film have been made abundantly clear in this thread and countless others...your holier-than-thou POV in regard to the "superiority" of film shooting has been duly noted, your efforts to counter it notwithstanding.

For somebody who professes to be an artist and concerned about the artistry underlying photographs, compur, you seem to be very concerned and dogmatic about HOW, exactly, the image must be captured. "On film". Or else it is a snapshot. For a guy claiming to be all about the "art" you seem awfully,awfully preoccupied with the process, rather than the end result. Again, your protestations notwitstanding.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

mairead said:


> There are pros and cons to everything, and for some people the pros of film will out way those of using a digital camera. If some of the arguments for film have seemed dogmatic, well then, so have a lot of the posts I've seen pushing digital


 
There are far more pros for digital compared to film.

There are also far more cons for film compared to digital.

Yes this does mean digital is "better".

Feel free to have your opinion, its your right.

You could have an opinion that a steam powered car is better than a Corvette. You may feel that way, but when you compare power/handling/top speed/etc. is there really any question which is better? I didn't think so.

Its the same thing for film. You can hang on for sentimental value or whatever if you want, but don&#8217;t act like it can compete with modern DSLRs.

Just understand that if you list the advantages and disadvantages of each you will come to a conclusion.

That conclusion is that digital is better lol.

Just let it go...

/ENDTHREAD


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> To them it's all simply: How many mega-dots does it have?


 
LOL...

Mega-dots???

How old are you?

You sound like you are at least 90...


----------



## John Mc (Oct 14, 2010)

The one thing ive learned today,dont Use 18-55 mm zoom lenses at the widest opening for wide angle shots on a 35mm film camera!why? cause ive now got A fish-eye view on my film for a large interior shot,am i disapointed?a little bit,but ive learned a valuble leason.dont go to 18mm again unless you want an odd shot 

but im glad i have done this,learned a wee bit about lenses on film compared to Dslrs(croped ones anyway)


----------



## mairead (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> There are far more pros for digital compared to film.
> 
> There are also far more cons for film compared to digital.
> 
> Yes this does mean digital is "better".



No, it means you missed the entire point of my post.  What is a pro to one person, may not matter so much to another. What is a deal breaker for one person, may be a positive point for someone else.  The speed and ease of digital might make that type of camera better *for you*, but not better across the board as different people have different wants and  needs.




> You could have an opinion that a steam powered car is better than a Corvette. You may feel that way, but when you compare power/handling/top speed/etc. is there really any question which is better? I didn't think so.


But how much power and speed does one need? I know nothing of steam powered cars, however, I can tell you that a fancy sports car would not suit my needs and I would not enjoy it. Yes that is just an opinion based on what I personally need in a car, just as your appreciation for corvettes stems from your own _opinions_ about what makes a car great.




> Its the same thing for film. You can hang on for sentimental value or whatever if you want, but don&#8217;t act like it can compete with modern DSLRs.





> Just understand that if you list the advantages and disadvantages of each you will come to a conclusion.
> 
> That conclusion is that digital is better lol.


Is there a competition here?  If someone can put out good photographs using film, great. If they put out good photographs with digital, great.  That's the thing -- I _don't_ see one as inherently better than the other, just that they're different and for some digital makes more sense, and for others film is the way to go.  I've never argued that film is supreme. Rather I was making the point that it still has a valid place and is a good choice _for some_ people. I don't get the strange need to convince people to give up the error of their ways and go digital -- it's like a bizarre camera pissing contest that completely misses the point.  

I have not come to your conclusion, btw, and I _have_ been giving it thought (as eventually I'm hoping to actually have enough cash to invest in some more camera related equipment). It's just that what's vitally important to you -- speed and ease, isn't so important for me.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

mairead said:


> I have not come to your conclusion, btw, and I _have_ been giving it thought (as eventually I'm hoping to actually have enough cash to invest in some more camera related equipment). It's just that what's vitally important to you -- speed and ease, isn't so important for me.


 
Obviously you have a right to your opinion.

Shooting a film camera is like driving a classic sports car. It may be beautiful and stylish, but it wont be able to compete against the newest sports cars.

You are acting like film can in some way compete with digital.

Just admit that film cameras are antiquated and sub-par compared to DSLRs, and I will admit that it has its own charm and sentimental value.

If you cannot do this then you are clearly biased, and refusing to consider all the facts involved here. 

What if I had an opinion that the world was flat?

I could go around telling people this and saying "well this is my opinion, so its true for me".

Just having an opinion and voicing it doesnt make it true now does it? 

You have to actually prove why its true. This is where you are failing badly.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Enjoy living in the past...

It seems to suit you very well.


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> You seem to be awfully concerned, almost adamant it seems, that digital images are crap (ie, snapshots) but that,amazingly, even a fuzzy pinhole camera image is capable of being an image that "can take the viewers' breath away."



You missed my point, Derrel.  I didn't say "digital images are crap."  In fact
I said earlier that I shoot digital too as well as film.



> You seem rather disingenuous in your attempts to portray youself as being reasonable in your subsequent post, attempting to play both sides of the coin, when in fact,your true and actually literally "written" position is revealed by your extreme points of view above.


I don't recall portraying myself as anything in particular.  In fact I don't
even recall mentioning myself except to say that I shoot both digital and 
film.



> To summarize, above you state that digital photography is nothing but high-volume snapshooting, but even an oatmeal can and a pinhole with a piece of film is capable of creating photographs that, "take the viewers' breath away." Snort! You know what? I have never seen a pinhole photo that rose above mildly interesting.


No, Derrel, I didn't say "digital photography is nothing but high-volume
snapshooting."

I gave an example of a particular thing to illustrate a particular point
about particular people with a particular viewpoint. That doesn't mean
I am speaking about everyone who owns a digital camera (which would
include me anyway since I own and use several as I've said).



> Your opinions on the superiority of film have been made abundantly clear in this thread and countless others...your holier-than-thou POV in regard to the "superiority" of film shooting has been duly noted, your efforts to counter it notwithstanding.


I have never said film is superior to anything in this thread or any other.  I 
have only said that digital is not necessarily superior to film in all respects.
It is you who are claiming superiority of your chosen medium, not me.

And, is this not a film photography forum? A place where film enthusiasts 
gather to discuss their love of that craft?  Is it so hard to understand that
a member of this forum might defend that craft against statements that 
some other medium is better? And, why am I even having to ask such 
questions? What forum do you think you're on, Derrel?  Do you make a 
habit of going onto internet forums and telling the members that some
other activity is better than what they're doing? And, you have the 
gall to say that I'm trolling?



> For somebody who professes to be an artist and concerned about the artistry underlying photographs, compur, you seem to be very concerned and dogmatic about HOW, exactly, the image must be captured. "On film". Or else it is a snapshot.


Sorry, I just never said how an image "must be captured."  You are reading 
misconstrued "meaning" into things you only think I said. 

And, how is it that my expressing my views is being "dogmatic"? How is 
your expression of your views any different? 



> For a guy claiming to be all about the "art" you seem awfully,awfully preoccupied with the process, rather than the end result. Again, your protestations notwitstanding.


I claimed to be "all about art"?  When did I claim that?

Since you're so obviously confused over what it is you think I said, I will
boil it down to this:

The same criteria in which digital photography is normally judged (i.e. 
image resolution, sharpness, etc) does not necessarily apply when it 
comes to art photography.

