Why do you still do film?

Cuthbert · 10-18-2014, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by tuco

Well, I hope you jest because what a boring and narrow minded world it would be to shoot mostly static scenes.

But REAL MEN shoot a 6x7 with a 300mm manual focus lens on an approaching object

Delta 3200

...and you're telling us that's a candid picture?I don't buy it! For me you trained the poor dog to do this stunt 12 times at least and now you're telling us that you can shoot an approaching target with your 300mm....😎

carrrlangas · 10-18-2014, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by wombat2go

I looked at an ist some time ago, but it has problems with -M lenses ( I don't recall all the details) , that were fixed later with the ist d - series.
So that put me off buying an ist .

Oh, you are right it has a crippled mount. Soy then I should look for a ZX-7, ZX-6 or ZX-L. they are a bit larger and weight 50 more grams but thats ok. The ZX-60 is 335gr as the *ist but it won`t even fire with K, M or A glass. Really weird.

tuco · 10-18-2014, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Cuthbert

...and you're telling us that's a candid picture?I don't buy it! For me you trained the poor dog to do this stunt 12 times at least and now you're telling us that you can shoot an approaching target with your 300mm....��

No, I'm not telling you it's candid. It took set up and was aided by electronics. Which is the point. A picture like that with a manual camera is not spontaneous. You have to "catch in focus". But with and modern AF system, that shot can be spontaneously shot by sissies while the macho men shoot their static scenes on chromogenic film.

A DSLR owner would most likely yawn at the picture and say, yeah, so what. AF brings in all kinds of new types of shots not really doable without premeditation on manual, no?

dracluff · 10-18-2014, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

Oh, you are right it has a crippled mount. Soy then I should look for a ZX-7, ZX-6 or ZX-L. they are a bit larger and weight 50 more grams but thats ok. The ZX-60 is 335gr as the *ist but it won`t even fire with K, M or A glass. Really weird.

I have not read through the whole thread so I am unsure how much auto focus is required but have you thought about a Super Program. The DA XS on that thing is tiny and works really well so long as you are okay with manual focus.

**ChrisPlatt** · 10-19-2014, 06:44 AM - **2 Likes**

Prior to the advent of autofocus all the great wildlife, sports and other action photography was done without. Somehow they managed.
For the type of photography I usually do AF would just be an annoyance i.e. another unnecessary automatic feature to fight.
Few if any AF camera and lens designs excel at both manual and autofocus. And most AF cameras and lenses are plastic crap.

Chris

**baro-nite** · 10-19-2014, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

Few if any AF cameras and lenses excel at both manual and autofocus.

Thanks to live view and focus peaking that might not be the case any more. At any rate, no manual-focus camera excels at autofocus.

I love the old gear too, but I wouldn't want to do away with all the technical advances since the advent of AF.

Silent Street · 11-07-2014, 09:56 PM

I started photography in 1977, getting fairly deeply involved by 1981 before tappering off for a couple of years when an OM4Ti came along. Since those early days I have worked my way through all of the systems and pointedly, I retain all the transparencies and negatives of that era. The tangible permanence of film is why it will continue to be around for some time yet because digital is not the be all and end all — certainly not a panacea, for archival permanence or something you can hold. I do have a digital camera and it does get a lot of use, but not for the production of work that is processed, scanned, put through post, printed, matted, framed and sold. That job is left to a 25-year old Pentax 67 and a swag of beautiful lenses to carry the beauty of the scene through to the film.

Last edited by Silent Street; 11-08-2014 at 01:52 PM.

IHS · 11-08-2014, 04:06 AM

I'd love to have a 67 or a 6x7 MLU. It'll have to wait for a while, unfortunately. I'm a little puzzled by this post though, and a lot more I see like it. It would seem to suggest that you can't print and hold digital photographs. I see this a lot, and I just don't get it. I print my digital pics (the ones I like) on my Canon printer almost every day of the week. Then I hold them...I'm not picking on Silent Street because as I said, I see a lot of people suggesting this. What gives? I understand that the amount of work involved developing film etc. is a labor of love but it seems to suggest that digital pictures can only be viewed with a monitor. Help me out here...what am I missing?

**Rondec** · 11-08-2014, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

Oh, you are right it has a crippled mount. Soy then I should look for a ZX-7, ZX-6 or ZX-L. they are a bit larger and weight 50 more grams but thats ok. The ZX-60 is 335gr as the *ist but it won`t even fire with K, M or A glass. Really weird.

I guess it depends on what you are looking for. There aren't very many ist film cameras out there, as Pentax was switching to digital and pushing that pretty hard. If you want to use more modern glass (other than SDM only lenses), the ist works pretty well.

LesDMess · 11-08-2014, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by IHS

Help me out here...what am I missing?

It used to be that in order to view the results from your negatives, you had to make prints. Can you imagine if you had to print all your pics before you can see them . . .

IHS · 11-08-2014, 12:13 PM

I'm 50 years old! Of course I can.

It just seems that these types of posts somehow suggest that people no longer print photos...or that digital photos aren't worth printing and holding.

