 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / March 2008experimenting with 35mm film
I have had digital cameras for many years now, however a few months back I became interested in 35mm photography having seen some pictures taken with a 35mm compact and scanned onto a CD. I have now got my self a Nikon F80 and a 28-200 Nikkor lens. The camera was less than 50 quid, and I guess the lens is not going to loose much of it's value . After shooting my first roll ( and getting over the shock of paying for the processing !) I have had some nice results. I have also just bought a MJU II 35mm compact film camera . Where as my TZ3 digital compact is capable of some very nice photos, I am hoping that the MJU will offer PQ nearer that of my DSLR ( D40 ) when shot in good light.. at least it's going to be a cheaper and better alternative to say a MJU 760 for the rare occaisions I need to fire off a few shots in the rain. I must say that the scans from my F80 do compare rather well to my D40 pictures, to me they are often more pleasing on the eye and seem to have a better depth of field and nicer colours too. Does anyone else prefer the 'look of film' ? The D40 pictures do look very clean and visually striking though. It seems to me that the digital revolution is forging ahead on the basis of market demand for a simply/ easy way to take photos. People ( myself included ) are quite happy with the noisy pictures from there tiny sensors, at least they can take hundreds of shots and get the one they want. Is 35mm film still better in certain circumstances ? >I have had digital cameras for many years now, however a few months > back I became interested in 35mm photography having seen some pictures [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the one they want. Is 35mm film still better in certain circumstances > ? I read somewhere recently that you need something like 22Mp to get picture quality achieved by 35mm film. You can save a bit of money if you take your film to Asda and ask them to process it and put it on CD. Their scanning quality is superb and you get both hi-res and lo-res copies of each frame for much less than the cost of a set of prints. Personally I would prefer film every time - digital has a long way to go yet - but it costs too much for amateurs and is now getting difficult to find.  SignatureWoody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com >> I have had digital cameras for many years now, however a few months >> back I became interested in 35mm photography having seen some [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > go yet - but it costs too much for amateurs and is now getting > difficult to find. No, more about 5 mp and you have more saturation and Range than 100 asa Film SignatureTrev You can always tell a Yorkshire man, But you can't tell him much. >No, more about 5 mp and you have more saturation and Range than 100 asa Film Wishful thinking. About as far from the truth as it is possible to get. >>No, more about 5 mp and you have more saturation and Range than 100 asa Film > >Wishful thinking. > >About as far from the truth as it is possible to get. 2003 called - it wants its debate back. Next we must turn our attention to the vital question on all our tongues: VHS or Beta? > Their scanning quality is superb rotfl you must be kidding me or you have never seen a decent scan before I think the real appeal for film is the quality of kit that you can now pick up incredibly cheap on ebay!! Bought myself that mamiya 645 medium format that I'd always fancied just for the pleasure of ownership and slowing the whole picture taking experience down to a more thoughfull pace. Love my D80 but the concept of a 'latent' image, hidden away until you reveal it with chemicals is still very appealing to me. Dennis On 17/3/08 18:04, in article 9a7f6507-a3dd-42cc-a07c-90df18d73bc8@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "simon" <srp@lycos.co.uk> wrote: > I have had digital cameras for many years now, however a few months > back I became interested in 35mm photography having seen some pictures [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > there tiny sensors, at least they can take hundreds of shots and get > the one they want. Is 35mm film still better in certain circumstances ? >I think the real appeal for film is the quality of kit that you can now >pick [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > image, hidden away until you reveal it with chemicals is still very > appealing to me. I had one of those - brilliant camera. However you will find two problems (1) sourcing the film amd (2) getting it processed - not to mention the cost. I envy you though. SignatureWoody harrogate three at ntlworld dot com O > I had one of those - brilliant camera. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Woody 7dayshop sell it don't they ? I have two rolls of 120 format I bought by mistake, isn't this the stuff ? From what I have read medium format cameras are still the main format for landscapes, digital does not come near the resolution yet ( you are talking 100 MP) . Every thing seems to be viewed on a computer screen these days but I guess you can do what ever the hell you like with a 100MP picture ! I know what DB4 means about 'Joy of Ownership' My Nikon was only 47 quid, and there is not a mark on it. If you watch Ebay, film cameras turn up all the time, virtually un-used but there are no shortage of bidders either, there must be a lot of nostalgia attached to 35mm as well . I also got a mju-ii film camera. I am going to use this whilst walking in the Lakes. If it rains ( as it surely will ) I wont dare take the D40 out of the dry sack ! Simon >I had one of those - brilliant camera. > >However you will find two problems (1) sourcing the film amd (2) getting >it processed - not to mention the cost. The cost???? It isn't film that costs money, it's digital. By the time I had bought several DSLR bodies, replacing them as better ones became available, had the sensors professionally cleaned several times, replaced several of my lenses because, while they gave perfect results on film, they didn't work well on digital, upgraded my PC and bought new monitors, a monitor profiler and some very expensive software, plus additional hard disks for storage, burnt a great many CDs and DVDs, and spent a fortune on memory cards ... ... I could have bought and processed all the film I would need for at least the next 20 years. There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit. >>I had one of those - brilliant camera. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit. That saved me from writing the exact same thing. Thank you. >>>I had one of those - brilliant camera. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >That saved me from writing the exact same thing. Thank you. You're very welcome. I'm pretty fed up of people making false claims that digital is better than film (it is still a long way away, especially in dynamic range) and that shooting digital is cheap. Well, I suppose it can be cheap if you just buy a cheap digital point and shoot compact camera, but not if you want to be serious about photography. When I totted up the sums I have spent on digital gear in the last five years, I was pretty shocked. Some of my gear gets a lot of hard use, shooting on construction sites and on or next to the sea. Cement and stone dust and salt water spray are camera/lens killers, so I have to replace my equipment surprisingly often. Upgrading cameras and lenses when they need replacing means that I cannot take advantage of anything getting cheaper. Put all this together with regular upgrades to computer hardware and software (two PCs at home, one for image editing and the other for the business side, plus a laptop) and digital photography is extremely expensive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either using a cheap point and shoot compact digicam or deluding themselves. > ............................................ > Put all this together with regular upgrades to computer hardware and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and shoot compact digicam or deluding themselves. > ............................................... You may now pat yourself on the back for that jolly good reasoning. >> ............................................ >> Put all this together with regular upgrades to computer hardware and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You may now pat yourself on the back for that jolly good reasoning. Thanks! >>>>I had one of those - brilliant camera. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > expensive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either using a cheap point > and shoot compact digicam or deluding themselves. When I did the sums I came to much the same conclusion. And my investment in equipment of the years has paid off not having to buy new more expensive kit. In fact the more I do the les I can get away with. Cameras are tools and I choose for the job in hand. Besides the costs as Tony has illustrated with digital I can put a modern film emulsion into any of my age old cameras and get better results than digital! The only practical way to buy into digital form a professional perspective is to lease the kit. No depreciation and full vat and value that can be claimed back against tax. I do have a Fuji F2 that recently had to have a new sensor. It was cost effective to have it repaired than to buy into new kit. I still use film camera lenses with it and even with 1.5x magnification can do most of what I need from digital. Apart from the silent operation that digital cameras can offer I still use my trusty Leica M4 for street photography with hyperfocal focussing. I was in a conversation the other day with a digital photographer who has no experience of film. She is a natural photographer with excellent vision and composition and struggles with technical aspects. But for her she gets the results. Alas this is not the case of the majority of digital photographers IME whom are no more than glorified sharpshooters with the advantage of limitless images subject to battery life and disc capacity. These days, as it was with the advent of desk top publishing where everyone was suddenly was a graphic designer digital photographer has made photographers out of everyone but not always for the good. Duncan >>>>>I had one of those - brilliant camera. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Duncan Hello folks. I used Canon EOS film bodies and lenses until I felt that Canon offered a decent (for my needs) digital body. Note that I stayed with film until digital bodies met my needs. My second-hand digital body cost around £400. On its first outing on a week's holiday with me it saved me well over £200 in film purchase and processing costs. One great advantage of digital is that I can change ISO without having to carry lots of half-exposed films. For my needs, digital is better than film. Regards, Ian. I <snip> >Hello folks. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I Likewise I used Nikon film bodies and lenses until Nikon offered a digital body that met my needs (D200, since added a D300). I'd been buying digital compatible lenses for a while which made the move less painful, but still used some of my older lenses for a while until I could justify upgrading them. I do a lot of motorsports photography where it's not unusual to shoot 1-2000 frames in a day which is a lot of film to lug around. I don't take many more shots on digital than I did on film, just that a day's motorsport can be 15-20 races and I tend to shoot bursts of 3-5 shots at a time. Shooting/processing costs are lower due to film costs but the time expended is greater. I used to just get contact sheets from film and pick the best images from them to enlarge, with digital I miss out that step but spend much longer on the PC processing so have a greater outlay in time. Kit costs are higher, mostly due to the greater cost of decent bodies, but not excessively so unless you feel the need to upgrade every couple of years. I don't anticipate upgrading either of my digital bodies for the next 5 years unless one gets damaged which was the usual reason for replacing film gear as well. The ability to change ISO on the fly is extremely useful - I'd often end up processing half exposed films before the move. I've also been able to add a couple of DX format lenses to my kit for travel use which has significantly reduced the weight of my travel kit. I spend several weeks/year in wilderness areas (5 weeks in Greenland this summer) so having a lighter travel option that doesn't significantly impact image quality is very useful. The lack of film to carry also helps significantly - it's easier to protect CF cards in difficult conditions than film (film also tends to become rather brittle at extreme low temperatures). Saying all the above, I still find uses for my film kit but have reduced the number of film outfits to 3 from 5 - 1 Nikon body (used to be 3), 1 Kiev range-finder with a selection of lenses and a Semflex TLR. Will Signaturee-mail news dot will at lancre dot net '98 300Tdi Defender 110 CSW, 1/12th NB Sometimes PGP Fingerprint E089 1736 A023 9E5C AFA3 0B40 E5DC D80A 9E1F D521 Public key can be obtained from ldap://certserver.pgp.com > There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit. This was part of the reason I became interested in film I think. For something which is not more than a hobby I must have spent a suprising amount of money on upgrading to the latest and greatest digital camera every 18 months. Now I use a 'proper' D-slr D40 rather than a 'slr like' compact, it's heavier but it's a 'real camera ' ! But I've also got a coolscan 5 for my F80 ( which is a lovely camera to use !) and a MJU 2 compact 35mm , I resisted splashing out for a D300, 'cos I just don't need it ! More interested in playing with a film camera Simon > >I had one of those - brilliant camera. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit. Not only is digital more expensive than film it is also a lot more complicated and it is possible to spend a lot longer on the computer than you ever did in the darkroom. Having said that it is very versatile for various types of manipulation which are currently the fashion. I've still kept some film cameras and lenses just for the time when I want a more simple life. Roger >>I had one of those - brilliant camera. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > There is nothing expensive about film. Digital is a money pit. This is true from some perspectives. If you 'machine-gun' shoot to get one good image and then show it on someone else's digital projector in a club setting, your cost is entirely contained in the initial purchase of the new toy. Film is dearer if you have a high wastage and don't do anything with the majority of the images shot. If you know that most of your pictures will be usable and you don't need them in seconds you can, as you say, buy a lot of film processing for the difference in cost. >This is true from some perspectives. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >them in seconds you can, as you say, buy a lot of film processing for the >difference in cost. People who learned their photographic technique in the days of film tend to try to make every shot count. If you 'machine-gun' shoot to get one good image from many, as people with digital cameras tend to do, then you are not a photographer. You are taking an almost wholly random approach to image making in the hope of getting just one keeper. This can work, on the same basis that an infinite number of monkeys playing with an infinite number of typewriters will produce the complete works of Shakespeare in among a few galaxies' volume of complete dross. I do some picture editing for stock image agency and there is a colossal difference between the submitted work of competent photographers and those who think that owning an entry-level DSLR and a couple of kit lenses makes them into a "freelance photographer". Most of the workload at such agencies consists of sorting the wheat from the chaff. The chaff makes up over 90% of submissions, which is why several agencies have introduced a method of grading the contributors to ensure that more time is spent on selecting the better images and less on eliminating the chaff. >People who learned their photographic technique in the days of film >tend to try to make every shot count. If you 'machine-gun' shoot to >get one good image from many, as people with digital cameras tend to >do, then you are not a photographer. You are taking an almost wholly >random approach to image making in the hope of getting just one >keeper. I agree with what you say and I am guilty of taking lots of shots but I look at what I've shot and try and learn what makes the good shots good and the dross shots dross. In time I may not need to take so many shots. Having said that, I don't see the problem with taking many shots if there is no additional cost involved. I accept that you wouldn't want to do that with film because you would be wasting a lot of money but the advantage of digital is that once you have bought your kit, there are no additional costs. I'd rather fire off a few extra shots than to get home and find I'd missed the shot I really wanted. SignaturePaul Giverin British Jet Engine Website:- www.britjet.co.uk My photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee >>This is true from some perspectives. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > complete works of Shakespeare in among a few galaxies' volume of > complete dross. Funny, the same was said about 35mm vs plate cameras when Tony Armstrong-Jones was one of the first to use it in Fleet Street. > I do some picture editing for stock image agency and there is a > colossal difference between the submitted work of competent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > contributors to ensure that more time is spent on selecting the better > images and less on eliminating the chaff. >I have had digital cameras for many years now, however a few months > back I became interested in 35mm photography having seen some pictures [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > there tiny sensors, at least they can take hundreds of shots and get > the one they want. Is 35mm film still better in certain circumstances ? Now get yourself over to Filmwasters.com where you'll find a very friendly bunch of like-minded people. http://www.filmwasters.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.