35mm film: Any reason to use it these days?


Status
Not open for further replies.

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#1
Seems that Nikon and Canon (and most everybody else) are ceasing production of 35mm SLRs. Even though Nikon is keeping the F6 (and FM10?), it's just a matter of time before they totally delete film SLRs from the line-up.

Apparently (from what I've heard/read), wet-labs in the press and magazine houses are now a thing of the past.

So how much longer can film hold out? Are there any reasons to continue using 35mm film? Or is that all going the way of the dinosaur?

(Interesting note: When I was in Japan last year, I noticed that APS film cartridges are still widely available over there!)
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#2
synapseman said:
Seems that Nikon and Canon (and most everybody else) are ceasing production of 35mm SLRs. Even though Nikon is keeping the F6 (and FM10?), it's just a matter of time before they totally delete film SLRs from the line-up.

Apparently (from what I've heard/read), wet-labs in the press and magazine houses are now a thing of the past.

So how much longer can film hold out? Are there any reasons to continue using 35mm film? Or is that all going the way of the dinosaur?

(Interesting note: When I was in Japan last year, I noticed that APS film cartridges are still widely available over there!)
Film will still be there. There're numerous photographers around the world (including pros) who are still using film for their quality.

I doubt even after Nikon have stopped producing film SLRs and Canon which is still considering, film will be totally wiped off the shelves forever.
 

gohaj

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2005
3,805
0
0
#3
synapseman said:
Seems that Nikon and Canon (and most everybody else) are ceasing production of 35mm SLRs. Even though Nikon is keeping the F6 (and FM10?), it's just a matter of time before they totally delete film SLRs from the line-up.

Apparently (from what I've heard/read), wet-labs in the press and magazine houses are now a thing of the past.

So how much longer can film hold out? Are there any reasons to continue using 35mm film? Or is that all going the way of the dinosaur?

(Interesting note: When I was in Japan last year, I noticed that APS film cartridges are still widely available over there!)

Try taking landscape photos with film (slides; e.g. velvia). You will know why film still have an edge over digital.
 

smtan24

New Member
Dec 21, 2005
1,496
0
0
45
Tampines
#4
I agree film has advantage over digital in terms of colour. Digital in terms of convenience win hand down.
 

Chiang

New Member
Feb 17, 2005
153
0
0
Bedok
#5
will the economies of scale in digital photography drives down film usage , my house here got 3 film n digital developing shop initially , now left only 1,


after all its abt business sense n creating shareholder value for the nikon n canon share holders. why hold on to a non performing product when many more money can be made from the digital line
 

kiwi2

Deregistered
Feb 4, 2003
953
4
0
Visit site
#6
Yah, I think in terms of colour and even when making prints, digital can't beat films. That's from my own preference, not sure about others.

It's the convenience of digital that largely pushes film aside. We live in an ever-changing world today. Everything has to be instant, convenient, on the spot kind of thing. Digital is the way to go from the layman to professional photojournalist.

To give an analogy, a friend of mine told me he simply likes the sound of vinyl "records". He says the sound is so rich and "deep" which a CD cannnot reproduce. He's quite an audiophile.. I can only appreciate a little of what he's saying but given the wide availability and convenience of CDs, I can't see myself using the turntable and buying vinyl records!
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#7
Full of reasons esp for non-pros: cheap and good, better wide angles, etc.

Why even ask the question? F v D debates are so last century!

synapseman said:
Seems that Nikon and Canon (and most everybody else) are ceasing production of 35mm SLRs. Even though Nikon is keeping the F6 (and FM10?), it's just a matter of time before they totally delete film SLRs from the line-up.

Apparently (from what I've heard/read), wet-labs in the press and magazine houses are now a thing of the past.

So how much longer can film hold out? Are there any reasons to continue using 35mm film? Or is that all going the way of the dinosaur?

(Interesting note: When I was in Japan last year, I noticed that APS film cartridges are still widely available over there!)
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#8
kiwi2 said:
Yah, I think in terms of colour and even when making prints, digital can't beat films. That's from my own preference, not sure about others.

It's the convenience of digital that largely pushes film aside. We live in an ever-changing world today. Everything has to be instant, convenient, on the spot kind of thing. Digital is the way to go from the layman to professional photojournalist.

To give an analogy, a friend of mine told me he simply likes the sound of vinyl "records". He says the sound is so rich and "deep" which a CD cannnot reproduce. He's quite an audiophile.. I can only appreciate a little of what he's saying but given the wide availability and convenience of CDs, I can't see myself using the turntable and buying vinyl records!
It's either called halucinations or his RIAA equalization is coloured. It's not that CDs cannot reproduce the deep rich sounds but just the mastering for CD and for vinyls and tapes are different to bring out the best of each media.

But no doubt, it's similar for film vs digital. Both systems are not perfect but it's the imperfections of the traditional media which makes people love it.
 

Cikgu101

New Member
May 25, 2006
291
0
0
Ipoh, Malaysia
#9
I use film for the feel of classic photography...the sound of the shutter is ... ;)
and
It's like feeling of christmas...not knowing what you'll get until you open the prezzies.
Well in this case, the photos are processed. ;p
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#10
waileong said:
Full of reasons esp for non-pros: cheap and good, better wide angles, etc.

Why even ask the question? F v D debates are so last century!
You're missing the point. Pardon me, but I'm not trying to raise a film v digital debate. It's not a matter of how good one format is over the other, but how long more can film sustain itself in the digital age.

