View Full Version : Film slr's
Dose anyone out there still use film slr's.
I was thinking of getting my dad's out and having a play...
of course, it is the cheapest way to shoot with the full 24x36 frame and it is more convenient than digital in a lot of ways. grab yourself some provia 100f and some hp5+ and go for it. what is your Dad's slr?
Grab a "cheap"F65 Nikon, match it with your existing lenses and have fun.
of course, it is the cheapest way to shoot with the full 24x36 frame and it is more convenient than digital in a lot of ways. grab yourself some provia 100f and some hp5+ and go for it. what is your Dad's slr?
I can't be sure on models but they are all nikon. I know he brought a new film slr not long after nikon stop making film and went digital.
I can't be sure on models but they are all nikon. I know he brought a new film slr not long after nikon stop making film and went digital.
i was looking at afew on ebay nikon f3, f100, f4 just reading up on them. Maybe the f6 would be good but, i think the price is still like digital price.
i've owned the f3, f4, f5, f100. if i was to go back to any of those, it would be the f4 without hesitation. the f6 would be a good, but too many features that aren't required.
it is more convenient than digital in a lot of ways
Duh? Nothing against film, I'm sure there are still lots of uses for it, but I can think of exactly zero ways it's more convenient. I'm quite serious here, I cannot think of even one single way in which film is more convenient.
shoot film, drop or post to lab, pick up developed film, with high res scans on dvd. done. no photoshop, no battery charging, no buying of ps if you don't want, no raw conversion, no sharpening, no computer, no backups, no layer masks to drag out more d.r, no portable storage device such as laptop, no international power adapters, no inconvenience of the unavoidable urge to chimp....
i shoot weddings with film and it is so easy compared to when i shot with all digital. only thing i need to do is arrange shots in chronological order and i'm done.
i did say 'in a lot of ways', not always.
JM Tran
31-05-2009, 7:24pm
shoot film, drop or post to lab, pick up developed film, with high res scans on dvd. done. no photoshop, no battery charging, no buying of ps if you don't want, no raw conversion, no sharpening, no computer, no backups, no layer masks to drag out more d.r, no portable storage device such as laptop, no international power adapters, no inconvenience of the unavoidable urge to chimp....
i shoot weddings with film and it is so easy compared to when i shot with all digital. only thing i need to do is arrange shots in chronological order and i'm done.
i did say 'in a lot of ways', not always.
no offence, but how many rolls of film do u shoot per wedding then? I used to work in a print lab which does film and we charge $15.95 to develop and print a 36 roll, plus $6.95 per roll scanned onto CD after. I suppose the client doesnt really get many wedding photos then, or do you sell it to them individually? Not really cost effective in the long run.
there is a reason 99.99% wedding photographers use digital now, mostly for opposite reasons of what u just stated.
- no photoshop - sorry but this is 2009, not 1960 anymore, the standards of wedding photography has risen to unheard of heights, its not about capturing photos anymore, its about creating.
- no raw conversion - no offence but I myself would prefer control of the end result and product over my negatives be it digital or film. I rather do it myself than let a lab technician do the post processing, film or not.
- no sharpening - ummm........what if you need to sharpen an unsharp photo, or for bigger enlargements..........
- no computers, no back ups - there is so many wrong things about this I dont even need to argue about it.
- no layer masks to drag out more DR - u know this technique was used in film too right in the lab? but dont expect a lab technician to do it simply because they do not use traditional dark room techniques and chemicals anymore, but scanners. If this gets u results and improve on a photo, then embrace it dont forsake it.
- unavoidable urge to chimp - nothing wrong with chimping to know where u went wrong and improve upon it. It is an evolution and something photographers 50 yrs ago wished they had the ability to do so. So high end shoots which are shot sync'ed with a computer for preview of the raws is considered chimping too?
you either charge very very low and dont feel the need to 'chimp' as you do not care about the quality and results, or you simply know about the exact exposure settings to get the right result at every press of the shutter!
Digital battery charge = 1000 shots (give or take)
Film canister = 36 shots
Advantage digital.
Film development: business hours, have to go to a city or post box, long delay before you get it back
Digital development: insert flash card into laptop, press button. Practivcally instant, works everywhere, 24/7 service.
Advantage digital.
Film PP: requires commercial scanning and loading into your system before you can start
Digital PP: already on the system, just do it.
Advantage digital.
