BodyshotsNYNude wrote:
OK, so all this film/digital debate has me anxious to break out my old Canon630 again.

Any tips on where to purchase film again? AND where to get it processed??

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/     for film and diy developing

http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/   for developing

PhillipM wrote:
I use film to play with.

RB67, off camera 550ex


-

Buttery nice!

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
That looks like Bernini. Awesome. Painting is it's own beast. Photography has it's own place. The only thing they have in common is that they are 2 dimensional representations of reality. And sculpture, well that's something entirely different altogether.

you can combine all these arts together in the pure digital forms too:

* digital photography
* digital photoshop
* digital sculpting software
* digital 3D software (to generate the endless varations of 2D pics) with the complex digital surfaces, the complex light sources, "better" than reality...
* digital 3D printing (for your sculptures, for example)
* potentially, you can affect other people's brain directly using HIDDEN RYTHMS and brain waves by virtually bypassing many existing limitations...
etc

Heck, the good Italian marble is too damn expensive (and a 3D printer can work with metal or the mixture of powder and semi-liquified granulas similar to the marble structure)!

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
I never thought I would see so much hostility against film on a photography related website. I get it, digital is easy, convenient, cheap-ish, but holy cow man I didn't realize how threatening shooting film was.

I haven't seen anyone 'threatened' by shooting film. I've seen a lot of people who don't want to shoot film, either for the first time, or again, as well as a lot of people who do want to shoot film, either instead of or in addition to digital.

Someone who states a different preference when asked is not necessarily 'threatened' by someone else's preference.

You asked why not shoot film. Some people told you. If all you gained from that is that they're threatened, I can see there are some communication issues.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:

I haven't seen anyone 'threatened' by shooting film. I've seen a lot of people who don't want to shoot film, either for the first time, or again, as well as a lot of people who do want to shoot film, either instead of or in addition to digital.

Someone who states a different preference when asked is not necessarily 'threatened' by someone else's preference.

You asked why not shoot film. Some people told you. If all you gained from that is that they're threatened, I can see there are some communication issues.

Yes, communication issues, like only reading the title and missing everything else I said in the original post:

"Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work:  why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film."

Herman van Gestel wrote:

lol, looks as if you don't consider scanning....a Nikon Coolscan scans amazing images, in a higher quality than most camera's...and in true RGB channels (whereas 1 cam-pixel =  1 color)...once scanned in, you can do all photoshop and LR over it.....with a higher starting-quality..

and considering that film-camera's are so much cheaper than digital camera's, while quality remains high...and having consistent quality, while digital camera's are so fast gone...

Btw got more dust problems on my dSLR's than on Film

Actually I have a film and flatbed scanner and scanning does not affect why I choose not to shoot film and in fact adds two reasons not to. Cost of the scanner ( if I did not already own one) and the added time to an already slower process with no discernible advantage, IMO.

Dust was not even considered in my reasons but if it was I would rather do it in PS than on a print, which I have done and hated.

Bob Helm Photography wrote:
...
Dust was not even considered in my reasons but if it was I would rather do it in PS than on a print, which I have done and hated.

*sigh*...Why people think that films stops at being processed digital...scan the best and remove dust in photoshop if needs be......that said...dSLR collects more dust than SLR

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
You asked why not shoot film. Some people told you. If all you gained from that is that they're threatened, I can see there are some communication issues.

Yes, communication issues, like only reading the title and missing everything else I said in the original post:

"Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work: why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film."

Yes, communication issues.

When I'm doing more creative work or "art" work, I use what I use because I prefer it.
For those times when speed isn't essential, I use what I use because I prefer it.
For times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool, I use what I use because I prefer it.

For  me, that's why not shoot film. Not because I'm threatened by the use of film, or other people shooting film, but because I prefer it. I've shot with a lot of different films in a wide variety of cameras over the course of a few decades, and I've processed and printed a slightly smaller range of them; it's not as if I've never used it to compare against.

Your mileage may vary.

hooyeah123 wrote:
Man lots of people hating on film here, didn't expect that.

Nearly all of them point out only the strengths of digital. They don't mention the strengths of film, which tells me they don't know anything about film.

Dan Dozer wrote:
Everything in my portfolio is shot on film - mostly 8 x 10.

Ahh! Old-school wonderfulness for sure!

Tony-S wrote:

Nearly all of them point out only the strengths of digital. They don't mention the strengths of film, which tells me they don't know anything about film.

+1

Tony-S wrote:
Nearly all of them point out only the strengths of digital. They don't mention the strengths of film, which tells me they don't know anything about film.

Logic failure.  If asking me why I choose A over B, why should I waste time discussing the strengths of B.  They obviously didn't rate as highly as the strengths that led me to choose A.  Besides, the very things that you consider the strengths of B might be seen as the obvious weaknesses of B or at best irrelevant from someone else's perspective.  To just assume that someone choosing A is ignorant of the strengths of B unless they enumerate them is arrogant and patronizing.

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
Working in digital yes, it's works, it's fast, it's convenient and works great for when you make a living shooting. Headshots, commercial, weddings, fashion, whatever. It's hard to compete these days if you're not shooting digital. But for more creative work or  "art" work:  why not shoot film? No i don't mean that headshots or commercial work, etc, isn't or can't be creative. I'm just talking about those times where speed isn't essential. Those times where you can take a breath and just go make something cool. Who's got some film shots they want to share? I don't care if it's art, commercial, or whatever. Let's see some film.

