Any photographers still use film?

[nolandinsight]

Yep. Nikon F5 for 35mm. Bronica GS1 for 6x7. Cambo SC 4x5. Still love film. Not even going there on the film vs digital argument.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Teknav

While digital photography is the way to go, Kodachrome 25's super-fine color resolution still beats any digital photography resolution on the market, to this day.

That is an urban myth second to none. It's not true, not anymore. I'll link a digital image below that will take some time to download; open it in a good viewer that can zoom in or just display on a big display like 30" or more. Check out the detail in the distant hills. It already beats any 35mm film and it's just a 35mm sensor. This is a 22 megapixel image; tar34 already linked to an 1.8 gigapixel image...

http://sv-jedi.smugmug.com/Archive/2...8_9_0-rev3.jpg

[Miniyot]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Got rid of my Voightlander. I believe that if your old film-camera delivers better images, it means you need a better digital camera. Or you're just being nostalgic

When you like medium and large format cameras, you can get digital backs for those too.

Well, Maybe, just maybe you need to find out what the film versus digital thing is all about.....
Pro digital cameras (4 grand)and lenses (2 grand+6,000 dollars) still cannot match a medium format camera can do...as for a large format camera? maybe in 10 years or so....

I do have digital cameras, but film is SO MUCH BETTER.
Digital does have it;s good points, but it also has limitations.

For those who think pixels are better with digital...what is the pixel with digital VS. film?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Miniyot

Well, Maybe, just maybe you need to find out what the film versus digital thing is all about.....
Pro digital cameras (4 grand)and lenses (2 grand+6,000 dollars) still cannot match a medium format camera can do...as for a large format camera? maybe in 10 years or so....

I do have digital cameras, but film is SO MUCH BETTER.
Digital does have it;s good points, but it also has limitations.

For those who think pixels are better with digital...what is the pixel with digital VS. film?

Again, your info is wrong, or outdated at least. You can get digital backs for medium and large format cameras !

[nolandinsight]

What I like about film is not the technical image quality, which is still very good, especially with today's emulsions. It's how the knowledge of what I'm spending on film and processing and prints slows me down and makes me really consider my light and composition.

I know the same process can and should be duplicated for digital, but I seem to control myself better with film. So for me, that's a real benefit.

[thinwater]

A very good friend of mine made living developing film and making dupes for professional photographers, almost entirely magazine work. Perhaps the last 100% professional shop in town, they closed about 5 years ago when all of the business evaporated. Even then, they were subsisting on digital editing toward the end.

Editors require digital images and text in one of several digital formats. Yup, I've got some nice film equipment gathering dust. The typewriter got scrapped years ago.

An amateur would only persist with film for naustagia, which I respect completely.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by nolandinsight

What I like about film is not the technical image quality, which is still very good, especially with today's emulsions. It's how the knowledge of what I'm spending on film and processing and prints slows me down and makes me really consider my light and composition.

I know the same process can and should be duplicated for digital, but I seem to control myself better with film. So for me, that's a real benefit.

Yes, I also miss the dark room but it is nostalgia. With digital you need to accept that you need to learn developing again, with Lightroom (or Aperture of-course) this time, but once you got that down you find everything from the dark room is right there.

Another thing: Canon is currently upgrading their complete line of lenses with Mk.II or Mk.III versions. The reason is that the old ones have become too soft for current high resolution cameras. When you attach a lens from the film days to a digital pro-level camera, you immediately know it has become obsolete and you'll quickly remove it and put the modern lens back

[Miniyot]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Again, your info is wrong, or outdated at least. You can get digital backs for medium and large format cameras !

Sure you can get digital backs...but, the image quality really suffers.
For instance, with my Rollie...
A digital back will only give so much resolution. The lens area is smaller than the film area.
As for my 4X5?
There is NO digital that can be enlarge to a wall mural and give the same image as a 4X5. May God forbid a larger format......Do you really think that a 25 meg digital ( when it gets here)is better than a 2 1/4 medium format? He-he-he

And by the way...
There ARE magazines that ONLY ACCEPT 4X5 film or larger...NO digital! Why? Because the image is much finer with film....

[nolandinsight]

Jedi

So true, your point about nostalgia. In my case I use it as tool for remediation, getting back to the basics if you like. Also (you're most perceptive) for the nostalgia, I enjoy it very much. It's a process, a routine I am very comfortable with.

I love digital photography, and it IS my go-to medium for most of the images I make. I am a believer in Lightroom, and Photoshop. Both very important tools for digital images. At 12mp, my D700 has all the resolution I need to print to the size I normally print, usually up to 30", although I have had 40" on canvas that looked great. Zero visible pixilation.

Anyway, I'm all in for keeping film alive. It still has a place, and for me an important role past nostalgia. To each his own.

Cheers 😊

[Miniyot]

Jedi,
Do you really believe a digital back for my 4X5 will give a better image than 4X5 film?

[barnakiel]

What I like about film work best is the time span between talking an image and seeing it come alive in the darkroom. For a time, the image exists only in my head, and nearly always there is the 'what I took' vs. 'what I got' moment of truth thing.

What I like best about digital is being able to see the image before it gets recorded. With film (and viewfinder) I often fail to see the image and I much more often look at the thing. With digital (and screen) I nearly always see the image rather than the thing imagined - big plus for composition, at least for me.

b.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Miniyot

Jedi,
Do you really believe a digital back for my 4X5 will give a better image than 4X5 film?

It has been tested over and over so yes, I believe that.

Why do you insist on comparing 35mm digital with medium or large format film? If you want it to be fair, compare 35mm with 35mm. Or medium format with medium format.

a 4x5 film holds 1,140 megapixels, so 1.14 gigapixels. You can't use that because the lens can't provide that resolution, but even if it could, you need to print that on paper, or project it using a projector, at which time you would be in heaven when you keep half the resolution intact. Like earlier mentioned in this thread, we have 1.8 gigapixel digital cameras already. We have cheap digital 35mm cameras with 40 megapixels. They beat printed or projected 35mm film.

[shadow]

I usually use Hasselblad when doing commercial work. I hire an H series with digital and film back... Love the medium and large format film world.. Can't beat the detail and feel of it..

[s/v Jedi]

Okay, here is 4x5 film vs 45 megapixel digital back:

the full picture:


now at 1:1, first the film:


and the 45m digital back:


see here for more:
4x5 Film vs. Digital

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by nolandinsight

What I like about film is not the technical image quality, which is still very good, especially with today's emulsions. It's how the knowledge of what I'm spending on film and processing and prints slows me down and makes me really consider my light and composition.

I know the same process can and should be duplicated for digital, but I seem to control myself better with film. So for me, that's a real benefit.

Good point. I know that works for me, having learned on film.

And yet some young kids have an incredible touch, at lease those that pay attention. Since they can take more pictures, make more mistakes, and see those mistakes sooner, they can learn more quickly. It's about whether they are composing images or taking snap shots.