Film "raw conversion". You can't do it. Unless you are going to go to a lot of trouble, there are no development options worth mentioning. (And no, we are not going to consider custom development labs here: we are talking about convenience here.)
Digital "raw conversion" (method 1). You don't have to do anything. You shot in JPG and the camera itself does everything for you, with lattitude and dynamic range similar to what you get with film.
Digital "raw conversion" (method 2). You can do it, if you want to, and if you wish you can do all sorts of stuff that you haven't been able to do with film since you gave up running your own darkroom plus a lot more as well.
Advantage digital.
Film sharpening: you still have to sharpen appropriately for your output media - i.e., same as digital, except for when you are using old-style photographic reproduction, in which case he word "convenience" is not even on the radar.
Digital sharpening: one of the easiest parts of the entire PP sequence. Takes 3 mouse clicks, unless you batch process or automate it, in which case it's even easier.
Advantage digital.
Film backup: tedious, expensive, and subjec to generation loss.
Digital backp: simple, cheap, retains 100% quality every time.
Advantage digital.
Film DR: not very different to digital, assuming you are shooting reversal film (as most serious camera users did until digital arrived).
Digital DR: not very different to reversal film, but it can[i] be improved with PP tricks, where to do the same with film is much more difficult.
Advantage digital.
Sorry Tom, I don't want to be a film basher, and there are many good reasons to still use it, but "convenience" is most certainly not one of them. The [i]only one that holds any water is the DR argument, and that's not really a convenience issue. (Would I like more DR from my digital bodies? Blood oath I would! Sooner the better.)
I started in the Box Brownie days then onto SLR (Pentax) and then to Nikon and a heap of glass. I learned a lot of discipline because of the long lag time to seeing results, fixed and low ISO (64 ASA then), and no option for PP (35mm trannies were what I sold). So all in all the image had to be right first time.
Man I love the digital era!!!
hey i do ok out of weddings JM. i shoot 5 rolls of film and i try to make every shot count. i don't mind being in the 1% JM, it is what gets me my clients.
its not about capturing photos anymore, its about creating
hey if that works for you, great. it's not my style. a client asked me the other day if i could superimpose a shot of the b&g at the alter over top of an outside shot of the church.......i said no.
no sharpening - ummm........what if you need to sharpen an unsharp photo, or for bigger enlargements.........
?
no computers, no back ups - there is so many wrong things about this I dont even need to argue about it
i use computers, sorry to confuse. If Chad were to use his Dads SLR, he won't need to use the computer, unless he gets some scans and then wants to use his high res 16bit scans to tweak in CS3. :banana:
:food04:
- unavoidable urge to chimp - nothing wrong with chimping to know where u went wrong and improve upon it. It is an evolution and something photographers 50 yrs ago wished they had the ability to do so. So high end shoots which are shot sync'ed with a computer for preview of the raws is considered chimping too?
we're talking about high end shoots now? I was talking about what works for me, not everyone. I don't think Chad is a pro shooter (correct if i'm wrong Chad). I happen to think that using a film camera is the best way to learn photography.
I do sometimes shoot film - but hardly any 135. MF mainly, 6x6 and 645. All B/W. The 35mm gets used just as a curiosity from time to time at which it usually is loaded with some nice Fuji Provia or Velvia.
No, digital is easier, faster and more convenient in all ways imaginable except power - there are no batteries in my Mamiya C220 and the ones in my Mamiya 645 last for over two years now...
Tannin, i just installed Google Chrome and i am still getting used to it. however i just lost a post where i had rebuked every claim that you made stating clearly that film was indeed more convenient. I cannot be bothered retyping :)
i like film, i like digital, but film works better for me for my weddings.
ooh, just thought of another one.........16 bits yay.
JM Tran
31-05-2009, 8:28pm
Tannin, i just installed Google Chrome and i am still getting used to it. however i just lost a post where i had rebuked every claim that you made stating clearly that film was indeed more convenient. I cannot be bothered retyping :)
i like film, i like digital, but film works better for me for my weddings.
no please type it again, I, we would like to see your debate over it.
ooh, just thought of another one.........16 bits yay.
same for digital, yay?
same for digital, yay?
no, except for medium format. i did get off topic, it really has little to do with convenience.
Getting back to the OP, I shoot film now as well. Its not for convenience (I don't want to get into that argument), its simply because I actually enjoy it.
As a matter of fact, I think that shooting film will actually IMPROVE your photography, especially for those who have only ever shot digital. I think taking away the temptation to chimp every shot makes you think about shots more and gives you more incentive to get it right in the camera.
