View Poll Results: What format do you primarily shoot?
- 486. You may not vote on this poll
5th January 2004, 02:27 AM
Who here still shoots primarily film?
I don't think 35mm will ever be obsolete, but rather, it's becoming a niche/"specialist" format. Digital-only photography magazines outnumber magazines that feature film cameras probably 6-to-1, at least. And it's getting increasingly difficult to find a good range of film SLRs in many electronics shops. Even discussions at this forum seem to be overwhelmingly dominated by digi-talk. I myself have converted to digital, even though I'm aware of the limitations of the format.
So, I'm just casually wondering: How many of you here still shoot primarily on film?
5th January 2004, 04:16 AM
film ~~~ !!!! .. and i enjoy B/W developing as well ~~~
5th January 2004, 08:21 AM
I am from prosumer DC convert to SLR, maybe in the future going to DSLR (maybe!)
5th January 2004, 10:17 AM
5th January 2004, 10:31 AM
5th January 2004, 11:26 AM
I am not surprise....
I am not surprise at all if film users is leading as most of us started off with SLRs anyway. It's just that digi users just started not long ago. As for me I use both mediums on different jobs requirement.
5th January 2004, 11:45 AM
I didn't vote due to the fact that I use both of the Format.
For wildlife and fast action stuff, I go for Digital.
For landscape, scenic. Nothing beats the Velvia, not even the full frame 11MP sensor.
5th January 2004, 01:06 PM
In year 2002, b&w film sales from Kodak exceeded their own forecast. Not sure about last year.
I shoot with film mainly. But thinking about digital for my family shoots.
5th January 2004, 01:08 PM
and don't forget that there's much more to film than 35mm; there's the medium formats (645 (6x4.5cm) to 6x17cm) and then 4x5 negs up to 11x14, and some poeple even shoot 20x24 (inches, sorry for the stupid American standard) polaroids. Go figure.
Anyway, while digital backs are available for medium format cameras, they're so prohibitively expensive that many pros don't have 'em, either. I'd love to do medium format work, for a university student, the cost of a camera and medium format scanner is just too high. oh well. but nothing out there can be the quality of an 11x14 inch negative. I mean, even the -contact- print is large.
You are correct, though. Film won't go away for a long time, no matter what advantages digital offers. As far as I know, though, film still wins at high ISOs (800+, I believe. I don't have a DSLR, so I can't check myself.)
5th January 2004, 01:15 PM
I think for high-contrast scenes and B&W, the most expensive digicams can't produce a better output than the cheapest film SLRs. I guess here @ ClubSnap, eveyone's at least a photography enthusiast, so that's why the keen-ness for film. But for the general population, I think consumers prefer digital, no? Thanks for your input.
5th January 2004, 02:18 PM
5th January 2004, 05:20 PM
most happy using the film format. manual focus too. i've really felt that i've learnt and improved the most with this configuration.
5th January 2004, 07:56 PM
no money n too lazy for digital
5th January 2004, 08:24 PM
6th January 2004, 12:53 AM
6th January 2004, 01:25 AM
Started with Instamatic cameras...years ago...
Any of you guys remember MagicCubes..those four sided
disposable revolving Flash Bulbs of yesteryears...
Now Using and F65 as my main workhorse....
An FM10 for my landscapes.....
You can call it as Love on a Diet....
Film is still the best....
6th January 2004, 09:12 AM
6th January 2004, 10:10 AM
wonder whether the price of film (equipment, processing ... etc) will be relative to digital, ie. film has to make economic sense relative to digital or risk losing out. Of course, come one fine day when a high end digital does for less than $500 (in today's terms), it will be a challenge to sustain the film industry.
6th January 2004, 10:20 AM
If digital becomes full-frame and the cost becomes significantly lower, I'll consider going digital.
But for the time being, film reigns for me.
7th January 2004, 11:15 PM