Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2008, 04:37 PM   #61
Veteran Member
clawhammer's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Logan, Utah
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 976
Last year I took an 8-month hiatus from photography, then shot a roll or two of slide film, then bought a K10D. I've taken over 8000 shots with it and didn't touch film for a little less than a year.

A month ago I decided to shoot the roll of Astia I had in my room. When I got that roll back from the lab, it was a magical moment- I fell in love with film all over again! I need to order a couple rolls of Velvia from Adorama again- the local ritz charges 10 bucks a roll for provia and doesn't stock Velvia or Astia. After going back to film, I find myself setting up the shot with my K10, then committing it to film on my ZX-L.

I've also been considering a 6x7 or 4x5 for ultimate image quality (I am one of those weirdos who DO print 20x30s regularly)l

While film does make me stop and think about the image I'm about to make, I can see a definite increase in skill since I went digital- I mostly ascribe it to the ability to experiment and get instant results.

They both have their places- I wouldn't shoot my brother skating with film, and I wouldn't shoot my landscape photos with digital. Portraits are a toss up, I'll probably shoot digital till I understand it all. If I do it professionally, the speed of digital (meaning how fast I can give a customer a print) will probably mean using digital.

07-16-2008, 11:36 PM   #62

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
Actually Canon has just stolen the number, more or less. And for people who have never heard of Pentax -- that is, the majority of potential customers -- an obscure number is not a draw.
I wouldn't say thats true at all. if it was then people would be confused all to hell over current alpha-numeric names from all manufacturers. if pentax came out with a K1000D it would instantly be recognizable against the canon EOS 1000D. would it be recognizable by all the young folks... maybe not a a majority but I think you underestimate just how many people are aware of the K1000. of course we can go back and fourth all day about whether or not a digital K1000 is a smart move for pentax, but I think its safe to say someone needs to do something to shake things up and get away from the same old copycat strategy everyone is doing.
07-17-2008, 04:08 AM   #63
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
Here is one more.

This was the last of of the cheap 99 cents film. No more cheap stuff, I feel we are giving away to much...

For now, We will be sticking to BW400CN, Tri -X, and high Def Kodak film...Have not tried Illford, but am dying to.
Excellent photo by the way, good depth of tone here, 99 cent film or no.
07-17-2008, 05:53 AM   #64
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,952
My standard "go-to" film for 35mm is DNP Centuria 200, which costs me about $2 per 36exp roll. I looked at some of the more mainline stuff at a camera shop the other day and it was from $7 to $10 per roll. At those prices, I wouldn't shoot film except very rarely. I found myself wondering if they would really deliver any better quality or satisfaction than my Centuria anyway.

And the satisfaction of getting a great shot on a cheap film certainly outweighs the disappointment of getting a crappy shot on an expensive film.

07-17-2008, 07:28 AM   #65
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Excellent photo by the way, good depth of tone here, 99 cent film or no.
Thank you and ''Yes'', 99cents film. I converted it to black and white. The color version was not so good, but I really do like the black and white version.
07-17-2008, 10:52 AM   #66
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
In many ways modern photoshop etc processing has eliminated some of the reasons for shooting b&w film. It is easier and more controlled to apply filters and conversion tricks to color film to get just the b&w look you want. I do that a lot - for example I bought 25 rolls of expired PRO160S in 120 size for something like $15 delivered. The color is off slightly, but converted to b&w it is good film.

Yes, I know the real b&w films have character of their own, not easily mimicked in ps. Which is why just for variety I use them too.

BTW, you can pay $$ for I think it's alien skin that mimics differen films. Or you can get a free download 'virtual photographer' which lets you play with much of that - I like using vp.
07-17-2008, 11:03 AM   #67

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
BTW, you can pay $$ for I think it's alien skin that mimics different films
I use alien skins exposure2 on all of my digital photos. great little plug in for photoshop... I cant wait for v3 (hopefully with AGFA Ultra 100) now if only they made it for lightroom.

Last edited by séamuis; 07-17-2008 at 11:08 AM.
10-28-2008, 09:43 PM   #68
Veteran Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by zx-m Quote
No, Javier, you are not alone. I will be frank: I despise digital. The images produced by digital cameras look artificial. I doubt I will ever buy a computerized image machine (i.e. a digital camera). In fact, the term "digital photo" is something of a paradox. Cameras produce photographs. Digital cameras produce digital images. Also, the term "film camera" is redundant and has always sounded strange to me.
I think digital is a way to discover the true heart of film. I was shooting for years with a Auto-Focus SLR, not often blowing up pictures in big format, and usually staying in program mode.
With digital, us snapshooters learn to pay more attention to detail; and we get to remember our setting. We can easily zoom in on faulty images, see the dreaded vignetting, poor OFF-rendering, etc.
We've grown up with progress always beeing the later model. Then we pick up a 20-year-old prime lens. We've blown away by the build quality, and manual focus feel. Then we develop our film, and see that quality is way better than the consumer zoom, and people comment on the lovely IQ. Then we get curious, what else have been kept from us? Then we look through the VF of an old manual film camera, and discover the magic of various films, instead of just the old Kodak Gold 200. I think that film will always have its place. And I think that it can have a comeback, if offers things that digital do not.

jgredline : Sounds great with the son / dad thing. I love the Christmas feeling too of picking up film from the store, when developed.

Don’t see any problems in the Séamuis and ll_coffee_lP, everyone is entitled to different opinions and usually we can have fun exchanging them.

QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Film still has it all over digital in terms of highlight response, since the emulsion cushions the impact of over-exposed portions of the shot. This is analogous to how audio tape prevents digital clipping and instead rounds off the peak of the waveform.
Thanks for the info


  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 AM. | See also:, 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?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]