Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: it was shown a few years ago that 35mm film was - at best - the equivalent of 7Mp digita
Full frame or digital compact, there`s a huge difference 
I use equal amounts of film and digital.
Went through a phase of all digital with a DSLR but just couldn't get used to the hours behind the PC.
I put film through my Hasselblad and old Canon EOS 100, digital with my PEN E-P2. Ditched my DSLR (5D) at the end of 2009 when I got the PEN & would definitely not buy back into the DSLR market.
Digital is less of a pain in the *rse now that I have camera that I can practically print from the RAW. The 5D needed a week's work per file to get things looking the way I saw them!
Quote: It was shown a few years ago that 35mm film was - at best - the equivalent of 7Mp digital. Since the great majority of digital cameras now on sale exceed 7Mp, there is no longer any reason at all for using 35mm film
I find that digital photos are often clinical and polished-looking; for me, the subtle colours and tones often looked synthetic next to a 35mm equivalent photo.
For the record, I had a Nikon D40 for just over 4 years: even at 6 Mp, I was able to blow them up to a decent size. I take similar photos on 35mm to what I did on the D40 and I find that my 35mm work has an ambient quality that the digital photos could not match.
I also enjoy the challenge of balancing out shutter speed, aperture, and film speed, but without being able to see an instant result.
Anyway, I was sent here from Hell to play Devil's Advocate!
The point is that it really isnt the digi format that makes them polished and synthetic as such but more the over use of PS .. also the challenge of balancing settings without being able to see an instant result can be done on your dslr by turning off the review setting or not looking at the screen after capture etc ..
I think the argument over results from film and digital is dead as both in the correct hands can produce stunning or crass results and I in the past have heard that plastic comment and received comments on an image by a person who made such statements declaring that no way could the image be from a digital camera. either medium delivers the goods, but I do think modern negative film is very good at handling bad exposure.
Quote: Digital is less of a pain in the *rse now that I have camera that I can practically print from the RAW. The 5D needed a week's work per file to get things looking the way I saw them!
I never did like the files output with Canon`s, your right they did need more post work. The major jump for Olympus was when they released the E3, raw files need very little play. People had always claimed that jpegs were great but with that bit I never agreed
Quote: The 5D needed a week's work per file to get things looking the way I saw them!
My response to this is that you got the settings wrong! 
More seriously, if you prefer the way film renders a scene then when processing a digital shot I would venture you are not creating the scene as you saw it, but the scene as you are used to film rendering it. That is a completely different kettle of fish because digital has a far more linear response than film so will require significant work to do so (ignoring for now the various plug-ins to recreate common film types).
But if I was processing film myself I would probably have the same comment about the time it takes to create a scene as I want it to look. If you do digital regularly you develop workflows that do this quickly enough - and probably in less time it takes you take a film down to the processors and have it printed.
Quote: More seriously, if you prefer the way film renders a scene then when processing a digital shot I would venture you are not creating the scene as you saw it, but the scene as you are used to film rendering it. That is a completely different kettle of fish because digital has a far more linear response than film so will require significant work to do so (ignoring for now the various plug-ins to recreate common film types)
What a load of cods-wallop
I`m sure that CB was not trying to replicate any form of film, I`ve not used a Canon since I owned a 300d, and that was seriously bad
If you want realistic looking film grain, use film.
No amount of plugin`s have even become close as yet, digital sensors don`t quite work in the same way as silver and chemicals.
Quote: Has anyone else moved from digital to 35mm?
Digitally, I use a D70, a D300 and an E-P1.
Film-wise, I use an F5 but, as of this afternoon and as a result of being the winning bidder on the UK Police Auction site, I am now the proud owner of a Trip 35.
Time for some fun!
Quote: What a load of cods-wallop
I`m sure that CB was not trying to replicate any form of film, I`ve not used a Canon since I owned a 300d, and that was seriously bad
Why is it codswallop.
Firstly it wasn't CB.
Seocndly he was talking about a 5D, one of the finest cameras of all time. Not an entry level 300D.
Thirdly I didn't say he was deliverately trying to replicate film. I ventured he was subconciously trying to replicate the way that film renders colours and shades because to him, that is what seems 'natural'. I would say that if you come from a film background you are used to the way the medium renders colours and shades so when they see a digital shot with its more linear response it looks unsual ('artificial' in common parlance). Many experienced digital photographers tweak curves for precisely this reason. Exactly the same argument has been ragin in audio for 25 years - the linearity of digital versus the non-linearity of analogue so it is nothing new.
But my other point stands - if you have a standard workflow, and if you get exposure right in camera there is no reason for digital processing to take a long time.
wow seems the smelly finger brigade (sodium thiosulphate) is alive and eating their carots in the darkroom
I think we all should pass a moment of rememberance & sadness that we will no longer be consigned to a darkroom, in my case muttering "dammit" (or similar) smelling of May & Bakers finest, and spending hours spotting, before thinking "nah.... a bit more dodging there"
I think there are more artful and creative ways of applying and making the image you thought you saw! look OK?
so is it the IMAGE or the CRAFT
now with all the apps (showing my youth now) available, a LONG time pro (sometimes get paid!) user for my web & design work of photoshop (paintshop pro, corel etc.) I can add a filter, change the exposure, even move the location AFTER the shutter
my trip to the past is re-using old glass & revisiting old locations.....
NO 3 bodies, NO AF, which is quite nice now, and just antishake in the camera I still have full control, more than ever before, butall that old stuff was then NOT now.
I now work in a nice light (ish) room, mistakes and not quite rite ones are just another file, not a full waste bin, costs are negligable
& still try my utmost to keep to the dictum "take it rite and take it once"
ps
I wonder how long the chemicals will be available (health and safety?)
TRI X wow.......just checked.......still for sale mmmm anyone want a rollei?
Is it possible just to state a personal preference for 35mm without causing a stand-off?!?
Seriously, my two main motivations for 35mmare:
1) To keep my hobby as straightforward and affordable as possible: I recently bought a spare camera body for under £50, a remote control for £6 and a prime lens for under £80.
2) I feel that I've done the work with my own two hands without relying on over-engineered technology: computers are fine for accounting, record keeping and office presentations, but I don't they should take over from the human touch.
Happy Snapping!
COLIN.
I don't see a stand-off, just an exchange of views.
Quote: ...computers are fine for accounting, record keeping and office presentations, but I don't they should take over from the human touch.
A computer is just a tool, albeit an immensely versatile and powerful one. The "human touch" is just as relevant with digital workflows as it is with chemistry-based ones.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top