I disagree about the number of pixels. Resolution of an image is only one aspect. How the sensor/film captures the light is much more complex. Remember there are (were) a lot of choices in the film world depending on what the photographer wanted. I presume there are also differences in the digital sensors too.
do you still use film?
- Thread starter dellzeqq
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I disagree about the number of pixels. Resolution of an image is only one aspect. How the sensor/film captures the light is much more complex. Remember there are (were) a lot of choices in the film world depending on what the photographer wanted. I presume there are also differences in the digital sensors too.
I found this a few days ago. Old meets new in a surprising way:
http://golembewski.awardspace.com/cameras/current/index.html
CharlieB
Junior Walker and the Allstars
- Location
- Therivermeadowatthepileofstones
Yes, I do. About a year or so ago I visited an upmarket hire shop to hire a high end digital SLR camera body for the weekend (using my own compatible lenses) to get an idea of ease of use, image quality and the rest of it.
The shop asked me what camera I used at present (ancient Nikon F3), and then told me that I would be disappointed by the quality as compared to normal film, and actually, they talked me out of the hire, in the end.
Thus I still use analogue film.
Mind you, that was a year ago, and of course the technology and thus by implication the quality marches on while the relative cost decreases? Or am I wrong there?
The shop asked me what camera I used at present (ancient Nikon F3), and then told me that I would be disappointed by the quality as compared to normal film, and actually, they talked me out of the hire, in the end.
Thus I still use analogue film.
Mind you, that was a year ago, and of course the technology and thus by implication the quality marches on while the relative cost decreases? Or am I wrong there?
U
User169
Guest
Thanks Coco - that's an excellent link!
marzjennings
Legendary Member
- Location
- Houston, Texas, USA
My wife's shoot with a Nikon digital camera and she's still using lenses she's had for 30 years.
marzjennings
Legendary Member
- Location
- Houston, Texas, USA
True, it's not all about resolution and with regards to sensitivity a new Nikon D3s has an ISO range from 100-10000. I think the fastest film you could buy had an ISO of 3200.
Digital sensors do vary a lot and I've seen some sites refer to a camera's pixel density with lowest being the best.
I waited patiently for digital to arrive due to the fact the lack of a darkroom and the space to make one plus the effort involved was just too much and too expensive.
Consider the image below. A 35mm B&W, taken on FP4 on an old Cosina. To produce what you see I enlarged the image onto a 5x4 sheet of line film which was then painstakingly masked by hand on a lightbox to remove all blemishes before being re-exposed onto another line sheet to make a negative. This then was put in a 5x4 enlarger and a print made. The image below is a 35mm copy of the print, I still have the original line negative somewhere which would reproduce better than this copy. In total a days work.
I could probably do the same thing in photoshop in about 15 minutes now. In fact things that once took inordinate skill in the darkroom, solarisations, bas releif, heavy grain etc... have now become weary cliches available with a few clicks. This has cheapened photography whilst at the same time driving up the standard. If I look at the stuff people produce now, it's generally very good, only the more traditional studio work with the demand of lighting skills as well, offers a haven for serious photography skills.
So no, I don't use film, even though I have a lot of time and knowledge invested in it and I don't use it because I can do more, quicker with digital.
Consider the image below. A 35mm B&W, taken on FP4 on an old Cosina. To produce what you see I enlarged the image onto a 5x4 sheet of line film which was then painstakingly masked by hand on a lightbox to remove all blemishes before being re-exposed onto another line sheet to make a negative. This then was put in a 5x4 enlarger and a print made. The image below is a 35mm copy of the print, I still have the original line negative somewhere which would reproduce better than this copy. In total a days work.
I could probably do the same thing in photoshop in about 15 minutes now. In fact things that once took inordinate skill in the darkroom, solarisations, bas releif, heavy grain etc... have now become weary cliches available with a few clicks. This has cheapened photography whilst at the same time driving up the standard. If I look at the stuff people produce now, it's generally very good, only the more traditional studio work with the demand of lighting skills as well, offers a haven for serious photography skills.
So no, I don't use film, even though I have a lot of time and knowledge invested in it and I don't use it because I can do more, quicker with digital.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Which would be as grainy as hell (which isn't always a bad thing - see follow-up post - but usually is). Here's a 6400ISO shot taken on a D3:
Try 3200ISO film pushed to 6400 and see what you get!
And here's 25,600, again on a D3:
To those who argue the comparison isn't all about resolution, no, it's not - and there's little to choose between film and digital these days in terms of effective resolution.
The two other factors are noise, and dynamic range. Digital beats film hands-down where noise is concerned. On dynamic range, negatve film gives about 11 stops and the latest digital about 9, so film still has the edge there, but probably not for too much longer.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
I use digital for all my commercial work, and 98% of the rest, but yes, I still use film occasionally.
I have about seven or eight film cameras still, including the Zenit-E my dad bought me when I was 14, and the Nikon FM I bought when I was 16, both still in full working order (even the meters still work, in as much as a Zenit meter ever works, anyway).
Most film effects can be replicated in Photoshop these days, but the one that eludes me is Tri-X developed in Rodinal. Which is the exception I mentioned above: sometimes it's all about the grain. :-)
I have about seven or eight film cameras still, including the Zenit-E my dad bought me when I was 14, and the Nikon FM I bought when I was 16, both still in full working order (even the meters still work, in as much as a Zenit meter ever works, anyway).
Most film effects can be replicated in Photoshop these days, but the one that eludes me is Tri-X developed in Rodinal. Which is the exception I mentioned above: sometimes it's all about the grain. :-)
