Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

  1. #1

    Default Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    I've recently met a few dslr using switching from using dslr to slr. So it's not always film slr switch to dslr. I think it's not a matter of downgrade or upgrade. Some people who talks alot of technologies know nuts about photography but read some web articles and speak like a pro. Of cause many who choose has nothing against their equipment but for work or practical reasons.

    Any here switch from dslr to film slr?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    only for those who wan to be retro

  3. #3
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    I for one did not give up my SLR for DSLR. I am still using both although I would say 99.5% of my clients are requesting for digital. I now give digital as a standard unless otherwise requested for film. My Nikon F100 and FE2 is now sitting in my cabin and only taken out once in a while for winding sake. I would not hesitate to shoot films if I have the time to when out of my normal shooting schedule.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    I started out digital but I didn't switch to film. I just bought a film camera to compliment my digital. Just wanted to see the difference/why others prefer film and I'm kinda hooked on it. And the anticipation of waiting for the negs/slides to get developed. Just kills you.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Currently SLRless. Just sold mine to fund a new one. The film slr compliments my DSLR as i like the tones of film b/w compared to digitalized b/w

  6. #6

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Digital photography still has a long way to go to match up to film quality. Read this and this if you have not.
    Last edited by CMOS; 2nd October 2005 at 12:42 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Quote Originally Posted by CMOS
    Digital photography still has a long way to go to match up to film quality. Read this and this if you have not.
    Actually, there are some who say that digital has already surpassed film in terms of quality....

    Anyway the first link you gave is tested on both film...

    By no means can a small format DSLR be compared to a 4x5 or otherwise large format film camera...
    Last edited by +evenstar; 2nd October 2005 at 12:49 PM.
    eat. drink. shoot

  8. #8

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Quote Originally Posted by +evenstar
    Anyway the first link you gave is tested on both film...
    camera...
    I assume that you did not read the full article till the end. It gives a good idea of how many digital mp
    to achieve each type of film quality.

  9. #9
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Quote Originally Posted by CMOS
    I assume that you did not read the full article till the end. It gives a good idea of how many digital mp
    to achieve each type of film quality.
    Do note that they are scanning large format slides at >3000dpi...
    eat. drink. shoot

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Hmm.....switch from digital to film?......unlikely for me....but I am considering doing both at the same time.....as the prices for film SLRs are low now....thanks to didital....

  11. #11
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Like I mentioned above, I use both film and digital and although I am using digital mostly now I will have no hesitation to use my film camera. I think the links posted by CMOS to be very redundant and based on a personal bias by the author.

    First of all, let's take the case of Clark's website. Most 4"X5" film scans are scanned from industrial standard scanners like for example the Howtek drum scanner which is capable of scanning at 8000 dpi resolution with very high d-max and d-min range and resolving power. There is no doubt that a 4X5" film produces better quality than 35mm film, but one just can't take 35mm films scanned using a home-use desktop scanner which costs a couple of thousand and use it as a comparison to 4X5" films scanned using industrial drum scanner that cost 30 to 50 thousands and say that 35mm lacks the resolving power. One too don't compare images shot digitally on a DSLR and compare them to a film scanned from 4X5" transparency which is akin to comparing the number of passenger capacity between a Volvo bus and a Ferrari.

    Secondly, we look at Ken Rockwell's website. Mr Rockwell is again using the unfair and redundant argument that 4X5" films scanned at high resolution to be even better than today's pro level DSLR like the Canon 1DsMkII and the Nikon D2X. We have to first look at the format of the camera before judging the quality between film and digital. In another words, compare quality from a 35mm film scanned to that of today's DSLR and compare 120 film scanned to that of today's digital backs. Although you will find that there really isn't any 4X5" digital back available today for comparison to a 4X5" film camera but it doesn't mean that there won't be any in the near future looking at the way digital technology is picking up.

    I have personally done a few high-resolution scans from my 35mm films and all I can say is that more dpi during scanning might not necessarily be a good thing. One would be scanning the film grains than the actual image at any resolution higher than 2000 dpi for 35mm films and 4000dpi for 120 films. I have a few 4000dpi scanned images from my 35mm slides that look extremely grainy. Today's DSLR is IMHO way much better than yesteryear's and if you are using a pro range DSLR you will notice that the quality is either on par or even better than that scanned from 35mm films.

    The other thing to take note is that it is a lot easier to interpolate a digital picture shot using a DSLR than one scanned from 35mm films. A 5% increment in file size for a scanned image would result in it being slightly blur, but with a picture from a DSLR one have no problems interpolating the files 200% or even more.

