View Poll Results: Going Back to film

Voters
560. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    315 56.25%
  • No, staying digital.

    245 43.75%
Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567811 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 272

Thread: Going Back to Film

  1. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    B.Timah, New york, SoCal.
    Posts
    930

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon View Post
    Drum scanning actually has a low pass effect which give a nice smooth image because of the spot size of the scan. I still think if you want a digital workflow, don't bother to go through the film step, not quite worth the effort now.

    Want to shoot film, do everything in the darkroom. My 2c.


    perhaps for 35mm, yes.... but for 120 & large F, nah... we dumped a bunch of P91s and P95s at work and reverted back to chrome for most of our archival work.

  2. #102

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by F5user View Post
    perhaps for 35mm, yes.... but for 120 & large F, nah... we dumped a bunch of P91s and P95s at work and reverted back to chrome for most of our archival work.
    Yeah.. 120 digital backs costs enough to kill!

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    B.Timah, New york, SoCal.
    Posts
    930

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon View Post
    Yeah.. 120 digital backs costs enough to kill!


    hence, as mentioned, we dumped our P95 and P91 backs and reverted to 9$-a-box chromes. (ektachrome/RAP) Drum one of those guys and you'll see detail and color that'll knock your socks off. (try a Fortia 4x5)


    oh well, to each his own.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,779

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon View Post
    You store film in the dry box? I store them in the canisters and they go in the fridge. If film emulsion is too dry, they will crack.
    What I meant is exposed film that got back from lab...

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,779

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by lsisaxon View Post
    That's why for film users, I always asked if they shoot B&W or colour. Current digital printing technology is not able to emulate the look and feel of silver prints. If they shoot colour and they don't do printing themselves, then I don't see why they should still feel that film is better.
    In Australia, some collectors will still pay thousands of $$ for those MF/LF silver prints. Over here, almost everything is digital now due to market requirements.

  6. #106

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectrum View Post
    What I meant is exposed film that got back from lab...
    Oh okie.. my bad.. That's another good reason to go digital. I think I'll have trouble looking for the images I shoot 10 years ago.

  7. #107

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by F5user View Post
    hence, as mentioned, we dumped our P95 and P91 backs and reverted to 9$-a-box chromes. (ektachrome/RAP) Drum one of those guys and you'll see detail and color that'll knock your socks off. (try a Fortia 4x5)


    oh well, to each his own.
    Darn.. You make me want to dig out my dad's Hass to play... Really a joy to shoot 6x6. I sometimes do square crops on my DSLR images also..

  8. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    351

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Recently, I too have been toying with playing with film. But this is more for the fun factor of developing my own BW negatives than anything else. I think that quality wise, there is little to separate film from digital for 35mm. Also, there is so much more risk involved with film that the convenience of digital avoids, so in my view, film (35mm at least) is going to go into the domain of the hobbyist, ie film and development prices will go up, and it will only be found at specialist hobby shops eventually. Which is very sad in my view, because shooting with film can be pretty fun in it's own way.

  9. #109

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    i shot film. then got DSLR. now gone back to shooting film as well. use a RF for B&W photography. i also like the look of slide film so i have a EOS SLR body for that.
    next step for me will probably be a MF camera for portraiture and landscape.

    i prbably shoot as much film now, as i do digital. they all have their own special niche to fill.

  10. #110

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by alternatve View Post
    Started with film, tried digital and ended back into film again.

    To each his own.
    same here, I started with Digital... tried film then got hook... downgrade to a cheaper DSLR and use film mostly on my own collections... digital for event shoot only...
    Leica M4P/ M2 / Summarit 35mm f2.5 / Summicron C40mm f2 / Kobalux 21mm f2.8

  11. #111

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by smtan24 View Post
    I just curious how many out have though of going back to film. I know I have, but I was told that developing film has gone up.
    Definitely film. Digital unfortunately doesn't give the tonal quality nor the moodiness of film. Digital is great for antiseptic clinical stuff though.

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,779

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by brack View Post
    Definitely film. Digital unfortunately doesn't give the tonal quality nor the moodiness of film. Digital is great for antiseptic clinical stuff though.
    If you've tried the S5 Pro (by Fujifilm), the color it produced somehow emulate Velvia film. Especially, there is good lighting around. Very nice color rendition. Heard from pro(s) who own this DSLR.

