Travelling with Limiteds (using Film) - New York Edition

[ryno]

Film gives the same after the shot creative freedom as digital, it's just more expensive. All the labs in town scan negs and slides and use the digital files to make prints same as a digital shot. You just have to get the film scanned, do your processing, then make prints. My files from film are put in my digital workflow and treated the same as digital camera shots.
Ryan

[Alfisti]

Excellent thread. We seem to be developing along the same path regarding moving away from really long focal lengths to mid range ones. I just replaced the 50 with a 35 f/2 and I use the 77 constantly, I used to shoot much longer.

I am also going to new york over XMAS so we'll compare notes

Regarding the bag, with such small lenses try the Tamron Express 7, it look shalf decent too and holds more than it looks. I easily carry the 18-250 and the 77 together, i can squeeze the 12-24 in there if i have to.

I tried film a few times and the lack of abberations was wonderful, in particular cyan fringing. Your little write up about usability just reinforces the need for a small, more responsive full featured camera to match the limiteds, the K100D is an absolute clunk box and whilst the 20D is more refined it's bloody enormous for toting about the way you did and I do on vacation.

[k100d]

Originally Posted by stevebrot

Oooo la la...those are some fine pics!

Good film work!

Steve

Originally Posted by Finn

I love shooting film with the Limiteds. It's like using a completely different set of lenses compared to using them on digital. I was just doing that today, in fact.

Originally Posted by pingflood

Thanks for sharing. It is nice seeing some more normal/muted colors these days, when so many shots are oversaturated.

thanks for looking

[k100d]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Excellent thread. We seem to be developing along the same path regarding moving away from really long focal lengths to mid range ones. I just replaced the 50 with a 35 f/2 and I use the 77 constantly, I used to shoot much longer.

I am also going to new york over XMAS so we'll compare notes

Regarding the bag, with such small lenses try the Tamron Express 7, it look shalf decent too and holds more than it looks. I easily carry the 18-250 and the 77 together, i can squeeze the 12-24 in there if i have to.

I tried film a few times and the lack of abberations was wonderful, in particular cyan fringing. Your little write up about usability just reinforces the need for a small, more responsive full featured camera to match the limiteds, the K100D is an absolute clunk box and whilst the 20D is more refined it's bloody enormous for toting about the way you did and I do on vacation.

funny with the DSLR i prefer to shoot longer focal lengths and the Film SLR i tend to shoot wider. i think it's because on wide shots, i can't really see in the tiny viewfinder.

let's compare after you're back. it's interesting to see how different perspectives on the same stuff. i still have a roll of Tri-X i'm waiting for too.

i'll check out that Tamrac bag, i was liking the domke's although they're a bit rich.

Originally Posted by TourDeForce

I was a film shooter & I'm never going back.

Valladares is right here in my neighborhood almost. Not sure I appreciate what he offers up on his web site (perhaps it's just me), and his statement leads me to suspect that he chose film for his own benefit rather than the benefit of his clients. If you're taking great photos right off the bat, you don't need a bunch of post-process, but it sure is nice to have it available.

It has been my recent experience that people expect more that what film can deliver these days. Digital is soooo much more versatile because of the creative freedom it offers after the shoot.

Originally Posted by ryno

Film gives the same after the shot creative freedom as digital, it's just more expensive. All the labs in town scan negs and slides and use the digital files to make prints same as a digital shot. You just have to get the film scanned, do your processing, then make prints. My files from film are put in my digital workflow and treated the same as digital camera shots.
Ryan

i threw in Riccis there just to stress the point that if you like the film look and don't mind shooting film, then why not shoot film? but absolutely he switched back to film for his own gain, it helped him do his job better and left the PP to the developer. he's being hired to do stuff all over the world so i'm sure he's doing something right.

i agree digital is more versatile, but i'm not sure i could get the same look so easily: dynamic range, colours, reduced vignetting, ca, pf

Originally Posted by Photomaximum

Question: overall would you say the most satisfaction came from shooting film for film's sake or was it using the Limiteds in the true focal length format that they designed for?

the most satisfaction was in the results. i couldn't believe how well the photos turned out, honestly the keeper rate was waaay higher than digital. the focal length thing was also important, i'm not a big fan of the FA31 on crop factor although i am on the FA43.

[Alfisti]

Yeah but the 21 is essentially the same FOV and you ditched it.

[k100d]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Yeah but the 21 is essentially the same FOV and you ditched it.

you're right. i just don't like wides on APS-C

[Alfisti]

I gotta ask why?

[k100d]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

I gotta ask why?

i think it's the viewfinder. with the bigger Film SLR VF, i can see a lot more clearly what i'm taking a picture of, especially with wides.

[Miserere]

K100D, I have to ask about your comment regarding vignetting on digital being a problem for you. If anything, APS-C sensors with full-frame lenses avoid vignetting, and with APS-C specific lenses, you'll get the same vignetting issues you'd get with FF lenses on film.

[k100d]

Originally Posted by Miserere

K100D, I have to ask about your comment regarding vignetting on digital being a problem for you. If anything, APS-C sensors with full-frame lenses avoid vignetting, and with APS-C specific lenses, you'll get the same vignetting issues you'd get with FF lenses on film.

i threw vignetting on there on a whim but now thinking about it again, i guess it's not very clear which has less vignetting, APS-C Digital or FF Film. for FF Film vs FF Digital, the Film probably has less.

[k100d]

one bump before this fades into obscurity...

[geauxpez]

Excellent post Simon. With all of the interest in film lately, this thread deserves a bump.

I especially like the commentary on the lenses used. I rarely see commentary from people who use them with a film camera.

[aleonx3]

Very well done, Simon. I also enjoyed your commentary on the use of film versus digital. Thanks!!

[k100d]

thanks, appreciate the comments

[geauxpez]

I realize that this is a "lens thread", but I wonder if it would get more looks in the film section. Just thinking out loud.