That's all, really.

The rest of my "smart-ass, holier-than-thou, dogmatic" comments were 
about how that simple idea gets misunderstood by certain individuals. A
point which I think has now been amply illustrated by the recent exchanges 
on this thread.


----------



## John Mc (Oct 14, 2010)

I know im pritty much a newbie here in the Forum,but instead of listing of whats better,why not list off what you like about your choice of recording instrument,Film,or digital.

It might be stupid and childish doing it this way but hey,it seems fitting here.

I like the fact that with film,youve done all the work to get that photograph.
And with Digital,i like the speed and instant access i have to the image.

Just a thought


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> You could have an opinion that a steam powered car is better than a Corvette. You may feel that way, but when you compare power/handling/top speed/etc. is there really any question which is better? I didn't think so.



I think most classic car dealers would be glad to trade a Corvette for
a Stanley Steamer and make a tidy profit in the process.

The criteria you use to judge things is not necessarily the same as what 
others use.  When new technologies arise, the public tends to abandon
the old things and reach for the new things.  This is how antique dealers
make their living.


----------



## mairead (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Shooting a film camera is like driving a classic sports car. It may be beautiful and stylish, but it wont be able to compete against the newest sports cars.



I'm not sure about the analogies that get used... as an art form, one can create a beautiful piece with a film or digital camera, so in that respect one is not better than the other.  In a commercial setting with very tight deadlines, the fact that digital is fast could mean that for that situation it is more competitive. But that's the thing, not all situations are the same.  not everybody does the same thing with photography, so one might reign supreme in one arena, but may not have a strong advantage in another.  Much comes down to personal preference.




> You are acting like film can in some way compete with digital.



It depends on the situation. Not everything is black and white.




> Just admit that film cameras are antiquated and sub-par compared to DSLRs, and I will admit that it has its own charm and sentimental value.



They are different from DSLRS.  Different situations may lend themselves to different tools.  This is not a far out concept, and I'm not sure why you're so invested in proving the supremacy of digital.  Maybe you should just realize that people like to work with different things and relax a little




> If you cannot do this then you are clearly biased, and refusing to consider all the facts involved here.





> What if I had an opinion that the world was flat?
> 
> I could go around telling people this and saying "well this is my opinion, so its true for me".
> 
> ...



LOL :lmao: Really? I think you need to apply this last bit to yourself. You're the one pushing your opinions as fact, not me.  I personally prefer film, but that doesn't mean that I don't think digital isn't a great choice for someone else.  I'm not the one trying to push my own favored process on other people (other people can do as they like -- notice how I'm not going into the digital section of the forum to convice people to switch to film).  I'm not failing at anything, because I'm not treating this as a black and white issue where there is only one proper answer, one proper tool.


----------



## white (Oct 14, 2010)

I say we get rid of computers and digital SLRS and go back to typewriters and daguerrotypes.

Dags had "better" resolution anyway. :er:

/crustyoldmanwholivesinthepast


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> The point you seem to be missing is that there are other reasons for doing
> things. Not everyone makes decisions based on which way is easier, faster
> and cheaper. I know that may be hard to believe but it is true.
> 
> ...


 
You keep saying things like this...

Please tell me why you DO shoot film then.

Clearly there is a historic and sentimental value to it. This is why I am considering buying a film SLR myself.

I am not naive enough to think that film is better somehow though.

You are not outright saying it but you keep implying that people who switched to digital were just taking the easy way out, and that it is not better.

Its not just easier/faster/cheaper, its simply BETTER overall. Period.

You simply cannot win the argument that you ARE making by continuously implying that digital in inferior somehow.

If this is the case and film is better in any way, then please do tell us what that is exactly. I am all ears.

You need to back up your statements here pal, especially when debating something with me...


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

mairead said:


> You're the one pushing your opinions as fact, not me.


 
No no no...

What you are doing here is choosing to completely ignore the facts.

I am not pushing my opinions as facts, what I am saying is the facts.

This is why you cannot actually address the points that I am making here, and are simply resorting to stating nothing but opinion. Great job. :thumbup:

I am still waiting to hear how film is better in any way...


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm waiting for the pin-hole photograph to take my breath away...


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> I think most classic car dealers would be glad to trade a Corvette for
> a Stanley Steamer and make a tidy profit in the process.
> 
> The criteria you use to judge things is not necessarily the same as what
> ...


 
How does something being more expensive automatically make it better? What you are saying here is simply ridiculous.

These are the kinds of absurd arguments that you keep making again and again, with absolutely nothing to back them up.

I am about to stop arguing this with you film fanboys.

This is because:

#1 You refuse to acknowledge anything as fact.

#2 You are making ridiculous statements based on nothing but your biased and one-sided opinion.

#3 I am starting to realize that I will probably never get through to you, so whats the point in trying?


----------



## white (Oct 14, 2010)

Film has a better history than digital.

Oh snap. Did I just win the thread?

Oh, and here you go, Derrel. I'm partial to #3, myself.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm partial to this pin hole photo, which is typical and representative of the entire genre.

http://irgupf.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pinhole-1.jpg

Pretty freakin' impressive, right?


----------



## mairead (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> mairead said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one pushing your opinions as fact, not me.
> ...



Ok, let's try this another way as you're not understanding...

When you judge the value of something it is judged against particular standards.  What those standards are, depends on the job that needs to be done.  Pretty clear, I hope.

Now both SLRs and DSLRs take pictures, in that way they are alike.  HOWEVER, the purpose and style of these pictures depends on what they are for.  The speed at which these pictures must be in their finished form depends on what they are for. Following so far?

Photography is used for different purposes -- commercially, as a serious hobby, as a fine art medium, as a simple recording tool, etc.  Because of these different purposes, different standards will apply.  Some times speed will be of the essence, other times the it's ok to wait on the pictures.  Sometimes artistic criteria comes into play where as other times the photograph is strictly functional.

If there are different standards, then different tools (SLR and DSLR) may come into play as needed.

The problem that you are having is that you have grabbed onto what are some advantages of DSLRs and then tried to apply them with equal importance across the board. In some situations what are considered the advantages of DSLRs might not be as important and vise versa of course.




> This is why you cannot actually address the points that I am making here, and are simply resorting to stating nothing but opinion. Great job. :thumbup:





> I am still waiting to hear how film is better in any way...



I have been addressing everything that you have put forward. However, your black and white approach to everything (the same one tool is always superior for everyone in every situation), makes it difficult to converse with you about this.  You want me to say that because DSLRs are so fast, efficient and have versatility that they must always be the clear winner. However, like most things in life, it's not that simple.

When it comes to what tools people like to use there will always be varying opinions (and not just in photography), because people are different and yes _have different opinions_ based on their very real needs and very real experiences.  Fact only goes so far in this discussion, because so much is personal preference and what a person feels they work best with.  

The issue with your argument isn't with whether or not a DSLR is fast or efficient or versitile, it's the fact that these things mean different things to different people.  As such, you can argue till you're blue in the face, but it won't make people feel any differently about using an SLR or a DSLR.


----------



## Overread (Oct 14, 2010)

so from a film vs digital war we are now onto a pinhole photography war?

Seriously  why?


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Please tell me why you DO shoot film then.