  13. #113

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Fully agree... I'm a digital shooter before and have to deal with hundred of digital images... almost every images have to PS .. as for film... it seem to balance the color and constrast quite perfectly... I only have to deal with a little bit of leveling in PS...
    Leica M4P/ M2 / Summarit 35mm f2.5 / Summicron C40mm f2 / Kobalux 21mm f2.8

  14. #114

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by Verticoastro View Post
    Fully agree... I'm a digital shooter before and have to deal with hundred of digital images... almost every images have to PS .. as for film... it seem to balance the color and constrast quite perfectly... I only have to deal with a little bit of leveling in PS...
    You're just not using the right settings in your digital camera. My digital images are straight out of the cam. I just treat it like shooting slides.

  15. #115
    Senior Member benny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Add me to the list. I'm going back to play with film. Missed the fun from the good old days.

    Cheers,

  16. #116

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    i am still using SLR. For those people going back to non-digital, Slide + processing is cheaper than negative + processing. I just dropped 3 rows of slide with ruby. Each row of slide processing only $4+. A cheap row of slide cost $7+. plus processing is only $12+. However, developing a row of negative will cost $17!. that row of 800 maybe cost me $6. still not process yet,

  17. #117
    Senior Member benny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Hmm... I would like pictures in my hands. I've always enjoyed the feeling of anticipation when I'm going to pick up the roll that I just dropped. Slide are fun too, but to have them mounted and projected is a bit too much hassle for me at this point in time. Negative for me for the time being.

    Cheers,

  18. #118

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    Quote Originally Posted by CasualSnaper View Post
    i am still using SLR. For those people going back to non-digital, Slide + processing is cheaper than negative + processing. I just dropped 3 rows of slide with ruby. Each row of slide processing only $4+. A cheap row of slide cost $7+. plus processing is only $12+. However, developing a row of negative will cost $17!. that row of 800 maybe cost me $6. still not process yet,
    I think you got it mixed up. C-41 is indeed cheaper then E-6 processing.

    For example

    Fuji Superia 200 neg = $4.00
    D/o = $4.00
    Total = $8.00 max

    Fuji Sensia 200 slide film = $7.00
    E-6 processing = $5.70
    Total = $13.70

    Either way, slide film is more expensive as you pay for the preminium of slide film. $17 is overboard, did you get the uncle wrongly, or was it a few rolls together? It would be more expensive if you pushed or pulled it for sent it for x-pro.

    Samuel
    f/8 and be there.

  19. #119

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    does D/o $4.00 include 36 4R prints or just developing the negative? ruby suggest to develop small index print for extra $6 on top of developing negative. but i pass. I had tried those 0.15 per 4R print once. really sucks. $17 is for 1 row. I dug out my only iso 800 to ask for the cost. now it is still in my bag.

    how do see the negative without print ?

    Quote Originally Posted by alternatve View Post
    I think you got it mixed up. C-41 is indeed cheaper then E-6 processing.

    For example

    Fuji Superia 200 neg = $4.00
    D/o = $4.00
    Total = $8.00 max

    Fuji Sensia 200 slide film = $7.00
    E-6 processing = $5.70
    Total = $13.70

    Either way, slide film is more expensive as you pay for the preminium of slide film. $17 is overboard, did you get the uncle wrongly, or was it a few rolls together? It would be more expensive if you pushed or pulled it for sent it for x-pro.

    Samuel
    Last edited by CasualSnaper; 11th March 2008 at 10:09 AM.

  20. #120

    Default Re: Going Back to Film

    i always feel that i need to have a light box, sun lit roads, monitor screen or flourscent light to view slides. if exposure is "right", i can view the slides with a white wall with help from a magnifying glass. if it cannot be seen this way, it is most likely underexposed. i always develop my slide unmount. i think it is easy to scan slide unmount if i need to.

    talking about anticipation, photohub (bugis) can develop slide in 3 hours for $6+ unmount. photohub has slide + develop package. ruby need 3 days for $4+ unmount. I just sent 3 rows to ruby on monday. i just finish my slide + develop package 1 week ago. i never have any problems with slide development.

    Quote Originally Posted by benny View Post
    Hmm... I would like pictures in my hands. I've always enjoyed the feeling of anticipation when I'm going to pick up the roll that I just dropped. Slide are fun too, but to have them mounted and projected is a bit too much hassle for me at this point in time. Negative for me for the time being.

    Cheers,
    Last edited by CasualSnaper; 11th March 2008 at 10:29 AM.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567811 ... 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
  •