100% of my black and white personal stuff is shot with film (T-Max 100) and mostly with the Hasselblad. I go to the Nikons only if I do not have an equivalent focal length with my CZ lenses. Digital black and white has come a long way, to be sure, but it still has a LONG way to go before it will seriously challenge the quality of film.

mophotoart wrote:
I will prefer modern transportation

Has the DOT started adding bike lanes in Wichita?

Mark Reeder Photography wrote:
why not shoot film?

It is a huge fucking pain in the ass.

Tony-S wrote:
Nearly all of them point out only the strengths of digital. They don't mention the strengths of film, which tells me they don't know anything about film.

Tools are for using. Pick the one(s) you like.

Deciding that people who choose one tool over another only do so because they don't know anything about their other options is ludicrous.

It doesn't matter if it's 8x10 film, a 4x5 scanning back camera, 6x7 film, MF digital, or a cardboard box with a pinhole; every one of these has advantages and disadvantages, and it may well be that their decision is based on more knowledge--particularly of their personal approach to photography--rather than less. But insisting there's only one reason--ignorance--says more about the 'critic' than it does the writer.

Charlie-CNP wrote:
Another argument that you will often see is the quality difference between film and digital. Digital has technically never been able to replicate what film does "exactly". Why, because it is a different medium. Aside from those that are classically trained, 99.9% of people out there can not see the difference, and are not going to care what you shot with as long as they can somehow subject their own views onto the image, and relate to it by some means. The funny part is that some of the photographers that are experienced with film can pull out the film camera, and there will be a whole line up of folks that want to shoot with them all of a sudden that have either never experienced film before, or that put some form of worth/stock into the fact that they are willing to invest so much time and resources into making an image in an old process like that.

I think you probably have to say "People using digital are not able to replicate film exactly."

I'm pretty sure that if you leave the lens cap on a film camera and a digital camera and shoot the inside of the cap, it's going to look identical as film or digital.

So one thing to consider is the scene you're shooting, some will be easier than others to match.

In addition, lens coatings make a big difference in the look. Put an ultra contrast filter on a modern lens, and you're part way to the film look with that alone.


Beyond that, you need to have digital post skills. Period. Even if you don't want to make digital look like film, you need that skill to make it look good. I'm sure most people transitioning from film to digital would feel very different about it if they sent their memory cards to a lab for processing and got back a lightroom catalog that had great looking RAW conversions.

If you shoot film and send it to a lab, are you really qualified to evaluate digital? If you're not hands on in the film processing, are you really going to be as hands on with RAW conversion?

And even if the answer is yes, how long does it take to develop the equivalent digital skills as the tech at the lab has when it comes to processing your film?

Most people simply don't make accurate comparisons.



The way to know whether someone is basing their preference for film on legitimate factors is when they're not comparing film to digital, but instead identifying specific film stocks. They don't all look the same, and people have preferred looks which will be connected to the specific stocks.

Even though digital is another format, it's really not any different from selecting a film stock with those characteristics.

Charlie-CNP wrote:
99.9% of people out there can not see the difference

One reason for that is when you look online at a film vs digital comparison, they're both digital!


There's really no way to make a proper comparison. It's possible to shoot scene with both digital and film, but how do you compare them. Both in a computer doesn't work. A computer and a print makes no sense. Two prints will most likely be an ink jet print compared to a photo print.


The closest you can get to a even comparison would be to shoot slides and project them onto a wall next to a digital projection and I doubt anyone has taken the time to do that.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:



Tools are for using. Pick the one(s) you like.

Deciding that people who choose one tool over another only do so because they don't know anything about their other options is ludicrous.

It doesn't matter if it's 8x10 film, a 4x5 scanning back camera, 6x7 film, MF digital, or a cardboard box with a pinhole; every one of these has advantages and disadvantages, and it may well be that their decision is based on more knowledge--particularly of their personal approach to photography--rather than less. But insisting there's only one reason--ignorance--says more about the 'critic' than it does the writer.

You need to go back and read more posts. Lots of photographers are saying that they have never shot film and they don't want to try it.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There's really no way to make a proper comparison. It's possible to shoot scene with both digital and film, but how do you compare them.

Sure there is. Edge detail. Grain structure. Tonal range (especially in the highlights). ...in a print ...under a loupe ...wearing white gloves ...in a clean room ....in the basement of Christie's. (Or try sharpening a high speed color print film and see what it does to your shadows.)

Fortunately, good photographs don't care about any of that; nor should they.

Daniel wrote:

Sure there is. Edge detail. Grain structure. Tonal range (especially in the highlights). ...in a print ...under a loupe ...wearing white gloves ...in a clean room ....in the basement of Christie's. (Or try sharpening a high speed color print film and see what it does to your shadows.)

Fortunately, good photographs don't care about any of that; nor should they.

What do you compare, negative or print and do you compare it to a computer screen or an iPad or an ink jet print?

Which film stock = "film"?

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
I choose not to shoot film if I can help it because it is more expensive, involves a bunch of nasty chemicals, is potentially hazardous to the environment as well as the practitioner, and does not produce images that are in any way superior (just different).

Folks who want to shoot film are welcome to do so. I'll pass, thank you. Been there, done that, don't wanna do it again.

Yeah I'm well over film but admire the work of many afficiandos

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

What do you compare, negative or print and do you compare it to a computer screen or an iPad or an ink jet print?

Which film stock = "film"?

I meant to say negative (my experience with print film is about two rolls), which may change your question.