As I've said I shoot both film and digital. As to why I shoot film, I simply
prefer it for some types of photography.

BTW, are you aware that this is a film photography forum?  We are film
enthusiasts here. Perhaps you'd enjoy going to a classic car forum and
telling the members there that they're all nuts for not buying a Prius.



> I am not naive enough to think that film is &#8220;better&#8221; somehow though.


As I've said repeatedly I did not say film is better than anything.  I did
say that digital is not necessarily better than film when it comes to art 
photography.



> You are not outright saying it but you keep implying that people who
> switched to digital were just taking the easy way out, and that it is not
> better.


I said the majority of people who embraced digital photography did so 
because they perceived it as easier, faster cheaper than film.  That is
my belief.

Some do also say they believe that digital produces higher quality images 
than film but I don't see that as being a substantial reason for why the
majority switched. 




> Its not just easier/faster/cheaper, it&#8217;s simply BETTER overall. Period.


And they call me dogmatic! 



> You simply cannot win the argument that you ARE making by continuously implying that digital in inferior somehow.


That's because I haven't made such an argument. I only said that digital is
not necessarily better than film in the area of art photography. Also, please 
note that nowhere in that last sentence did I say that film is better than 
anything.


----------



## white (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I'm partial to this pin hole photo, which is typical and representative of the entire genre.
> 
> http://irgupf.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pinhole-1.jpg
> 
> Pretty freakin' impressive, right?


Oh yeah. That sky blowed my mind. :lmao:


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> BTW, are you aware that this is a film photography forum? We are film
> enthusiasts here. Perhaps you'd enjoy going to a classic car forum and
> telling the members there that they're all nuts for not buying a Prius.


 
AM I AWARE LOL???

THIS IS MY THREAD PAL...


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I am about to stop arguing this with you film fanboys.



Hey, don't forget the film fangirls. They deserve equal consideration.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?
> ...


 
Your 1st post here was slightly useful and not biased really.

But then your 2nd post here (quoted above) was just a mess.

Lets see if I missed anything:

You compared shooting digital to eating at McDonalds...

You compared shooting digital to watching TV (over going outside)...

You compared shooting digital to using a musical keyboard...

Saying the whole time that these things weren&#8217;t "better".

Then you keep saying things like "The point you seem to be missing is that there are other reasons for doing things." While not even saying what the other reasons are, or what you even like about film.

And since then every post has been more and more absurd...

This post had zero facts in it, just 100% opinion.

Now try and tell me honestly that you didn&#8217;t come into MY thread with the intent of starting something by bashing digital SLRs. 

I double dog dare you.

Mega-dots lol...


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

mairead said:


> I can see where digital makes complete and total sense in commercial settings where time is of the essence


 
See this is the kind of garbage that I am talking about.

You are very shrewdly implying that digital in somehow not artistic, and that film is.

You and compur are masters at dancing around something, and implying it without actually saying it.

Ill be honest, I cant stand this. 

What honor is there in this type of approach to an argument?

If you think something, just come out and say it.

You cant just come out and say "film is better" though can you?

You would get shut down in an instant, even worse than you already are by only implying it.


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Lets see if I missed anything:
> 
> You compared shooting digital to eating at McDonalds...
> 
> ...



Yes, I did imply all that.  Shocking isn't it?



> Then you keep saying things like "The point you seem to be missing is that
> there are other reasons for doing things." While not even saying what the
> other reasons are, or what you even like about film.


I said I shoot both digital and film and prefer film with some applications. I
do shoot film as do most others who post on this forum. That's why I 
asked you if you knew this was a film forum because the fact that I said I 
shoot film seems to have boggled you and elicited demands from you that
I tell you why I shoot film. 




> This post had zero facts in it, just 100% opinion.


Yes, it's true that I expressed opinions. I confess. 



> Now try and tell me honestly that you didnt come into MY thread with the intent of starting something by bashing digital SLRs.


OK -
I didn't come onto YOUR thread with the purpose of bashing digital SLRs.



> I double dog dare you.


Woof, woof.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 14, 2010)

At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur,

Why did you come here then?

I am tired of hearing what you are not doing and not saying.

Tell me what you ARE saying.

Whats your point?

Film is...


----------



## Overread (Oct 14, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.



Large formate film bodies are still cheaper (significantly) than digital ones. Also film still manges to have a dynamic range bonus over digital so its got some use still in landscape work (esp if you move up to medium and large format)

Of course those areas are shrinking all the time as digital advances and cheapens


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Personally, I think pistachio is superior to butter pecan.  But, don't tell Neil
because he's sure to double dog dare me to prove it.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

Overread said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.
> ...


 
See...

Now we are having a discussion. You make some good points here.

Are you film fanboys taking notes on this?

I was wondering when someone would mention dynamic range...

Still though there are so many downsides to shooting film that have already been stated in this thread.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 14, 2010)

Overread said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of being suckered into this argument again, I can't think of a shooting situation where it would make more sense to choose Film over Digital. I'm not saying there isn't I just want to know.
> ...



good point. you brought up the medium format. Let me clarify my question. When comparing 35mm DSLR to 35mm film SLR, in what situation would one chose film SLR. High dynamic range situations? Sounds reasonable. Is there anything else?


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> Personally, I think pistachio is superior to butter pecan. But, don't tell Neil
> because he's sure to double dog dare me to prove it.


 
I take this as you conceding...


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> compur,
> 
> Why did you come here then?



To meet chicks.  



> I am tired of hearing what you are not doing and not saying.


I'm not doing or saying that.



> Tell me what you ARE saying.


Give peace a chance. 



> Whats your point?
> 
> Film is...


... flat and sticky when wet and attracts dust like a magnet.



Neil S. said:


> I take this as you conceding...



I take this as you making good on your promise to give up 
arguing with film fanboys.


----------



## Overread (Oct 14, 2010)

High dynamic range is one that comes to my mind you might also use film for something very specific such as doing infra red photography with infra red film - possible with digital but it requires that you have your sensor physically modified to achive (essentially removal of the sensors IR filter). 
Of course a lot of these areas are far harder in some areas because getting hold of film and getting a good quality lab to process them (or even home chemicals) can make things tricky or more expensive.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

compur said:


> I take this as you making good on your promise to give up
> arguing with film fanboys.


 
This is such a weak attempt at trying to laugh it off and make a graceful exit that its pathetic.

Hey at least its better than having a meltdown like some people do when their absurd arguments get shut down.

To be clear you came in here trying to bash digital SLRs with your absurd analogies and one-sided views. 

Then you were trying to keep it going by making ridiculous statements based on nothing but your own biased opinion.

Finally you were exposed for it, and now are trying to act like nothing happened.

You can laugh all you want but it will not change these facts.

Better luck next time...


----------



## compur (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> This is such a weak attempt at trying to laugh it off and make a graceful exit that its pathetic.




Exit?  I'm not going anywhere.  You said you were leaving.
 


> Hey at least its better than having a meltdown like some people do when their absurd arguments get shut down.


Ah, you are such a master of argument.  You must tell me how you do it
sometime.



> To be clear you came in here trying to bash digital SLRs with your absurd analogies and one-sided views.


I did?  Gosh I thought I came here to post something about the criteria 
used in digital photography not always being applicable to art photography.
In fact I distinctly remember saying that a number of times. Oh well, I must
have dreamed it.



