Originally posted by Steve Beswick I'm curious, exactly how much film shooting have you done? I only ask because while somewhat technically correct, your post wreaks of inexperience with film. And no, Kodak Gold 200 in a plastic lens point and shoot doesn't count.
Well, I was done with this thread but since you called me out.. My first experience shooting with an SLR was on B&W film using some generic camera body and a 50mm lens. My output medium, however, is entirely digital. So when I decided to upgrade from a P&S to something better, I ended up with a K100D. The price of a good film scanner was on par with a dSLR, and therefore the digital body proved the most cost effect means of transferring an image from the mind's eye to the hard drive. I have since bought a K1000 simply for nostalgia's sake, using it from time to time because I enjoy the spacious viewfinder and the "klak" noise the shutter makes. My mother shot almost exclusively with kodachrome slides, and I have two rolls I am saving to shoot a very special event since this year is the last year that kodachrome will ever be processed.
Originally posted by Steve Beswick The reason that B&W was, and still is, the best teacher is that you had to think - There is no green mode, there is no mashing the shutter down until you get the image you want. Instead, you peer through the viewfinder until you are sure you have it right, exposure, composition, focus. The cost of shooting film made you learn to get it right.
Ironically, it wasn't until I started researching dSLRs that I began to understand the correlation between shutter speed and aperture, and the effects of each setting. When I first shot with a film SLR I just turned the knobs until the light meter needle pointed to where it should be. The wide highlight latitude of B&W print film let me cover up exposure mistakes in the darkroom with proof sheets and trial and error. Furthermore, the lack of different types of light metering selectable in camera meant that I had no idea how my camera was metering a scene, so a lot of my shots came up by chance. I feel that having instant feedback allowed me to learn much quicker than I would have on film. By the time I finished a roll I had no idea what settings I used to capture a particular shot, but with digital I can simply see the shot in camera to see the effects of a setting, or review it at a later time through the exif data.
In any event, so what if someone mashes the green button and takes five hundred pictures to get the shot he wants? I seem to recall pros saying that they would expect a couple "keepers" per roll. I also seem to recall that pros shot
a lot of film. So am I to believe that everyone who shot film, and still shoots film, comes away with every roll containing 36 perfect shots? A good picture will be a good picture, regardless of the method used to obtain the image.
Originally posted by Steve Beswick But for image quality, MF film slaughters "Full frame" and smaller digital - even if you scan your negatives and do the rest on the computer. Just the resolution advantage is enough to call it a landslide. That's before you take into account other factors, such as dynamic range, the fact that film is so much more forgiving when it comes to exposure, etc, etc.
MF has nothing to do with film. That's like saying a gas engine is better than a hybrid because a Ferrari Enzo blows a Toyota Prius out of the water. There are such things as digital MF cameras, and there are such things as digital backs for your beloved Mamiyas. Moreover, it's pretty well accepted that digital sensors are on par with slide film in terms of DR, which is what most MF shooters use for landscapes anyway. And, should you decide to output to a digital medium, you become limited by a scanner which is (surprise) a digital sensor.
In any event, arguing film against digital out of context is pointless, they are simply different mediums with different applications.
If I were shooting to have my work displayed at a fine art gallery, I would shoot B&W negative film printed onto fiber paper. If I was looking to project pictures to show to friends and family, I would shoot color slide film with a MF camera. If I wanted to share my photos with people from around the world, and with friends and family whom I am geographically separated from, I would shoot digital.
Each one is a unique experience, and none are the be-all end-all for every application. And, in the end, photography is all about sharing the unique way you view the world. It's capturing light and committing shapes to an eternal frame. If you are dependent on one particular type of man-made equipment to create your art, then I daresay you are not an artist. An artist will find a way to get their vision across, be it with a pinhole box, Kodak Gold 200 in a plastic lens point and shoot, a SLR, or a MF camera.