Educate me on film roll SLR's.

[milosz]

if we are talking 35mm vs digital slr, the film will have more resolution if scanned well. i know you can up-res in photoshop, but you can up-res a scanned file as well, so the film still has the edge. if a client wants a 4000x6000 file, i'd prefer a scanned slide to something up-res'd from a digital slr.

Dude. This was an argument once upon a time, but in the era of 12-21 megapixel, full-frame sensors it's pretty much settled. Those sensors are perfectly acceptable for anything and everything you might want to do. A 12mp D700 image can be printed at 16x20 or larger without really being altered in any way - and will be suitable for print sale.

if we are talking digital mf versus mf film, using film can end up less expensive, depending on the situation, gives higher i.s.o. capability, and will still give higher resolution. you can get over 8000x8000 real pixels from a 6x6 slide. the only issue is convenience.

And convenience is kind of a big deal. A huge deal, really. The film area of 6x6 is only relevant if you can output it to its fullest capabilities.

You've got a few options:
traditional chemistry - aside from battling dust, perfect exposure, dodging and burning, etc., you better have your enlarging lens in perfect alignment, sturdy top, etc.. Maybe a few printers out of every 100 are printing to the full capability of their media.

flatbed scan - the affordable digital option. Gives you output somewhere in the realm of 8x8" for a 6x6 negative/slide without sacrificing quality. Maybe larger if you wet mount, figure out the perfect scan height, sacrifice a lamb, etc.. I'd actually like an Epson V750 because all the medium-format I shoot now goes through toy cams.

dedicated film scanner - $2000 entry fee, banding problems on the only remaining brand (Nikon), need a $200 accessory for good quality, get used to battling dust, etc..

lab drum scan - fabulous quality, granted - but you could lease a rather nice car for two months for the cost of scanning 12 shots of 6x6.

Higher ISO capability - no way, dude. I shot a lot of Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 once upon a time, neither holds a candle to a full-frame sensor (or even a current APS-C sensor). For its flaws, lack of magic, etc., digital does have unbelievable low-light capabilities.

i don't know what you mean by 'bullshit' with scanning film. just hand it to the lab and say 'scan this for me.'

A drum scan will cost you $50+ per frame. The realistic option for working photographers, artists, hobbyists, etc. is scanning the vast majority of work yourself, and that's a real hassle.

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by michaeljkrell

I have an F2 and what has been so great is the fact that you can buy these awesome lenses for under $100 or even $50. I even got a Tokina 17mm wide angle lens for just over $100. You can buy film in bulk on eBay and it will cost about $2 each for most film. I get my film developed at Wal-Mart for $2 a roll with an index card and then scan them in using an Epson 4490. The one thing that is annoying about development at Wal-mart and other stores is that they may scratch your negatives.

It is definitely takes much longer and in the long run is more expensive (short-run not neccesarily so), but whenever I am taking pictures for fun, I will always take them with a film camera.

why not just develop them yourself. developing is pretty cheap and easy. you can do it in your bathroom and the chemicals are cheap. almost no equipment required.

printing on the other hand is a lot more annoying

i'm still looking for a good scanner tho (and the money to buy it).

 

[michaeljkrell]

I have the stuff to do it myself, but it is still really cheap to get them developed. I mean $1.76 is pretty good.

My scan quality is amazing (its only a $100-$150) scanner, but it is pretty good and if I really liked a pic, I would just take it in to a lab and have them scan it for a couple bucks.

 

[Nantucket Red]

It costs me only $3 or so to have my lab scan an uncut roll of film.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by milosz

Dude. This was an argument once upon a time, but in the era of 12-21 megapixel, full-frame sensors it's pretty much settled. Those sensors are perfectly acceptable for anything and everything you might want to do. A 12mp D700 image can be printed at 16x20 or larger without really being altered in any way - and will be suitable for print sale.


And convenience is kind of a big deal. A huge deal, really. The film area of 6x6 is only relevant if you can output it to its fullest capabilities.

You've got a few options:
traditional chemistry - aside from battling dust, perfect exposure, dodging and burning, etc., you better have your enlarging lens in perfect alignment, sturdy top, etc.. Maybe a few printers out of every 100 are printing to the full capability of their media.

flatbed scan - the affordable digital option. Gives you output somewhere in the realm of 8x8" for a 6x6 negative/slide without sacrificing quality. Maybe larger if you wet mount, figure out the perfect scan height, sacrifice a lamb, etc.. I'd actually like an Epson V750 because all the medium-format I shoot now goes through toy cams.

dedicated film scanner - $2000 entry fee, banding problems on the only remaining brand (Nikon), need a $200 accessory for good quality, get used to battling dust, etc..

lab drum scan - fabulous quality, granted - but you could lease a rather nice car for two months for the cost of scanning 12 shots of 6x6.

Higher ISO capability - no way, dude. I shot a lot of Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 once upon a time, neither holds a candle to a full-frame sensor (or even a current APS-C sensor). For its flaws, lack of magic, etc., digital does have unbelievable low-light capabilities.


