Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-15-2012, 08:48 AM   #46
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Jüri Quote
No need to get so defensive. I definitely wasn't trying to defend digital or discredit film, I myself shoot almost exclusively b&w film and enjoy developing it. I just said how things are. If you shoot digital and preview every shot, there is very little that can go wrong. If you use a perfectly working film camera and have film developed and scanned in a lab, there's a bit more that can go wrong. And if you're like me and use different old film cameras, various types of (expired) film, develop film youself, do wet prints and build your own cameras, there's a LOT that can go wrong. And that's what makes film more fun than digital.
Not getting defensive, I shoot with both. You can have a lot to go wrong with both. You don't always have time to "preview" every shot. Sure, you can do that before some thing happens. However, it is too easy to miss opportunities during a possible action sequence etc. while "chimping" the shot. Plus, I have seen some good shots look bad on the LCD and actually come out quite decent after extracting from the dng and I have seen some that looked good but didn't turn out as well as I thought. I also found out that when doing wet prints yourself, there is a lot that you can tweak as well. Plus, all film wasn't about the darkroom. Some of it was about slide film. Kodachrome 64 for example. I shot a lot of slide film during the 90s and into 2002. The K-5 only goes down to iso 80. There are some ff that go down to 50. I started out in electron microscopy where we spent 10 hours on the scope and the rest of the week in the darkroom. In high school we had an old Mamiya Universal and darkroom that we used for the Yearbook and school paper. Even the small town paper used our sports pictures. I transitioned to digital in 2002 but didn't go all in until 2008 and in reality I still am not all in regarding digital.

05-15-2012, 10:42 AM   #47
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,339
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Not getting defensive, I shoot with both. You can have a lot to go wrong with both. You don't always have time to "preview" every shot. Sure, you can do that before some thing happens. However, it is too easy to miss opportunities during a possible action sequence etc. while "chimping" the shot. Plus, I have seen some good shots look bad on the LCD and actually come out quite decent after extracting from the dng and I have seen some that looked good but didn't turn out as well as I thought. I also found out that when doing wet prints yourself, there is a lot that you can tweak as well. Plus, all film wasn't about the darkroom. Some of it was about slide film. Kodachrome 64 for example. I shot a lot of slide film during the 90s and into 2002. The K-5 only goes down to iso 80. There are some ff that go down to 50. I started out in electron microscopy where we spent 10 hours on the scope and the rest of the week in the darkroom. In high school we had an old Mamiya Universal and darkroom that we used for the Yearbook and school paper. Even the small town paper used our sports pictures. I transitioned to digital in 2002 but didn't go all in until 2008 and in reality I still am not all in regarding digital.
That’s very true about slide film. Most people don’t realize for colour shooting slide film was the way to go in the 1970’s -1990’s. When I started in the early 1970’s it was Kodachrome 25 or 64, I went with the 64. There was NO home processing of Kodachrome, so no need for a darkroom. Also with slide film you projected everything or looked at the slides on a light table, so printing was also unnecessary.

Phil.
05-15-2012, 06:22 PM   #48
Veteran Member
PPPPPP42's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Photos: Albums
Posts: 847
Original Poster
The best way to put it is that with a perfectly operating (and operated) digital camera and a perfectly operating film camera with by the book development (no compensating), assuming that you properly center the exposure meter for what you are actually trying to capture, you will have more pictures correctly exposed without black shadows and blown highlights with the film camera than with the digital, its simply a much bigger target to hit due to the dynamic lighting abilities of film. There's always a way to compensate or compromise but that isn't the discussion.

Eventually the digital sensors will catch up and you will get greatly expanded dynamic range and the extra processing power to compensate for complex lighting. The bottleneck with digital seems to be that making a large high quality sensor with an acceptable minimum of flaws is really freaking hard and expensive. I full expect with future faster processors that you will be able to do one button press and have the sensor take the equivalent of several shots of different ISO at once and be able to push lighting much farther up or down later in photoshop or get an unnatural compilation like a few programs do with multiple separate shots right now to get both shadows and highlights correctly exposed (try that with anything moving though).

Still I do get a kick out of taking a camera that was considered bare bones cheap 30 years ago, having it refurbished for $75 to perfect working order and not only knowing I will get another 30 years of reliable service out of it, but that it will always be able to hold its own against anything less than a $10,000 professional medium format digital camera.
05-15-2012, 06:38 PM   #49
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 92
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
then you probably didn't grow up in the time before digital when film - unreliable, complicated, with lots of flaws and limitations - was the only game.
I will have to double check my Super Program and my PC35 AF but last time I checked they were film cameras. I also don't think that I have gotten
any rolls of EKTAR 125 confused with any Sandisk SDHC cards.!!!

I remember buying the PC35 AF when it first came out. I think it may of been one of the first AF point and shoots on the market and it always focused properly. I bought a new Nikon S8100 last year and that thing is a piece of crap. If the PC35 AF was that flaky when it first came out it probably would of killed the autofocus market single-handedly.

Maybe it's rushing things to market or poor QC but most of these new cameras are not as dependable as the old school stuff. IMHO if you go out and market a camera with 20 must have features then all twenty of those features better work %100 of the time. Look at Nikon....they just released a pair of DSLR's in the $3000 to $6000 range and they both are having "lockup" issues. This is unbelievable to me...If your paying $6000 for a camera it should operate flawlessly.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/04/nikon-confirms-woes-with-d4-and-d800/


Last edited by SuperK5; 05-15-2012 at 06:43 PM.
05-19-2012, 01:56 PM   #50
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The thing is film compresses highlights. Digital clips them. Nester touched on that in his post. Take a look at this test shot. It is ISO 400 film, f11 and metered 1/2 second but took at 4 seconds (to compress the highlights). That is a bright sunny day out that window. Low values measured EV2 and EV3 and high values out the window were EV15. You should have a feel for taking a f11 shot at 1/2 second and ISO 400 with your digital and how well outside sun would turn out.
That´s a great point and an amazing example shot! Thank´s for sharing, regards
05-19-2012, 02:03 PM   #51
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Maybe future sensors will record the light as a stream and you can decide later how much of that stream you want to use (so all information is gathered and saved).
Great concept!

QuoteOriginally posted by PPPPPP42 Quote
Still I do get a kick out of taking a camera that was considered bare bones cheap 30 years ago, having it refurbished for $75 to perfect working order and not only knowing I will get another 30 years of reliable service out of it, but that it will always be able to hold its own against anything less than a $10,000 professional medium format digital camera.
I get that kick too!

Last edited by jt_cph_dk; 05-19-2012 at 02:34 PM. Reason: adding text
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!
bugs, color, film, k20d, pic, wall
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amazing news Purusam Pentax K-5 5 03-08-2011 04:57 PM
Prints look amazing... Usuqa Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 01-17-2011 04:14 PM
K-x @ 3200 - It's amazing yusuf Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 01-16-2011 08:09 PM
Amazing Portraits!!! nosnoop General Talk 2 06-07-2010 01:09 PM
FA*24mm is amazing... now where to get one? dugrant153 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 06-05-2010 06:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:28 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