Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: What type of media have you used recently?
Digital only 6840.24%
Color film only 10.59%
Black & white film only 10.59%
Color film and black & white film 74.14%
Color film and digital 2514.79%
Black & white film and digital 2213.02%
Color film, black & white film and digital 4526.63%
Voters: 169. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-26-2013, 07:49 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,837
I still continue to shoot the same way today as I did in the mid 1970’s when I got my first SLR. The film has changed a bit (It’s faster now as the average speed back then was 25, 50 & 64 ASA. 125 ASA was considered high speed film back then) I still shoot with the same Pentax 35mm SLR, I just have more of them now.

My natural progression in photography was always MF film and not digital. I finally got a MF film camera a couple years back and now shoot both 135 and 120 film.

Digital is still not on the horizon and never will be. For me there is no reason to go down that path as digital does not offer me anything better than film does. The price of film/processing is not expensive for me and I consider it cheap for the pleasure it brings me. I’ll cut back on driving due to the obscene price of gas, before I'll cut back on shooting film.

Phil.

02-27-2013, 03:05 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
With digital the tendency is to just shoot 'everything' and sort it out on the computer.
This may very well be true but it says nothing about digital compared to film and everything about the lack of discipline on the part of the photographer.

Last edited by wildman; 02-27-2013 at 03:24 PM.
02-27-2013, 03:18 PM   #33
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,250
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
This may very well true but it says nothing about digital compared to film and everything about the lack of discipline on the part of the photographer.
Oh, I don't know about that! I'm not sure it says that much more about discipline than shooting 36 frames of 35mm film vs 1 sheet of 8X10 film...or bracketing shots...or shooting more than one viewpoint of a scene.
02-27-2013, 05:33 PM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,878
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
The price of film/processing is not expensive for me and I consider it cheap for the pleasure it brings me.
When I actually contemplated buying a dedicated computer, scanner, printer and software to "develop" my digital (and scanned) images I realized I had burrowed far too deeply for a hobbyist.

I can spend $15 or $20 a roll all-in for a long. long time before the economics of an XA, KX and LX are superseded by the economics of a K5II. The Q and K-01 are really hobby toys for me - they're one hell of a lot of fun - and the K10D is my legacy digital camera and does a few things better than a more modern digicam. But self-honesty reveals that I just don't need a professional caliber set of tools to do what I need any more than I need a professional caliber, Zero-Turning-Radius turf mower to cut my 1/2 acre lawn.


Last edited by monochrome; 02-27-2013 at 06:27 PM.
02-27-2013, 06:15 PM   #35
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
hollywoodfred's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vinton, Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 348
Now that exactly 100 members have responded, I think its interesting to note that 61% of us currently use film at least some of the time. That's more than I expected.

Results at the 100 mark:
Digital only, 39, 39.00%
Color film only, 1, 1.00%
Black & white film only, 1, 1.00%
Color film and black & white film, 5, 5.00%
Color film and digital, 14, 14.00%
Black & white film and digital, 12, 12.00%
Color film, black & white film and digital, 28, 28.00%

Last edited by hollywoodfred; 02-28-2013 at 04:50 AM. Reason: typo - 61% !
02-27-2013, 07:03 PM   #36
Veteran Member
hks_kansei's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 807
QuoteOriginally posted by hollywoodfred Quote
Now that exactly 100 members have responded, I think its interesting to note that 67% of us currently use film at least some of the time. That's more than I expected.

Results at the 100 mark:
Digital only, 39, 39.00%
Color film only, 1, 1.00%
Black & white film only, 1, 1.00%
Color film and black & white film, 5, 5.00%
Color film and digital, 14, 14.00%
Black & white film and digital, 12, 12.00%
Color film, black & white film and digital, 28, 28.00%
Sorry, I just ruined that.

I still shoot film, and digital.


I tend to prefer film and my results are often a lot better with it, I also prefer the simplicity of the cameras (no shitty menus to wade through!)

My general use is:

Digital SLR - when I want to experiment or only take a few shots. Also when I need shots digitally.
Film SLR - when I'm wanting to build my skills and composition methods. Also when I want prints for the wall (I display my prints at home)
Rangefinder - When I feel like a change, usually it's got a roll of B&W because that's what all good rangefinder using hipsters do.
02-27-2013, 09:29 PM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 862
If they came out with a home brew version of C41 without all the anal exacting temp and time control that would be as easy to work with as B&W I think film would see a lot more use. Sorta killed itself off when everyone bailed from film development.
Even B&W home development has a $300-500 startup cost assuming you buy used gear because you still have to get all the chemicals and supplies all at once. Add that to the lack of space most people have and B&W becomes quite hard to get into for most.
I'm about to pull the trigger on the supply order for the B&W darkroom I found used, but I don't know how long I will stick with it yet, especially if I get my Pentax FF.
02-27-2013, 10:59 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 5,308
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
If they came out with a home brew version of C41 without all the anal exacting temp and time control that would be as easy to work with as B&W I think film would see a lot more use. Sorta killed itself off when everyone bailed from film development.
Even B&W home development has a $300-500 startup cost assuming you buy used gear because you still have to get all the chemicals and supplies all at once. Add that to the lack of space most people have and B&W becomes quite hard to get into for most.
I'm about to pull the trigger on the supply order for the B&W darkroom I found used, but I don't know how long I will stick with it yet, especially if I get my Pentax FF.
True about the C41. But C41 is cheap to develop - I take mine to a pro place and pay 4 a roll. B&W would cost me at least three times that, which is why I develop it at home. However, I only develop, I don't print. After that I scan at home, so extra layout for a scanner.