> Then you were trying to keep it going by making ridiculous statements based on nothing but your own biased opinion.


Imagine that.  A person having opinions!  I can't believe how foolish I was to have an 
opinion.



> Finally you were exposed for it, and now are trying to act like nothing happened.


Oh, I feel so naked the way you exposed me and all.



> You can laugh all you want but it will not change these facts.
> 
> Better luck next time...


Speaking of the facts would you mind answering a question?

Since you obviously possess superior knowledge in the art of photography, 
please answer me this.

In the digital realm how would you represent the differences in image 
rendering of a negative shot on Pan F+ @ ISO 25 & developed in Rodinal
1+100 via stand development vs. the same scene shot on FP4+ @ ISO 
50 and developed in FX-2?


----------



## maris (Oct 14, 2010)

[FONT=&quot]A philosophical digression: the decision between film and digital doesn't depend on what the pictures look like.[/FONT]

 [FONT=&quot]Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the _surface appearance_ of _any_ _medium_; film, paint, pencil, whatever. But if you want to see pictures that have the _same_ _relationship_ to subject matter as film based pictures then nothing touched by digital technology is worth looking at.[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A film based photograph happens when a physical sample (about 10^-25 kilograms) of subject matter travels across space, penetrates the film surface, and occasions picture forming marks right where it penetrates. If this is what you really want then don't bother with digital. But why would you want to make pictures using actual samples of subject matter?[/FONT]
  [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Here's an idea. A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. There is no _virtual_ component. It is a straight line case of one substance acting directly on another. To put it more technically a film photograph is an _index_ of the subject. A film photograph has _indexicality_. If this is what you really, truly want then you must use film. Don't bother with digital.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Digital of course delivers "appearances" and that can be entertaining or even turn a dollar but there is a down side. As a general principle every picture that depends on downloading the memory of somebody or something, painting, drawing , digital, has the same credibility problem. It could have been synthesised from nothing even if the picture maker testifies otherwise. Bluntly, if you dont want to chance a world where "seeming" is indistinguishable from "being", where looks like means same as, then film photography is what you must do.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]To address the OP's question, any Canon SLR that has manual settings will do fine and the cheapest one leaves more money for film.
[/FONT]


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

wow, I feel like I'm walking through a pasture full of cow "frisbees". 

Where to begin????

As a photographer, I use whatever medium is best for the job at hand, regardless of whether it's film or digital. All processing and printing (both film and digital) is done in house, either optically or with a Fuji Frontier 370. 

Let's start with consumer grade digital vs. film, shall we?

Consumer digital cameras are quickly approaching the quality capability of film, true. However, there are significant advantages leaning towards film, the most significant being the craft aspect.

Medium format digital potentially has surpassed film, however there are quite significant _PHYSICAL_ hurdles to overcome. for a far more involved explanation see here: Joseph Holmes - News: Medium Format Problems 
Comparison of MF to LF digital (predominantly through the use of a Dicomed Scan Back (predecessor to the Betterlight) yielded some significant advantages. Due to the limitation of accuracy, repeatability and manufacturing tolerances, to actually achieve that level of resolution is very dependent on accurate calibration of the back to the body and lens, as well as very, very, dependent on technique. I spent a week with the latest and greatest at the time Phase One back this summer, between body, a few lenses and back, we're talking ~65K, give or take. I compared it to my Sinar P/Dicomed Scan back as well as the same back used on an RB67. 

For my purposes, predominantly still lifes and product shooting, while the Phase One back gave you larger files, it was predominantly empty resolution, much the same as drum scanning a chrome with a 3 micron aperture. The combination of Bayer Pattern sensor as well as smaller photosites limit dynamic range and detail capture. The optical and mechnanical requirements as well as cost make it unworkable for me. 
The advantage clearly goes to the Sinar/Dicomed combo once you start to require camera movements and perspective control. The ability to use movements and non interpolated resolution makes it a winner hands down. (to get an idea of the significant difference between the Dicomed/Betterlight scan backs and a Bayer pattern sensor, see The Rest of the Picture , I'll let you draw your own conclusions vis a vis LF film vs. Betterlight) Downsides are the need for continuous lighting (I use self built HMI lighting) and the need for a computer/laptop. 

Film, as noted previously, is far from dead. In terms of portability vs. image quality, there is still nothing that bests a hybrid LF film workflow, in terms of resolution, dynamic range and flexibility. With architectural work especially, where the concurrent need for both movements and flexibility in terms of post exposure processing and creative manipulations, as well as the need for significant tolerance in the areas of exposure make it a clear winner. (Note that while many commercial architectural photographers use stitched 35mm grade digital images, some will readily admit it's a compromise, at best. Perspective correction done in software is not the same as getting it right at capture time, as well as the entire Bayer pattern sensor issues previously mentioned limit real resolution and detail capture ability. 

In summary, I'd wager that for most of the people on this board, their consumer level (and even well heeled amateurs/semi pros with pro level equipment) 35mm based bodies are better than comparably sized film cameras, but even a scanned 6x7 transparency will run circles around any 35mm class digital body in terms of resolution and color accuracy. LF film just increases the gap proportionally. Instead of a camera update every few years, we film shooters can update our imaging systems by simply using the newest films, an the new Ektar in LF makes any form of digital capture suspect.

Once one looks at the non technical aspects, in the area of craft especially, there is a significant advantage to the use of film. If one is willing to expand the art of photography to include historical/alternative processes, craft becomes even more important. From a fine art aspect, the "hand of the artist" is more important than the technical aspects. There is significant truth to Adam's preference for "a fuzzy image of a clear concept" over " a clear image of a fuzzy concept". As a photographer who has worked for 25 years and now have returned to school, I have found many of the ideas I held to be true have a basis in historical fact, and the entire concept of the photographer as artists goes back to the earliest photographers. The digital/film debate isn't new, or the first time that a new process _seemingly_ eclipses and old process, a search for articles in contemporary articles during the time wet plate overtook daggeurotype, dry plate overtaking wet plate, flexible film overcoming dry plate, etc. That the majority adopt a new technology isn't surprising, making photography easier, more accessible, etc. is a marketing companies dream. Where the difficulty comes in is honestly assessing your own skills and seeing if the equipment is the limiting factor in achieving your aesthetic.

Speaking aesthetically, a little research into pictorialism, photo secessionism (particularly Steiglitz, et al), and numerous 20th century "isms" that grew out of the modern/post modern aesthetic will likely open your eyes to the media vs. craft aspects.


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> I second everything that Derrel says on this issue. Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no reason to start down the film path. You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea. But atleast shoot black and white, develop your own stuff. If you do color you're just shooting yourself in the foot because as soon as you take it to the lab it all becomes digital again, and therefore defeats the whole purpose.




Were you to investigate further, you would find that, in fact, you can print color at home, as well as process color film at home. Many, many do in fact do exactly that. It's less expensive than b&w, easier than you would believe and surprisingly, it's very easy to find inexpensive dichro enlargers for pennies on the dollars today. Simply because you choose to not do so, don't project that inability or lack of desire to others. The advantages of an optically printed large image compared to a digitally printed one is like night and day. See my references above to the craft aspect of photography.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 14, 2010)

Sounds like digital hasn't conquered the 6x7 film world yet. That's not surprising. but it will be interesting to see what the future has in store.