So, yes, get some decent film (if you like colour, maybe some Fuji Pro 160), get it processed and enjoy!
(BTW, I believe and a comment on the OP as well. I still believe that Nikon make a film camera. Am I wrong?)
JM Tran
31-05-2009, 8:53pm
no, except for medium format. i did get off topic, it really has little to do with convenience.
but I can say the same for different types of films too, you would need to use specific pro grade films to make the most of that, I dont expect the same amount of latitude and depth from a cheap roll of Kodak Gold at kmart to a roll of Velvia slide film.
a 5DmkII shooting at native 14 bits, not much diff to 16 bits by the human eye!
but since you said you dont process your negatives nor edit them, mentioning 16 bits is a moot point.
you forgot to mention high ISO performance and the ability to change ISOs. How do a wedding photographer shoot outdoors on a bright sunny day at 100ISO film than suddenly find himself indoors in a dimly lit church as he follows the bride inside, and needs to crank out that 800ISO roll? well they tend to use 2 cameras with 2 different ISO films in it.
how do digital wedding photographers change ISO? with a smile on their face. :)
you forgot to mention high ISO performance and the ability to change ISOs. How do a wedding photographer shoot outdoors on a bright sunny day at 100ISO film than suddenly find himself indoors in a dimly lit church as he follows the bride inside, and needs to crank out that 800ISO roll? well they tend to use 2 cameras with 2 different ISO films in it.
i use four to five cameras for a wedding JM. i do process my own film as well, and also scan and edit, just not weddings. i shoot with prime lenses and use rfinder cameras so i can shoot at much lower iso's than most wedding photogs that use zoom lenses on slr's. but we are digressing into a film vs digital arguement. i don't want to do that, my op was simply to point out that film isn't always a disadvantage to everyone. i would go as far as saying that most people who take family snaps and the like would be better off shooting compact film cameras.
JM Tran
31-05-2009, 9:07pm
i use four to five cameras for a wedding JM. i do process my own film as well, and also scan and edit, just not weddings.
AH so which brings me back to your original post about 'no computers, no back ups' - since you DO scan and edit, that involves a computer, a scanner and processing on the computer.
not really that 'convenient' when you think about the process involved, and no Im not talking about just weddings im talking about photography as a whole here.
and 4 to 5 cameras per wedding, I keep seeing that C word coming up!
ha, four of my cameras weight less than one slr with a thumping big zoom lens on. load film before wedding, go to wedding, shoot wedding, take film out, post, get back from lab, done. as a whole JM, i do all sorts. i shoot digital, 135 film, 120 film, scan, develop, upload, email, load film, charge batteries.... it's a hobby, and i enjoy all of that. if it was 'convenient' as you put it, there would be only half the joy. you are trying to nail me down here JM on something that i don't disagree with (if we are talking as a whole). as i am posting here on AP, it should be evident that i do indeed have a computer, I do commercial work which involves digital and editing.
i think Chad might be digging a hole in his back yard as we speak preparing to bury his Dad's SLR. Don't do it Chad, it's not as bad as they make it sound. :)
nisstrust
31-05-2009, 10:01pm
Dose anyone out there still use film slr's.
I was thinking of getting my dad's out and having a play...
Yep still use a film SLR occasionally. Canon EOS 3, only use it for travel and landscape shots and usually with a roll of you beaut Velvia, however its been sitting in the cupboard collecting dust unfortunately.
Analog6
01-06-2009, 5:03am
I have kept my T90 but only for long astronomical work, I'm talking 45mins+. I don't use it often, but it's worth so little now there is no point selling it, so it lives in its case in the corner.
Digital wins every time, and the savings on film development costs have let me buy lots of extrra goodies I could never afford. I would not go back to film for quids.
pirate59
01-06-2009, 9:12am
I still use film. And i enjoy it!
I agree with the arguments about digi being easier and more convenient.
I mostly only use my film back for B&W and staged shots (usually colour 100ISO situations).
I took both bodies to the Sydney Light Walk and comparatively the film edged out it the end. Well in my opinion.
To me when i use film, its be cause i feel a bit more creative juices flowing then.
In the end i have fun shooting in film. BUT i also enjoy shooting digital as well. Both have a different feel for me in the end...
Man, that was an unexpected slag-fest...
As for film, I love it.
