View Poll Results: What format do you primarily shoot?

Voters
486. You may not vote on this poll
  • Film

    328 67.49%
  • Digital

    158 32.51%
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 256789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 204

Thread: Who here still shoots primarily film?

  1. #121
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whoelse
    Quoted from Mr Spielberg:
    "There's a magic about chemistry and film. Sure, a digital shot is steady. It doesn't have to ride through the gate of a projector. And, sure, it's as clean as the OR in a major hospital. That's exactly what's wrong with it. Film has a molecular structure called grain; even a still of just a flower in a vase has life because of the grain, because of the molecules in the film. Especially if you sit in the first five rows of any movie theater, you know what I'm talking about. The screen is alive. The screen is always alive with chaos and excitement, and that will certainly be gone when we convert to a digital camera and a digital projector. I was one of the first people to use digital technology to enhance my films, but I'm going to be the last person to use digital technology to shoot my movies."
    ....and that quote is supposed to say something for the quality of film? Nostalgia is one thing, fidelity is another, I guess there are folk who still like the noisy scratchiness from an LP......

  2. #122

    Default

    with regards to spielberg's quote, he was talking about movie film, moving at 24fps (right?)
    grain takes on a different character then, because the position of the grain constantly changes so you get this beautiful organic effect.
    Now, grain in a single photo is a different thing. firstly, enlarge a 35mm negative to 11x14 and look at those spots of coloured grain on your picture, staring back at you. It is not the same effect as what spielberg is talking about because the grain is not moving, it's just these distracting spots staring back at you.
    For that matter, take a single frame from a movie and enlarge it to 11x14 and you'll see that the grain is ugly and distracting when it's not moving.

    and student, yeah I like black and white grain I still do my black and white work on film. but dynamic range is extremely important when you're taking colour photos and you get clumps of colour instead of smooth gradual tones.
    digital black and white still has a long way to go

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock
    and student, yeah I like black and white grain I still do my black and white work on film. but dynamic range is extremely important when you're taking colour photos and you get clumps of colour instead of smooth gradual tones.
    digital black and white still has a long way to go
    My reference was strictly to black & white! I do not shoot color.

  4. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    beebox
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    B & W...Way to go....!!!

  5. #125
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    596

    Default

    Go B&W! I just got me Tmax 400, Delta 400 & 3200, 120 rollfilm. Plus... I got Ilford DDX =) Watch as how a newbie screws up the whole developing process Anyone got the dilution tables for it? I don't wanna use it @ 1+4...

    Seriously, as a hobbyist I see only two reasons to shoot film, slide film and B&W. I really wonder how many digital cam users have ever seen a slide under a 10x loupe... that's what converted me. For shooting in colour, I think dslrs are much better, especially when you hit the high ISO range. But colour rendition wise is another story.

    That said, I would still shoot colour negs at events/weddings. The cost of the dslrs + lens to get the equivalent on my 35mm film slr is still more expensive, given the rate I shoot such stuff (letsee... only 5 of my friends getting married this year! 2 rolls, 3 max. The last wedding I could only shoot 1 roll as it was quite.. boring and I actually brought 5 rolls haha! ).

    Alvin

  6. #126

    Default

    shoots film, because I can't really affor d a digital camera.
    but I might go digital if I can somehow afford it.
    but it doesn't really matter as long as if gave me what I'm looking for?

    again does black and white look & smell as good in print from digital?

  7. #127

    Default

    I still use film. But I have nothing against digital.

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    nowhere... juz a random stray.
    Posts
    2,227

    Default

    I also mainly shoot Film.. am using Nikon FM, FE10 and CP5700.. no money to buy DSLRs...

  9. #129
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashleyy
    I also mainly shoot Film.. am using Nikon FM, FE10 and CP5700.. no money to buy DSLRs...
    Same here...no $$$ to buy DSLRs!

  10. #130

    Default

    Me also shot mostly firm,except wildlife and sport which need loads of film to get a good one.