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Digitial is easier, faster, and cheaper. And better quality, with less work, and no damaged film or damaged negatives. No ruined originals, but as many perfect duplicates as needed. As well as improved prints over darkroom methods. To me, using digital 35mm systems is not about it being easier, faster,and cheaper, as much as easier,faster,cheaper, and BETTER. The newer d-slr's have easily,easily surpassed the B&W and color emulsions Kodak and Fuji have been able to come up with.
> 
> There's no film that can even remotely come close to a full-frame d-slr in terms of color richness and ISO speed...looking through some images on the Popular Photography web site the other night that were shot with a Nikon D3s and the 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor, I was struck by the absolutely AMAZING technical quality of the images under artificial stadium lighting. There is simply NO FILM on the planet that can produce those kinds of images. None.
> 
> There's a reason top-line EOS and Nikon film slrs now bring 1/10 of their original retail prices, and why paying more than $200 for a 35mm SLR is foolish.




In order: false, false, and not even close. To expand on those assertions:

Easier, not really. Take a Polaroid ProShot, put a pack of FP100C into it and shoot, pull the tab, wait 60 seconds and peel. (were SX70 film still available, it would be simply push the button, wait 60 seconds and look)

Faster? See comments above


Cheaper, not really, even at the lower end of the market, between a camera, computer, printer, color calibration hardware, etc. you've still spent a couple of grand, and haven't taken a picture yet. With a film camera, you can spend ~$100 or $200 and be in a position to actually make images.

In terms of color richness, not really. The king of DSLR color accuracy, the Kodak SLR/n, is 5+ years old, the color gamut is wider, and accuracy (delta e) is far better than even today's cameras. It has it's downsides, but color accuracy isn't one of them. Even the Kodak is incapable of incredibly saturated colors, compared to MF 160VC or NC, once again, the move to LF just widens the gap even more. Just like a digitally originated image, a scanned film image can have it's saturation turned up, as many of those images you have seen are. Accuracy is another matter, and a properly profiled workflow, whether digital or film, will give you accurate colors. Where film excels is that you can fine tune the color response through the use of film, and get incredibly saturated, accurate colors.

High ISO is only a small part of the photography world, and yes, the newer digital cameras are far superior, _in this one aspect._ Need I remind you that a GRO is "faster" than a 911, until the first corner. Balance in camera performance, like so many things in life, is about compromises. Your statement is a strawman argument, based on only one aspect of photography. Then again, I've shot Tri-X at 25,600 and it's workable, though very "noisy" and required a lot of "post processing" mojo. (sound familiar?)

The biggest reason that film cameras bring so little today is, pure and simple, marketing. Or more specifically, the need for large corporations to put profitability above all else, through the need for "upgrades". The trickle of technology comes at a pace that ensures a specific percentage of users are "early adopters" and will want the latest and greatest at any cost. (and have the deep pockets to pay for it)


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> Sounds like digital hasn't conquered the 6x7 film world yet. That's not surprising. but it will be interesting to see what the future has in store.



There are sensors that have high enough resolution, getting that resolution, on the other hand is very, very difficult. See Joseph Holmes article above for a realistic assessment of why the physics and real world manufacturing tolerances make it very unlikely that you can even get close.


----------



## supraman215 (Oct 14, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > I second everything that Derrel says on this issue. Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no reason to start down the film path. You won't learn anything about photography. The learning curve is so slow. you could learn in an afternoon with a digital what it might take you months in film. Just because you have the option of shooting 100 pics in a few seconds, changing settings, checking your results, etc, this is a POWERFUL learning tool, trial and error that is. If you really want to learn about photography digital is the only way to go. If you want to be some film elitist that says "I do film" for the sake of being able to say it then it's a good idea. But atleast shoot black and white, develop your own stuff. If you do color you're just shooting yourself in the foot because as soon as you take it to the lab it all becomes digital again, and therefore defeats the whole purpose.
> ...



I said, there's no point it shooting 35mm taking it to the local lab because it will most likely be developed digitally defeating the purpose. As a craft and a hobby I think the whole point is processing the film yourself.


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> ... Unless you are going to enter the darkroom and start printing to learn  that process, which you can only do for B&W, there's really no  reason to start down the film path....



I was simply responding to your comment, separated above for clarity, as a false statement, you can in fact print both b&w and color at home. And far more cost effectively than b&w, at that.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> wow, I feel like I'm walking through a pasture full of cow "frisbees".


 
Guy I don&#8217;t care how many cameras and lenses you have, how many years you have been shooting, or how much experience you claim to have.

You are never going to prove that digital does not have advantages in almost every way compared to film.

Add to that the fact that if you want to do many of the things possible in post, you would need to scan the film to digital anyways. This is simply a waste of time when you could just shoot in digital providing nearly as good or even better image quality.

It goes without saying that this adds significant time and work to the process, and will likely reduced image quality compared to shooting pure digital.

You say that a FF DSLR isn&#8217;t as good as 6x7 film? You really think that&#8217;s a fair comparison?

Even if it was, can you do the same things with 6x7 film that you can do with a FF DSLR? 

That would be a big fat no lol...

Can you take thousands of photos on one CF card?

Can you shoot at 8-10 fps?

Can you have the camera set the Iso on the fly, making it far more versatile?

Again that&#8217;s a no for all of the above.

Digital is faster for both workflow and shooting.

Digital is easier for workflow and shooting for so many reasons.

Digital does not require that you scan to digital in order to edit in the extremely powerful photo editing programs available like Photoshop.

Digital does not require that you either roll the dice on taking the film to the lab (as Derrel already mentioned) or spend tons of time and money making the prints yourself.

Yes all of this does mean digital is better.

The only thing I am hearing so far that is better about film is that it has more dynamic range. 

Is there anything else?

And no more of the 6x7 vs. FF nonsense because that is just a ridiculous comparison for many reasons.

If digital is better in 98 ways and film is better in 2, which one do you think is better overall?

Do we really need to list every one of the things that is better about digital?

You try and make it sound like making prints from film is cheap and easy lol???

And you say that we are the ones dropping the cow frisbees? 

Really lol?

You still seem to be living in the past&#8230;


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> I said, there's no point it shooting 35mm taking it to the local lab because it will most likely be developed digitally defeating the purpose. As a craft and a hobby I think the whole point is processing the film yourself.


 
This is exactly right.

Its pretty much a waste of time unless you are going to process the film yourself.

And if you do there is a lot of money and time invloved, not to mention having to STILL scan to digital if you want to use for the web or edit with PS.


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Not really true at most levels; the successful fine art photographers of each era almost universally used the absolute best materials and practices, while the hobby photographers limped along with junkier, hobbyist equipment. The successful fine art photographers of each decade of the 20th century strived for high technical quality in their negatives, developing, and prints; hobby shooters on the other hand shot at the hobby level...
> 
> ...It's kind of amusing because, if you really LOOK, critically, at the history of photography, the most-learned and best shooters have always used a fairly narrow range of state-of-the-art, new, top-shelf equipment. The Top Shooters in multiple disciplines throughout each era tend to gravitate to the same,exact equipment; The Graflex, The Rolleiflex, The Leica M3,the Hasselblad 500 series, The Nikon F and F2, the Nikon F3 and the Canon F1-n, the Canon 1D, the Nikon D3...these cameras have ALL been more or less "the standard" for top-level shooters for over a full century, spanning three separate centuries...
> 
> Fine arts practitioners have been remarkably sheep-like in selecting the best tools of their era....ever since the huge, ponderous Graflexes of the 1880's and 1890's were the hot,new thing...