    To end, there is not really a right and wrong argument here. If one shoot mainly scenery and still life one can choose to use 4X5" films and argue that digital does not come as close as films. But if you are a photojournalist or street shooter, you would probably not be shooting on a 4X5" film camera. So let's be realistic as arguments like these are more often than not redundant and never ending. If one could be arguing about resolving power between DSLR and 4X5" films, so one could also argue about technological advancement between today's DSLR and yesterday's mechanical camera

  12. #12
    Senior Member scud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,808

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    i started from slr (full manual to AF) to dslr, & i still prefer to shoot film if i have the chance.
    nothing beats the feeling of anxiety to see the outcome of every shot u took.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    hmmm.....I started out with an old F-301(MF)with a 18-70mm and a 70-150mm Vivitar lens....then Digi Prosumer....now DSLR....

  14. #14

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Haha.i Must be the only one. I started shooting digital and now I shoot ONLY on film.But it doesent matter la.
    Its the content that matters.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    I know some older folks gave up dslr because they are so confused with all the digital technologies. Not only do they need to know computer & photoshop. They need to know what is white balance, hue etc. 1 wrong push of a button and you can send all your pictures to heaven. That's why the younger and budding photographers taking over in this digital age.
    Last edited by photogene; 5th October 2005 at 06:37 PM.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Nope. I'm another one.

    Started with a 300D. Then upgraded to a 10D. Then, I started playing with Kodak TRI-X. Never looked back ever since. Sold of all my digicams. The rest is of course history. I shoot exclusively on films. I just added another film cameras to my arsenal of equipment - a Holga 120 CFN.

    Quote Originally Posted by politicalartist
    Haha.i Must be the only one. I started shooting digital and now I shoot ONLY on film.But it doesent matter la.
    Its the content that matters.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Quote Originally Posted by photogene
    I know some older folks gave up dslr because they are so confused with all the digital technologies. Not only do they need to know computer & photoshop. They need to know what is white balance, hue etc. 1 wrong push of a button and you can send all your pictures to heaven.
    And film users need to handle chemical processes with fairly tight tolerances. Not only need they to know chemistry and enlargers, they need to know about colour casts and filtering to make prints. One wrong push of a button and you open your camera before rewinding the film, all pictures gone.

    Oh, all you do is to take the film out of the camera, give it to a lab and let them do the work? The same works with digital, too - take your memory card and hand it over to your friendly photo finishing service.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    oh god not another person talking about how great film is...
    look,35mm film can't compare to digital.
    screw the tests and all that, I've done my own C-prints from negatives, done my own scanning using an Imacon, and 35mm film is crap compared to digital.
    Medium format has a different look, but anything below 6x6 format can't compare to digital

    if you like the uneven grain that's fine, but you can recreate a film look from digital easily.
    don't trust those articles, try it yourself, make prints yourself, and then you'll know.
    I've printed 14x22inches from a Nikon D70, but the maximum I've ever gone from Kodak Portra 160VC with 35mm is 11x14 inches.

  19. #19
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Like I mentioned above, I use both film and digital and although I am using digital mostly now I will have no hesitation to use my film camera. I think the links posted by CMOS to be very redundant and based on a personal bias by the author.

    First of all, let's take the case of Clark's website. Most 4"X5" film scans are scanned from industrial standard scanners like for example the Howtek drum scanner which is capable of scanning at 8000 dpi resolution with very high d-max and d-min range and resolving power. There is no doubt that a 4X5" film produces better quality than 35mm film, but one just can't take 35mm films scanned using a home-use desktop scanner which costs a couple of thousand and use it as a comparison to 4X5" films scanned using industrial drum scanner that cost 30 to 50 thousands and say that 35mm lacks the resolving power. One too don't compare images shot digitally on a DSLR and compare them to a film scanned from 4X5" transparency which is akin to comparing the number of passenger capacity between a Volvo bus and a Ferrari.

    Secondly, we look at Ken Rockwell's website. Mr Rockwell is again using the unfair and redundant argument that 4X5" films scanned at high resolution to be even better than today's pro level DSLR like the Canon 1DsMkII and the Nikon D2X. We have to first look at the format of the camera before judging the quality between film and digital. In another words, compare quality from a 35mm film scanned to that of today's DSLR and compare 120 film scanned to that of today's digital backs. Although you will find that there really isn't any 4X5" digital back available today for comparison to a 4X5" film camera but it doesn't mean that there won't be any in the near future looking at the way digital technology is picking up.