Have to agree that it isn't for convenience sake, although I do LOVE how light they are. And cheap too! I own a Nikon F75 and just stick my 50 prime on it and it is so light that even with the glass on it weighs less than 50g more than the body of my D40x with no lens, which is not exactly a heavy bit of kit. You can pick up a used F70, which sits towards the bottom end of the 'newer' FSLRs for less than $50. Sometimes they include a lens for that price!
I also love the quality of film. Granted, if you are shooting with a top of the range DSLR you are unlikely to notice the difference. But once again, you are talking about a heavy and VERY expensive piece of kit, without even taking glass into account.
Don't get me wrong, if I could only have one or the other I wouldn't even hesitate to go digital. But given that entering the film market nowadays is so cheap and easy (although those F6's are still pricey) I would recommend getting a FSLR, or if you have one like the OP at your disposal, if only to learn a bit more about photography.
There is just something so fun about film.
smallfooties
20-08-2009, 8:36pm
I've been shooting film for quite some time now - i use the holga and my fisheye 2. And just a few days ago i bought a film slr and have started to use that too. My 400D is collecting dust at the moment because i am having so much fun with film - i like being surprised even though they have been lousy results. But that is ok because i am starting to learn about exposure etc.
Use your dad's film slr and have lots of fun with it. If you want to get one for yourself, they come really cheap now i think.
Just to back up a bit here is one way that film is generally more convenient than digital photography.
Digital: my camera lasts about one day of shooting before I need to recharge the battery (less if using the built-in flash, or leaving it connected to the computer).
Film: I can generally get a year's shooting on one set of batteries. Maybe a bit more or a bit less, who cares?
I practice film photography for fun not convenience. If convenience is needed then you are kidding yourself and at a steep disadvantage shooting film...but so what? I like a challenge.
heartyfisher
21-08-2009, 4:26am
Hello Chad,
There are a number of advantages of using film instead of digital.
You need to think a few more steps before you snap.
I double check and triple check the composition.
Make sure you have the exposture correct..
make sure the DOF is correct.. You do this by pressing the DOF button.
Lens choice.
All in all it can take some 10mins or more just to take one shot. Slows down the whole
process. and makes it more of a craft. You get to think and feel the creation
of the image.
Once you have your crafted image. Its all done .. no more PP.
Just Print directly from the negative. You can print much bigger from film
than you can print from any DSLR. Scanning neg to digital and then printing
from the scan just looses details.
Biggest advantage of Film is the High DR and lots of highlight and shadow detail.. Sunsets are great! because the bright sun does not Bleed light into the other pixels the sun actually looks small and well defined and not a big blob. Night shots are good too with the point lights being points.. and no digital bleed at all! You will find that many of the best landscape photographers still use film.
Now for sports DSLR just is much more convenient.. However shooting with Film has its place still.
Oh and the battery of my film camera has not been changed for 7 years...
The best film camera is one with no battery ;)
Once you have your crafted image. Its all done .. no more PP.
Just Print directly from the negative.If you are doing this then you are really cutting short of an image's potential. Dodging, burning and using contrast filters is essential.
The most important thing about film photography is 4x5 and above - a whole new world of composition with the infinite moments of a rail cam and technical photography at its rawest.
If you want you dad to have a play with film, Mongo still has many film cameras and used one only this week with a big digital lens just to see what happens.
F3 or f4 would be good but Mongo still likes to use his trusty nikon 801. Light , inexpensive and has given Mongo all the slide film results he has posted on this site and continues to so so when he uses film.
otherwise let him use your digital for a day out with him while you use something else and you may get him interested in digital when he can see the results.
There are a number of advantages of using film instead of digital.
You need to think a few more steps before you snap.
I double check and triple check the composition.
Make sure you have the exposture correct..
make sure the DOF is correct.. You do this by pressing the DOF button.
Lens choice.
And these are things you cannot do using a digital SLR?
You can print much bigger from film
than you can print from any DSLR. Scanning neg to digital and then printing
from the scan just looses details.
Click! (http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show/videos/challenge/challenge-blow-up-part-3) :D
Oh and the battery of my film camera has not been changed for 7 years...
Not on my camera. Ow, wait, it doesn't have a battery at all :)
Now, there's a place for analog photography, even these days. But not on the merits you described... it has a different feel and analog B/W is nicer IMHO than any digital I've seen so far. But quantifiable qualitywise analog has no advantage anymore over digital except in a very few cases.
But quantifiable qualitywise analog has no advantage anymore over digital except in a very few cases.
I agree with everything you have said jev, except this. film has a big advantage in dynamic range, resolution, and a look that is different to digital. it is more organic, and you have different levels of contrast. digital, doesn't discriminate, and everything is rendered with the same contrast and sharpness over the entire image - hence it is not as natural looking as digital. now whether you think this is an advantage or a disadvantage is personal taste or simply a matter of it being a unique and different look.
i have shot for commercial clients who demand digital (most do), and they want to see the images almost immediately as they are shot. i gladly use digital for these situations, and as i am not taking these pictures for myself, i don't mind the loss of quality that i get shooting with digital and zoom lenses. but when i shoot weddings, i don't have the same time constraints, so i use film and really nice glass. for own use, digital is easy and fast and convenient, but for a lot of proffesional applications, and i have said this before here and got howled down, film provides me with a work flow that requires A LOT less work (hence convenience??) than digital.
btw, i shot a wedding in january where i used about 50/50 film to digital. i used a nikon d3 and also shot with a coulple of film cameras. when i presented the images to the client (she was unaware of digital/film), the images that she chose consisted of around 90 percent of the film images, apart from her family shots which i only shot in digital. she consciously did not know why she chose those particular images.
and jev......'the gadget shot' ????? :) :)
Tom, the only quantifyable thing where negative film wins from digital is DR. Slight. The usual slide film just offers 5 stops dynamic range, a color negative maybe 8 and B/W up to 11 or so? According to DxOMark (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon/D3X), the new D3X has a DR of up to a mind boggling 13.7 stops (at 80 ISO). You can't print them at more than 8 stops anyway. Resolution? 21 MPixel, only some slide films are believed to offer more.
Having said that, the other merits are not quantifyable; you cannot capture it in numbers. I already agreed with you: the feel of analog is different.
The gadget show, yes :D. I don't watch it often but this movie snippet was spammed on a lot of forums ;). It's funny, I don't know how well informed these guys are but it was interesting to see how big they printed and how well digital stood up to analog. One of the presenters, BTW, knows a bit more about technology than he leads you to believe.
I am holding a hasselblad. I am invincible to any remarks. :cool:
GlennSan
21-08-2009, 7:24pm
Whew! Need a cold beer after reading all these posts. So much passion about one versus the other.
As for the OP...
YES. Some here still shoot film and enjoy it a lot. We are in the minority these days though.
Take your dad's camera out, shoot some film and see if you enjoy it. If you do, continue. If you don't, stay with digital.
Krzys, beware, it's still just a camera, although beautifully made. I still take lots of crap pictures on my Blad, despite it's quality :D
GlennSan
21-08-2009, 8:10pm
F3 or f4 would be good but Mongo still likes to use his trusty nikon 801. Light , inexpensive and has given Mongo all the slide film results he has posted on this site and continues to so so when he uses film.
I love using my F4 Mongo, it's a simple pleasure to hold such a beautifully engineered machine in my hands. And the scene through the viewfinder is glorious.
However, I also have a faithful old F801 that was with me on much of my early outings along the photographc journey. It's not quite F4 class but I do have a very soft spot and much fondness for it, despite the fact that the body-integrated focus drive system now screeches just a little more than it used to. :o
In the end though, they are all just light-tight boxes...
Krzys, beware, it's still just a camera, although beautifully made. I still take lots of crap pictures on my Blad, despite it's quality :DWhat? Pictures?...I just thought that it would make a great weapon
In the end though, they are all just light-tight boxes...Do not say that to a lecia user, some act asif narnia is held inside.
Do not say that to a lecia user, some act asif narnia is held inside.
Krzys, ever looked inside a Leica? You'd be suprised!
Dose anyone out there still use film slr's.
I was thinking of getting my dad's out and having a play...
have a Nikon FM2 and have only just started playing around with it again. I do shoot digital 99.9% of the time and believe it to be a revolutionary marvel, no doubt about it.
My problem is I have a stack of finished rolls and each time I go to town I forget to take them in for processing/postage. I have been toying with the idea of getting a negative scanner and seeing how that goes. Still just a fun thing to use and the FM2 is solid, looks like a classic & sounds so sweet when it goes off :) You can get a good supply of film from eBay for reasonable cost to boot. Enjoy your film camera :th3:
smallfooties
03-04-2011, 9:30pm
hello Chad, just wondering if you did have a go with using your dad's film SLR?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.