Wow, must have slept through that entire photo history website you read, huh? 

Arguably the most influential "fine art" photographer, Edward Weston, used a no name $5 lens he bought in a Mexican flea market on a "barely adequate" wood 8x10 camera (Read his daybooks to really understand how the concept of the image far surpasses the equipment used to take it). Fine Art photographers use whatever medium works best for communicating the fundamental concepts they want to convey. There are still very successful and very highly regarded fine art photographers using wet plate, and LF film. On the printing front, arguably the best photographic printing methods, carbon and platinotype, both originated over a century ago, and have been superceded by "improved" media, such as gelatin silver. Such "improvements" come at a price, either in terms of tonal range, archival stability, or in the case of Gum Bichromate, expressive capability. 

Even Ansel Adams, who enjoyed playing with new equipment, gravitated towards his reliable wood 8x10 and 4x5 cameras when it was shooting for his creative/artistic work.

The best shooters rarely used the latest and greatest, instead using the same equipment they used throughout their careers that has proven reliable through the test of time. This obsession with new gear is a fairly recent issue, due to the popularity of photography with the "average" person.


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Guy I don&#8217;t care how many cameras and lenses you have, how many years you have been shooting, or how much experience you claim to have.
> 
> You are never going to prove that digital does not have advantages in almost every way compared to film.
> 
> ...



Why would I want to? Oh wait, that still life (that I typically shoot), or that product is going to run off the shooting table before I can get 10 poorly conceived images of it, give me a fricking break. (or that building, tree, boulder, mountain, etc.) Faster frame rate isn't the end all be all indicator of quality, not by any stretch of the imagination. Another strawman argument



Neil S. said:


> Can you have the camera set the Iso on the fly, making it far more versatile?
> 
> Again that&#8217;s a no for all of the above.
> 
> ...


I don't need to, so it's a non issue for me.
Yeah, I can see that. Just last week, I had an AD tell me not to bother cleaning the product, I can do it in post, along with about  other "issues" I noted. So, as a professional, like the ole Goodwrench commercials used to say, pay me now, or pay me later. He'd rather exchange studio time for post production time, fine for me, as I bill hours either way, and post production is just as expensive as studio time.




Neil S. said:


> Yes all of this does mean digital is better.
> 
> The only thing I am hearing so far that is better about film is that it has more dynamic range.
> 
> Is there anything else?


Sure, how about a physical archival finished product? To a hobbyist like you, the long term aspects of your work are inconsequential, for those of use who actually earn a living from shooting, it's huge. 



Neil S. said:


> And no more of the 6x7 vs. FF nonsense because that is just a ridiculous comparison for many reasons.
> 
> If digital is better in 98 ways and film is better in 2, which one do you think is better overall?
> 
> ...




well, I can set up a nice RB outfit for far less than a D90 or D300 body, so it's a fair comparison, from a cost analysis. Your claim of better is specious at best, different is more realistic. And yes, making prints is trivial, compared to learning the intricacies of Photoshop, color management and the like. I have taught several people color printing in 3 or 4 2 hour sessions, and they left with the ability to exceed what most good labs put out today. 

From an artists perspective, as about 50% of my income comes from print sales in galleries, (real galleries that have numerous forms of art, not just a photography website that sells images), you vastly underestimate the marketability of the craft aspect. My hand coated gum bichromate prints, while not as detailed or dynamic as silver gelatin prints, outsell them 4 to 1. Why? Simply because they are hand made. Before you go on blathering about artists and the like, note that my entire (expensive private school) BFA degree program is is being paid for due to a talent grant awarded for artistic merit. 

So, to clarify the veracity of your opinions, please tell us:

How much of your income is derived from *your* photography?
How many galleries do *you* exhibit in?
How many permanent collections are *your* work in?
How many classes do *you* teach? 
How many working photographers ask _*you*_ for your opinion on various creative and technical aspects? 
How many Fortune 500 clients have _*you*_ shotfor?


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 14, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> How much of your income is derived from *your* photography?
> How many galleries do *you* exhibit in?
> How many permanent collections are *your* work in?
> How many classes do *you* teach?
> ...


 
I am not a pro, nor do I intend to be any time soon.

Shooting is something that I do for a hobby, and I am very into it.

I am a photo enthusiast and not someone who is trying to sell anything.

You do make a good point that film has a really artistic quality to it, and the craft part is really cool.

What I have been trying to say is that from a strictly technical level, digital is way beyond film already.

Now what we can debate is if you think that digital somehow cannot have an artistic quality to it.

All you are doing here is talking about how much you sold something, blah blah blah.

What does that have to do with being better or not? Are there not shooters making far more than you shooting digital only?

That&#8217;s cool that you got the pro thing going, and are selling a lot, etc.

I don&#8217;t think you are really talking down on digital here, you seem to just really like film&#8230;


----------



## epatsellis (Oct 14, 2010)

Neil, I use both, and both have their merits. Neither is significantly better or worse, just different. While there are certainly many "fanboys" here, the media I use is based solely upon the desired end result. 

To get an idea of just how many working fine art photographers still use film, spend some time googling _Jack_ Stoddart (as in Jammin' at Hippie Jack's Jack Stoddart), Clyde Butcher, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee (who single handedly reintroduced AZO paper), as well as numerous others, add analog photo radio pocast to your podcast catcher, if you use one, and you'll be surprised as how many left film, then went back, either partially or wholly. 

The sad thing is that like many photographer's my age, I spent longer working as an assistant in a studio longer than most of the more vocal shooters here have been shooting. (and that was in the late 70's/early 80's). 

I've been working as a shooter a long time, and the final decision as a working photographer is based purely on profitability and ROI. Film has and continues to be very profitable to me, and if my client base is any indication, will be so for a long time. 

In my experience, film supplements digital, it doesn't displace it or replace it.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 14, 2010)

This has devolved to a pretty amusing bunch of nonsense being bandied about. Get over it. Film is a lot like vinyl records. A lot like VHS tapes. A lot like horses as the de facto standard of personal transportation. Buying an old, used Canon film SLR...quaint. And super-affordable these days. The market for them is almost dead. Now, excuse me, I need to go out to the stables and give the horses a bit more hay and oats and some water before I go to bed, so that I'll have a ride to town tomorrow. Does ANYBODY remember what the Original Post was about? Not swamp-rat 8x10 view camera wacks like Clyde Butcher (imagine Jed Clampett, but 395 pounds,maybe 425 actually, with a big beard), chest-wader sloggin' through the swamps shooting three frames a day on an 8x10 camera that's older than any member of this board...the yuppies who buy those kinds of old-fashioned landscape pictures expect their creators to look the part and to use antiquated equipment.

Remember the Original Post???????? Seems like you do not. Your bona fides do not win the argument of the OP....not one bit.


----------



## malkav41 (Oct 15, 2010)

You know what cracks me up is that Neil S. started this whole film vs digital debate with one little sentence. 