I'm just kinda sad that the major players are pulling out of film.
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#11
Cikgu101 said:
I use film for the feel of classic photography...the sound of the shutter is ... ;)
and
It's like feeling of christmas...not knowing what you'll get until you open the prezzies.
Well in this case, the photos are processed. ;p
Yeah, I agree. It's that intangible reason that makes it feel "nice" to shoot on film. Once in a while, I still like to take my film cameras out for a spin. But I think film's gonna become a really niche thing, probably sooner rather than later.
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#13
it still takes a lot of dslr power to outresolve film...
ive read many reviews about this,,, some say that the current 8mp or so DSLRs are just about matching 35mm quality, and those 12mp pro models are outresolving it.

so really, looking at how cheap film cameras are now in B&S, it doesnt take much $$ to get high quality pictures with film, unlike DSLRs..

plus no need to worry about digital workflow, figuring out layers in PS and all that stuff..

just expose, shoot and print..

one other point i remember reading somewhere, is that a lot of digital camera users, rarely print these days... most email, post on forums, post on flickr etc..

but theres something nice about flipping an album and with 35mm, u have no choice BUT to print.
 

Mar 13, 2005
320
0
0
34
Hobbitshire
www.facebook.com
#15
Snoweagle said:
I've heard that film quality is as much as over 30MP.
i think it's only something like 28MP at 4000dpi, if you use pro scanners like a coolscan 9000 series... although it takes a long time to scan... :bigeyes: but still, good enough quality... :thumbsup:

i think film will still last quite a long time... it better, i just bought an F5....:bsmilie:
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#16
synapseman said:
You're missing the point. Pardon me, but I'm not trying to raise a film v digital debate. It's not a matter of how good one format is over the other, but how long more can film sustain itself in the digital age.

I'm just kinda sad that the major players are pulling out of film.

Perhaps we read and interpret questions differently.

What you said here seems to me to be not quite the same as the question you raised in the thread. Or perhaps the point you were trying to raise was not so apparent in your question.

You had asked "Any reason to use it these days?", suggesting that there is little reason to use films in this digital age. And if there are reasons, what are these?

In any case, I think it is unfruitful to debate which is better on whatever reasons. There is absolutely no need to debate that whatever megapixels films have or how wonderful films are, commercial photography is now digital based, and for very good reasons! And really, for practical reasons, they do not care a damn how good films are.

For me, the reasons why I chose to use films, and black & white films, are these

1 I like the finished look of silver black & white prints more than inkjet. Yes I know that professionals like Ken Seet in Singapore and others elsewhere had converted to inkjet. They like the inkjet look. While I do like some inkjet look, my preference is for silver.

2 I like the entire package of exposing the negative, developing it, and printing the image. I like the craft of making a silver print. Yes I know that Streetshooter do not like such things. But we are different. And there are still many like me who like the entire process of traditional B&W print making.

So there are reasons for films. And it boils down to personal preferences.

However if one day, I chose to depend on photography for a living, there is no doubt on my mind I will switch to digital. Right down, my preference and my personal quirk tells me to stick to film. And there are still many like me!

The big players might not be interested in the lesser profits films bring, but there are smaller companies whio would love the crumbs that the big boys ignore.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#17
yellowlemonie said:
i think it's only something like 28MP at 4000dpi, if you use pro scanners like a coolscan 9000 series... although it takes a long time to scan... :bigeyes: but still, good enough quality... :thumbsup:

i think film will still last quite a long time... it better, i just bought an F5....:bsmilie:
Well...film quality can be as gd as those hi-end medium format cams with over 40MP. But sales of films seems to dwindle as time passes.
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#18
yellowlemonie said:
i think it's only something like 28MP at 4000dpi, if you use pro scanners like a coolscan 9000 series... although it takes a long time to scan... :bigeyes: but still, good enough quality... :thumbsup:

i think film will still last quite a long time... it better, i just bought an F5....:bsmilie:
dont mean to start a debate here... but some say its less than that.. with highest quality provia 35mm, MTF testing showed 8mp is about 80% resolution as compared to the film, and canon 16.7mp outresolving film by about 15%

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

in any event, as i said about, whatever the actual figure, film is still pretty damn high quality and it takes a high end camera to come even close. so thats why i gues it will still have its uses.
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#19
student said:
Perhaps we read and interpret questions differently.

What you said here seems to me to be not quite the same as the question you raised in the thread. Or perhaps the point you were trying to raise was not so apparent in your question.

You had asked "Any reason to use it these days?", suggesting that there is little reason to use films in this digital age. And if there are reasons, what are these?

...
(snipped)
...

The big players might not be interested in the lesser profits films bring, but there are smaller companies whio would love the crumbs that the big boys ignore.
Yeah, you are right. Come to think of it, my question could've been interpreted differently. Thanks for highlighting that. I was thinking more from the commercial/consumer/economics perspective. :)

I just read that Agfa has quit the scene recently also. I guess film will still have its place amongst the purists, especially slide film. Bringing out my film SLR, the experience is so much more different. Every scene has to be carefully considered before I hit the shutter button. And from that, I derive a great sense of satisfaction. Touching an FM2, T90 or X700 seems to be a lot more "shiok" than many of the current DSLRs (for me anyway).

I think give it another 5 years or so and film will really become a really niche product.
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
0
I'm a Llama!
#20
Unless someone makes a digital panoramic camera capable of medium format resolution, I'll still stick to film for my panoramic needs.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom