The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Are you still shooting 35mm film?

cmcmillan

New member
I still shoot 35mm film from time to time. For certain personal or paid projects where I want a certain look and feel. I enjoy being able to shoot ridiculous ISO 25,600 on my D700, but I really prefer nicely done ISO 3200 B&W film, it has a different look and feel to it. I also still shoot some 6x6 (Bronica EC) and Pentax 6x7 stuff too. I still have a mini fridge in my basement full of 35mm and 120/220 film of different types.

I feel that you need to take more time composing your shots, checking you exposure, even using a hand held meter with film since if you mess up your shot, you're still going to have to pay to have it developed or spend your own time and materials developing the film to see what you have.

I still have my Nikon FE that I cut my teeth on, along with a large selection of AI/AIS Nikon glass that I still use with my full frame Nikon bodies as well as with several 35mm motion picture cameras I have that have interchangeable mounts, one of them being a Nikon mount.

Chris
 

Texsport

Member
The best digital cameras far out perform the best film cameras - but only in the hands of a good photographer.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One at 10% off
[/QUOTE]


I don't believe that this statement is true.

I would say that an average 35mm camera shooting fine grained film in the hands of a good photographer blows the doors off digital.

Of course, a poorly exposed digital pic can be corrected more easily with a computer.

It's purely resolution and tonality capabilities on film which digital doesn't have.


Texsport
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's about attitude. With digital, you can always take one or ten photos more, hoping that one of them will be good, and people do, even good photographers sometimes. With film, more effort is put into one shot, since it's not possible to see the result there and then, and since every frame costs money. This is one of the reasons why I'm shooting film again, to find back to my rhythm. And added value is the re-discovery of what a wonderful medium film is.

Digital has changed the way we take photos, but not only to the better.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I don't believe that this statement is true.

I would say that an average 35mm camera shooting fine grained film in the hands of a good photographer blows the doors off digital. ...
I disagree completely. I went to digital capture after forty years of shooting film because it was obviously a better medium for my photography ... even the relatively inexpensive fixed-lens digital camera I bought in 2002 out-performed my Leica and Nikon 35mm film cameras, and when I bought a DSLR a year later, I sold my medium format cameras.

But this stupid "film vs digital" war, waged with a bazillion personal opinions, feelings and countless pages of ridiculous specifications and pseudo-scientific meanderings, isn't worth continuing. I'll unsubscribe from this thread.
 

Texsport

Member
I'm not arguing, just trying to learn.:angel:

If you read the most recent posts in what I linked, the author concludes that, as of 2010, the best digital is about equal to the best film.

Obviously, digital has great advantages for professional photographers with high work volumes.

For amateur's currently using film, some of us are just trying to figure out if the enormous additional expense of retooling to digital is worth it.

I wish I could afford every camera that I like.:salute:

Texsport
 

monza

Active member
I disagree completely. I went to digital capture after forty years of shooting film because it was obviously a better medium for my photography ... even the relatively inexpensive fixed-lens digital camera I bought in 2002 out-performed my Leica and Nikon 35mm film cameras, and when I bought a DSLR a year later, I sold my medium format cameras.

But this stupid "film vs digital" war, waged with a bazillion personal opinions, feelings and countless pages of ridiculous specifications and pseudo-scientific meanderings, isn't worth continuing. I'll unsubscribe from this thread.
Has a war broken out that I missed?

We really *do* need to do something about all these personal opinions being shared on forums. :)
 

Roderick Chen

New member
I love shooting film, there is such a different methodology to it. I find myself taking my time to really think and compose a shot, much more than if I had a digital camera in my hands. I am using an xpanII and contax G2.

And I still get excited about seeing the shots for the first time after picking up the film from the lab. I place the film in print file sleeves and scan a contact sheet from a relatively inexpensive HP flatbed scanner that has an integrated transparency and negative lid. (under $200) The selects are done on the computer monitor and not prints. I find it is easier to see the smaller details from a screen than with a loupe and print. I then scan the originals with a higher end dedicated film scanner.

Friends still have a laugh at my expense when they see two of my fridge's see-through fruit and vegetable drawers filled to the brim with rolls of film.

It might be a little more time consuming but the pleasure is inescapable.

Cheers,

Roderick Chen
 

stevem_nj

New member
I never fell into the "film vs. digital" debate
Using one, never excluded the other.
Since it is a hobby for me, I enjoy both, because they are different. (and i usually have both with me any time I go out to shoot/play.)

Software is my "day-job", long days at numerous computer monitors.
Getting my hands on a roll of film, and time in the wet-darkroom at home is a rewarding difference from the office.
Shooting digitally, is nice to see immediate results, and image results under the "what-if" possibilities as I manipulate the file.

How others select and use their photographic tools, doesn't bother me. (film vs. digital) -I'm glad for each. (I'm always amazed when I witness others get so "passionate" and argue for one).

Steve.

keep shooting - keep smiling.
 

Seascape

New member
Have been shooting Kodachrome all year.....and I'm now on my last roll, but I'm not sure if I'll be shooting any more 35mm film after that.

I prefer film for B&W work, but 120 or larger are my preferred formats.

Sooo, my M series lenses are great on my M8, but there is this problem with what to do with my R series lenses........still looking for an answer :cool:
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I didn't start this thread with film vs digital argument in mind......I was just curious how many folks here were still shooting 35mm film and why. Speaking for myself, as a person who shoots with just about every format from P&S digital to large format film, I'm obviously not committed to one camp or the other.

What I have struggled with recently (speaking for myself), is why I continue shooting specifically with 35mm film.....other than the fact that I really enjoy using the cameras (Nikon F3HP, Canon EOS 1V and Leica R8). Truthfully, that's probably the main reason I continue with 35mm film, the joy of using these cameras....I finally got a Leica, nice to use it now and then.

However, since I bought my first medium format film camera many years ago, I've been less and less satisfied with the results I get from 35mm (in comparison). High quality 35mm DSLRs are what got me back into using that format camera on a regular basis and for several years I was shooting a lot less film of any sort. Nonetheless, I do enjoy shooting with film, despite the extra expense and hassle. Problem is...when I come back from a day out with the 35mm film cameras and ultimately get the film back from the lab, I often wish I had taken the Pentaxes or Hasselblads instead. Gotta love those bigger negatives....but then, that's been my dilemma for many years now. With the motordrives and multiple lenses.....my 35mm gear really isn't that much lighter to carry than my MF setup.

Maybe if I was carrying a Leica rangefinder with a couple lenses in a small Billingham bag, I'd see the benefits of 35mm film more clearly. :D

Gary
 

Texsport

Member
Sorry for starting an uproar on your thread...just looking for information, but obviously most, or all, on this site are much more advanced photographers than I am.

I shoot Nikon F4 and F5 for things I am not going to blow up past 5x7 and for scanned imternet/email posts + I shoot XPan for internet/email posts.

Beyond that, everything in film is MF--Fujica G690BL, Linhof 6x17, and Noblex 150U. I frequently use my F5 35mm camera for metering and rangefinding for these MF cameras.

Shoot digital for internet/email low light and sports.

Thanks

Texsport
 

Roderick Chen

New member
Thanks Gary.
These were taken in Montreal. One afternoon the temperature shift created the dense fog, I ran out with the camera to see the local surroundings in a new light, so to speak, and within two hours the fog had completely dissipated.
Cheers,
Roderick


Beautifully captured Roderick! I've never been to Montreal.....were those taken there? They reminded me of places I've seen in NYC.

Gary[/QUOTE]
 
Z

Zeiss

Guest
About 80 rolls so for in 2010.
100 rolls of 120 though!

In order of usage: Mamiya7 > blad > M3 > F5 > MP > FM2 > IIIc

I have a D700 that is sitting in a closet and is wondering what is going on.

Well, I just don't have the time for digital (or the money).

Between post-processing, storing, maintaining two up to date backups, storing images on DVDs and buying TB of storage; I just spend the less and less time with photography, the way I enjoy it. HD are piling up.

Meanwhile, I can store negs in a folder that takes no space, and I am sure I can use them in 50 years (who knows what my images on DVD or HD are doing then...).

I do B&W processing myself. Throw 5 films in a tank with Rodinal, read a book for an hour, rinse, fix, done.

Oh, and on top of all that, B&W on MF are so much nicer than digi.
 
I still shoot a lot of 35mm film with my manual focus Canon SLRs and Canon FD lenses. Reasons? Well, they are nice cameras and it would be a shame not to use them. That, and I don't have a DSLR. And there are some more specific pluses for shooting film...especially for my purposes. For example, older cameras with mechanical shutters are handy for doing super long time exposures of star trails (ie several hours.) And for my 3D photography, slide film is a favourite because the transparencies can be mounted in stereo viewers.
 
Top