> I have been thinking lately that I may want to get a Canon film SLR.


 And look where that lead to. :roll: Bravo!


----------



## Foxwolfe (Oct 15, 2010)

Wow, this turned fairly childish.

Lots of close minded vibes up in here.


----------



## PJL (Oct 18, 2010)

This is rather interesting. I know, it deals with movies rather than still pictures, but it's still a relevant comparison. It's a series done by a professional studio comparing specially-designed scenes captured on film v. the same scenes captured on several DSLR cameras, both crop sensor and full-frame. What's fascinating is where film outshines digital, and vice-versa.

The Great Camera Shootout 2010 - Film Vs DSLR Comparison | Zacuto

Granted, the three episodes together run an 1 1/2 hours, so it's not a quick view, but it's interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 18, 2010)

malkav41 said:


> You know what cracks me up is that Neil S. started this whole film vs digital debate with one little sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Its funny how that works sometimes.

For anyone who cares, I bought a used EOS 1v HS with the booster grip a few days ago.

It was listed on B&H as item condition 9 for $699.

I know it&#8217;s probably a lot all things considered but it is the king of EOS film SLRs. It&#8217;s likely that they will never make film SLRs again, and this gives it great historical value in my opinion

The thing is built like a tank and is sealed very well too.

If anyone is wondering why I bought it, the reason is that I simply want to shoot some film so that I will understand it better. That and what I said earlier about having a cool Canon keepsake for the future.

I realize that the labs in Japan are probably different in some ways, but I don&#8217;t really know what to look for when picking one to get my prints from.

Can anyone give me a few quick tips on getting good prints?

Also when I get the prints back, they give me the negatives as well right? 

I can scan them or get more prints made later if I wanted? Is this correct?

I will probably at some point want very high quality prints made, and would like to know what to ask for exactly and what I should be expecting to pay. The sizes will probably be 4x6 or 5x7 and maybe some select 8x10ish prints for myself or my family.

- Neil


----------



## PJL (Oct 19, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I realize that the labs in Japan are probably different in some ways, but I dont really know what to look for when picking one to get my prints from.



Since film is a stone-age technology, you want to see what kind of equipment the lab uses.  Better labs use finer chisels to carve the images into the rock plates. 


> *Specific Questions to Ask
> *Below is a list of some of the questions to ask when looking for a lab. This list is meant to get you started into a conversation with the people at the lab. The best way to start is ask about the services they offer and go from there. You can ask these in any order as the conversation dictates. If at any point you feel uncomfortable with the answers you're getting, than youre probably not in the right lab. And don't forget to ask other photographers. The grape vine is still a good source of information.
> 
> What services do you offer?
> ...




 Choosing the Right Photo Lab




> Can anyone give me a few quick tips on getting good prints?


Expose your film properly, and make sure your lab will give you free reprints if you aren't satisfied.  A quick glance at the negative will tell you if you under or overexposed the shot, or if it was a poor print.

That being said, not all films are built the same, even at the same ISO rating.  Some color films respond better to over-exposure, anywhere from 1/3 of a stop to a full stop.  When you settle on a particular film, play around with that for a few rolls. 



> Also when I get the prints back, they give me the negatives as well right?


Yes.  Some will give it to you uncut, while others will cut it and sleeve it.



> I can scan them or get more prints made later if I wanted? Is this correct?


Yep.



> I will probably at some point want very high quality prints made, and would like to know what to ask for exactly and what I should be expecting to pay. The sizes will probably be 4x6 or 5x7 and maybe some select 8x10ish prints for myself or my family.


My local lab does 8x10s for a few dollars.  A single 4x6 or 5x7 print usually runs 40 or 50 cents.  Most places will give you some sort of discount if you do prints at the time of developing.  For rolls that I've used to shoot special occasions, I'll get scanning to CD and a set of 4x6 prints done at the time of development.


----------



## Neil S. (Oct 19, 2010)

PJL said:


> My local lab does 8x10s for a few dollars. A single 4x6 or 5x7 print usually runs 40 or 50 cents. Most places will give you some sort of discount if you do prints at the time of developing. For rolls that I've used to shoot special occasions, I'll get scanning to CD and a set of 4x6 prints done at the time of development.


 
Ty for the info, this really helps me.

- Neil


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> good point. you brought up the medium format. Let me clarify my question. When comparing 35mm DSLR to 35mm film SLR, in what situation would one chose film SLR. High dynamic range situations? Sounds reasonable. Is there anything else?



When one wants the look of film.

I know a pro that recently did a shoot with Kate Moss (the supermodel chick). He shoots 35mm film almost exclusively, and is doing very well in the commercial markets in London and New York. Oh, and he just directed a video for Nike, based on the strength of his 35mm work.

It's quite sad to see pro-digital nuts going off on film without seeming to have any real education on the subject, or any sort of artistic bone in their body.

Digital has uses, film has uses.

Whoever mentioned film not shooting fast is an idiot, you can get 8 FPS out of an F6, and 10 FPS out of an EOS-1v (and back in the day that sports pros shot film, you'd have multiple cameras set up, and an assistant loading and emptying film for you as you changed between them).

What it comes down to is use whatever medium achieves the aesthetic you're after, and shut the **** up if you don't know what you're talking about.

To the OP, good to see you picked up a EOS, any idea what film you're looking to shoot, or just want to experiment?


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 24, 2010)

iamacyborg said:


> ...or any sort of artistic bone in their body....



Why am I not surprised at this statement? and why are you continuing this pointless argument?


----------



## iamacyborg (Nov 24, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> iamacyborg said:
> 
> 
> > ...or any sort of artistic bone in their body....
> ...



Just read the below statement:



Derrel said:


> Not really true at most levels; the successful fine art photographers of each era almost universally used the absolute best materials and practices, while the hobby photographers limped along with junkier, hobbyist equipment. The successful fine art photographers of each decade of the 20th century strived for high technical quality in their negatives, developing, and prints; hobby shooters on the other hand shot at the hobby level.



What a load of absolute tosh. Noone's mentioned Man Ray yet, but let's.

What did he need for his rayographs? Well, he definitely didn't need a camera, that's for sure.

Solarisation? Well, the photo itself was almost unimportant, what was important was the effect achieved, and back then, there was no "cmd z". 

Other artists have also been mentioned, so I won't bother repeating those.

As far as continuing the pointless argument, isn't that what you're doing by replying to me? Here's a good quote.



supraman215 said:


> Is it lonely on your pedestal?


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 24, 2010)

LOL that comment was directed to those who feel superior, as you obviously do, based on the "artistic" comment, because they use film and know how to process it. They tend to have this, as you have shown again, this "holier than thou" approach and stick their nose up at digital, saying "it has it's place" which based on the vibe I'm getting here is in the hands of inexperienced non artistic types, who are "...without...any sort of artistic bone in their body"

A story about a photographer using 35mm film. That's a story. One using digital, that's not a story. What you are producing, that should be the story.


----------



## j-dogg (Nov 24, 2010)

Film guy checking in

Does digital have its advantages? YES, I can fit 1700 RAW images on my 16gb card vs 36 shots on a roll. I process it myself in my own home in minutes.