    I have personally done a few high-resolution scans from my 35mm films and all I can say is that more dpi during scanning might not necessarily be a good thing. One would be scanning the film grains than the actual image at any resolution higher than 2000 dpi for 35mm films and 4000dpi for 120 films. I have a few 4000dpi scanned images from my 35mm slides that look extremely grainy. Today's DSLR is IMHO way much better than yesteryear's and if you are using a pro range DSLR you will notice that the quality is either on par or even better than that scanned from 35mm films.

    The other thing to take note is that it is a lot easier to interpolate a digital picture shot using a DSLR than one scanned from 35mm films. A 5% increment in file size for a scanned image would result in it being slightly blur, but with a picture from a DSLR one have no problems interpolating the files 200% or even more.

    To end, there is not really a right and wrong argument here. If one shoot mainly scenery and still life one can choose to use 4X5" films and argue that digital does not come as close as films. But if you are a photojournalist or street shooter, you would probably not be shooting on a 4X5" film camera. So let's be realistic as arguments like these are more often than not redundant and never ending. If one could be arguing about resolving power between DSLR and 4X5" films, so one could also argue about technological advancement between today's DSLR and yesterday's mechanical camera
    eat. drink. shoot

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Jurong
    Posts
    524

    Default Re: Anyone here switch from using dslr to film slr?

    Good! Finally, an objective comments by an old bird.

    Because sometimes those 'extrema' comments made really wonder.

    My block downstair has a small provision kiosk. The ah peh still use abacus. Sometime ago, I did ask why not a calculator and he replied - it is prone to misclick - press wrong button - and he does not know how to use. I did not know what to say then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Like I mentioned above, I use both film and digital and although I am using digital mostly now I will have no hesitation to use my film camera. I think the links posted by CMOS to be very redundant and based on a personal bias by the author.

    First of all, let's take the case of Clark's website. Most 4"X5" film scans are scanned from industrial standard scanners like for example the Howtek drum scanner which is capable of scanning at 8000 dpi resolution with very high d-max and d-min range and resolving power. There is no doubt that a 4X5" film produces better quality than 35mm film, but one just can't take 35mm films scanned using a home-use desktop scanner which costs a couple of thousand and use it as a comparison to 4X5" films scanned using industrial drum scanner that cost 30 to 50 thousands and say that 35mm lacks the resolving power. One too don't compare images shot digitally on a DSLR and compare them to a film scanned from 4X5" transparency which is akin to comparing the number of passenger capacity between a Volvo bus and a Ferrari.

    Secondly, we look at Ken Rockwell's website. Mr Rockwell is again using the unfair and redundant argument that 4X5" films scanned at high resolution to be even better than today's pro level DSLR like the Canon 1DsMkII and the Nikon D2X. We have to first look at the format of the camera before judging the quality between film and digital. In another words, compare quality from a 35mm film scanned to that of today's DSLR and compare 120 film scanned to that of today's digital backs. Although you will find that there really isn't any 4X5" digital back available today for comparison to a 4X5" film camera but it doesn't mean that there won't be any in the near future looking at the way digital technology is picking up.

    I have personally done a few high-resolution scans from my 35mm films and all I can say is that more dpi during scanning might not necessarily be a good thing. One would be scanning the film grains than the actual image at any resolution higher than 2000 dpi for 35mm films and 4000dpi for 120 films. I have a few 4000dpi scanned images from my 35mm slides that look extremely grainy. Today's DSLR is IMHO way much better than yesteryear's and if you are using a pro range DSLR you will notice that the quality is either on par or even better than that scanned from 35mm films.

    The other thing to take note is that it is a lot easier to interpolate a digital picture shot using a DSLR than one scanned from 35mm films. A 5% increment in file size for a scanned image would result in it being slightly blur, but with a picture from a DSLR one have no problems interpolating the files 200% or even more.

    To end, there is not really a right and wrong argument here. If one shoot mainly scenery and still life one can choose to use 4X5" films and argue that digital does not come as close as films. But if you are a photojournalist or street shooter, you would probably not be shooting on a 4X5" film camera. So let's be realistic as arguments like these are more often than not redundant and never ending. If one could be arguing about resolving power between DSLR and 4X5" films, so one could also argue about technological advancement between today's DSLR and yesterday's mechanical camera

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •