Does anyone still shoot 35mm film?
- Thread starter GoLowDrew
- Start date
lessthanlights
New member
many professionals i know shoot film- mostly slide. there is a quality that professional slide film produces that is IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate with digital- i'm not saying one is better than the other but they do have very different characteristic both good and bad. i'm a professional photographer and i have not touched my film camera in years. it only comes out for very special occasions.
FCR (Film contrast range) is different in some cases.
Modern digital sensors can correctly expose about 5 stops of range about the same as color slide film. B&W film can expose about 7 stops and color print film about 6 stops.
I see film as a "purer" version of photography but I just don't have the skill or patience for it. I like being able to glance at the histogram and being able to see that I've blown the shot. I respect folks who still shoot film, it's just not for me.
lessthanlights
New member
Film is not for me either and yup Hasselblad are phenomenal but I'm talking about each camera/film characteristics and nuances that cannot be duplicated. Quality for sure is there and if not will be in a few years but it's those subtle difference that will keep film alive and well for that select group of photography gurus but for the general public digital is the future.
paulfromero
Premium Member
Hi all,
My brother wanted my Pentax DSLR, so I sold it to him. When I researched possible replacements....Pentax K10D (!), Nikon D80, Sony's model, I saw some real improvements, but no 35mm sized CCD chip yet (even on the 10.2mp models). So, I started thinking...my best photos were done in film...and also the only physical negatives and processed prints were done in film. My mom has a new compact Canon I can use if I want, so I decided to not get a new DSLR, but rather, I want to start using my Pentax 35mm again.
My brother wanted my Pentax DSLR, so I sold it to him. When I researched possible replacements....Pentax K10D (!), Nikon D80, Sony's model, I saw some real improvements, but no 35mm sized CCD chip yet (even on the 10.2mp models). So, I started thinking...my best photos were done in film...and also the only physical negatives and processed prints were done in film. My mom has a new compact Canon I can use if I want, so I decided to not get a new DSLR, but rather, I want to start using my Pentax 35mm again.
I have a Canon film camera with a nice set of lenses. Took it to the park (Yellowstone) and fired up 4 rolls of film. Then took it to the processor and discovered that only half the shots were any good (focus and exposure). And only half of those were any good picture wise. Subject and composition. So out of about 100 shots, I had about 10 good pictures. So I bought a Canon 30D the next day.
I was going to use the film for B&W only, but even that has lost its appeal.
Mike
I was going to use the film for B&W only, but even that has lost its appeal.
Mike
lessthanlights
New member
MCary-
I hate to say it but that was likely operator error not camera error. You should be happy with the 30D because you are able to see the your result immediately and adjust accordingly.
I hate to say it but that was likely operator error not camera error. You should be happy with the 30D because you are able to see the your result immediately and adjust accordingly.
The real question for me is, should I invest in another new 35mm SLR camera? For my use, there is nothing a DSLR can't do over a 35mm SLR. The only reason for not going digital SLR is the cost. Even a lower line DSLR is expensive. Even a used one is expensive.
Is that a good reason?
Is that a good reason?
lessthanlights
New member
In the long run a digital will likely save you money in film and printing costs. Depending on how much and what you shoot you could see the savings in a few months. Do you shoot Canon or Nikon? If you shoot with something else you may want to consider switching to one of the two- better cameras, more options, and better lens than the rest. I'm sure plenty of people will chime in with an excellent camera choice in your budget and brand.
No, I certainly wasn't blaming the camera. But as a rookie, I wanted instant feedback as to what I was doing wrong. I am just getting back into photography in my 40's. I used to do alot in high school and college. I had forgotten so much.
There's just do much that a digital does that a film doesn't. I know film has its place, but as a learning tool, DSLR is awesome. You can change ISO without changing film, you can shoot hundreds of pictures without film costs, you can process the shots yourself rather than letting the processor do it, and best of all "instant feedback"
Mike
There's just do much that a digital does that a film doesn't. I know film has its place, but as a learning tool, DSLR is awesome. You can change ISO without changing film, you can shoot hundreds of pictures without film costs, you can process the shots yourself rather than letting the processor do it, and best of all "instant feedback"
Mike
fppf
New member
The nice thing with digital is the cost of use, its almost zero.
My last vacation I took over 3,000 pictures. I take 2-3 shots of everything and pick the best one. I'm not worried about taking bad shots, if something zooms by I will try to get it. Sometimes it makes the best photo ever, sometimes it waste that gets deleted.
My last vacation I took over 3,000 pictures. I take 2-3 shots of everything and pick the best one. I'm not worried about taking bad shots, if something zooms by I will try to get it. Sometimes it makes the best photo ever, sometimes it waste that gets deleted.
lessthanlights
New member
I meant no disrespect- now that I look back at my post it may have seemed rude . . . sorry.
Mykayel
New member
I think digital is the only way to go for anyone but the pro's (and even then most situations the digital is better or just as good).
In the long run digital is cheaper. With digitial you have: instant feed back, you can change ISO, you can store 1000's of pictures on a single card (never run out of film). And most importantly, you'll learn more and enjoy it more as you'll actually use your camera instead of worring about the cost of the film and processing... with digital you'll just take the shot (or 30) and not think twice about it as you'll just delte some of them later.
In the long run digital is cheaper. With digitial you have: instant feed back, you can change ISO, you can store 1000's of pictures on a single card (never run out of film). And most importantly, you'll learn more and enjoy it more as you'll actually use your camera instead of worring about the cost of the film and processing... with digital you'll just take the shot (or 30) and not think twice about it as you'll just delte some of them later.
Similar threads