02-28-2013, 07:27 AM   #39
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,859
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
True about the C41. But C41 is cheap to develop - I take mine to a pro place and pay 4 a roll. B&W would cost me at least three times that, which is why I develop it at home. However, I only develop, I don't print. After that I scan at home, so extra layout for a scanner.
Same workflow here. My Color 35mm costs $2.00 a roll. Color 120 is $1.59 with prints at Wal-Marx or $4.00 anywhere else without prints.
02-28-2013, 11:26 AM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 862
I used to have a cheap place to get my color done but then I moved, now I have to find another place if I want to do color film. $4 for each roll isn't bad, but it would restrict my shooting. I was getting it done by a Target store for about $2.50 including scanned to CD.

Darkroom is now on the way so it looks like I will be camped out in monochrome land for a good long while. I think the biggest advantage to B&W for me is that I will be doing wet printing and even with chemical costs I am pretty sure it will put just for fun pictures on the wall far cheaper than anything involving ink printing.

The one thing I don't understand is why they can't program a DSLR for film mode where it would compress the highlights (average out the total input to a given sensor pixel and add it up differently so it can't blow out so fast) and have easy pre programmed white balance and whatnot you could load off an SD card to match various films.
It really pisses me off when a cheap crap roll of Kodak Gold 200 gives a modern DSLR a serious challenge (and totally beats the crap out of it in my opinion). I can't yet explain all of how film looks better especially in color range than the more "perfect real" of a DSLR sensor but at least I know its a measurable difference unlike the folks who claim LP records sound better than CD's.
Perhaps it is just the same and its just the nostalgia of the film look. I feel old.
02-28-2013, 11:57 AM   #41
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,130
QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
It really pisses me off when a cheap crap roll of Kodak Gold 200 gives a modern DSLR a serious challenge (and totally beats the crap out of it in my opinion). I can't yet explain all of how film looks better especially in color range than the more "perfect real" of a DSLR sensor but at least I know its a measurable difference unlike the folks who claim LP records sound better than CD's
it's a question of how saturation of color and what is called dynamic range act in photographie. (Not the thing i know best, so some mistake can be in this. correct me please, if i'm wrong !)

On DSLR : the curve is straight. It mean that there is a linear progression : when you expose the sensor : the result is proportionnal to the light gathered.

On film : it's progressive. It mean that at the extrem (dark and white), the result is not proportionnal to the amount of light gathered.
You need to really overexpose like hell to burn a film because the film is less sensitive when too much light come, and less sensitive when not enough light come on it.

This progressivity mean a bigger range of middle tone, but also a more contrasty result.

First picture : linear curve of the DSLR on neutral.
Second picture : more or less what film do : S curve and thus more contrast.





Playing with the simple curve of contrast and the curve of Highlights / middle tone / dark tone allow even more tunning.



I process almost all my picture only with curve. It's the easy and best way to squeeze what i want from my K-x, or any DSLR.
02-28-2013, 03:04 PM   #42
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,130
QuoteOriginally posted by DavidOBryan Quote
Beats the crap out of Kodak Gold IMHO.
not really hard IMHO And i agree, Kodak Portra is hell of a nice film ! my favorite for color so far !
02-28-2013, 03:09 PM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
Being as it seems to be nostalgia and show and tell time...

...Tri-X pushed to 1600. Nikon S2 rangefinder with Nikkor 50mm F/2. Taken 1958. (All this was written on the neg sleeve - I don't have any memory of this myself).
Scanned off original neg using a Epson V600 scanner and run through ACR+PS.
The neg was paper thin and I don't think it would have recovered as well using conventional chemical methods.
Ah the golden age of BW film.

Last edited by wildman; 03-16-2013 at 05:47 AM.
03-02-2013, 12:32 PM   #44
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,397
Nice shot. I always had my best results from Tri-X. That said, I haven't shot a roll of film in 6 years although I still have several film cameras and keep telling myself I should go out and shoot with one of them from time to time.
03-04-2013, 06:17 AM   #45
Veteran Member
crossmr's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seoul, Korea
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 306
QuoteQuote:
Digital developing is EXPENSIVE.

SD + Lightroom/PS + Apple + Canon + Epson + space is expensive. If the life of hardware/software is 4 years that's $1,800 a year, plus supplies = $2,400 - $3,600 a year, I guess I make 7,000 clicks a year RAW+, so I can avoid the hassle of developing every file - which raises the per-file hardware cost. Six to eight times as expensive as film. There are no variable costs for making more clicks.

On a time value of money basis digital is riduiculously expensive.
This is extremely misleading...
you don't need an apple, canon, epson to handle your photos. Most people use the computer they already have. So all you really need is a copy of lightroom $149 and...
well storage space. 1 TB hard drive for $80.
For basically unlimited photos..
Unless you're printing off every photo you take, or something like that, your digital cost is very low compared to film. Sure, you can exaggerate if you like.. but the reality is, the vast majority of people shooting digital, which includes casual users, aren't spending that kind of money. But film, no matter who you are, you're looking at expensive, and scarce at this point.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exposure Difference - Digital vs Film stills999 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 06-06-2012 12:20 PM
Film Vs Digital dndcdr Photographic Technique 4 10-14-2011 10:22 PM
Blown highlights vs. lost shadows, film vs. digital dj_saunter Photographic Technique 2 03-30-2011 12:28 AM
Slide film vs. Digital? Alvin Pentax Film SLR Discussion 12 12-03-2008 10:02 PM
Film vs Digital dylansalt Photographic Technique 23 06-30-2008 08:42 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:38 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top