Originally posted by Cuthbert I think the problem is not film photography, it's you.
And to judge from the pic I'm younger than you.
Care to explain why you're wrong? I can do that.
Digital photography: 120-200 pictures at a convention, with great colors, great dynamic range, nicely sharp, and get this, at no cost to develop and publish, sometimes that very night from my hotel room!
Film photography: 8-10 bucks per roll of film. Then another 10-15 to develop each roll, and I have to go somewhere to send it off, then wait for it to come back with crappy scans that are noisy as can be and lower resolution, and I can't mess with contrast and clarity like I can with my digital stuff. Less dynamic range (I don't do B&W, just color). On the low end of the amount of pictures I take that is going to run me 5 rolls. So, 100 dollars when all is said and done. I would call that pretty dumb for something I am doing for enjoyment and for free, Ohh, and a week to be able to publish my pictures because I have to wait until I get back home before sending things off. Why would anyone in their right mind do that?
---------- Post added 09-29-15 at 12:38 PM ----------
Originally posted by Swift1 What does that have to do with film?
I am used to the field of view from an APSC camera, so when I look at a shot and think, hey, I should grab XXX lens, it doesn't end up the same. When the upcoming FF comes out I'll be getting it for the increase in dynamic range and ISO, and decrease in noise, not for the field of view. I suppose I will get used to it, but I'll keep my APSC cameras.
---------- Post added 09-29-15 at 12:41 PM ----------
Originally posted by tuco I see. Yes, we all have different experiences. As far as technical goes, I shoot medium format film a lot (as well as large now and then) and it is pretty much the same quality as my digital. Of course it is film so it is not apples-to-apples. And I can get way, more dynamic range out of my BW film in a single exposure than I can with my D810. So technically, it still can do some cool things. But you have to learn how to do it.
My only B&W stuff is higher wavelength IR stuff. I like how I can take pics in RAW, pull shadows if I need to, slightly bump the contrast and clarity and possibly even the hue and saturation in photoshop, and get something that is quite pleasing to me (I take photos for myself and to share with others some). I simply can't do all of those things with film, and when I factor costs digital is incredibly cheaper. Heck, if I took the amount of pictures I do on film I could have easily bought a 645z.