  11. #131

    Default

    Well its only a matter of time before "film grain" mode is added to DSLRs. Choose the type of film and grain look you want.

  12. #132

    Default

    even on film, grain/color defer from roll to roll...

  13. #133

    Default

    Using a conventional film camera, I have the say to use whatever film in order to achieve diff mood, grainy or higher contrast or whatsoever.

    In digital camera, diff camera with diff CCD will deliver diff image quality. In order to do like the film does, you need to change the CCD or simply the camera (Of course, this is not 100% true if you are very good in PS skill plus the $ to get all the applications to correct/improve the things that your CCD cant give u).

  14. #134
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sumball
    Using a conventional film camera, I have the say to use whatever film in order to achieve diff mood, grainy or higher contrast or whatsoever.
    Yes, but once you've loaded that film, you are stuck with that roll until you finish it. With a digicam I can shoot B&W one frame and high ISO colour the next.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumball
    Of course, this is not 100% true if you are very good in PS skill plus the $ to get all the applications to correct/improve the things that your CCD cant give u.
    You don't need to be "very good" in PS skills nor spend "lots of $" to get the right applications. A lot of good freeware out there that help with sharpening, B&W conversion etc, and a small amount of time learning some post-processing tricks will get you to a decent level, much less time needed than to learn dark-room technique I reckon

  15. #135
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    B.Timah, New york, SoCal.
    Posts
    930

    Default

    i think it really depends on the market you're based in...

    Spore mainly sees 80% of its commercial photogs going digital, with the exception of posed shots where med and large format chrome shots still RULE...

    even for sph and the press agencies here, they're all converting to digital due to the cost..

    whereas in other parts of the world, the various departments of huge press agencies still rely solely on film for the detail and hardiness of media esp if their assignments are based out in ridiculous locations.

    I do know that here in San Francisco where i'm based, the press company i work with still rely largely on film for their non time sensitive shots... even the general population here largely still fall back on the basics of film....

    i guess the ang mohs here still prefer the detail and richness film will ALWAYS offer.

    as for myself, i've used film to earn my bread and butter for the past 30 years, and well, even though i use digital now and then for work, i still rely largely on my film based systems for everything else that isn't time sensitive.

    Regardless of whether it's full frame, a 60 k 645, 6x7 digi back (yes, it exists), Digital media with even the best editing software, will never ever be able to compete in the detail, richness and naturality film has and will always offer.

    my rb67s have served me well for 20 yrs...
    i don't see my 1dmk2 serving me beyond 2006.


  16. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    Yes, but once you've loaded that film, you are stuck with that roll until you finish it. With a digicam I can shoot B&W one frame and high ISO colour the next.
    Not 100% correct, what you need to do is a film picker and get ready many films. The worse, scan in the film and PS it?

  17. #137
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    GEYLAND LOR 15 LO
    Posts
    1,159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F5user
    my rb67s have served me well for 20 yrs...
    i don't see my 1dmk2 serving me beyond 2006.

    Agree with you man! Digital cameras lifespan is short!
    But many ppl that I had seen still believe that theirs DSLR can last them for lifetime!
    Last edited by XXX Boy; 23rd January 2005 at 10:20 AM.

  18. #138
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Shoot slide film here... Scanners are A+ and archiving is simply a label and putting in a box.

    Got Ekatachrome slides that go back 35+ years.... Scanned in, they look like new.... My 3MB cam photos from 4 yrs ago cant compare....

  19. #139
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    B.Timah, New york, SoCal.
    Posts
    930

    Default

    I guess it's only a matter of time when there will be a clear line between those that shoot for convenience, and those that shoot for quality.

    And yet again, there are those that think 18 mp is quality, like how we thought 3.2 mp was quality 3 years ago.

    I can clearly say that chromes will never be matched in quality and natural colour rendition; at least not within these 10 years or so. Back here in our studio we even have a View camera with a digi back (4x5 full frame) and sadly, the 80 mp picture cannot be compared to a simple 6x7 slide.

  20. #140

    Default

    So film will never die then.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 256789 ... 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
  •