Wild Image Media wrote:
Did a shot today for work with a Nikon D3 natural light , indoors 6500 ISO
beautiful result - in my wildest dreams back in film days.  I dont miss it

Good for you, Sparky!

Wild Image Media wrote:
And I love digital - shot a job the other day AL at 6500 ISO on a D3 for stunning results - film cant compete in low light shooting.

Start your own thread, . None of us care.

Wild Image Media wrote:
And I love digital - shot a job the other day AL at 6500 ISO on a D3 for stunning results - film cant compete in low light shooting.

So there is a trade.

You can shoot a black cat in a cole hole - but when it comes out into the bright sunlight and stands on snow you're f-d because the dynamic range of digital isn't up to the task.

Michael L. wrote:
Start your own thread, . None of us care.

I absolutely adore the moxie.

As far as film goes, .. I've been shot with film once and I have no idea what it was.

But it turned out awesome.

Wild Image Media wrote:
And I love digital - shot a job the other day AL at 6500 ISO on a D3 for stunning results - film cant compete in low light shooting.

Virtual Studio wrote:
You can shoot a black cat in a cole hole - but when it comes out into the bright sunlight and stands on snow you're f-d because the dynamic range of digital isn't up to the task.

Not only that, but digital can't compete with exposure latitude or with tonal expansion of low contrast scenes. Like everything, choose the right tool for the job.

Michael L. wrote:
Start your own thread, . None of us care.

LOL

As if everyone here doesn't know the strength's and weaknesses of both mediums.

Rees Gordon wrote:
Film definately for b&w, of course I don't shoot alot of it but getting back into it with my Mamiya and that wonderful large neg.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/22006

Really nice

Michael L. wrote:
Start your own thread, . None of us care.

Thank you  for the personal abuse - I'll never dare question film again.

Wild Image Media wrote:
Thank you  for the personal abuse - I'll never dare question film again.

Question film all you wish in a thread on how you like digital more than film.  Start one now if you chose.   But, was it really necessary to post once on Sept 2 about your digital ISO 6500 shoot and then post the same thing again on Sept 6th??  really?

OP, I used film years ago and then put the camera down for a couple decades.  When I picked it back up, I went fully digital.  But, I have just recently acquired an old Canon AE-1 and some TriX and ilFord Delta.  I will be running my first film into a development tank soon.  Should be fun.  Film has its place, even if it is a niche place, now and for some time to come!

Digitoxin wrote:
Question film all you wish in a thread on how you like digital more than film.  Start one now if you chose.   But, was it really necessary to post once on Sept 2 about your digital ISO 6500 shoot and then post the same thing again on Sept 6th??  really?

OP, I used film years ago and then put the camera down for a couple decades.  When I picked it back up, I went fully digital.  But, I have just recently acquired an old Canon AE-1 and some TriX and ilFord Delta.  I will be running my first film into a development tank soon.  Should be fun.  Film has its place, even if it is a niche place, now and for some time to come!

Damn, your right - forgot I'd already posted on this thread - guess I'm on the film users shit list  - I'll take my 5D & run.

robb albrecht wrote:
From the first roll of Provia 100 I ran through the RZ:

Lots of texture by robb albrecht, on Flickr

Looking at this frame on my light table through a loupe is pretty stunning. The detail in the textures is amazing, something I couldn't capture with digital.

Yeah, Provia is my favorite slide film. Easy on the skin, colors are punchy enough and has fabulous reciprocity characteristics. I love Velvia 50 more for colors, but it's harder to use after 1 sec of exposure.

Digitoxin wrote:
OP, I used film years ago and then put the camera down for a couple decades.  When I picked it back up, I went fully digital.  But, I have just recently acquired an old Canon AE-1 and some TriX and ilFord Delta.  I will be running my first film into a development tank soon.  Should be fun.  Film has its place, even if it is a niche place, now and for some time to come!

I just CLA'd my sister's AE-1 - it was in desperate need of light seals, the mirror bumper and I replaced the battery door (weakest part of all A-series cameras). It looked almost new when I was done with it. I have four FD cameras - F1-n, A-1, AL-1 and T60. I'm letting my 11 year old use the T60 since she has an interest in photography.

Which Delta film do you have? What do you plan to process it with? I have become a big fan of Pyrocat HD with Delta 100. That's the 4x5 waterfall shot above. Not a fan of Tri-X, though - I prefer the Efke emulsions for old-school B&W (but unfortunately, Efke is going away).

Wild Image Media wrote:
I'll take my 5D & run.

There are some things digital does better, and some things it doesn't.
I expect plenty of us also shoot with a 5D2.

