Digital camera & digital photography resources
for professional & amateur photographers

Does anyone still use film.... ?

Does anyone still use film.... ?



....or is it really obsolete ?

->> larger version here <<-

__________________
Kind regards
Stephen

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

Not me... I am 100% digital. However, I don't think it is obsolete or will be obsolete in the near future. Many talented photographers use film.

Many special types of photography require film (I still have to find a way to convert digital color into digital B&W with the look and feel of platinum or Tri-X).

Besides some publications and stock agencies still are completly focus on film (e.g., National Geographic)

__________________
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and seldom simple
[URL=http://gallery.bytephoto.com/showgallery.php?ppuser=4]Please let me know what do you think!!![/URL]

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

YES, I use negative film still. There is with NO DOUBT still a place in photography for Negative film. I prefer it when I am shooting weddings... I will take my digital also for extra shots, but the Canon EOS 5 does the hard work at weddings... DUE to the fact that many like larger prints.......

Here is Germany prints from negative film is cheaper.....

What I see getting lost is SLIDE FILM..... You just cant get a good print with a slide.... I think that slide film is also WAY TOO EXPENSIVE......

What do you all think on SLIDE FILM ?????????????

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

You just cant get a good print with a slide

---

I don't understand there....
I printed all my best shots from slides which gave far better results than negative. That was almost 20 years ago, though.

quote:

---

What do you all think on SLIDE FILM ?????????????

---

At one point in time, slide film was the way to go for the highest quality prints. Advertising, edition etc. all scanned slides for their publications. Well that was my experience anyway. However, nowadays I've know idea about the quality negative film prints can produce compared to slide.... I suppose the gap between quality has since closed somewhat.

__________________
Kind regards
Stephen

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

I have never been satisfied with the prints of my slide pictures. The colors seemed to be off. Maybe I just did not take them to the right lab. I have been working on SCRAPBOOKING lately and got some old slide printed out.... AGAIN ,,, NOT HAPPY.... I took them to a professional Photo Store... Not just a fly by night drug store or drop off place.... Guess that is my luck...

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

i think i might....reason....shooting high iso with digital in churches with out flash creates too much noise...

so maybe switch to film during the ceremony and everything else digital

__________________
www.phatimages.com

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

Slide film

Back in my 35mm days, I probably shot about 75% slide film, most often Kodachrome 25. The colors were awesome. If not that, I shot Kodachrome 64.

I almost always had the film processed by Kodak and, while I rarely had prints made, I always had them made by Kodak. It was expensive, but worth it.

Tim

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

Good Morning Everybody,

I am relatively new to digital photography, and as of now, I am not really comfortable with it. I still prefer medium format film, with a 1 degree spotmeter. In B&W, digital does not give me anywhere near the quality I demand. So, at this point, I definitely prefer film.

Most of the fine art photographers whose work I've seen use Fuji Velvia Iso 50, which is then scanned and printed digitally. For now, I think that sounds like the way to go.

Have a good day,

Dice

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

I am familiar with all the issues discussed here.

I shoot digital now because it is convenient and cheap, but film is still much better quality.

A 35mm negative scanned by Minalta 5400 dpi is almost 12mp way past most digital cameras with a tonal range greatly in excess of digital today.

As to medium format film, lets not even pretend that pro 35mm comes close to it in quality. Either film or digital can not compare.

For the comment of slides being better quality beacuse magazines required it. I did a lot of publishing and 35 mm kodachrome was require because of the cost of color separtions of negatives was unrealistic in compared to slides, not becasue the quality of slides was better.

I shot exclusively Kodachrome 25 for reproduction and Ektar 25 negatives for myself. Ektar could easily make a 60 inch print and it was a rare slide that could go over 16x20.

I think that digital will improve and replace film and I think that flat images will be replaced by 3D holograms, that's progress.

Color still has not replaced B&W completely, and I have not been able to bring myself to sell my 7 film cameras.

__________________
jerry

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

jerry, i 2nd what you said ...but isn't scanning is a pain in the butt also...i mean you gotta keep your negatives/slides very clean..and no dust/scratches...because everything scanned in shows up...and gotta fix them....isn't digital straight up easier?...i know its isn't med format quality at least not yet...but for the most part i think everyone is getting into digital...weddings and sports magazines, newspapers...

__________________
www.phatimages.com

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrdinh
...because everything scanned in shows up...and gotta fix them....isn't digital straight up easier?

---

Yes but don't most digital photos need a little post-processing too before publication. Ok, I know it's not the same as having to clone out spots from dust and scratchs, though.
With digital though you don't have to worry about forgetting to remove the slide from the scanner. That can be quite disastrous.

__________________
Kind regards
Stephen

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

to mrdinh and RVB Pix

you describe the issues exactly

direct digital is easy. with perfect exposure I often do not need any post processing although sharpening very little for web posting ocasionally helps.

scanning slides requires a good deal of work especially kodachromes with can not be used with digtial ice spot reduction. scanning negatives is the current best quality but a hard technique that requires a lot of skill in adjustments. I once spent three hours on a special image and the end result was perfect you could not tell it had ever been touched.

The issue is the use for which you need the picture. I have exactly one 30 inch photo on my walls so do I need to shoot that quality all the time. direct digital is certainly more fun

I am embarassed to see the use of digital at weddings. I would equaly by upset at 35mm film for weddings. I shot hundreds of weddings professionally with medium format film and once shot a family wedding with 35mm since I was not the photographer. They loved the 35mm pictures but I new they were not as good. The current trend of 35mm digital is to substitute quantity for quality.

news agencies substitue a little less quality which they do not need for the speed of instant results. If the picture is to be large for a wall, I would go back to film, at least at thiz stage of evolution in digital.

__________________
jerry

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

I only use film but scan everything from 35mm to 5" x 4". I shoot colour and black and white neg and tranny in all formats.

Film size is of course relevent to the job in hand. Weddings are mostly medium format for me unless they're in black and white, the they are often 35mm.

Magazines used to like trannys because, particularly with small (35mm) format the quality was better. Each processing stage loses a little bit of quality. Neg film goes that one stage further i.e. the print and quality is slightly compromised. Of course the films around now, 35mm colour neg upwards are just exceptional. Perhaps that's because Kodak, Fuji & co feel digital a threat?

The main reason for me for not having a digital camera in my armoury (it will never replace film for me, it will complement it), is pixels and price. When I can get 15-20MP on a pro type (EOS 1 stable) Canon SLR for £1500 body......

__________________
John

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

I own a Nikon cp5400 with a 1GB microdrive which I normaly use. On holidays however I also use film only because you never know what can happen (pictures erased, microdrive has died, ....).

Film will stay for many years but I think in the near future it will be difficult to buy film (as has happened to 8mm film). The quality of film however has improved which certainly is an advantage.

As for scanning slides and negatives, the scanning process is very sensitive regarding dust and scratches. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to make a good scan. I've about 3000 slides I wanted to scan (using a HP scanner) but after about a hundred scans I stopt (it felt like it would take forever to finish the job).
Now I'm using a slide adapter for my cp5400 which, although not the best quality, gives reasonable results and is much much faster than my scanner is.

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged

Well, if we can believe this story, it's looks like there's at least one manufacturer who's saying bye-bye to film.

>> Read it here

__________________
Kind regards
Stephen

Report this to a moderator | IP: Logged