Now, does film have advantages, YES. Not all of us are filthy rich and can afford a Nikon D3x, so we get the next best thing, a 35mm SLR. I have three of them. NO digital camera to date, not even the Nikon D4x that isn't even out yet, can accurately reproduce the look of film. I almost shoot it exclusively for portraiture.

Plus, hard drive crashes don't ruin negatives and in some legal situations digital images can get thrown out in court. They both have their downfalls and highlights instead of swearing by one or the other embrace both formats and appreciate them for what they are.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 25, 2010)

hard drive crash won't ruin my images. Fire won't ruin my images but it would destroy my negatives.


----------



## Einherjar (Nov 25, 2010)

Coming back to the first post, film SLR's flagships are still in production, Canon EOS 1-V and Nikon F6 are still being made, but only those, and are quite expensive since they didn't received any significant price drop.

About the film x digital thing, my 2 cents are:
Digital is more practical because you shoot without much concern regarding treatment, thinking of those only later, while in film you need to think in what filters, type of film, to use before hand, and that requires time (to change them) that can be critical in some situations when you don't have it(time).
Film has a better quality than sensors, the "white balance" is not such a great issue, color deformation due to lenses are a lot bigger in the sensors, the colors that the sensors records are quite lifeless(this compared to chrome). Although this issues can be bypassed by Photoshop, for many people, some times called "purists", thats also is a critical variable that needs to be considered.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 25, 2010)

I find it funny that the OP after asking about film cameras is making fun of film shooters mid way through his thread. Not only that but he goes from asking if Canon still produces film cameras to making a BS statement about why Canon stopped making film cameras&#8230;

Then he just insults the people he originally asked for help. WOW! Neil S., I&#8217;m sending it right back at you. You are an idiot you digital fanboy!

In the space of 3 pages you&#8217;ve become an expert. I&#8217;m amazed. 

That said, I agree with two statements that have been made here:

1/ Not much point in shooting film if you&#8217;re not going to do the darkroom work yourself. 
Because the biggest difference you will see when comparing film and digital is in the print. To me that also means shooting B&W since the only color prints I&#8217;ve ever liked were Cibachrome (now known as Ilfochrome) and the last I checked it was not a process one does at home. Although printing color at home is far from unheard of, as Superman seems to think.

2/ It makes very little sense shooting film for commercial work today.
Commercial clients want the ease of dealing with digital files because it makes the process of going to press much simpler.


Most of the rest of the thread is as much nonsense as the dreaded Nikon vs. Canon, Ford vs. Pontiac, Black vs. White, Mac vs Windows machines BS.

Yes, shooting film is a pain in the neck compared to shooting digital, in many ways, but when it comes to my art work I will take film over digital any day. And anyone who says that a digital print is as good or better than a print from film is either a moron or has never seen the two next to each other. Or maybe they&#8217;re just blind.

(Kind of like people who think CDs sound better than LPs. And today, most people don&#8217;t even listen to CDs, they listen to MP3s which are about as good as cassettes, lol. One needs to keep in mind that the common denominator in today&#8217;s society is going towards lower and lower quality in everything. In the name of the great god, Ease/Cost!
And in case you don&#8217;t know, sales of vinyl have gone up at the same time that sales of CDs were crashing. Not only that but the big recording studios who went all digital were soon buying analog equipment back for at least one studio because there was a demand for it.)

Of course, I am not talking about drugstore processing/printing&#8230;  That will get you cheesy results. But it will whether you&#8217;re printing digital files or from negatives. The best prints from digital are made by pro printers just as it was with film. And in the pro printer&#8217;s world there are many levels of quality.

But since most people don&#8217;t care to spend the money needed to get those good prints, most prints are as crappy as they ever were. And unfortunately, that is not the only problem with the digital revolution in photography.

Another problem is that people shoot so much they barely even look at what they have shot before moving on to the next shoot as is obvious from multiple threads on this forum. 

Yet another problem is that most people never bother to print anything at all. They look at their photos on the computer. Funny considering that photography is still, despite the internet, mostly a printed media.

And, to Derrel, the longevity of digital photos (and media in general) is such a big problem that the government is trying to set up some sort of standard for archiving it. This problem was mentioned big time when Eastwood&#8217;s movies about Iwo Jima came out because they were called the last movies of this type that will ever be made. Thanks to digital.

Yes, today&#8217;s soldiers communicate with their families via email and since those emails will not be saved for long we will lose this kind of historical record. The same is true with photography and this is not the first time I talk of that. I own 2 amazing collections of glass photos that would simply not exist if they had been shot in digital, considering how they were stored.

Those two sets were shot by amateurs who didn&#8217;t a single thing about preserving them. Not to mention they didn&#8217;t care because they didn&#8217;t see them as anything special. But because of how well film (glass in this case) lasts, those images are still with us.

The average digital shooter on the other hand will do no more to save his/her files but the files are so fragile, they&#8217;ll be gone in no time. How many threads about multiple back ups which end up costing a fortune do you need before you can admit that?

Btw, damaged negs are better than no photo at all.


Quote: Originally Posted by supraman215 
People were also doing math before calculators. So? If I can use a calculator to get me the product of 345*251 faster than I can do it on paper then I'll use a calculator. Because the answer will be instantaneous. Why would I want to wait when I know the result will be the same?

The result won't be the same if you don't know how to do it on paper and you won't know how to do it on paper for long unless you continue to do it on paper at least some of the time.

Anyone who&#8217;s been in line at the grocery store when a customer handed over 17 cents to the cashier to round up what their change will be after said cashier rung up the $10 bill that was first given can attest to that. The brain is a muscle that needs to be used if you want to keep it, lol.

Now, this is an argument from someone who really doesn&#8217;t have an argument: &#8220;Is it lonely on your pedestal?&#8221; And my response usually is: Do you feel better as part of the herd? Do you have a problem thinking for yourself? Or are you so brain dead that you will listen to a Sears photographer as your God?

I find this really funny because I have never seen a film shooter trying to force anyone to shoot film. On the other hand, I see plenty of digital only shooters trying to convince people that film is stupid. And they rarely are the best of photographers.

In the US we&#8217;ve been taught for years that progress is good, is the way to go but we haven&#8217;t been taught to actually think about why because that would be dangerous to the corporate mindset that sells the newest thing no matter how it makes our life better&#8230; or not.

Quick example and then I&#8217;ll leave you to your BS: My parent just bought a new washing machine. The one that finally just died was 30 years old. Do you think your brand spanking new washing machine is going to last a third of that?


I am not naive enough to think that film is &#8220;better&#8221; somehow though.

And since you have never used film, what the fook do you know? You&#8217;re a joke. Get over yourself and , mostly/also, get over Derrel.

Derrel is the equivalent on this forum of the silent majority in our political life. He is neither the majority not silent.


----------



## supraman215 (Nov 25, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> 1/ Not much point in shooting film if youre not going to do the darkroom work yourself.
> Because the biggest difference you will see when comparing film and digital is in the print. To me that also means shooting B&W since the only color prints Ive ever liked were Cibachrome (now known as Ilfochrome) and the last I checked it was not a process one does at home. Although printing color at
> home is far from unheard of, as Superman seems to think.
> ...
> ...



I was the first one to say #1.

Printed B&W film and developed B&W negs. Never worked with color film other than taking pics. this was something I heard over 20 years ago forgive my ignorance on the color film subject.


----------