Pentax 67, 105mm @ 2.4, Portra 400 .... 18+

https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/1 … 15f421.jpg

Tony-S wrote:

I just CLA'd my sister's AE-1 - it was in desperate need of light seals, the mirror bumper and I replaced the battery door (weakest part of all A-series cameras). It looked almost new when I was done with it. I have four FD cameras - F1-n, A-1, AL-1 and T60. I'm letting my 11 year old use the T60 since she has an interest in photography.

Which Delta film do you have? What do you plan to process it with? I have become a big fan of Pyrocat HD with Delta 100. That's the 4x5 waterfall shot above. Not a fan of Tri-X, though - I prefer the Efke emulsions for old-school B&W (but unfortunately, Efke is going away).

Delta 100 and 400.  I plan to use ilfosol if only because I am a rookie.

I purchased my AE-1 from KEH.  EX+ condition for like $95 with a 50mmFD 1.8 also in EX+ condition.  The things look essentially unused.

Tony-S wrote:
Yeah, Provia is my favorite slide film. Easy on the skin, colors are punchy enough and has fabulous reciprocity characteristics. I love Velvia 50 more for colors, but it's harder to use after 1 sec of exposure.

Good to know. I'm going to try some night time long exposures soon and I have a bunch of Provia.

-The Dave- wrote:
IMO digital still can't get near film in terms of detail.



I'm tempted to go back there with one of my digitals, take the same shot.  I bet it would be one big pixel instead of letters.

Yup.  However, having shot film for 20 years, I don't miss it a bit.  I can change from color to black and white, ISO 100 to ISO 1600, and 2800K White balance to 6000k white balance, all between 2 frames.  And shoot 800-900 frames without "reloading".

And, as an architectural photographer, I appreciate shooting 4 or 5 frames, and melding them together to get this:

With film, this is an all day job with 6-10 strobes.  This is one strobe, and I was in and out in an hour and a half.

Randy Henderson Images wrote:

Yup.  However, having shot film for 20 years, I don't miss it a bit.  I can change from color to black and white, ISO 100 to ISO 1600, and 2800K White balance to 6000k white balance, all between 2 frames.  And shoot 800-900 frames without "reloading".

And, as an architectural photographer, I appreciate shooting 4 or 5 frames, and melding them together to get this:

With film, this is an all day job with 6-10 strobes.  This is one strobe, and I was in and out in an hour and a half.

( Deleted your (lovely) pictures for space. )

Don't you scan your film and then photoshop?

I'm not sure that there are any (colour) places left that dont have a digital stop in the process any more. It's just a question of where the initial image capture is done.

Randy Henderson Images wrote:
And, as an architectural photographer, I appreciate shooting 4 or 5 frames, and melding them together... With film, this is an all day job with 6-10 strobes.  This is one strobe, and I was in and out in an hour and a half.

Yes, for that kind of work digital is clearly superior for nearly all circumstances. But unless you're talking about slide film, either Portra films would get all that information in a single shot. HDR is great for static subjects, but not moving subjects.

Jim McLintock wrote:
Don't confuse latitude with dynamic range. Neg has a much wider latitude than chrome but chrome has a higher dynamic range than neg according to the charts I've looked at in the past plus neg has three colour layers and a brown mask which I believe is the main reason the dynamic range of chrome is higher. Just going by memory here but maybe I'm wrong. I hope not.

That might explain why when I scan negative on my Epson v500, which has a dmax of 3.4, the difference between the high and low always fit within the histogram.

However when I scan chrome even with no curve applied, the whites can go outside the scale of the histogram, beyond the reach of the scanner.

I always thought the dynamic range of chrome was smaller, because of the need to get the exposure bang on when shooting chromes, but as you explain it, a smaller latitude would also mean that exposure would have to be correct, regardless of dynamic range.

Anyone have further knowledge of this?

Jim McLintock wrote:
Don't confuse latitude with dynamic range. Neg has a much wider latitude than chrome but chrome has a higher dynamic range than neg

This is not correct, Jim. One of the very best slide films for dynamic range was Fujichrome Astia 100F, which provided about 6 stops of dynamic range and about +/- 1 stop of latitude. Kodak Portra 400 has about 14 stops of dynamic range and on the order of +4/-2 stops of latitude. My Canon 5Dii is in between at around 10 stops of dynamic range and 2 stops on the dark and 1 stop on the light ends (which is why we typically expose to preserve the highlights in digital). Latitude and dynamic range are different, but related. The DR is the number of stops of light that a film or sensor can capture. With color, DR is mostly fixed for a given film because the development is standardized. With B&W film, one can get 16 to 18 stops with the right exposure and the right development. Latitude refers to the number of stops you can be "off" of an optimal exposure and still get a useful (which is a subjective term in this context) image. The new Nikon D800 and D600 cameras have a DN range very close (perhaps equivalent) to Kodak Ektar, at about 12 stops (the sensors measure higher than this according to DxO). My shot in the first post would have had blown highlights had I shot it with my 5Dii. In all likelihood, the color in the sky would have been white.