A drum scan will cost you $50+ per frame. The realistic option for working photographers, artists, hobbyists, etc. is scanning the vast majority of work yourself, and that's a real hassle.

as i said in my first post: film is better. digital is cheaper. or did you miss that?

the o.p. isn't about to drop the wad to buy a 24mp slr, so i was comparing what he could do today with a standard 10-15mp slr and a 35mm film camera. note that i recommended he use digital.

you get your film scanned at lo-res when it's processed and then you have a drum scan done only on the keeper. this is the standard for highest quality.

and mf digital cameras don't go past iso 800. some don't go past iso 400.

 

[michaeljkrell]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

It costs me only $3 or so to have my lab scan an uncut roll of film.

Wow. The main lab in Omaha charges $.69 for a 1200x1800 and $2 for a 2988x4464 per scan.

 

[matadorpoeta]

if you have the film scanned at the same time as processing, it shouldn't be more than $4, max.

 

[michaeljkrell]

Yeah, the problem is the lab charges like $3 to develop it and they are about 20 minutes away, so I have to pay for return shipping as well. It ends up costing like $10 per roll.

 

[Huntsman]

Whether you choose film or digital doesn't really matter all that much from a resolution standpoint. Either will be better than you (and most of us) are. Flim has a longer learning curve, but the lessons are harder won and better retained. Digital has a faster curve if you're paying attention and not just clicking away -- the trap many fall into. Film forces you to craft your images, not merely capture them -- if you can maintain that philosophy with digital it will serve you well. If you cannot, the images will be documentary but add little to your life otherwise. I am a Nikon fan for a specific and good reason -- the industry-leading lens compatibility. I have lenses of my father's from the '70's that work on 2000's film cameras and my digital D200 that I would never want to part with. I would not want to give up their use because the glass is incredible and gives me great flexibility. So I definitely suggest Nikon, preferably something that takes AI or AI-S glass, as you then preserve the ability to upgrade to digital if and when.

Bobwhite Quail 6/2/09 http://www.styleforum.net/attachment...2&d=1237778827

 

[Nantucket Red]

Well said, Huntsman.

Here's some vintage Nikon Appreciation for your delectation. The cameras have period lenses mounted.

L to R: 1962 Nikon F w/ 50 f2, 1976 Nikomat ELW w/50 f1.4, 1976 Nikon F2 Photomic w/105 f2.5

 

[milosz]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

as i said in my first post: film is better. digital is cheaper. or did you miss that?

No, I'm pointing out how you're wrong. Digital hasn't been inferior to 35mm for several years now. And since few of us have $5000 scanners (or access to easy drum scanning), it's really pretty much on par to medium-format and large-format as well.

the o.p. isn't about to drop the wad to buy a 24mp slr, so i was comparing what he could do today with a standard 10-15mp slr and a 35mm film camera. note that i recommended he use digital.

So am I. Any $600 SLR is going to have a 12MP APS-C sensor - which will be equal to the quality of 35mm film, output to output.

you get your film scanned at lo-res when it's processed and then you have a drum scan done only on the keeper. this is the standard for highest quality.

A drum scan of 35mm isn't going to give you superior quality to a 15MP digital image when it comes to outputting, sorry. And personally, those lo-res scans don't meet any of my needs. How are they scanning true B&W films in that process?

A drum scan of 6x6 or 4x5 will - but you can't get the cheap scans then...

and mf digital cameras don't go past iso 800. some don't go past iso 400.

Because they're designed for controlled-lighting studio use. With 21MP full-frame bodies around, they'd be completely irrelevant to any other use.

Film is different. Film has certain, wonderful qualities. But film simply isn't superior to this-generation digital.

 

[Huntsman]

Nice, Nantucket. I especially like both the F2 and the 105/2.5 (which I have also).

Edit: The below was for milosz.

And seriously, you don't have to scan the film, you know? You can just have it printed.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by milosz

Film is different. Film has certain, wonderful qualities. But film simply isn't superior to this-generation digital.

This is what it boils down to in the final analysis. Film has a distinctive look to it and digital has a distinctive look to it. Some people prefer one or the other; some people shoot both.

Both media have their respective advantages and disadvantages.

 

[aizan]

there is so much bad information in here, i'm not even going to start.

all i'm going to say is that film cameras look better.

 

[Bill Smith]

The two subjects in this digital vs film debate is obsolesence in both cameras and much more problematic is the files themselves. Do you want to drop $1800 for a decent body every three to five years? If you have a compusion to keep with the pace of camea evolution, it will cost you. Second Image files are much more temporary with digital compared to film. I remember listening to a program on technology called Spark on CBC Radio One, one person close to the subject of image storage conservatively estimates most of the digital images shot now will be lost within five years due to deteriorating storage media, format changes, computer failure. I am not looking forward to hearing soccer mom's screaming when they can't access photos of their kids they forgot to print. Now I am coming at this with a bias, I shoot film, mostly black and white, I develop and print at home. I have shot digital for a community relations project providing photography for the Industry Association Website and Facebook page, for editorial work, digital is great. My beef with digital is the images are too perfect and lack character. I like the look I get with my hand made black and white prints made from negs I created in a Leica M3 (one of the coolest cameras made) or my Nikon F (The other coolest camera ever made). I do it for fun, film photography is safer not cheaper than drugs and it gets me away from the computer. check out my photoblog: http://funwithcameras.blogspot.com decide for yourself.