LesDMess · 11-08-2014, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by IHS

I'm 50 years old! Of course I can.

It just seems that these types of posts somehow suggest that people no longer print photos...or that digital photos aren't worth printing and holding.

Likely by percentage of pictures taken to number of prints.

Silent Street · 11-08-2014, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by IHS

I'm 50 years old! Of course I can.

It just seems that these types of posts somehow suggest that people no longer print photos...or that digital photos aren't worth printing and holding.

Nothing like that was implied. But in truth, and observing through experience and exposure to a large number of working professionals versus amateurs, very, very few amateurs actually print their digital images. Not for want of such "not being worth printing and holding". They are 'switched on' to sharing the images digitally e.g. uploading to Flickr, Pintinterest and the like, or re-sharing to phones, tablets and whatever else. Printing doesn't rate on their radar and amateurs are the first to launch into strident criticism of the cost of getting very high quality prints done from digital files (my own Kodak Endura Professional metallic prints, produced from hi-res scans, are $166 each, and amateurs come along asking for a discount!? Seriously!!?) Professionals, by dint of their practice, will be printing continuously for clients. So it's not a case of whether an image is worth printing or not, or if it is film or digital, but for what purpose it is being created.

IHS · 11-08-2014, 03:14 PM

^^^I must have good radar!!! I still love printing and putting together photo albums. Of course, my poor Canon printer and Kodak ultra premium is no match for Endura but I see what you're saying now...most younger people simply share files by there phones or Flickr instead of printing. Ergo they don't hold them.

I guess I'm in the middle...I do both.

Roguephotographer · 12-02-2014, 11:21 PM

a lot of reasons, ive always hated auto exposure i feel like ive no control, always thought auto focus was an ingenious solution to a non-exsistant problem. i of course love the look of film, digital cant match, and cost ive priced out 2 digial "systems" a camera 2/3 lenses i need 1/2 i want dedicated flash sdxc cards etc. about the $ame as a pentax 645 n 2 with 3 lenses 3 film cassettes strap and a rolleiflex 3.5f tlr!!!

10-18-2014, 06:50 PM	#183
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,023	Originally posted by Cuthbert ...and you're telling us that's a candid picture?I don't buy it! For me you trained the poor dog to do this stunt 12 times at least and now you're telling us that you can shoot an approaching target with your 300mm....�� No, I'm not telling you it's candid. It took set up and was aided by electronics. Which is the point. A picture like that with a manual camera is not spontaneous. You have to "catch in focus". But with and modern AF system, that shot can be spontaneously shot by sissies while the macho men shoot their static scenes on chromogenic film. A DSLR owner would most likely yawn at the picture and say, yeah, so what. AF brings in all kinds of new types of shots not really doable without premeditation on manual, no? Last edited by tuco; 10-18-2014 at 07:12 PM.

10-19-2014, 06:44 AM - 2 Likes	#185
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	Prior to the advent of autofocus all the great wildlife, sports and other action photography was done without. Somehow they managed. For the type of photography I usually do AF would just be an annoyance i.e. another unnecessary automatic feature to fight. Few if any AF camera and lens designs excel at both manual and autofocus. And most AF cameras and lenses are plastic crap. Chris Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 10-19-2014 at 06:52 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why Do YOU Still Use Film SLR's?	dubiousone	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	68	10-22-2013 04:51 PM
Film roll - What do you do ?	Bandaid55	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	13	06-21-2013 12:54 PM
What lenses/gear do you still have from when you started?	ChooseAName	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	54	05-27-2013 08:51 AM
"Why do you still use M lenses?!"	jboyde	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	64	03-05-2011 02:57 AM
Do you scan your film? What do you use?	filmamigo	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	11	09-03-2008 07:58 PM

10-18-2014, 11:11 AM	#181
Cuthbert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,740	Originally posted by tuco Well, I hope you jest because what a boring and narrow minded world it would be to shoot mostly static scenes. But REAL MEN shoot a 6x7 with a 300mm manual focus lens on an approaching object Delta 3200 ...and you're telling us that's a candid picture?I don't buy it! For me you trained the poor dog to do this stunt 12 times at least and now you're telling us that you can shoot an approaching target with your 300mm....😎

10-18-2014, 05:31 PM	#182
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by wombat2go I looked at an ist some time ago, but it has problems with -M lenses ( I don't recall all the details) , that were fixed later with the ist d - series. So that put me off buying an ist . Oh, you are right it has a crippled mount. Soy then I should look for a ZX-7, ZX-6 or ZX-L. they are a bit larger and weight 50 more grams but thats ok. The ZX-60 is 335gr as the *ist but it won`t even fire with K, M or A glass. Really weird.

10-18-2014, 07:31 PM	#184
dracluff Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Dartmouth Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 202	Originally posted by carrrlangas Oh, you are right it has a crippled mount. Soy then I should look for a ZX-7, ZX-6 or ZX-L. they are a bit larger and weight 50 more grams but thats ok. The ZX-60 is 335gr as the *ist but it won`t even fire with K, M or A glass. Really weird. I have not read through the whole thread so I am unsure how much auto focus is required but have you thought about a Super Program. The DA XS on that thing is tiny and works really well so long as you are okay with manual focus.

10-19-2014, 07:03 AM	#186
baro-nite Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: North Carolina, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,294	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt Few if any AF cameras and lenses excel at both manual and autofocus. Thanks to live view and focus peaking that might not be the case any more. At any rate, no manual-focus camera excels at autofocus. I love the old gear too, but I wouldn't want to do away with all the technical advances since the advent of AF.

11-07-2014, 09:56 PM	#187
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	I started photography in 1977, getting fairly deeply involved by 1981 before tappering off for a couple of years when an OM4Ti came along. Since those early days I have worked my way through all of the systems and pointedly, I retain all the transparencies and negatives of that era. The tangible permanence of film is why it will continue to be around for some time yet because digital is not the be all and end all — certainly not a panacea, for archival permanence or something you can hold. I do have a digital camera and it does get a lot of use, but not for the production of work that is processed, scanned, put through post, printed, matted, framed and sold. That job is left to a 25-year old Pentax 67 and a swag of beautiful lenses to carry the beauty of the scene through to the film. Last edited by Silent Street; 11-08-2014 at 01:52 PM.

11-08-2014, 04:06 AM	#188
IHS Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 175	I'd love to have a 67 or a 6x7 MLU. It'll have to wait for a while, unfortunately. I'm a little puzzled by this post though, and a lot more I see like it. It would seem to suggest that you can't print and hold digital photographs. I see this a lot, and I just don't get it. I print my digital pics (the ones I like) on my Canon printer almost every day of the week. Then I hold them...I'm not picking on Silent Street because as I said, I see a lot of people suggesting this. What gives? I understand that the amount of work involved developing film etc. is a labor of love but it seems to suggest that digital pictures can only be viewed with a monitor. Help me out here...what am I missing?

11-08-2014, 04:23 AM	#189
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by carrrlangas Oh, you are right it has a crippled mount. Soy then I should look for a ZX-7, ZX-6 or ZX-L. they are a bit larger and weight 50 more grams but thats ok. The ZX-60 is 335gr as the *ist but it won`t even fire with K, M or A glass. Really weird. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. There aren't very many ist film cameras out there, as Pentax was switching to digital and pushing that pretty hard. If you want to use more modern glass (other than SDM only lenses), the ist works pretty well.

11-08-2014, 06:12 AM	#190
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by IHS Help me out here...what am I missing? It used to be that in order to view the results from your negatives, you had to make prints. Can you imagine if you had to print all your pics before you can see them . . .

11-08-2014, 12:13 PM	#191
IHS Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 175	I'm 50 years old! Of course I can. It just seems that these types of posts somehow suggest that people no longer print photos...or that digital photos aren't worth printing and holding.

11-08-2014, 01:27 PM	#192
LesDMess Pentaxian Join Date: May 2011 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,235	Originally posted by IHS I'm 50 years old! Of course I can. It just seems that these types of posts somehow suggest that people no longer print photos...or that digital photos aren't worth printing and holding. Likely by percentage of pictures taken to number of prints.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-08-2014, 02:39 PM	#193
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	Originally posted by IHS I'm 50 years old! Of course I can. It just seems that these types of posts somehow suggest that people no longer print photos...or that digital photos aren't worth printing and holding. Nothing like that was implied. But in truth, and observing through experience and exposure to a large number of working professionals versus amateurs, very, very few amateurs actually print their digital images. Not for want of such "not being worth printing and holding". They are 'switched on' to sharing the images digitally e.g. uploading to Flickr, Pintinterest and the like, or re-sharing to phones, tablets and whatever else. Printing doesn't rate on their radar and amateurs are the first to launch into strident criticism of the cost of getting very high quality prints done from digital files (my own Kodak Endura Professional metallic prints, produced from hi-res scans, are $166 each, and amateurs come along asking for a discount!? Seriously!!?) Professionals, by dint of their practice, will be printing continuously for clients. So it's not a case of whether an image is worth printing or not, or if it is film or digital, but for what purpose it is being created.

11-08-2014, 03:14 PM	#194
IHS Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 175	^^^I must have good radar!!! I still love printing and putting together photo albums. Of course, my poor Canon printer and Kodak ultra premium is no match for Endura but I see what you're saying now...most younger people simply share files by there phones or Flickr instead of printing. Ergo they don't hold them. I guess I'm in the middle...I do both.

12-02-2014, 11:21 PM	#195
Roguephotographer New Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 15	a lot of reasons, ive always hated auto exposure i feel like ive no control, always thought auto focus was an ingenious solution to a non-exsistant problem. i of course love the look of film, digital cant match, and cost ive priced out 2 digial "systems" a camera 2/3 lenses i need 1/2 i want dedicated flash sdxc cards etc. about the $ame as a pentax 645 n 2 with 3 lenses 3 film cassettes strap and a rolleiflex 3.5f tlr!!!